Is it all how you photoshop?

[DScience]

I was just looking at the pictures posted in the professional gallery and they are all so freakin' awesome. They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right? I mean, I know a lot of it has to do with getting a good picture, but I have snapped some good pictures but they don't look as wonderful as those in the professional gallery. There is just a huge difference.

what is the 'professional' gallery?

 

[inTempus]

I was just looking at the pictures posted in the professional gallery and they are all so freakin' awesome. They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right? I mean, I know a lot of it has to do with getting a good picture, but I have snapped some good pictures but they don't look as wonderful as those in the professional gallery. There is just a huge difference.

what is the 'professional' gallery?

This:

The Professional Gallery - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

 

[DScience]

I was just looking at the pictures posted in the professional gallery and they are all so freakin' awesome. They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right? I mean, I know a lot of it has to do with getting a good picture, but I have snapped some good pictures but they don't look as wonderful as those in the professional gallery. There is just a huge difference.

what is the 'professional' gallery?

This:

The Professional Gallery - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

Found it.

But, i think it should be called the 'portrait' gallery lol

 

[manaheim]

The question is... how much photoshopping can you do before it's not so much a photograph as a piece of graphic art?

Massively subjective, of course, but something to consider.

IMO if you have a crappy photograph, you can't make it an amazing one in Photoshop. My take on it is that photoshop gives you a bit of flexibility... on a 1-100 scale of quality, photoshop gives you an extra 10-20 points on any image, depending on how good you are.

It's like having a +20 Camera of Awesomeness!!!!

*cough*

Seriously, though... it'll only take you so far before you have pushed it well beyond anything you could possibly have hoped to capture with a camera... at which point, it becomes the source image that you did some cool graphic art with.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The question is... how much photoshopping can you do before it's not so much a photograph as a piece of graphic art?

I asked about that here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/170397-toeing-line.html

I think like anything its what the artist does with the medium that creates the end product. In my case I love processing. You can do some really cool stuff that you just can't achieve in camera. If a photographer takes great images and does no processing...that's great. If a different photographer takes the same image, and moves it beyond, creating different moods, a different feel, or meaning...that's great too. I believe it is more about what the artist intends. It's what they want you to experience. That is what art is, isn't it? Vision? A lot of my shots are quite boring without PP. But I have also learned to see what I want the end to be going in. Sometimes I am underexpoosing on purpose, because I have learned where I can take it in PP. I have learned to look for very, very subtle colors that I can bring out in post. But I still need to be able to focus, know where to focus, how much DoF to use, how to get it, etc.

So, I think it is all about final product. The art. The vision the artist is trying to convey. Neither the purest or the PP'er should be heralded as being any superior than the other.

 

[Dwig]

Is it all how you photoshop[sic]?

Digital is no different than film in that you can't get great images by mastering only the camera. You must also master the darkroom, or in the case of digital, Photoshop and/or its brethren.

 

[camz]

I think like anything its what the artist does with the medium that creates the end product.

I believe it is more about what the artist intends. It's what they want you to experience.

:thumbup: . It's all about the intention behind the art.


To capture a great shots consistently in my opinion is to already have it visually framed in your head even before you actuate that shutter. End in mind all the time. These make the best photographers IMHO.

 

[SwitchFX]

The biggest difference made with post processing is equal distribution of levels. When you're taking a photo of something, make the shot count. Photoshop should not take a lot of your time, the setup for the particular picture should. Think of it as film, and it's your last frame, make it count the first time!

Of course, that would mean your levels will also be near level, if that makes sense. As soon as you convert to JPEG or PNG, you then want to fix minor flaws which in the end make a large difference.


Then you could do fancy photoshop work, but that's just not authentic. Italians cook with the heart, take photographs with your heart and you'll achieve amazing work, hopefully.


Cheers,
Alex

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Then you could do fancy photoshop work, but that's just not authentic. Italians cook with the heart, take photographs with your heart and you'll achieve amazing work, hopefully.


Cheers,
Alex

Post processing is like fine tuning the spices. Processing also comes from the heart and is part of the art form and the artists individual expression. Post processing can make amazing things happen to create Art that could never be caught in camera.

Not authentic? Please.

While attending a lecture from a longtime pro B&W Landscape photographer, my point above was confirmed. He went went into great detail of the large amount of PP work that goes on in the darkroom on prints he sells for $1500. All you "in camera" purists need to get real.

 

[flea77]

"Getting it right in camera" is a badge of honor for the hobbyist. For the professional, "getting it right in camera" means less time in post workflow and more time doing jobs.

I love this and will use it mercilessly as my own :mrgreen: The hobbyist WANT to get it right in camera, the pro NEEDS to get it right in camera so they can make more money.

I would even go so far as to say 'photographers' aspire to get it right in camera, 'graphic artists' (or photoshoppers, etc) take whatever the camera gives them and makes it work.

Allan

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

There is more to it than "getting it right in camera".

 

[JerryPH]

There is more to it than "getting it right in camera".

I disagree... as a famous photographer said"

"you can't polish a turd..."

A shot has to be good before you PS it to make it better. Getting it right in camera is where it all starts.

 

[Overread]

There is more to it than "getting it right in camera".

I disagree... as a famous photographer said"

"you can't polish a turd..."

A shot has to be good before you PS it to make it better. Getting it right in camera is where it all starts.

I don't think Bitter was saying that getting it right in camera was not important - but that its only one side of the coin and that the other is editing the shot as well.

 

[SwitchFX]

Then you could do fancy photoshop work, but that's just not authentic. Italians cook with the heart, take photographs with your heart and you'll achieve amazing work, hopefully.


Cheers,
Alex

Post processing is like fine tuning the spices. Processing also comes from the heart and is part of the art form and the artists individual expression. Post processing can make amazing things happen to create Art that could never be caught in camera.

Not authentic? Please.

While attending a lecture from a longtime pro B&W Landscape photographer, my point above was confirmed. He went went into great detail of the large amount of PP work that goes on in the darkroom on prints he sells for $1500. All you "in camera" purists need to get real.

As someone said after you, you can't polish turd. ****ty pictures can't get polished up to be fancy. You either make the cut in camera or you do not. Plain and simple.

 

[camz]

As someone said after you, you can't polish turd. ****ty pictures can't get polished up to be fancy. You either make the cut in camera or you do not. Plain and simple.

You obviously haven't seen what photoshop can do. I know how camera purist find it offensive and difficult regarding how PP discredits the "in camera" work, but how can you speak in absolutes towards discrediting a very different department of the art?