Same goes for digital photos, being manipulated leaves traces.

And i bet the analogue photos were believed by the majority with just the professionals knowing the difference, same as with digital

Incorrect....which you dont seem to understand *LOL*

So you are telling me all my photos have been manipulated?

There are different forms of photography also, that needs to be taken into account. Some take photos for just themselves, others take them to use as an artform (generally varying degrees of manipulation), others do HDR photography (this is where i wanna head to at some stage), which is 3 photos of the same thing with different values put together to make an enhanced photo.

Photography has advanced no doubt, but there are still those photographers that use film cameras and darkrooms, no photoshop ect

The Authenticity is still there, it has not disappeared. Same as back when, they manipulated or not to the levels they could with what they had, wether they be professionals or not. Today we are no different, we manipulate or not to the levels we can with what we have. And in the future they will do no different.

Just because technology is here doesnt mean photos are less authentic. If you doubt a persons work ask, most have no problems telling you if the photos has been touched.

If i want to get to the level a trained professional is, your an idiot if you think i dont need to pay shitloads for the equipment needed. For normal old joe blow though a cheap and easy program will do, you will definately not get the same level of results though, same as in the past.

You get what you pay for


Frogshit is all i will add to that!!

Is there some level of disagreement here?

Just checking.

I'll say this much...the joys of Photoshop and its ilk have spared the denizens of Pixies from having to see random zits on my ass, so for that I am (and I'm sure you all are) exceedingly grateful. :D

LMAO

You are mistaken. The manipulative capabilities in Photoshop work just as well on a "regular old" desktop or laptop as they do on a high-end machine. They just work more slowly.


The results that may be obtained with Photoshop by Joe are orders of magnitude greater than he would have been able to produce using analog techniques.


In the digital age you need pay nothing, while in the analog age the same capabilities would have cost big $$$.


I'll let that stand by itself.

Here, let’s try a little experiment.

How many pictures did you revise for the 5 years before you were able to manipulate them digitally?
How many pictures did you revise for the 5 years after you were able to manipulate them digitally?

Now multiply the second number by the count of copies of Photoshop sold. That is why I say the authenticity of photographs is a victim of the digital age.

You really are stupid lol

I didnt take many pictures prior to digital age, what i did take i didnt manipulate at all (no darkroom) nor have i to this day. You just dont get it, i dont really manipulate my photos, as stated if i feel it needs that much work i just reshoot.

If i do manipulate a photo to me it is no longer a photo (as in the original) but art, and art is how the artist sees it.

I appreciate the photo/art for what it is and the photographer/artist for what they achieved, wether it be stuff from the dark ages or stuff done now or stuff to come in the future.

I dont own photoshop, nor have any interest in doing so.

The authenticity of photos has in the past and always will be suspect that has never changed, it has nothing to do with technology....

I'm not talking about just the machine *L* Photoshop is not the be all end all of programs available and to get into the high end manipulations you need the best of the best and yes you WILL pay for it. A regular old machine would NOT run even the photo program i have properly *LOL*


Again you dont get it...regadless of magnitude analogue and digital are quite capable of being manipulated, and as such you cannot fully blame technology


Thats called progress, there is much from the past that would have cost me the earth that is now far cheaper in now days. If you use a free program, you get what you pay for, as i have stated previously. You want to do high end work you will require a high end program, and to have that you will pay $$$, no different to in the past.



Good because its relevant *L*

I'll leave that beside your frogshit.


I'm not surprised that you did not have then, nor have now, a darkroom. It cost (and still costs) big $$$ for a darkroom with the tools needed to manipulate analog photographs.


That too is a result of transitioning from analog photography to digital photography. When a roll of 24 or 36 Kodachrome cost real money, one thought before shooting. But that's not something I miss.


That doesn't change the fact that before the digital age of photography, photograph manipulation was the domain of the professional who had invested the $$$ in the necessary tools. Now any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, and often do.


While interesting, and no doubt true, that has nothing to do with the fact that before digital photography, people rarely, if ever (you being a perfect example) manipulated their photographs. "Why" do I hear you ask? Well, I'm glad you did, because that gives me the opportunity to let you know that it was very difficult.


Congratulations, I guess.


Nonsense. Photographic evidence was routinely admitted in court, and the reason it was was because faking a photo well enough to fool the court was beyond the means of almost everyone.

Photographic evidence is still used in court! LMFAO

I didnt have one purely because i wasnt 'into' photography enough to warrent one.


I pretty sure that me getting prints done of my digital photos also costs real money *LOL*



And proper photo manipulation is still the domain of professionals who have invested in the things required to do it to the point it isnt immediately noticable or apparent. It can be quite easy to pick out when done by the normal joe


Very difficult does not equate to it was NEVER done. I never did it back then as i never had an interest in doing so.
I am however VERY much into my photography and yet still i touch the photos very little if at all. I am proud of getting a shot that doesnt need work, as are most photographers.

If a person put themselves out there as a professional, and then they need the high end equipment to make a photo worthy, they are not professional photographer they are an accomplished artist in my eyes.

Little joe trying to make there photos presentable, which the majority would be is a far cry from the amount you seem to think are around

Anyway....i'll stand by my photos have always been manipulated

I did not say it was. What it is is a broadly recognized digital picture manipulation program. The name is in the process, if not already there, of being used as a verb; "I photoshopped it".


Except that Photoshop will run acceptably on an everyday machine. *LOL*, as you say.


Hmm ... must have a very interesting Tec spec, eh?


Actually, yes, I do. Having enjoyed b/w photography for many years (why b/w & not color? Because the shades of grey in b/w pics are easier to manipulate than color, which with it's color gradients can be essentially impossible to manage well), and having used Photoshop to revise my digital pics, I am passing familiar with both technologies.


I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean I don't mourn the demise of an old friend.


That precipitous drop we all enjoy is due to the transition from analog to digital technologies.


I have found that one can do quite respectable work with some of the freebies. Windows Live Photo Gallery ships with Win7, is an example.


You are mistaken. You can do quite remarkable photo massaging with Photoshop, and the list upgrade is $200.

Here is a pic (unretouched?) of a very old friend.

And when it has been "enhanced" to improve clarity, the court will so advise the jury, as what they are being shown is not the photograph from the camera.

If the jury is not so advised, and the enhanced/retouched/massaged photographs are admitted as evidence, a conviction can be successfully appealed on that basis.

*LOL*, as you say.