Poll: Is that photoshopped?

[Dylan & Marianne]

When a complete stranger approaches you to ask you about your work (whether it be in real life or online or any other method), and you are faced with the question "Is that photoshopped?"
What is your internal response to the question asked?

Actual response?

I'm just wondering because that was the question every single person asked me today at the SALA exhibition opening!
Nothing about the mechanics of taking the shot, the actual scene, how to get there, what it was like etc.
It left me feeling a little odd and distressed to be honest because I was made to feel like a conman by saying yes judging from the sudden lack of engagement thereafter.

[ksolomon]

Dylan, I have only been around here for a short time, but your photography is just fantastic and I for one hope to achieve a fraction of your skill in the years to come. Before understanding the digital age of processing I would ask the same sort of question. Can I suggest a standard response that would be great would be "yes I used my digital darkroom to develop this photo"

I certainly wouldn't call you a conman and you shouldn't either. Most people just don't understand the digital darkroom until it is explained to them :)

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks kassy! the problem is, at these events, you don't have the time to explain it to them - especially when it's asked with a prejudgment in mind. I think probably exhibiting photography at an 'arts' festival such as SALA tends to elicit this response more because the concept of landscape photography as 'art' isn't that well accepted.

[Tannin]

MISSING POLL OPTION: say "no" because the image is not Photoshopped.

^ I'll vote for that one. ;)

[JM Tran]

thanks kassy! the problem is, at these events, you don't have the time to explain it to them - especially when it's asked with a prejudgment in mind. I think probably exhibiting photography at an 'arts' festival such as SALA tends to elicit this response more because the concept of landscape photography as 'art' isn't that well accepted.

well you have to see it from their perspective Dylan.

Landscape in general is about capturing and representing something that is reality, to be as realistic as possible (give or take a few enhancements) - unless you are trying to create some alien landscape feel. So to the artists and quirky creative types that go there to the SALA exhibitions, they may see Landscape from your work as something you may have created instead of capturing and are puzzled about it. Now I know that you havent created these because you captured them from your journeys, but they dont know that.

Maybe in the future have a small section of behind the scene shots or a doco or slideshow of how and where the photos came from etc.

[Kafter244]

The media doesn't help here either (do they ever?) in that the term 'photoshopped' seems to have colloquially become a verb meaning 'to alter from reality' ie, over smoothing of model's skin, removing bumps from waistlines, or other 'allegedly' mis-leading things. What the layperson fails to acknowledge is the fact that all pictures are processed (even if it's done automatically in camera) and that lightroom/photoshop or similar must be used between the sensor capture and the image print.

I suspect that they are really asking if any excessive or potentially misleading post processing has been applied (maybe HDR for example) or if it's a straight shot with perhaps some colour correction and a crop and that's it. Either way they're missing the point anyway and probably not worth getting upset about.

I like the response above re 'the digital dark room' , especially as no-one can explain the nuances to every single person who asks the question...keep it short and move on. :-)

[ksolomon]

thanks kassy! the problem is, at these events, you don't have the time to explain it to them - especially when it's asked with a prejudgment in mind. I think probably exhibiting photography at an 'arts' festival such as SALA tends to elicit this response more because the concept of landscape photography as 'art' isn't that well accepted.

It really is a shame that people come to these events with a prejudgment in their mind, I do also like the suggestion of JM Tran have a small brief of the photo, hopefully that will save your sanity in the times to come

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks for the responses all :) and tony how could I forget that option !
I think the problem is that Marianne and I do try to create a surreal feel to a scene hence it intentionally doesn't look real alot of the time. Oh well, grin it and bear it - the digital darkroom is a great response hehe

[Art Vandelay]

The term "photshopped" has so many meanings, most implying treachery. In the context of how they asked, you'd be within bounds to just say no.

On the other hand if they were genuinely enquiring as to what software you use, you could say yes.

[fess67]

Andy summed up my thoughts exactly and I would agree totally with Kassy re. the digital darkroom. 'photoshopped' has become a synonym for cheating and that is simply not the case in the vast majority of images.

[arthurking83]

LOL! I always reply with the truth .. that mine are Captured instead! :p(as I'm a CaptureNX user by nature).
I tell em I don't have PS, but I do have LR3(now) and I've Bibbled and GIMPed them in the past, and now I occasionally FSViewer them .. but by and large I CaptureNX/ViewNX them.

Main priority is to quell the possibility of any future discussion on the topic, as it bores me to death, and this works 99.9% of the time, except for the occasional strange one that insists on full knowledge of every possible image editing software variant currently available.

[Ms Monny]

Oh, Dylan, I am sorry that you felt like you were being 'judged' in this manner. Today I was actually thinking about how your exhibition was going (whilst I was at dog training :o) and I was thinking about how I can't wait to see it.

I voted "Yes, but they will think I am cheating" because unfortunately the general public can't see that PS is exactly the same as the Darkroom but its for Digital. I too felt like I was cheating when I started here on the Forum and posted a thread asking this very question (yes, I was soon put in my place LOL).

It is unfortunate that you can't sit them all down and explain that in reality you are doing exactly what Ansel Adams had done, and if he was taking photos today he would probably be using PS!!

