I see more and more photos on this site pimped up by all sorts of software like Photoshop.

I don`t like the idea of those pimped photos overtaking such a nice website full of real photos. It would be a real shame if this website ended up doing what Hollywood-Photographers have been doing for years... messing up real faces and real scenes by alienating pictures beyond reality.

Photoshop-alienation is reaping across all photo-websits like a virus and I strongly dislike the idea of the absence of reality. More and more pictures are published here that have been completely altered, some not even too well. If Adobe-liquifying tool and other gimmicks are allowed, those pictures should in my opinion still be published in even contrast to real photography.

Some individuals don`t seem to remember that only 20 years ago we pushed paper and not pixels and even nowadays it`s not allowed for News-photographers to alter pictures.

Digital photography has some bad side-effects...

Regards,

Herr der Fliegen

Comment quick, this will surely go away very soon...

Herr, if you really want some serious discussion, why not cite some specific examples?? And then contrast them with some of your pristine images...

Clyde please stop these silly comments.

Herr de Fliegen, just for your information, photography without using photoshop is not reality. Is the world black and white? Have you any idea how many "photoshop effects" can be achieved in a darkroom by a skilled person? What is really the difference between cloning out a branch and cutting it down before taking the shot? Should we go back to using horses as transportation instead of cars? Photoshop has big advantages like giving many the opportunity to realize their artistic intentions. It's a creative tool and there's no reason to boycott it. Photoshop has its pros and cons and purist photography has its pros and cons. On this site we embrace both.

Well said Ralf!!

Of course Photoshop has its advantages and gives creativity to photos.

My point was and is: More and more photos are uploaded that are completey alienated by programs like Photoshop, Gimp etc.

I`m not claiming we should all go back to riding horses as means of transportation but the truth is, and neither you or Clyde can deny it, Photoshop is being "abused" more and more to deliver images that have nothing to do anymore with the original photo. The sarcasm, Clyde has portrayed here is absolutely unnecessary since every photographer knows nowaday, that for eg. models can be totally changed (hips/breasts/face) with those programs and alienated into some kind of Barbie. That p.... me off a lot since by no means was photography invented to build some kind of parallel reality but to preserve one moment in time in reality.

And concerning this:


Clyde, of my images I have tried to upload, I regard two of those I have -tried to- publish recently as really good indeed. Some photos published recently here I myself would not have wanted to view whilst on the opposite in critique there`s loads of natural really good photos.

And that is the intention of having started this topic: I would like to see more "real" photography here, the balance between reality and photographic-alienation by Photoshop is not even, not even near.

If one can not even discuss this, it would seem very strange to me.

Regards

Your definition of 'real' is obviously the only possible one anyone can use. yawn. . .

HOW IS A PHOTOGRAPH EVER 'REAL'? by anyone's definition of same. . .

There are a million threads about this same subject, and they are all mind numbingly tedious and I for one am fed up with the holier than thou bullshit generated. . .

Jon