Poll

[transformed]

Hmmm.... well, we have all seen Photoshop done really poorly, and it was NOT art. But great Photoshop takes skill and creativity- which to me defines artistry.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The answer is no. Kthxbai.

 

[CJ Hopper]

Photography has always been about manipulation, so changing the method of manipulation does not change the nature of the art form. One might say Photoshop has changed journalism or marketing, but not photography itself. If you are only clicking a button and printing, you are only half a photographer.

 

[CSR Studio]

Most of what Photoshop is, is just the digital equivelent of darkroom techniques that have been used for over 100 years in photography.

Everybody says this but it really isn't true. I have never had a healing brush, patch tool, color replacement tool, clone stamp, pattern stamp, history brush, eraser tool, gradient tool, blur tool, sharpen tool or smudge tool in any darkroom I have printed in.

By the way, I voted no but we all know that photoshop can go too far.

 

[skieur]

Hi

This is really a question of personal preference, style and workflow. My own preference is never to use Photoshop other than for creating post shoot contact sheets for client. I make all of my image adjustments as RAW files in Capture One and then process them into JPEG and TIFF. This doesn't stop me from having massive admiration of the photographic style of others who use Photoshop creatively to enhance their images. For me it's just a question of a faster workflow.

Adam
Commercial Photography - Portfolio - Adam Coupe Photography

Having looked at your work above, I would do a lot of basic selective lighting improvements and colour correction in many shots to get them up to the level of the architectural photography that I have seen elsewhere.

Faster workflow by the way can easily be achieved by the use of plug-ins to Photoshop reducing 15 steps to 2 steps for example.

skieur

 

[rufus5150]

A lot of people use PS to try and make a crap shot look good, i use it as little as possible

My crap shots don't need PS to look good.

Well, My crap shots don't need to look good to look photoshopped!

 

[Josh66]

Hmmm.... well, we have all seen Photoshop done really poorly, and it was NOT art. But great Photoshop takes skill and creativity- which to me defines artistry.

I have seen ART done really poorly.

Just because some people suck at it doesn't mean it's bad or should be avoided.

(Just because I quoted you doesn't mean that was directed at you.)

 

[Czar]

Since i use a DSLR, i feel that the camera itself is doing a lot of digital manipulation of the image, so i dont have a issue with post processing via Photoshop.

 

[fiveoboy01]

It's not doing much manipulation if you're shooting in RAW.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

photoshop merely speeds up the process of the same things ansel adams and other old famous photographers did on their pics.

 

[Village Idiot]

Most of what Photoshop is, is just the digital equivelent of darkroom techniques that have been used for over 100 years in photography.

Everybody says this but it really isn't true. I have never had a healing brush, patch tool, color replacement tool, clone stamp, pattern stamp, history brush, eraser tool, gradient tool, blur tool, sharpen tool or smudge tool in any darkroom I have printed in.

By the way, I voted no but we all know that photoshop can go too far.

Your dark room was pretty poorly stocked.