What you do is beautiful - it is absolutely extraordinary, actually, but I know from some very small experience working in a very, very small art gallery that people who wander through the rooms all of a sudden become well-knowledged art critics and will nit-pick the images/sculptures/exhibits until they are blue in the face. Unfortunately, photographics are the most nit-picked of the lot because of the digital aspect .... everyone thinks that everyone can produce YOUR results because they have a pretty good camera. But heavens forbid that THEY will use PS because their images will be pure and true to life!! :rolleyes:

Have a small smile on the inside knowing you are an artist and what you do to an image is pure magic, art in itself. Just ask anyone who has tried or is trying!! :D

[Tannin]

Actually, Dylan, I know exactly how you feel. Indeed, I sometimes get the same question, and of course the answer isn't always "no". People say to me "Do you use Photoshop?" as if this is the key to learning whether I am honest and trustworthy or not. I think you already know how I feel about that.

[zollo]

i'd ask them what makes them ask?

[Mark L]

When a complete stranger approaches you to ask you about your work (whether it be in real life or online or any other method), and you are faced with the question "Is that photoshopped?"
........

Maybe ask a question back. "What do you mean?":confused013

[Kym]

The alternate to 'Shopped' is the so called straight out of the camera (SOOC)

But SOOC is a total con job. (based on something I've posted before)

Your digital camera does these things (at minimum) when shooting JPEG (to varying degrees depending on settings)...


Contrast/Brightness
White balance
Tint
Saturation
Noise reduction
Sharpening


And all those adjustments are done by software that does what some geek programmer thought would be generically good and got put into the firmware.

At least shooting raw and doing it in PP is more honest, i.e. not depending on that geek software dude. :th3:

It is also context sensitive, i.e. adding/removing people in a news doco is not on, but removing a twig from a bird photo is more than ok.

[Tannin]

Nonsense to part (a) - the geek programmer was doing his best to produce an accurate record of the scene (plus a little - and I do mean a little - extra saturation, depending on your selected picture style). As a rule, he will have been pretty successful. You can do the same with a raw converter, with more or less success depending on a range of factors.

It is the failure of photographers to honour the spirit of the general expectation that they will strive to be honest in their work which results in nasty, mistrustful questions like "do you use Photoshop".

Part (b) - the context sensitive point, makes much more sense, and I agree entirely. It's all about intent and honesty, nothing to do with whether you use this tool or that one. The key to the "is it Photoshoped" question is the underlyng implication - viz, that an honest picture is more valuable than a faked one. Most people would agree with that - but most people will put their hand in their pocket and pay money for a fake one 'cause it's prettier, just so long as they think that it is real!

[zollo]

It is the failure of photographers to honour the spirit of the general expectation that they will strive to be honest in their work which results in nasty, mistrustful questions like "do you use Photoshop".


how does one prove to the customer one way or the other, at the exhibition?

[ving]

The people asking these questions often wouldjt have a clue about photography or editing, they are quoting a comon phrase from the media.
I tell them no, i use paintshop pro. :)

Sent from my TR718D

[Speedway]

I would just tell them that that is the scene as I saw it.
Keith.

[I @ M]

This is NOT an anti photoshop rant.
Any image development program name could be inserted but photoshop is the name that is burned into peoples brains.

But.

Photographers in particular ( remember that PS was originally developed for graphic artists and expanded into photo editing ) are simply victims of a hugely successful marketing campaign.
Camera companies advertise and tell the masses that their (insert brand here) camera will give them stunning "pro" images.
The masses adapt to the new technology and cameras in all shapes and forms are suddenly found in greater numbers than a bus full of Japanese tourists at Ayers Rock could ever hope to muster.
A huge percentage of the newly found technology users are disappointed that their ( insert brand here ) camera doesn't do what they expected the advertising said it would.
A very smart marketing person at Adobe recognises a way to extract huge amounts of money from disappointed camera users and says to the Adobe R&D team something like " hey guys, can you make that graphic arts program work on digital photos?".
The answer as we all know is a resounding YES, and so photoshop evolved ( extremely well ) to develop, enhance, manipulate and distort pixels.
Of course, to make the program a true success it had to not only be able to do the job, it had to be marketed so a few skilled users of the program appeared in 30 second ads telling those people that were disillusioned with their (insert brand here) camera and that to get the best images possible they needed to buy photoshop. These ads ( all 30 seconds of them ) of course showed before and after examples of PS at work.
The result was that (history shows it to be so ) huge numbers of people went quack and bought the program and from there a small percentage overall learned how to use it well.
Some of these went on to start and continue to this day to offer you everything from $2.50 video tutorials to multi thousand dollar graduate degree courses to be come a member of the institute of photoshop professionals. The program itself created an entirely new industry that of course needed more marketing.

Fast forward to today and we have skilled photographers using a heavily featured and excellent performing program to create their artworks.
We also still have those dissatisfied camera users that couldn't manage to take a photo who went on to buy an expensive bit of software to fix their shortcomings and failed even further.
These people I feel are the ones who started the "is that photoshopped" question and proceeded to denounce any image that had been enhanced simply because they can't produce the goods. It also doesn't help that there are so many plainly horrible images out there on the net with the inevitable words of " this shot was a bit blurry so I tried to make it look good in photoshop " further adding fuel to the fire of those who simply know nothing about photography in general and image development in particular.
In short, due to advertising, those vast number of people that know zip about photography and even less about image development ( many of those same people tried and failed at both ) have been conditioned by that advertising to accept the image in front of their eyes was created purely by photoshop.

