Use of Photoshop

[Wirefox]

No offense mate

I never take any, its a personal failing But I do love a good philosophical ding dong. I can see that you have similar views but they are neatly labelled and boxed. Mine are scattered over the floor and jumbled up with old socks and jam butty crusts There seems to be a theme running through your observations and that seems to say no pain no gain or have to put graft in to earn respect as a photographer. I will never be a photographer in this case because I find the simplest least painful way to get where I want to be and then find an even simpler route back.

Very interesting discussion though and good to see someone stating their views so boldly.

[jiro]

I have read numerous publications, may it be books or photography magazines. The majority of these photographers (ranging from professionals and novice alike) whose works were highlighted on these materials admitted using some kind of post-processing to make their images "stronger" to convey the message they want to get across. For me that's the bottom line - use whatever you have in your arsenal to make your images more powerful, may it be simply adjusting the contrast or cloning out some unnecessary elements in the frame. It'd be nice to get everything "right" straight out of the camera but I think that is an exception to the majority rather than the rule. I would also agree (in relation to this discussion) that the equivalent of darkroom technique for film would be the digital post-processing now. Thanks for listening.

[Blazing fire]

As much as I love intellectual discussions, I think it's pointless to argue whether to edit pictures, or debate whether photographs are inferior to paintings. Afterall this is purely subjective and not based on any real logic. You are, as Atticus Finch says (from To kill a mockingbird, Harper Lee), entitled to full respect for your opinions. And I think it is only right that we understand and accept other people's differing opinions.
That being said, you have the right to chose which ever camp you belong to. And all it matters is if you're happy with the quality of your photographs.

[PopsPhotos]

Let's work this question backwards.

Some say that photographs should not be altered after they come out of the camera, because that si "cheating." If we take that statement literally, then we can say that one should not adjust the white balance, exposure compensation, focus, aperture, shutter speed or noise control in the camera. Once we have said that, we can then apply the concept to the lens and not allow any lens but the "natural" focal length. Then one can get into using different ISO settings or films to capture different levels of light.

Pretty soon, we are back to pinhole cameras and glass plates.

Pops

[Donald]

Let's work this question backwards.

Some say that photographs should not be altered after they come out of the camera, because that is "cheating." If we take that statement literally, then we can say that one should not adjust the white balance, exposure compensation, focus, aperture, shutter speed or noise control in the camera. Once we have said that, we can then apply the concept to the lens and not allow any lens but the "natural" focal length. Then one can get into using different ISO settings or films to capture different levels of light.

Pretty soon, we are back to pinhole cameras and glass plates.

Always, but always, he sums it up so precisely and concisely. Thank you Pops.

[PopsPhotos]

Thank you, Donald.

I actually used that argument once to a pretty lady "Photographer" (her description of herself) cpncerning dodging and blasting in the darkroom. The fact that I was not yet a teenager might have had something to do with why my ears didn't stop ringing for a few weeks.

Pops