Are Post-processed (using Photoshop, etc.) Photos still considered Photography?

[basikoncept]

---

Are Post-processed (using Photoshop, etc.) Photos still considered 'Photography'? What do you think mga masters?

[dukegulliver]

photography is an art. if you take your photos to the developers, they still have to post process your photos by adding light and enhancing colors, unless you wan to print it as is.

post processed photos are still considered photography because it is an art. some over do it then it would sometimes take out the sense of the photo.

[petey78]

Yes, in my opinion. It's just enhancing the photo. Mura ra gud, naa ka awto den imo gi accessorize, it's still a car, right? It just looks better.

[ginabot]

dolye! is this you? hehe!

its ok as long as you dont over do it, no taking off or adding stuff on your pics.

take a look at this journal that gilad of deviantart wrote,
http://gilad.deviantart.com/journal/12575646/

this guy is really good and he teaches really well.

[basikoncept]

dolye! is this you? hehe!

its ok as long as you dont over do it, no taking off or adding stuff on your pics.

take a look at this journal that gilad of deviantart wrote,
http://gilad.deviantart.com/journal/12575646/

this guy is really good and he teaches really well.

Heheh secret bai mcoy hahaha... btaw, okay ra kung dili pasobraan...

Salamat sa link bai kay naglibog jud ko kay ang uban grabe kaayo maka-enhance sa ilang photos dayun phtography japon ilang tawag.

[basikoncept]

photography is an art. if you take your photos to the developers, they still have to post process your photos by adding light and enhancing colors, unless you wan to print it as is.

post processed photos are still considered photography because it is an art. some over do it then it would sometimes take out the sense of the photo.

I guess that is okay (the small enhancing done sa imung gipa-develop-an) but katung uban na grabe ra kaayo ilang pag-enhace...
Take for example, knang mga techniques and effects na lisod kuha-on sa photography lang pero ang uban kay daugon ra nila sa pag-edit sa Photoshop. Meaning ni-take ug plain/simple photo then gi-edit sa Photoshop para ma-achieve ang katung specific effect which maybe takes away the "skill" from Photography and onto "Photo-editing"?

[dukegulliver]

I guess that is okay (the small enhancing done sa imung gipa-develop-an) but katung uban na grabe ra kaayo ilang pag-enhace...
Take for example, knang mga techniques and effects na lisod kuha-on sa photography lang pero ang uban kay daugon ra nila sa pag-edit sa Photoshop. Meaning ni-take ug plain/simple photo then gi-edit sa Photoshop para ma-achieve ang katung specific effect which maybe takes away the "skill" from Photography and onto "Photo-editing"?

korek ka dyan!!!

take for example this site from my relative: http://arieljavelosa.ph

[pnoize]

Even photographers back then processed their photos. Ansel Adams for one was known to process his photos heavily, as well as Richard Avedon, Dave Hill and David Lachapelle. But people still respected them for their skills as photographers.

Yes, there are techniques that cannot be done on-camera, even in the days of film but as long as the captured image is not manipulated it can and should still be considered as photography.

[Ian]

It was still considered Photography back then because "Photoshop" was not invented yet. With that being said and because of the new technology, somehow traditional photography and digital imaging could never be called the same craft. Both have ways of expressing art and I will disagree to consider it still a photography when you add/remove some elements that were not taken in the first place.

[silversurfer]

skillwise old school photography printing as is is better, but with todays software sometimes the essence is lost. minimal PP is okay. everyone wants their photos to be good.