To all those who are asked that question I would say that you are simply a victim of that programs (marketing) success. :rolleyes:

And in answer to Dylan's original questions, my internal response is to simply accept it because I know that I will never be able to overcome the power of advertising applied to a gullible brain and my external response is to say that the program I use doesn't have the ability to successfully clone out the sixth finger on the grooms left hand at a Tasmanian wedding but it does a pretty fair job of developing a negative to the point where I am satisfied with the appearance.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Keith, the problem is , I would be lying if that's the response !
For reference, the title of the exhibition is 'Otherwolds', we have a short bio, and in it, there is mention of fine art landscape photography . In the brochure, all the technical details are there for the viewer to see in terms of EXIF.
We are presenting our interpretation of the scene based on a style of image which we have taken - the images very rarely look exactly as shot (especially with long exposures, wide angle distortions etc).
I would love to talk post processing with the enquiree if the question about photoshopping was one of 'how did you get that effect?'
But when the undertone of the question is one of somehow cheating - it makes it harder to come up with a polite yet informative response in that setting (thanks for the great suggestions from everyone above though!)

Lastly, as an anecdote, before we visited Cradle Mountain for the first time in 2004, we had seen so many of the classic pictures taken with a wide angle lens. Cradle Mountain looks pretty small and way off in the distance. When we arrived at the scene, we were amazed with how close and how much larger the mountain looked. ie. nothing like the images we saw. Isn't it strange how we accept 'untruths' like wide angle distortion or the articial compression of planes from long lens images or bokeh from using small depth of field (all the in camera aspects of reality distortion for artistic reasons) - yet struggle to accept the 'untruths' of post processing (I suspect largely through ignorance). I guess the disappointment that drove me to ask this question was that only 1 or 2 questions were asked of us all night that weren't to do with 'photoshopping'.

[Steve Axford]

I think that we just have to get over worrying about questions like that. Most times the asker is just amazed that his photos don't look like that and is wondering why. Other times they might really be interested. Whatever it is, the fact that they ask a question shows that they are interested in the photo and you should take it as a compliment AND an opportunity to talk about the photo. Talk about any aspect you like as the question is very unlikely to be anything more than just an opening.

[triptych]

When people see photo's of my son, they automatically assume that Ive photoshopped his eyes, he has very very blue eyes, and I dont actually edit them at all as I dont need to....and an example of this is when a friend first met my son in person the first thing she said to me was "oh my god, look at his eyes, so you dont actually photoshop them".

The assumption is already there.

[Michaela]

I think that, rather than just say yes or no, I'd be tempted to ask them why they're asking.

Also, if they like the image, would they change their opinion if they knew it HAD been photoshopped?

Why is it that they could like a painting, which is simply an artist's interpretation of how they saw a particular scene, and not a photograph where a photographer has used his digital "palette" to craft an image that represents his/her unique visualisation? :confused013

[ApolloLXII]

Honesty is always the best policy, in my opinion. If somebody asks me if a pic I took was Photoshopped, I always say yes. Generally, it's only the ignorant ones who know little about photography and nothing about Photoshop who say it's cheating or they are just people who like to try to rain on your parade.

[ving]

this has been asked before but I guess it begs the question... what is a photograph and what is digital art? if you have a collection of heavily modified images taken with a camera can you call it a photographic exhibition? :confused013

[ApolloLXII]

this has been asked before but I guess it begs the question... what is a photograph and what is digital art? if you have a collection of heavily modified images taken with a camera can you call it a photographic exhibition? :confused013

To my way of thinking Ving, if your image contains elements that are edited (and by edited I mean those elements were placed, reshaped, colourised, warped, transformed etc.) heavily then it should be classed as digital art. If you are only making visual enhancements to an image (levels, curves, white balance, saturation etc.) then you are, in a sense, developing a print of a whole single image that was captured by your camera which is what a photograph should be.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I would like to add that the main reason I put this thread up isn't because I was offended by the actual question. It was more that after an honest answer of yes, there was this sudden lack of engagement to ask anything else.
They could like the image as much as they want before the question, but if the honest answer changes the way the viewer looks at it, then it defeats the intended purpose of the exhibition both for the viewer (to appreciate landscapes of fine art photography) and for Marianne and me (to sell some of our work). I genuinely hope that most people who do not ask questions at least get something out of viewing the images because if the main 'take home' message they experience after their visit is that they've been cheated by a 'photoshopper' , then it's a lose-lose situation and it makes me reluctant to exhibit again in the future.
This would probably be a question better asked in a non photographic forum and I'm sure there would be a different response to the one received here so far.

[Tannin]

What you really need, Davin, is a good snappy answer - something completely ridiculous and a little bit shocking.

Example: sometime I'm out birding in a public location - on a mangrove boardwalk, say, where people walk past quite often. The big 500mm lens always gets a lot of attention and people want to comment on it. I don't mind that, it's a great conversation ice-breaker, but not when I'm working! Drives me spare if they want to hang about and ruin my concentration, not to mention scare the birds away.

Very often, they say "Is that a camera?"

So I have learned to lookup and smile and say, with a twinkle in my eye, "No, it's a tactical nuclear weapon - don't tell anyone!" and then quickly look away again and seem busy (even if there ain't a bird in sight yet and I'm only waiting). Sometimes I say something different, but it's always something absurd - by the time they figure it out I'm back on the job and they are reluctant to intrude a second time.

