Dependence on Photoshop?

[ph0enix]

Post processing is not a choice when shooting in RAW. If you don't PP, you end up with an unfinished product.

 

[SCraig]

There are limits to everything. I always get a chuckle when I read people who claim that everything HAS to be right straight from the camera because I know for certain they are shooting nice, static subjects that never move. The last time I asked a bird in flight to wait right there while I moved to get a better composition it didn't work well. The same thing happened when I asked a guy who just had a wreck in a race car if he could do it again since there was a distracting background I'd like to get rid of.

The world is not static, it is dynamic. Photographs are not always of static subjects, frequently the subjects are dynamic. I shoot a lot of wildlife, birds, and motorsports. They will not cooperate and position themselves so that the composition is just right. Most of the time I put myself in the best position I can find and hope for the best. That best being for me to get the focus right, the exposure close, and worry about the niceties of composition later. I leave my field of view a little wide so I have room to crop the image, straighten horizons, and so forth.

To me the software I use today, just like the darkrooms I used for many years before that, is nothing more than an extension of my camera. They are not different, one is the extension of the other. Of course I try and get things as close as I can when I trip the shutter but if the shot is a bit under or over exposed it's not the end of the world. If I need to fix something to get the image I want then I fix it and never think twice about it.

People who are relatively new to photography tend to think most of the digital techniques we use today are magical new tools for working with photographs. Those of us who have been around for a while know that they aren't. There are very few, if any, techniques used today that weren't first used in a darkroom. The post above that showed one person's head on another's body is nothing new. I did it once 35 years ago in a darkroom. It was certainly more difficult then but it wasn't impossible.

Both the camera and software are tools that are mutually beneficial to the final image. How we choose to use them is up to each of us as individuals.

 

[bazooka]

I tend to agree with chuasam... I try to view my photography as art, and although it strongly represents reality, I am not tied to reality like a photojournalist is. Having said that, I don't use it as a license to shoot carelessly and then come back and try to "fix" everything. I treat it more like a paintbrush and the photograph is my canvas. This liberates me to make any changes I want so I can present not the scene as the camera saw it, but as I saw it, and I'm not bound by any ethical boundaries other than what I place on myself. I DO have ethical boundaries - limits on how far I will go to manipulate the photograph, but these are personal and subjective.

 

[Helen B]

You have NEVER said WOW to a photo that had no PP done to it. Ever

Well I guess that you've never seen a good show of projected 35 mm transparencies ("slides", "chromes", reversal film), and certainly never seen any transparencies in medium or large format.

We still shoot large format pictures on reversal film and the client, and everyone else, still goes 'wow' when they see them on a light table. The idea that you need PP to produce great images is nonsense. The main reason the client likes chromes is that he sends the printers the exact image he wants, they just do the scanning and CMYK conversion, and the chrome becomes the example for the final printed image during the color show.

 

[imagemaker46]

There are limits to everything. I always get a chuckle when I read people who claim that everything HAS to be right straight from the camera because I know for certain they are shooting nice, static subjects that never move. The last time I asked a bird in flight to wait right there while I moved to get a better composition it didn't work well. The same thing happened when I asked a guy who just had a wreck in a race car if he could do it again since there was a distracting background I'd like to get rid of.

The world is not static, it is dynamic. Photographs are not always of static subjects, frequently the subjects are dynamic. I shoot a lot of wildlife, birds, and motorsports. They will not cooperate and position themselves so that the composition is just right. Most of the time I put myself in the best position I can find and hope for the best. That best being for me to get the focus right, the exposure close, and worry about the niceties of composition later. I leave my field of view a little wide so I have room to crop the image, straighten horizons, and so forth.

To me the software I use today, just like the darkrooms I used for many years before that, is nothing more than an extension of my camera. They are not different, one is the extension of the other. Of course I try and get things as close as I can when I trip the shutter but if the shot is a bit under or over exposed it's not the end of the world. If I need to fix something to get the image I want then I fix it and never think twice about it.

People who are relatively new to photography tend to think most of the digital techniques we use today are magical new tools for working with photographs. Those of us who have been around for a while know that they aren't. There are very few, if any, techniques used today that weren't first used in a darkroom. The post above that showed one person's head on another's body is nothing new. I did it once 35 years ago in a darkroom. It was certainly more difficult then but it wasn't impossible.

Both the camera and software are tools that are mutually beneficial to the final image. How we choose to use them is up to each of us as individuals.

