[NewlyNorwegian]

Not many could critisize Ansel Adams as lacking skill or an understanding of light. Adams worked years on his "Moonrise Over ?? New Mexico" adjusting the background light, as he did with many of his Wilderness photos. Photography is art, and the photographer's interpretation plays a vital role in that art. Like it or not. Doesn't make it "fake." I think most photographers are aware of this distinction.

[straydog]

[Sore Feet]

[Slugman]

The best use for Photoshop IMO is when you get divorced or something, you can edit the other person out of your photos without scissors. PS: Ansel Adams is over-rated. Not enough color in his pictures. He should have used Kodachrome.

[NewlyNorwegian]

Art evolves, just like everything, and everyone else. Photoshop is just another branch in Photography's evolution. Don't see the point in whether or not there's an understanding of the process. A painter does not need to know how the paint is made in order to paint her interpretation of a particular scene. A photograph is an expression of a photographer's interpretation of a scene. It's not a documentary.

[Sore Feet]

[NewlyNorwegian]

Art is art. Photography is often art. Not really a question of honesty or dishonesty. If it is, than Adams was a flaming liar. Most of his photos do not represent conditions that were present when the photo was taken. Seems to me you're trying to make photography something it is not, and has never been. Edit: I guess what it boils down to for me is that Photography means different things to different people, and trying to pin absolutes on an art is contrary to art.

[NewlyNorwegian]

My favorite book on this subject is "Digital Landscape Photography: In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams and the Great Masters" by Michael Frye. Very enlightening for me about what photography can be.

[GaliWalker]

[Jim Dockery]

Coming from many years shooting film, and lots of darkroom work (including color), I couldn't agree more with NN. I loved the results, and have many good memories of opening the developing tube after a long work session on a 16x20 Cibachrome and finding a perfect (to me) print, but I don't miss the smell of chemicals or time in the dark. The modern digital tools are incredible and I fully embrace them to express myself. They aren't perfect (yet) esp. the conundrum of saving $ on film, but then sinking much more into upgrading cameras, software, and computers. I agree that some people seem to get stuck on a certain faddish technique (like HDR) and go what seems to me to be too far with it, but to each their own. And yes, learning the basics of good exposure, focus, etc. might be going by the wayside since modern cameras are so good most of the time in auto mode, but most have manual controls if you want to use them. As has always been the case you can use the full power of the tools to express yourself, or let them do it for you in auto, digital just gives you more choices, esp. in post processing. I don't see how that can be a bad thing, other than the time and effort to keep up with it, and choose what to buy or spend time on. It seems that some of the problem here is the difference between documentary work vs. art. Hiking/climbing/landscapes which dominate the pictures posted on this site tend to be viewed more as documentary, so some people see it as cheating to go too far with digital tools (replacing the sky, cloning out objects, etc.). Personally I don't care much unless it misrepresents the difficulty or misleads about a route, which I doubt is ever a problem. On the other hand if a newspaper/magazine publishes a report with a doctored photo most of us would agree that is going too far.

[mike]

[the Zachster]

I accidentally overdid it on the contrast... and kind of liked it! Before

After

[Bedivere]

Yep, that's pretty neat. Looks like a painting.

[polecatjoe]

That'd make some freaky wallpaper!

[silence]

this wasn't really drastic .. but it's definitely altered -- i was trying to achieve the tilt-shift effect in ps .. which can also be done in camera with the appropriate lens usually tilt-shift is used for urban scenes .. but i gave it a try with nature since that's what i shoot mostly .. it takes a unique set of circumstances for an image to be the right choice for this effect .. i looked thru many b4 finding this one .. ideally i and others think it needs a subject as a focal point -- my choice would have been a deer .. but it is what it is .. i wasn't about to cut n paste one in basically .. it's all about fooling the eye to believe it to be a short depth of field the "L" thing in the caption is for flickr .. ignore it .. but to see the full fx it's best to click on the image to see the larger versions -- btw this is nevada falls, yosemite np, 1/21/11 original shot in raw -- cleaned up a bit -- meaning some adjustment on exposure and color (i always try to make it as close to what it was)

Upper and Lower Yosemite Falls

with tilt-shift fx

playing with tilt-shift in ps ...

on the other hand .. this was meant to be purely a conceptual piece .. duh .. but it was built entirely from images i have shot .. it took a few weeks to create as there was a lot to learn in ps that one doesn't typically use for photography

Dream Boy

as for the discussion re photogs using ps to make up for their inabilities .. well there's no way in hell you will come home with a perfect image shot in raw .. it will always have to be fixed .. esp the color .. everyone knows that