Edit: the absurd part is the key - if it's an obviously sensible answer, you don't get that vital pause while they figure it out.

[BecdS]

A lot of people throw the term "photoshopped" (and derivatives of) around without really having any idea what it is. For the general population, their only association is the negative press about the air-brushing of this actress or that model. However, they don't realise that those couple are only the very tip of a very big iceburg and that there are no (or very very very very few) untouched images in any magazine or book they pick up. I'm tempted to say that a lot of the moving picture media is also touched up, but I don't know very much about that at all. Anyway, back to the subject... most people don't even really know what they're talking about and as has been said, just throw the term around because it's an "in" word. Poor old Photoshop gets lumped with all the blame, when there's Gimp, PaintShop Pro and even Picnik available to do different levels of editing.

In my own experience - I was once told that photographers are not artists because they're simply recording an image as it is before them. (Obviously not from someone who knew squat about photography, lol) It seems to me, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to editing.

[Dylan & Marianne]

hmmm, how about 'you don't need to photoshop pictures from Mars?' *wink*

[Tannin]

^ Perfect! Absolutely right. :)

[James T]

I'm with Mark and Zollo. Ask them what makes them ask / what exactly do they mean.

Most people are probably just trying to engage you, and as they know very little about photography; "is it Photoshopped?" is an easy starter question for 10. Just like "what lens/camera did you use?" that you see on forums all the time from beginners. And, "That's a biggun!" from people in the street.

I wouldn't be defensive, people are showing an interest in your work - so start a conversation with them. After you say "yes" and they don't have any follow up questions, maybe it's because they don't have any follow up questions. Did you try saying "no" to anyone? I wonder how many people would've had more questions then.

[BecdS]

I wouldn't be defensive, people are showing an interest in your work - so start a conversation with them. After you say "yes" and they don't have any follow up questions, maybe it's because they don't have any follow up questions. Did you try saying "no" to anyone? I wonder how many people would've had more questions then.

Thinking further, I agree with this. Perhaps they think that there is less skill involved if you "shopped", or they think that Photoshop skills are beyond them. Maybe they just don't have any interest in learning how they can take their work further with the digital darkroom. If they're coming to see your work / photo's, they must be interested in photography and perhaps by asking, they're trying to find an opening to discuss different photography techniques.

[geoffsta]

I have just come back from the Australian Photographic Society exhibition, held in Bairnsdale. It also had local photographers work in as well.
I think that all but 4 of the shots were all photoshopped. But I think there was about 5 - 6 that were standout manipulated.
Clearly some fantastic shots including a few from a member of AP.
To the untrained eye many looked as if they were straight from the camera. But it's was easy to see that a lot had some sort of lens correction, sharpening, saturation and contrast done to them.
Whether done in Photoshop, ViewNX, or any other editing program. Or even taken in a JPG format with the Vivid, landscape or portrait setting. They are all photoshopped. (In a fashion)
So if someone says "No" Well they would be technically telling porky pies.

Geoff.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Thinking further, I agree with this. Perhaps they think that there is less skill involved if you "shopped", or they think that Photoshop skills are beyond them. Maybe they just don't have any interest in learning how they can take their work further with the digital darkroom. If they're coming to see your work / photo's, they must be interested in photography and perhaps by asking, they're trying to find an opening to discuss different photography techniques.

Actually, it was an opening night and I think alot of people were just there for free food and drinks lol

[Scotty72]

I'm pretty sure ALL pics are photoshopped.

If you shoot JPG, well, your file has been massaged.

Most programmes will somehow manipulate a RAW file - such as sharpen, adjust colours etc.

So, saying you don't photoshop is a bit dodgy. Unless, you shoot RAW and disable ALL default enhancements, then you do 'photoshop'

Even if you go to this extent. It is a bit like saying that brushing your hair, tucking your shirt in and smiling at a camera (to improve your looks) is misrepresenting your real looks.

We all photoshop : get over it : stop pretending you don't

[Scotty72]

Apologies to those without the necessity of brushing hair :rolleyes:

[James T]

..
So, saying you don't photoshop is a bit dodgy. Unless, you shoot RAW and disable ALL default enhancements, then you do 'photoshop'
..

Not that it's important, but you can't see a raw file, you have to allow a program to render its own interpretation of the raw data before you can see anything.

This is starting to go a long way off topic though, down a well-worn and boring path. :)

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks James - the original issue I was trying to raise isn't the age old debate about photoshopping vs not - it was how we handle the public's perception of what we do to images

[ricstew]

.......standing looking at an image .......beautiful young woman with a mermaid tail..........bloke next to me says.......so do ya think its been photoshopped?

[Tannin]

.......standing looking at an image .......beautiful young woman with a mermaid tail..........bloke next to me says.......so do ya think its been photoshopped?

Of course it has been, you fool! Seriously, did you really think those breasts were real?

[kipp]

As a newbie to photography, other than just happy snaps.

I have recently started to record in RAW and am learning how to adjust contrast, white balance, etc..
And it is my opinion that the public expect to see an image that could be achieved with the best of possible conditions, skills, gear, etc...(things that can be physically changed when taking the image).
Therefore changing these things afterwards in post processing is acceptable.