I have to agree with what you have said. I remember doing a professional sports team picture and one of the players was missing, we left enough space of him in a couple of the frames, I came back the following day at the same time shot a single frame of him and went back to the darkroom. It was a cut and paste, make a copy neg and print it. It looked ok, but all in all it took over 24 hours to end up with the team picture. It would have taken the same amount of time to do the original photos, but about 30 seconds to add the player in photoshop, and not a few hours. I shoot sports and still try and shoot as tight as I can so that I don't have to spend days at the computer, fixing things. Getting the exposure as close as possible is the big thing, the rest is as you said, cropping, fixing horizons, the minor elements.

Now if photoshop came with the smell of a darkroom I wouldn't miss that side of photography as much.

 

[jake337]

There are limits to everything. I always get a chuckle when I read people who claim that everything HAS to be right straight from the camera because I know for certain they are shooting nice, static subjects that never move. The last time I asked a bird in flight to wait right there while I moved to get a better composition it didn't work well. The same thing happened when I asked a guy who just had a wreck in a race car if he could do it again since there was a distracting background I'd like to get rid of.

The world is not static, it is dynamic. Photographs are not always of static subjects, frequently the subjects are dynamic. I shoot a lot of wildlife, birds, and motorsports. They will not cooperate and position themselves so that the composition is just right. Most of the time I put myself in the best position I can find and hope for the best. That best being for me to get the focus right, the exposure close, and worry about the niceties of composition later. I leave my field of view a little wide so I have room to crop the image, straighten horizons, and so forth.

To me the software I use today, just like the darkrooms I used for many years before that, is nothing more than an extension of my camera. They are not different, one is the extension of the other. Of course I try and get things as close as I can when I trip the shutter but if the shot is a bit under or over exposed it's not the end of the world. If I need to fix something to get the image I want then I fix it and never think twice about it.

People who are relatively new to photography tend to think most of the digital techniques we use today are magical new tools for working with photographs. Those of us who have been around for a while know that they aren't. There are very few, if any, techniques used today that weren't first used in a darkroom. The post above that showed one person's head on another's body is nothing new. I did it once 35 years ago in a darkroom. It was certainly more difficult then but it wasn't impossible.

Both the camera and software are tools that are mutually beneficial to the final image. How we choose to use them is up to each of us as individuals.

Exactly! Do the best one can in all aspects first, fix later if needed.

It's the "I don't have to worry about any of this, I'll fix it later" mentality that is hogwash.

 

[imagemaker46]

You have NEVER said WOW to a photo that had no PP done to it. Ever

Well I guess that you've never seen a good show of projected 35 mm transparencies ("slides", "chromes", reversal film), and certainly never seen any transparencies in medium or large format.

We still shoot large format pictures on reversal film and the client, and everyone else, still goes 'wow' when they see them on a light table. The idea that you need PP to produce great images is nonsense. The main reason the client likes chromes is that he sends the printers the exact image he wants, they just do the scanning and CMYK conversion, and the chrome becomes the example for the final printed image during the color show.

Well said. I used to shoot alot of transparencies and clients would want the un-processed film, to meet deadlines. It was shoot, in the fedex bag and shipped, it had to be right, it was pretty stressful until I got a call back saying it all looked good. I would put together side shows for clients as well, ship hundreds of slides to stock agencies, they all had to be composed, exposed correctly the first time, no room for error. Your post reminded me of those stressful days. Thanks.

 

[SCraig]

.... Now if photoshop came with the smell of a darkroom I wouldn't miss that side of photography as much.

Funny how we sometimes miss the small things that we never even gave a second thought to at the time

While the thought of darkroom smells does bring back memories I don't want to think about software that could provide a smell sensation! If they ever make that work I think I'll sell my computers.

 

[jriepe]

My cousin who is getting into photography as a hobby recently bought his first DSLR, a Nikon D3100. He sent me an email saying he's not pleased with many of the images. I sent an email back explaining to him that pressing that shutter button is but one step in the digital process and that image editing is a huge part of photography. When an image is slightly underexposed, the white balance is off, a busy background needs to be blurred, something in the image needs to be cloned out most photographers will want to enhance that image instead of leaving as is. What do you gain by leaving it as is? I can't recall an image I was totally happy with straight from camera. A digital camera will capture a lot of information but at times the information captured needs to be brought out in post processing. Sharpening an image can bring out detail that you wasn't even aware was there.

