Andy Says Hi

www.hayatoriddle.com / haya.riddle@gmail.com

LOU O' BEDLAM: Big Question of the Week

As it’s the 20th anniversary of Photoshop, I’m wondering:

Is photography better off for its creation?

I know it’s made a lot of things more convenient, easier, faster. But has it actually fostered creativity? Moved the medium forward?

I ask sincerely, not as a way of denigrating the program,…

Hi Lou,

I’m reblogging this to answer your question because I need more than 141 characters to do so, and I thought it was a good question.

Basically, my thought is that one must simply consider the use of Photoshop or any other digital darkroom software simply as an additional option to what photography is and always has been. One doesn’t have to use it of course, but I personally believe if it helps the image or rather helps the individual create the image they want to, why not? An image, is an image, is an image, is an image. If the individual felt the need to manipulate the image in post, so be it, that’s what they wanted to do with the image. While I don’t believe there is a right or a wrong way to use it, of course I do have my own preferences in its use, much like anyone else having an opinion on a piece of “artwork” too, I would think.

So, I would have to say, photography in its essence is the same. It is the photographer that has changed. I can still view an image from 1950 and say, “that is a beautiful photograph.” Not “old.” Not “outdated.” Not anything else. I can say the same exact thing for an image that you’ve taken too. Not, “new.” Not, “digital.” The general rules of photography are the same. The digital darkroom is just another way for the photographer to complete their image, if they see fit.

P.S. I must admit, I have a difficult time relating with all the naysayers out there, as well, I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with removing a stray hair, or a dust mark on the lens, or something else, that wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place. For the folks that don’t approve of the use of Photoshop or the like and consider it’s users poor photographers, well, I hope they stick to their guns and don’t wear deodorant, don’t wear make up, and don’t tell a lie, otherwise, I can’t take them seriously either.

2 years ago 43 notes
  1. scatterlock answered: It all depends on the photographer. Photoshop doesn’t really hold back creativity, but promotes it. But this is just my opinion
  2. ultralaser answered: everything that makes creativity easier fosters creativity. after than it’s just another tool, like the flash or a zoom lens or tilt-shift.
  3. shellygrrl answered: I think, like with cameras, it all depends on who’s using it. One person can use it well; someone else could fudge things up.
  4. thatartzygirl answered: Photos, potentially; Photographers; absolutely not. It occured to my friend and I that in the olden days, “photoshop” happened in the camera.
  5. sabro answered: It’s a hard question. I use Photoshop but I don’t overuse it. Most people do. I don’t like that.
  6. this-is-ryan reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    in all seriousness (srsnss?): Photoshop is great for editing your photos just like...$7000...
  7. this-is-ryan answered: Photoshop was created on the set of Willow so Lucas could do morphing. All of the shit we use it for today is B/C THEY MADE WILLOW. But yes.
  8. modulations reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    responses. Stuff like “it makes it possible...hipsters to make a good photo by editing it”...
  9. modulations answered: As with any new development, it has created both good & bad. Bash all you want, but Loretta Lux and Clark & Pougnaud push boundaries w/ PS.
  10. andysayshi reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    reblogging this to answer your question because...need more than 141 characters to do so,...
  11. lauraelise answered: i’m just shocked you use iPhoto for adjustments..?!? i can’t agree with that decision.
  12. lightwriter answered: I believe just as the dark room was necessary for b/w and grew over time, so shall digital/ PS. consumerism is what will kill our art.
  13. harrigan answered: It’s subjective to the user.. As a photographer I use it seldom, except for organizing, type, or a dyptych. I feel Its over used by (photogs)
  14. kianna answered: In things like graphic design, yes. Photo’s them self? No. Sometimes the imperfections are the best part of a photo.
  15. krisisisipoo answered: I’m sorry you find reality boring and mundane, especially since it’s really all you’ve got.
  16. gotmoxied answered: nope
  17. theamazingjosh answered: Absolutely. Would film have progressed without a darkroom?
  18. everydayjonhill answered: Did photography ruin painting landscapes? No. But it changed the game, and any game changer creates a need for more creativity.
  19. originalmaterial answered: Win Crouwel said, it makes it quicker, not better. It’s “just” a digital darkroom, not all were a fan of solarization when it was on film.
  20. javierrivera answered: With every new tool, comes responsibility… It’s bad when you take a photo and say: “F it… I’ll fix it in PS”
  21. kevinmosley answered: I don’t have it on my computer. I use Digital Photo Professional for my Canon RAW files. I would say it helps and hinders a lot.
  22. moderation answered: Photoshop is a Digital Darkroom. Its just a little easier to manipulate photos.
  23. verygoodlooking answered: i believe its truely lowered the standard of handmade arts/craft. in photography its a point and click away from making a shitty photo grand.
  24. seanscheidt reblogged this from louobedlam and added:
    photog who is also...painter…it gets rid...mechanical...
  25. tastedwalentz answered: Perhaps it has made art better. But the photo is the actual picture, pre-edit, and the photographer is only as good as the pure shot.
  26. seanscheidt answered: its my darkroom for digital, nothing more. While it can do more, its best approached, atleast w photography analogous to the traditional d.r
  27. louobedlam posted this