Photoshop made you lazy?

[RacePhoto]

Sometimes it makes more sense for me to re-shoot a photo, than waste time trying to fix it in Photoshop. So being able to edit, is nice for specs and minor fixes. It's wonderful for creative alterations. I can even fix some small things.

But I've found that seeing close up, in photoshop, what I did wrong, makes me shoot better photos, because I'm too lazy to do all that editing.

I was thinking the other night. My favorite tools have changed as I learned more. I'd say my top three right now are Levels, magic healing brush (for fixing spots and blemishes), and crop. (or course the one I use the most, and like best is UNDO.)

I used to think Clone and paint bucket were really interesting. Yes I'll still clone out a car headlight, or litter, that ruins an otherwise good photo, or clone in to fill branches within a tree. But it's to improve things that aren't supposed to be there, not to fix shooting errors.

 

[JamesD]

It just seems like so much emphasis is put on the editing program these days and not on skill. Am I alone in thinking this?

This is nothing new. Even in the darkroom, I'll crop, dodge/burn, retouch (film, or, more usually, print), and sometimes apply special effects if I'm feeling froggy. I try to avoid the necessity, but it's not always possible--like the photograph of my niece where a big fat lake fly managed to appear directly next to her head, in perfect focus (at f/1.4, mind you). Throw it out? Nah. Select, copy, paste, obliterate (in The Gimp, since it was color image and I'm a *nix addict).

On the other hand, post-processing is usually necessary for any image. Contrast/brightness adjustments, cropping, maybe some burning or dodging of areas that are just too light or too dark, or on the borders or corners, perhaps a perspective adjustment... whatever it may be. Nothing wrong with that at all, no matter how you look at it or what tools you use.

However, if I'm "fixing things," especially things that shouldn't be there in the first place, image after image, I start to wonder why I'm wasting my time, especially in the darkroom, where there is no Edit->Undo, and it usually takes at least a couple tries to get it just right... then repeating the process with each print. I just set the negatives aside, or print them as snapshots (which I consider them to be, in that case) and remind myself to pay closer attention next time. I used to have a sticker that I would put on my camera back sometimes which read "PAY ATTENTION, James!"

When people "fix things" image after image, I wonder the same thing: why do they waste their time? Paying attention and learning the simple techniques that keep annoying things out of the image improves the images, challenges creativity, enhances technical know-how, and saves time in post-processing--even if it's simple P-P on the computer. Eventually, when the techniques become habit, it saves time when taking the photograph, as well. So little effort for so many benefits.

As for folks who consistently take bad pictures and "save" them using post-processing (computer or darkroom), I just shrug and move on. It's hard to save a substandard image, whether you're doing it in the dark or on a computer. It's more productive to invest time and effort in pursuing better technique.

 

[elsaspet]

I guess I suck, but PS has saved my life on more than one occassion.
It's also what separates us from our competetors around here.
Truth be told, I doubt you see ANY images in magazines that haven't been pimped in photoshop.
It can make an ok image good, and a good image great.

 

[The_Traveler]

I love Elsapet's posts, there's always something sexy in there.

 

[elsaspet]

LOL Traveler! Not sure what was sexy about it, but ok.....

Now I was pondering how does PS make you lazy? Last time I checked it was an extra step.

 

[skieur]

Although some photographers rationalize their lack of expertise with Photoshop with a variety of "put down" comments related to Photoshop users, (some more diplomatic than others) I think it needs to be recognized that all photos need postprocessing. Despite all the fancy in-camera menus, absolute total control over all aspects of lighting, shadow and highlight detail, colour, tones, contrast, sharpness, focus, depth of field etc. are just not possible.

Beginners often tend to take a too heavy handed approach to postprocessing and then are often given the wrong advice to stay with the original. The beginners are often correct in recognizing the need for postprocessing but the adjustment should have been more "subtle" or a different approach should have been taken.

Most photographers like to spend more time in front of the camera than doing postprocessing, so they make every effort to do all the work at the shooting stage. They do however recognize that they need to be skilled in Photoshop and vary their time spent in postprocessing in line with the importance of the shot.

Any photographer who thinks that they will fix sloppy photography in Photoshop is probably not very talented in either shooting or postprocessing.

skieur

 

[sabbath999]

Truth be told, I doubt you see ANY images in magazines that haven't been pimped in photoshop.

I have a friend in the industry (teen magazine)... she was telling me about the hours upon hours of post processing done by the photo editors on virtually every single shot that appears in her rag, with many shots altered to nearly beyond recognition. As she herself put it "I am a liar with light".