But I will say, in the beginning I, myself, was questioning post processing. That was before I fully understood it and thought it was something used as a tool of deceit like turning a blue jay red or turning green eyes blue. Once I got into it and learned why image editing is done I would never be without an image editing program. Ever look at a picture of a Playboy playmate and marvel at such perfect skin? Was it really that perfect or do you suppose some image editing just may have been done and even during the days of film?

Jerry

Getting it right in camera isn't about leaving it "as is". It gives one a better base exposure to work with in post production.

You take a piece of **** and paint it gold. It's still ****.

or

You can take a piece of gold and create a beautiful piece of jewelry.

Jake,

Maybe you misunderstood my reply. I was not implying that any and all photographic mistakes can be corrected in an image editing program. Naturally we want to get it as right as possible straight from camera but I'm sure you as well as all know that small tweaks need to be made on many images. And I'm willing to bet that the ones who are randomly shooting and thinking all can be fixed later are very few.

Jerry

 

[Dr_Totenkopf]

Well I guess that you've never seen a good show of projected 35 mm transparencies ("slides", "chromes", reversal film), and certainly never seen any transparencies in medium or large format.

We still shoot large format pictures on reversal film and the client, and everyone else, still goes 'wow' when they see them on a light table. The idea that you need PP to produce great images is nonsense. The main reason the client likes chromes is that he sends the printers the exact image he wants, they just do the scanning and CMYK conversion, and the chrome becomes the example for the final printed image during the color show.

I may of sounded like I hate Photoshop, I don't. I just think newbies should restrain from it as much as humanly possible. Getting good or great pictures from there camera should be what they strive for. Its like training with leg weights, once you take them off you are faster.

 

[Buckster]

Here's a novel thought: It's nobody's business, concern or problem except for the person who chooses to use it or not.

It's no skin off anybody's nose if someone else decides to use it a little, a lot, once in a while, never, always. It doesn't break anybody's leg here if someone else uses it to produce stuff that most people like or don't like, or whether they refuse to use it at all ever. It doesn't pull anyone's teeth here if they polish turds or make turds out of gold.

It's a crutch! They're not learning! It's not proper! Back in my day...!

Yeah, whatever.

My bottom line: Nunya, so WGAF?

 

[Helen B]

Here's a novel thought: It's nobody's business, concern or problem except for the person who chooses to use it or not.

It's no skin off anybody's nose if someone else decides to use it a little, a lot, once in a while, never, always. It doesn't break anybody's leg here if someone else uses it to produce stuff that most people like or don't like, or whether they refuse to use it at all ever. It doesn't pull anyone's teeth here if they polish turds or make turds out of gold.

It's a crutch! They're not learning! It's not proper! Back in my day...!

Yeah, whatever.

My bottom line: Nunya, so WGAF?

I agree completely. What I did find odd about this thread was the nonsensical notion that you have to use PP to get a good photo.

 

[Buckster]

Here's a novel thought: It's nobody's business, concern or problem except for the person who chooses to use it or not.

It's no skin off anybody's nose if someone else decides to use it a little, a lot, once in a while, never, always. It doesn't break anybody's leg here if someone else uses it to produce stuff that most people like or don't like, or whether they refuse to use it at all ever. It doesn't pull anyone's teeth here if they polish turds or make turds out of gold.

It's a crutch! They're not learning! It's not proper! Back in my day...!

Yeah, whatever.

My bottom line: Nunya, so WGAF?

I agree completely. What I did find odd about this thread was the nonsensical notion that you have to use PP to get a good photo.

Chalk it up to the internet, I guess. The opinions that fly around this place as if they're hard, cold facts that are irrefutable are sometimes comical, sometimes just sad.

We've got untold numbers of people who give full-blown reviews of equipment they've never even held, let alone actually used. Same with techniques in every facet of photography from soup to nuts. They read it on the internet somewhere, or they just get some idea in their head, and now they think they're experts.

I'm always thankful when you and a few other show up in a thread to weigh in.

 

[ann]

:thumbup: ahmen

 

[chuasam]

Getting good or great pictures from there camera should be what they strive for. Its like training with leg weights, once you take them off you are faster.

Oh for sure! I think that noone who hasn't been shooting for 5 years at least should be allowed to use Photoshop.
If anything, becoming a serious Photoshop user has improved my photography because as much as I love Photoshop, I'm there to make new things, not fix past mistakes.