The issue that people have is when the image is not achievable in a non digital environment.
Eg. Removing sticks, powerlines, pimples etc...
HDR, or laying images over each other (i don’t know what to call this)
Digital liposuction


As to the original question i think you have to say yes, but if the process is then explained/demonstrated to the inquirer, they will then be more informed, the next time they look at an image. I understand this takes time but i think that 99% of photographers will have had somebody explain/show them this at some stage in their development.

And really the only way for people to have an informed opinion, is for someone to give them the information unbiased in the first place.:th3:

[Scotty72]

As a newbie to photography, other than just happy snaps.

I have recently started to record in RAW and am learning how to adjust contrast, white balance, etc..
And it is my opinion that the public expect to see an image that could be achieved with the best of possible conditions, skills, gear, etc...(things that can be physically changed when taking the image).
Therefore changing these things afterwards in post processing is acceptable.

The issue that people have is when the image is not achievable in a non digital environment.
Eg. Removing sticks, powerlines, pimples etc...
HDR, or laying images over each other (i don’t know what to call this)
Digital liposuction


As to the original question i think you have to say yes, but if the process is then explained/demonstrated to the inquirer, they will then be more informed, the next time they look at an image. I understand this takes time but i think that 99% of photographers will have had somebody explain/show them this at some stage in their development.

And really the only way for people to have an informed opinion, is for someone to give them the information unbiased in the first place.:th3:

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things :th3: but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty

One dumb question I once asked of a former, female workmate who I had not seen for about 6-8 weeks (she had take long-service): "Hey, congrats! When is it due?" :(

[Scotty72]

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things :th3: but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty


That is the advantage of being ugly! No - one asks me embarrassing questions about my beauty regime. :th3:

[kipp]

But that is like, and many photographers may take it this way, demanding your date remove her make-up so you can see the real deal underneath.

Now, in my life, I have done some stupid things :th3: but, not even I am dumb enough to have said to my lovely date across the dinner table, "Please, sweety, could you tell me how much make-up you have used tonight and how you applied it?"

Scotty

One dumb question I once asked of a former, female workmate who I had not seen for about 6-8 weeks (she had take long-service): "Hey, congrats! When is it due?" :(

But the question has already been asked scotty.
So do you (the date) say
A. yes i've got a bit of lippy on
B. yes a whole lot but i've also had the lightpost that was sprouting from the top of my head removed
C. no because your not wearing any
D. no because you cant be bothered explaining to the person who is interested in you/your photo

Then as the bloke asking the question which answer would you prefer to hear? Dont forget you might wake up with her on your loungeroom wall the next morning:lol:

[Dylan & Marianne]

kipp , as far as I'm concerned, using exposure blending is just as legitimate a technique as using filters in the field for certain situations but that's kind of straying again.
if the asker is interested in hearing an explanation (which one was - and we had a great discussion thereafter), then it's all fine. But if after you say yes, the asker turns away and doesn't say another word, I don't feel it's up to me to do the hard sell to educate them in a topic they clearly don't want to hear about. I shouldn't take it as an affront but then as I said before, if that is the majority of people's response, then the exhibition becomes a lose-lose situation for both viewer and exhibitor. Another factor driving this topic for me is that in the past, when (in my opinion) our images looked far less polished with many more technical imperfections (dust spots, grain, bad choice of depth of field , blown highlights etc), the question about photoshop was never asked (ironically since my photoshopping was just worse!) and we actually sold more images that looked worse (once again in our eyes)

[Mark L]

^ ah. I've had a lifetime of getting used to what the "general public" like differing to what I like. Do you create to your taste, or create to what will sell?
Back on topic, I would still ask, "why do you ask." Their response then may allow the conversation to continue.

[GTP 290]

For me personally, I can honestly say that 99% of my photos are NOT photoshoped and as such I would answer the question as a solid NO. I use Lightroom 3.0 to process my images and only ever use photoshop if I need to remove a blemish on someones skin or remove a stain from a shirt etc.. but most of my customers don't want that as they prefer to see the image as they were at the time. Sometime people ask a few questions on how I get a certain effect on an image and I tell them how I did it through processing and go through the whole processing vs editing debate. Basically I'll only ever process an image in a wa that would be possible t be made in camera or in a darkroom.

[kipp]

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying that there is a right or wrong way to display an image.
But i think that the average person is exposed to so many edited images (usualy for advertising purposes) that a lot of people are looking for a beautiful yet "true" image.
I think that education as to what/why you have done to an image is the best way to encourage people to consider new ways/ideas.
There are always people who will make a decision before they have all the information avaliable to them. I question if it is worth bothering with them tho?
If you are showing your images because you like them, then others dismissing them for whatever reason shouldn't matter.
However if you are showing them to sell, then as i said above people are sold so much idealised bull...# nowadays, that lots are looking for something that is more "true". And therefore "Is it photoshopped?" is a valid question in there purchasing decision.

As a few others have already said to try and cultivate a discussion with a stranger, i find that if you are able to ask a question back and show interest in their answer you will usualy get a good response.

[bricat]

Why not do as politicians do"Yes I took this shot and I had to wait 6 hours for the right light blah blah.....4 hour trek into the wilderness blah blah......" You have answered "yes" but now they don't know what the "yes" was referring to. K.I.S.S. keep it simple as they are stupid. And honestly does anyone know someone who does not PP for an exhibition? They would be the exception rather than the rule...cheers Brian PS Keep up the good work you two

[mongo]

In answer to your first question, Mongo normally thinks 2 things - one, they are relatively naive about photography including the part that PP plays in it OR they are genuinely trying to estimate their chances of ever hoping to encountering natural conditions which come close to the ones they are now looking at. Mongo feels nothing about the question being asked of him

In the exhibition/competition setting, unless there are rules that apply which require no manipulation , Mongo fails to see the relevance of the question to begin with.