 

[elsaspet]

I have a friend in the industry (teen magazine)... she was telling me about the hours upon hours of post processing done by the photo editors on virtually every single shot that appears in her rag, with many shots altered to nearly beyond recognition. As she herself put it "I am a liar with light".

And that is about the best explaination I've ever heard!!!!!!! I coudn't be more true.
I just posted some raw vs. final (photoshopped to hell and back) in the wedding gallery. Had I been satisfied with what I had, I'd prolly be ok. But..........they are a lot more interesting (and profitable) when I made them into both what the client wanted, and what they could be.
Hugs!

 

[Cuervo79]

I know some people who consider themselves photographer that instead of spending a few minutes adjusting things in their camera, they just say, "I'll fix it later in photoshop?" For example, one guy I know is terrible at getting his shadow in his shot, and he just clones it out later. I know that's an extreme case, but does anyone here think about their shot, aren't happy with it, and just worry about it later on the computer. I personally hate spending time editing pictures, I'd rather get it perfect in camera, then spend less time editing. It just seems like so much emphasis is put on the editing program these days and not on skill. Am I alone in thinking this?

I think as you do I hate editing stuff I could of just taken care of physically before. I do edit my photos though and taking care of things like "a shadow" before taking the photo gives me more time to concentrate on what I want to edit. There are some instances where that is not possible physically like cable lines or something you can't move that takes away from your photo. But as of mistakes I prefer to resolve them before and not in photoshop

 

[table1349]

I personally don't believe that Photo Shop has made photographers lazy nearly as much as the whole Digital media package. Years ago a good film shooter worked hard to get it right the first time and made minor corrections in the dark room if needed.

With digital it seems that far to many people have the spray and pray attitude of taking hundreds of shots to get just a few. While I don't shoot weddings, I am amazed to hear the number of wedding photographers that think nothing of shooting 400-600+ pictures at a typical wedding. Next thing you know they will all be buying 1D MIII's for the high frame rate and averaging 1000+ photos a wedding.

For me Photo Shop is an enhancing tool not a correction tool. If I want that really smooth skin look of a 50's glamour shot or to clear up noise from shooting a night football game at 3200 ISO.

 

[skieur]

With digital it seems that far to many people have the spray and pray attitude of taking hundreds of shots to get just a few. .

The spray and pray approach to photography was around among pros long before the advent of digital photography. I always remember the pro who needed 8 shots of flowers for a magazine. He went to a flower nurserie with 2 camera bodies and almost every lens imaginable from fish eye to 1000mm and using film, shot about 1,000 photos or so, spending the whole day there from sunrise to sunset. In his contract, he retained the rights to any shots that were not used for the magazine, so in the end the photographer benefitted from what some would consider photographic overkill.

My point is that perspective is everything.

skieur

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm not going to single out photoshop, because there's more software out there than photoshop, HOWEVER I will make a broad statement.

Artistic digital photography is worthless without post-production, you might as well shoot slide film, you'd get better results anyway.

It's like people who shoot D76, but don't actually develop and print it in a darkroom themselves.

 

[Battou]

Photoshop and the like are like alcohol, when used in moderation it can be a good thing. Abuse it and it will do more harm than good and it is very easy to abuse it.

Abusing Photoshop leads to liver disease

Very rarely do I use Photo editing software beyond resizing of my digital pics, cropping, a boarder maybe and as of late a periodic watermark. I feel that is basic post production editing. I try to steer clear of manipulating the image however, I have no problems whatsoever taking four of five shots of the same shot with different settings to get it right, and if I fail, I do it again if possible. If I can remove things from a picture during the original composition, I will make an effort to do so, granted yes I fail sometimes but anywho...

In my PL gallery I have an entire four images I would consider manipulated, An assembled pano, a selective color (a bad pic that I reshot this afternoon to boot), a heavy crop and one unnecessary object removal. Before I started QC on that gallery there where over a hundred images in there with some still yet to go, and even then the photoshoping I did on three of them was just playing with it to see what I could do with it, only one was a serious attempt at improving the final picture.

But in the future I may have to use it more often to get a more accurate representation of the image if I can't figure out this scanning issue dealie.

 

[Jus7 A Phas3]

I think a little ps is ok but not a large amout it seems to take the skill out of taking a picture.

 

[Dagwood56]

Here's a thought - what did photographers do years ago before digital cameras, photoshop and computers were around? Did they just not photograph a spectacular view that could be composed from one angle only, because there was an annoying sign or pole etc. in one small portion of it? Or did they take the shot and accept it for what it was? I like that photoshop exists, and it is useful, but I do feel its relied on too often - much like a child who should be learning in school but reaches for the calculator instead of the pen and paper to do the matmatical calculation. Just my opinon.