Photoshop Debate

[Dao]

I think this thread is making a turn .......

Anyway ... it is all about the end result. If a professional (I am... of course ..NOT) photographer finish a photo shoot. And do his/her routine process and hand the end result to his/her client. The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.

 

[Rekd]

The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.

That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!

 

[oxcart]

The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.

That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!

Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here. I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs. For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere. It's for the love of driving.

 

[Buckster]

I think for me it comes down to a subtle distinction in definition.

I don't consider every Tom, Dick and Harry who calls himself a photographer an actual photographer, at least not in the classic sense of the term. There are literally millions of people who think they are photographers because they can now afford decent gear, get enough readily available info online to figure out how to use it well enough to take a pretty picture of a flower, and have their friends and family go "ooh" and "ahh".

But just because there are millions of those people these days, that's not to say that the technical knowledge or ability is lost or dying when it comes to the real, true working photographers out there, including the ones that are still learning their craft. They don't deserve to be written off with the sweep of a generalized hand that says or implies that they don't know what they're doing or why, based on the fact that a million Tom, Dick and Harrys don't.

Nor do they or the photographic industry as a whole deserve to endure disparaging remarks because Photoshop is a part of the modern work flow, just because Tom, Dick and Harry use it too.

Tom, Dick and harry won't be shooting for the cover of Vogue, Time or National Geographic, no matter how good they are with Photoshop, and there's a reason for that. Those who actually do those shoots however, obviously know the craft, and not all of them are old guys and gals. And those who will do so in future and are just learning their craft now - same thing.

As already stated, in the end, here's where the rubber meets the road: The finished product and the client's satisfaction with it.

 

[Buckster]

The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.

That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!

Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here. I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs. For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere. It's for the love of driving.

Then don't even bother loading your camera. Just walk around looking through the viewfinder, adjusting aperture and shutter speed, applying filters, and pressing the shutter button.

 

[terri]

Some of you need to tone it down a notch. Let the discussion continue without personalizing it!

I've received a couple of reported posts on this thread already - I'll have to close it if you can't police yourselves.

Carry on!

 

[oxcart]

That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!

Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here. I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs. For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere. It's for the love of driving.

Then don't even bother loading your camera. Just walk around looking through the viewfinder, adjusting aperture and shutter speed, applying filters, and pressing the shutter button.

I expected you would reply with something like that. Well done.

 

[bp4life71]

I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography.

I told him I personally thought it actually envolved more artistic ability... Because its art when you find the picture.. and shoot the picture... And its also a form of art when you're editing the photo.. Seeing the photo and what would look better and make the photo stand our more, and applying it...

I was just curious as to where some of you would stand on this subject if you were in this conversation. I know probably 50% or more of photographers edit there photos.. Anyways, just an innocent, curious discussion?

I side with the OP. I think their is more art in photos that involve editing. Realistically, if you can get the shot out of the camera to look the way you want...thats ideal. Realistically though, that can be tough. There is no shame in editing your photos. Think of the photo as the framing of the house, but the rest is all you and art.

I say do what you like!

 

[bp4life71]

Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS. How you got there will not matter to a client or 99% of the people looking at your photo.....

Unless your a geeked up photo guy (like most here, and you are NOT THE MAJORITY) it won't matter.

I don't look at photos that have been edited and say, wow, that picture doesnt look so great anymore because they edited it. I just simply say, thats a great picture.

Who cares how the final product got to be the final product. Half the stuff guys are doing with full frame 3k plus cameras, I can do with my Canon XS and 5 min. of photoshop. Maybe thats what their mad at!

Carry on!@

 

[Plato]

I can appreciate where Derril’s coming from. Years ago, those that did not thoroughly understand the basic principles of photography were relegated to Kodak Brownies with black & white film that had almost a 6-stop latitude. Quite simply, the problem was that SLRs were unbelievably difficult to use. Hell, I doubt if more than a dozen TPF members have ever used the manual functions that were S.O.P. when I started shooting. At the opposite extreme, any computer geek can buy an automated SLR today and create a polished turd in Photoshop.

 

[Buckster]

Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here. I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs. For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere. It's for the love of driving.

Then don't even bother loading your camera. Just walk around looking through the viewfinder, adjusting aperture and shutter speed, applying filters, and pressing the shutter button.

I expected you would reply with something like that. Well done.

Thank you kindly.

Seriously though, I love the process as well. I love the tactile connection I get with a mechanical camera operation in particular. When I meter a couple of key spots and average them for exposure, advance the film, cock the mirror, turn the aperture and shutter dials, dial in that focus with a close look at a split image focusing screen, compose on the ground glass, press the plunger for the mirror lockup, then another plunger for the actual shutter trip, I'm in camera geek heaven.

But it means nothing if I don't have an image at the end of it all to validate what I did with all that, because I DO have a goal - a photograph that displays not just a particular scene or subject, but that also demonstrates some competence on my part.

If I had to choose between playing with cameras that produce no photos, or making photos without a camera, I'd choose the latter, and I'm pretty sure any client would agree with that decision.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[oxcart]

Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS.

For you. Not for me.

 

[Village Idiot]

I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography.

I told him I personally thought it actually envolved more artistic ability... Because its art when you find the picture.. and shoot the picture... And its also a form of art when you're editing the photo.. Seeing the photo and what would look better and make the photo stand our more, and applying it...

I was just curious as to where some of you would stand on this subject if you were in this conversation. I know probably 50% or more of photographers edit there photos.. Anyways, just an innocent, curious discussion?

I side with the OP. I think their is more art in photos that involve editing. Realistically, if you can get the shot out of the camera to look the way you want...thats ideal. Realistically though, that can be tough. There is no shame in editing your photos. Think of the photo as the framing of the house, but the rest is all you and art.

I say do what you like!

So if I sharpen a RAW file that comes out of a camera as well as add contrast and adjust saturation, is that considered art?

 

[Dao]

And someone may setup a darkroom at home, because he/she enjoy the process in the darkroom. Same for those who enjoy tuning their work with the digital dark room.

Let's take an example, one can use a film camera and take multiple shots of a flower and create a end result with Orton effect. The other can take one shot of the same flower and create a end result with Orton effect digitally.

The end result can be the same. So, it doesn't really matter how you do it.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You guys are still going on about this? Yeesh. Cloud hit it on the head; you want to put limits on your work, that's fine, just don't bother me about it and don't accuse me of "cheating" nor play the self-righteous-holier-than-thou card.

Anyone want some?

Can't believe 2 more pages of this have been added since you brought out the popcorn... :lmao:


Guess I'll join you