Thoughts on Photoshop?

[KamesG]

I know a lot of people have something against photoshop when it used to extreme measures. Beyond your basic touch-up. Leaning more on the photo manipulation side.

As a photographer I see nothing wrong with it. I love to edit the color, tones, and just about anything else to extreme measures.

Thoughts and opinions?

 

[KamesG]

Perhaps this is a better example of what I mean,

 

[Derrel]

Photo illustration, like your last sample, is perfectly fine. Photo illustration is a time-honored craft. It differs from "photography" in some major ways. The world is big. There is plenty of room for both photographers, as well as for pixel-pushers, and for everybody in between.

 

[MichiganFarts]

I got no probs with it. Me likes!

I really don't have the talent for some of that stuff, so I personally just stick to minor editing.

 

[Blitz55]

I use photoshop to Illustrate and paint my drawings.

So most likely I will use it to edit my photos around. But as a novice Id like to get better at taking a good photo with no editing really or slightly some instead of leaning on my PS knowledge and just manipulating a photo. If that makes sense.

 

[SlickSalmon]

Considering how he slaved over his images, I often wonder what Ansel Adams would have done with Photoshop.

 

[Garbz]

Your top three examples have nothing to do with photoshop. These arguments have existed long before photoshop. But what is critically important is not what other people think, it's what YOU think. It's your hobby and no one should be telling you how to do it.

This is an image published in a book in 1981. I don't know the history of the image itself. But the book predates Photoshop 1.0 by 6 years.

 

[skieur]

The true colour is pink and blue with a totally different look.

skieur

 

[Trever1t]

the less one is familiar with it the less it will be familiar

 

[Novux]

Generally, the more artistically/illustratively it departs from the original image, the more I enjoy it. Isn't that what PS is for?

Not a fan of airbrushing or similar "beauty products" though. To each his own.

 

[KamesG]

Your top three examples have nothing to do with photoshop. These arguments have existed long before photoshop. But what is critically important is not what other people think, it's what YOU think. It's your hobby and no one should be telling you how to do it.

My top 3 are all photoshopped. How do they have nothing to do with photoshop?

No one is telling how to think. I asked people's opinions.

 

[Garbz]

Not Photoshop specifically. My point was that there is nothing new in Photoshop. A lot of people think that digital perverted the art because of photoshop, but in reality people have been doing edits in the darkroom long before hand.

I pre-empted the telling people what to think bit. Many of these threads turn into a post processing vs natural style pissing contest. If it does, ignore them. It's your opinion that counts

 

[PASM]

That's great!

This is an image published in a book in 1981. I don't know the history of the image itself. But the book predates Photoshop 1.0 by 6 years.

 

[KenC]

Check this out:

Amazon.com: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (9781574881660): Dino A. Brugioni: Books

 

[Sportsphotoguy]

I'm with you, Photoshop is great. If you ask me, Photoshop was created for "extreme measures". Why else would one pay so much for it? You don't pay $600 for a "basic touch-up" program. That's what Photoshop Elements is for. Photoshop is for those of us who can create art and make money from our art. I use it to make sports posters for little league parents. I think that those who don't like PS for extreme measures just don't know how to use it.