The short answer is - “the finished product is my work by whatever available means I have achieved it.”

If someone wants only relatively unmanipulated work, then, let them go to an exhibition or competition that one permits slide film. Mongo says “relatively” because it is his understanding that even slide film can be slightly manipulated in the development stage by varying chemicals, temp etc.

[Tannin]

One way to think of the question is to ponder what is going through the head of the person asking it. Very often, that is going to be something like:

"Is this real? Could I go to that place and see this?"

If the answer is "yes, easily", then it is an honest landscape image and all is well.
If the answer is "yes, but you'd have to be there at exactly the right moment", then it is still an honest landscape image and all is well.
If the answer is "no", then it is a dishonest image. There is no law against these. (But there should be.)
If the answer is "of course not, this is a fantasy image and I'm surprised you even have to ask" then it is an honest fantasy image and all is well.


It's all very well for photographers to get on their high horse and ramble away saying "everything is processed in some way, deal with it", but this attitude fails to deal with the fundamental issue lying behind this question and behind public distrust of photographs - people, perfectly reasonably, think that they might be being lied to. "Is this photoshopped?" can be just a way of saying "can I trust you?" and "are you honest?" This real question is a genuine and important one. People are entitled to an honest answer.

(None of which is to contradict Dylan's "no it's from Mars" answer - that is an excellent answer as it deftly indicates that (a) these images are essentially fictional, and (b) so let's have some fun and enjoy them!)

[Dylan & Marianne]

can I just stress that our exhibition is called "Otherworlds" lol
*hint*

[JM Tran]

can I just stress that our exhibition is called "Otherworlds" lol
*hint*

should have mentioned that in the beginning:)

Also, if only people on here know what the usual SALA crowds are like - from my experiences, artistic, creative minds who love art and alternative forms of art to those who just like to mingle and free-loading on the food and drinks and dont really care. Photographers.......not so much.

Photos without an artistic expression or manipulation is sometimes rare at SALA.

[Xenedis]

To my way of thinking, when a person asks a photographer if his or her image has been 'Photoshopped', it is somewhat offensive.

It's not too dissimilar to "Nice image. I bet you have a really good camera!" in mentality.

It would be nice if people looked at an image for the image's offering, without consideration of the tools that were used to create it.

We don't look at the hand-made coffee table built by someone we know, and ignorantly state "You must have a really good lathe".

Post-processing, as most of us know, is one of the tools that goes into image creation. The term 'Photoshopping' has an inherently negative vibe about it, as opposed to "Was that image processed?", for example.

Much like the rolls of 35mm film you used to take to the pharmacy, yes, the image has been processed.

I cannot say I get many people asking me the blunt, ignorant question we're discussing, but I have a policy of being honest. Given I also like to share what I know and what I have learned from others, I'd be more inclined to give people an insight if they are willing and interested.

Educating the uneducated is always a good idea.

As photographers we need to destroy the mostly inaccurate perception in the minds of the uninformed public that the use of Photoshop is a bad thing. If people were to understand why post-processing is necessary, and how it can really enhance an image in a non-deceitful way, their opinions about the tool may change for the better, and that may concentrate more on what's in front of them than what's on the photographer's desk and/or in his/her camera bag.

[Xenedis]

But SOOC is a total con job. (based on something I've posted before)

Totally agreed.

My view on SOOC is not based on something I've posted before; it actually is what I've posted before. :-)

From http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77740-quot-I-don-t-post-process-my-photos-quot-..umm-why-not&p=800326&viewfull=1#post800326:



People need to understand that there are technical limitations cameras cannot overcome, such as extreme dynamic range in a given scene.

People also need to understand that cameras apply varying levels of processing to the raw data they capture. If someone's camera is set to shoot in JPG mode, then there is processing going on in the camera. I'm not sure why 'straight-from-the-camera' purists consider it acceptable for a small CPU to apply processing (largely beyond the user's control) to images, yet don't consider the use of Photoshop on a far more powerful CPU to be acceptable.

The least-processed image a camera can produce is a raw file, and even then, it still needs to be converted, which is a very basic form of post-processing. At bare minimum, a white balance setting is applied and the bit depth is dropped to 8-bit for exporting to JPG format.

On Flickr you'll see some people tagging their images 'SOOC' or adding them to so-named sets.

SOOC stands for 'straight-out-of-camera', and it seems that in the minds of some, producing a contrast-deficient, unsharp, white balance-locked, camera-processed JPG is something about which it is worth bragging.

[zollo]

after having another think about this "What's your internal reaction to a stranger askin you, "Is that photoshopped""
i would have to say it depends on what i was exhibiting. If i was exhibiting docu photos of a war the images would be unshopped, but obviously raw processed, and therefore would be quite irate with them for asking. if i were exhibiting fine art landscapes, and it was advertised as such, i would expect people to understand what that term means, and therefore would also be quite irate at the stupid question. would you rock up to a vincent van gogh exhibit and ask him if its a painting or a colour pencil sketch? if i had advertised "australian landscape photography exhibit" i would be keeping the photos unmanipulated, but processed for light colour, to the way i remembered the scene. processing raw images does not = photoshop manipulation.

oh and i dont mean to hijack the thread with pictures, but SOOC means absolutely nothing these days, illustrated by my photo below. Taken today, raw processed in camera, had a blur filter applied, converted to sepia, cross filter added, and resized all done by my clever little d7000 without coming anywhere near a computer.

