There is a discussion taking place on the LinkedIn "Digital Photography" group regarding the use of Photoshop. One school of thought says that if you use good photographic technique, you don't need to enhance or alter the image in Photoshop. Another school of thought says that photographers have always processed their photos after the shoot, just in different ways. A third seems to use the no holds barred technique of anything goes. If you can do it then it's OK. In the days of film, custom prints were made using techniques of dodging and burning to enhance parts of a photo. So the argument goes, how does that differ from the use of Photoshop to enhance contrast or bring out color in a raw image? It probably doesn't.
My feeling is that if you are using darkroom techniques with Photoshop to enhance an image without altering the composition, then that is acceptable. I see way too many "pro" shots lately that are overly "Photoshopped" to the point of becoming computer art rather than photographs. In my opinion that is cheating. If you have to add backgrounds, remove clouds, etc, then you didn't take a good enough photo to begin with. My use of Photoshop is primarily using darkroom techniques for some enhancement, but I don't believe in making computer art out of a photograph.
What do you think? I'd love to hear from others on this subject. Send me an email!
