Wolfsnap opened this issue on Feb 08, 2003 ยท 28 posts
DHolman posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 2:21 AM
I could point out that the scanning process itself imposes a certain level of Photoshop "repair" (level/curve adjustment, grain reduction (see messages on grain and film scanners), sharpening, etc). But I think that would be trying to justify the use of Photoshop in the photographic process, when it's my opinion that it requires no justification. No more than dodgers, masks, bleaches, toners, inks and hundreds of other traditional darkroom techniques require no justification. Have you ever read The Print by Ansel Adams? Does the fact that Adams worked days, sometimes weeks working to get a print to look a certain way make him a graphic illustrator and not one of the best known photographers of the last century? Have you ever read books and articles by/about Master Printers? Many of the world's greatest fine arts photographers don't print their own images. They give their negatives over to trusted darkroom masters who then take the image to the next level. What does that make them? 90% of the things that you can do in Photoshop (barring exotic filters) have direct correlation to real world darkroom techniques. The question I would put to you is, where is the line to be drawn? What level of Photoshoping somehow invalidates the work and morphs the photographer into a graphic illustrator? -=>Donald