76710

[enduro]

I must admit that it initially comes to mind to tell people to f' off, I do share the experience that it's worth asking why people are asking the question and in resolution it is found that they really want to know more about what you do and how. Sometimes it's just because they want to tell you that they "don't Photoshop theirs" at looking and their images I can tell why they might look lifeless and flat.

I do use Photoshop to a degree, bright/contrast, levels, sharpen, saturation. Sometimes I clone out some splotches that are visible where they oughtn't be. I rarely add anything (except for a once recent comedic and poinent examplification purpose) or subtract items from an image. Nowdays, I'm a Lightroom and Nik convert. So yes I do digitally edit my images. Nowadays I'm experimenting with masks.

As indicated above, people normally just don't understand the digital (nor analogue) technology or processes and I don't blame them entirely.

[swifty]

Call me cynical but i reckon there's a percentage of viewers who are just jealous.
Asking whether you 'photoshopped' the image and expecting (hoping for) a yes but not sticking around to find out more screams of someone who's insecure about their own work not looking anywhere as good as yours. ie. "yea it only looks great cos of photoshop"

[Geoff79]

I've been using Faststone a lot lately for my post processing, so I could answer "no." :)

I can understand the frustration, though, Dylan, not being given opportunity to answer the question properly to a person who is just looking for a 'yes' or 'no' to make up their mind. As others have said, I personally love your shots and as the saying goes, "you can't polish dogsh*t." If the actual raw shots weren't already excellent in the first place no amount of photoshop help could make them that way. All you're doing is making something already delightful a little more delightful. ;)

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks geoff :) i wonder though, how we could get that perception to the public who have had so much bad press dealt to them regarding photoshop. Can you remember the last time that the word was used synonymously in mass media with something positive?

[Charmed]

I find if you're asked "is that PS?" and you answer "yes", the next question is often "how do you do it ?"
So I selected "They are wondering how to maximise the impact of their own images"

[Dylan & Marianne]

Simone - I wish that were the follow up question I've had! I'd love to discuss that topic with them :)
More often than not, I've been dealth the 'No further questions' response. (ie. photoshopped image, therfore no longer interested)

[cbourke]

Eh, every image I have is photoshopped. Standard levels and curves adjustment. I rarely get asked as my main prints I display anyone can tell its photoshopped to the hilt lol. On the rare occasion I do get asked I just reply with yes, it is, every image at the very least gets a curves adjustment for a touch of contrast .

[Charmed]

From where I sit, there is PS (the basic level adjustments etc) & then there is PS (ps to death where it is no longer the original image)
I'm in the 1st camp.

[Boo53]

Dylan, I wonder whether, in the context of the exhibition that you were at, and given that you thought a lot of people were just there for the munchies, the majority knew next to nothing about photography but felt obliged to make some comment that gave the impression that they really did and "photoshop" just happened to be the only photographic term they could use vaguely in context, and having used it they move on.

[Pine]

In my opinion PS is part of the new digital technology and as such acceptable.
Most cameras enhance the photo taken under JPG anyway.
However PS needs to be used in such a way that the pict stays natural.

I would have said yes.:p

Regards

[ricktas]

I got asked this very question today, and decided to try a different tack. So my reply was "actually it was done in an digital darkroom". The questioner then said "Oh, well its a very nice photo"..

Baffle em with Bull and you will overcome, every time

[Xenedis]

In my opinion PS is part of the new digital technology and as such acceptable.

Processing was and is also part of the old technology.

Unfortunately the general public's perception about digital post-processing is negative and uniformed, and people seem not to realise that many types of post-processing were performed in the wet darkroom.

People don't understand that film-based photography is not as 'pure' and unaltered as they think it is.



Most cameras enhance the photo taken under JPG anyway.

That's another crucial fact that many people fail to understand.

[Xenedis]

I got asked this very question today

Coincidentally, I did too.

A colleague spotted a print I'd put up in my work area, and asked about it.

Invariably the question of "Is it Photoshopped?" came up, and when I said yes, he almost deflated, as though the use of Photoshop tainted the image and made it less real.

I said it was very real, and proceeded to give him some education about post-processing.

It does sometimes get waring trying to defend post-processing against those who don't understand it and hold a incorrect perception about it.

[soulman]

...we have a short bio, and in it, there is mention of fine art landscape photography . In the brochure, all the technical details are there for the viewer to see in terms of EXIF.When was the last time you went to a gallery and saw a list in the catalogue of the brushes, paint & canvas used by the artist? I have never seen a painter do it. I think you invite such questions to some degree by listing EXIF data. It's probably the last thing most prospective buyers want to know and they're the ones you should be targeting with the catalogue.


