What is "too much" in PS?

KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
edited March 25, 2005 in Finishing School
What tools in PS are considered fine in the fact that they mimic the same thing one could do in a darkroom when developing and processing film?

I know the obvious things like clone tools and so forth, but what tools can be used without the pic being truly considered Photoshopped?

I'm interested as to anyone's opinion on this and why they feel the way they do. I would like to begin commenting on photos that I have "photoshopped" as in changed the picture in a way I couldn't if it was shot on film and I did my own processing.

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2005
    This could either end up being a really long thread, as opinions are as varied as there are Photoshop tools, or a really short thread because people are tired of talking about it. naughty.gif

    Bottom line, if you're not a photojournalist, who cares? 1drink.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • cletuscletus Registered Users Posts: 1,930 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2005
    Khaos wrote:
    What tools in PS are considered fine in the fact that they mimic the same thing one could do in a darkroom when developing and processing film?
    Depends on who you ask. Some people claim "Curves are an abomination" lol3.gif

    I say as long you aren't trying to maliciously decieve your viewers, make the image you want. Use any tool you have available to you.
    ab0wa.smugmug.com
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2005
    yeah, I don't understand it, we are using digital cameras, computers and programs.

    I did alot of black and white stuff in the 70s, I would find it difficult to do here easily what I could do easily in a darkroom. For instance, sometimes I just want to put my hand up and dodge half of a print or so. I did then what I could do then.

    I do now what I can do now. Why change if you are going to work hard to do the same thing.

    And as far as the difference between art and photography, as in collages and funny looking stuff, I don't see why they should be judged separately as too arty to be photography. That is where I really get upset a bit.

    So, I am through, I really don't care. I am too lazy to photoshop much, but curious enough to do collages and stuff.

    g
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2005
    maliciously deceive viewers, that cover of Newsweek, I think it was, comes to mind. The one of Martha Stewart, her head and someone else's body or something like that.

    I think that was stupid, they left themselves open to criticism, basically by assuming that the general public understood and paid attention to their jargon.

    g
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
    edited March 25, 2005
    I'm just trying to make sure I don't feel guilty punching up colors sometimes. I kind of worry that if I can't get the shot perfect and leave it alone that I'm a hack. No worries, It's Friday, a couple of drinks of Jim Beam and Diet Coke will have me not caring.:D
Sign In or Register to comment.