I think that we just have to get over worrying about questions like that. Most times the asker is just amazed that his photos don't look like that and is wondering why. Other times they might really be interested. Whatever it is, the fact that they ask a question shows that they are interested in the photo and you should take it as a compliment AND an opportunity to talk about the photo. Talk about any aspect you like as the question is very unlikely to be anything more than just an opening.Absolutely. Questions like this are an excellent opportunity to sell yourself and your work, so I think it's important to consider them beforehand and work out your message - what it is you want to say to people. Selling yourself doesn't have to be dishonest and there is nothing wrong with putting your best foot forward.


It's all very well for photographers to get on their high horse and ramble away saying "everything is processed in some way, deal with it", but this attitude fails to deal with the fundamental issue lying behind this question and behind public distrust of photographs - people, perfectly reasonably, think that they might be being lied to. "Is this photoshopped?" can be just a way of saying "can I trust you?" and "are you honest?" This real question is a genuine and important one. People are entitled to an honest answer.Indeed. If your images aren't realistic, then you have to somehow make it clear that that they're impressions rather than records. I think space in the catalogue would be much better used to put that across, rather than listing shutter speeds and apertures.

[Dylan & Marianne]

soulman - might I remind you again that the title itself is called 'Otherworlds' and in it, a description of the intention (ie. something similar to your wording of bringing our 'impression' of the scene to the viewer : The quote on the SALA's page is "Surreal landscape impressions capturing the ethereal beauty of our world and celebrating the magnificence of nature in all its glory" ) but John R is probably right - most of the people there were not there for photographic appreciation but just as a social outing and probably in hindsight, were just asking to make conversation.
I was more after a general opinion of the topic not a specific response to this particular exhibition.
By EXIF data, I simply mean camera,aperture iso, shutter speed - something that is not uncommon to photographic exhibitions and publications (albeit it's more info that just a one word 'Acrylic' or 'Pastel' )
Lastly, I think Rick's suggestion to give a baffling answer is a good tactic for me to adopt in the future. I did not hesitate to say yes but to be honest, I am poor at a hard sell and so once the conversation evaporated after that initial yes, I didn't push on.
Thanks again for all the insights - no doubt , if I want to push myself as a photographer as a primary profession in the future, I will have to consider all of these issues with much more dedication just mere observation.

[jim]

Oddly enough nobody has ever asked me that question. (Is it Photoshopped?)

Erm. Is that good or bad, d'you think?

[Dylan & Marianne]

jim, if your target audience is happy with your product , then it can only be a good thing can't it?

[swifty]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/am_i_a_photographic_cheat.shtml

[sonofcoco]

I think it's probably just a case of most people having never been near a darkroom and therefore not understanding that Photoshop is essentially the same thing. I'd include myself in this group a few years back (and I've still never been in a darkroom). I had no idea what Photoshop was used for before I started getting into photography with a dSLR and, like many others, assumed it must be used to make artificially produced photos that didn't reflect the true nature of the scene. Now that I've used it and understand a bit more about it (with a long, long way to go) I have changed my opinion completely.

It is funny that it's viewed with so much suspicion though, I saw someone talking on morning TV this week about a shot taken where lightning was striking somewhere around the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The TV 'personality' was strongly of the opinion that it must have been photoshopped, seemingly without considering that maybe the person who took it sat there for hours and took a lot of photos to capture that exact moment. The automatic assumption that it must be photoshopped to get a shot like that was an interesting (and annoying) one.

Have had a friend say something similar about a shot at a National Geographic exhibition in Ulsan when I was there, because a white seal's tongue looked quite pink. It's funny when a fantastic photo can have doubts cast upon it by people who don't take photos at all because they think something looks a little brighter in colour than they think it should (without having seen the original scene).

Personally mate I wouldn't worry too much about people saying, "Has that been photoshopped" with regard to your photos. Having seen them I think they're fantastic and hope that one day I can take a shot that looks similar to the many you've shown us on here. I'd worry about the people who are into photography and understand what Photoshop and what you do is all about, and I wouldn't worry about the randoms who wander in to your exhibition and are automatically suspicious of anything that looks good.

As long as you're steering away from the horrible abominations that make it clear a photo has been photoshopped I think you're doing ok :)

[Sobriquet]

I am a proud photoshopper, lightroom fanatic and have a few select filters I use on camera. I find very few people I meet are against photoshopping or image manipulations. I am an artist who works in many mediums including photography, I am quite good at drawing, painting and mixed media. I have an insatiable curiosity and love seeing where I can take things. I call my portrait sessions designer portraiture and I photoshop them to artistic effect (and if requested to enhance the way the person looks). My response to any negative is simply, there are NO rules in art. Don't be ashamed, have a look at the winning images in the latest Canon Aipp book, just stunning and these images are manipulated. I doubt there would be many SOOC.

I have burned and dodged and toned in a real darkroom so I understand that many things were manipulated pre PS and I love liquify! a lot easier than airbrushing.

[sunny6teen]

I would just tell them that that is the scene as I saw it.
Keith.

:lol: this has to be my favourite and much maligned statement of recent...and boy, does it get overused by some of the best togs in the world.
I think it loosely translates as 'the light was too boring when I shot it'. either that or they saw the scene as an oversaturated long exposure with a vignette :)

I was recently asked if I used photoshop as well. I truthfully replied that the picture in question was shot on sheet film and developed in the darkroom. no computer work etc.
they were pretty satisfied/impressed with the response....then I added that I also replaced the boring sky with a better one and adjusted the light to suit the new sky.
It confused the hell out of them.

my point being...people are idiots ;)
don't worry about them.