Anyone else not so crazy about photoshop?

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yes, Wikipedia is known for it's accuracy and truthiness. :roll:The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Go do a search on some of the different types of film used over the years. They all look vastly different from one another. Taking a modern DSLR sensor as an example, the straight RAW image will look very different than the scene the photo was actually taken in. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography. Simply because the idea is so absurd. It means one of two things:1) They don't know how a digital camera or film processing works.Or2) They're making hideous photographs

Don't you have something better to do?? You've typed a freaking photography textbook on this thread. Go play with your precious editing software or something.

Wow, dude. YOU started the debate. Don't berate people for debating. If you don't want to play anymore, walk away.

Argue your point, or give up.

 

[Gaerek]

Don't you have something better to do?? You've typed a freaking photography textbook on this thread. Go play with your precious editing software or something.

I don't remember talking to you in that post. Now shoo.

 

[clemaire]

I don't remember talking to you in that post. Now shoo.

I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography. Simply because the idea is so absurd. It means one of two things:

1) They don't know how a digital camera or film processing works.

Or

2) They're making hideous photographs

Well you sure were talking about me, and in a demeaning way.

 

[Gaerek]

Well you sure were talking about me, and in a demeaning way.

Two things:

1) I don't remember directing that towards you. If you take offense, that's on you.

2) Show me how my statement is wrong.

My point is this. There is NO such thing as a purist photographer. Every good photo you've EVER seen has had some level of processing and/or manipulation done to it. EVERY single one.

 

[Raian-san]

I'm tired of this stupid thread. Are you serious? Are we not suppose to embrace technology and use it to our advantages? There's so many things in your life right now that you're cheating if you want to call Photoshop cheating. Do you drive? Do you take the bus, train, subway? Why not walk? That's the purist form isn't it? Why not do that it instead? What kind of career you're in? Or wait a minute, why are you using the internet? Why not write us all a written letter and put a bunch of stamps on it and ask us about how you feel about photoshop. Seriously, you're so ignorant that it's funny. Like people said, you have no idea about photoshop or how to do it. Just because you take the class doesn't mean you fully understand it. Shi* I take Math courses but that doesn't mean I understand 80% of it.

You're either a troll,, since you just register this month, or just so naive and stupid.

 

[Tkot]

To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating. All these effects people add is cool and all, but its not as special as the original photograph. It's too artificial for my taste. I took a photography class and the majority of the time spent in class was learning how to use photoshop. I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?

I completely agree. I only use Photoshop to scan, re-size and reprint negatives, and occasionally convert to black and white. To me, everything else is, as you say, "cheating", and I'd rather leave the image editing to the graphic designers and stick with the actually photography myself. In my opinion people should focus on getting their pictures right when they take them, not when they edit them on their computer. Not that I'm against manipulation or editing in general, I just think people should try to get it right the first time.

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
Perhaps that affects their opinion?

 

[Edsport]

Getting it right or wrong in camera, a RAW file still needs contrast boost, sharpening etc. because those are not applied in camera...

 

[subscuck]

Getting it right or wrong in camera, a RAW file still needs contrast boost, sharpening etc. because those are not applied in camera...

Then shoot jpeg and let the camera process it for you. Oh, wait, that's still cheating. My bad.

 

[usayit]

So I wonder if portrait painters thought portrait photographers were cheating way way back when.....

 

[coldmm803]

The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.

That is why I said that I am ok with editing to to reproduce a photograph to what the original scene looked like in person.

Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.

There is nothing wrong with a 20mm lens, it is capuring detail that was available at that time. It is not creating details or objects that were not present at the time. The lens isn't adding a castle to an image if there isn't a castle to begin with. I don't know about you but normal people are able to turn their heads, this allows the eye to observe a larger area.

I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography.

I never said anything about being a purist. I suggested that editing is ok to a point, and that after changing out details that don't exist at the time of the photo that it shouldn't be considered a photograph.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

The only people that dislike photoshop ( or photo editing in general ) are people who do not have the correct understanding of it. You probably took a comprehensive semester coarse that covered all sorts of excessive tricks,tools and techniques. The reality is that using Photoshop should be no different than developing film in a darkroom, choosing specific types of film to get a special look, or using filters on your camera. Furthermore, with todays RAW files you have to use an editor not only for the conversion but for minor sharpening due to the design of dSLRs. I suggest you try learning more about photography and photoshop in general. They really do go hand in hand. Photoshop isn't just for pasting peoples heads on other bodies for sh*ts and giggles. Do some people take it too far? Sure. Then again, how far is too far? If it serves the purpose of meeting the vision you had for your art? I will argue though that at a certain point it becomes more digital art and less photography.

 

[Gaerek]

The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.

That is why I said that I am ok with editing to to reproduce a photograph to what the original scene looked like in person.

Are you a photojournalist? If so, I can somewhat understand where you're coming from. Photojournalists need a level of integrity in their photos. I remember hearing a story about a photojournalist that moved the location of a single cloud in his photograph, to make it more pleasing to the eyes. He was right, it was more pleasing, but he also got fired from the publication he worked for and is most likely blacklisted. Most photographers are not photojournalists. The final image is what matters, no matter what tools and techniques we use to get there. The image I referenced earlier is an example of something that you say is wrong, but most photographers have no problem with, because it enhances the photo.

Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.

There is nothing wrong with a 20mm lens, it is capuring detail that was available at that time. It is not creating details or objects that were not present at the time. The lens isn't adding a castle to an image if there isn't a castle to begin with. I don't know about you but normal people are able to turn their heads, this allows the eye to observe a larger area.

First of all, I was using the strict definition you posted. Going by that, using a 20mm lens means you no longer have a photograph. Look in one place without moving your head. Remember what you see. Now pick up your camera and look through that 20mm lens. They look different. The 20mm lens gives you a FoV that is impossible for a human being to see. At extreme wide angles, you get barrel distortion. Our eyes don't see like that. Keep in mind, that I agree with you that using different lenses is ok. I just want to show you why using a strict definition from wikipedia about what a photograph is, is pretty silly.

I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography.

I never said anything about being a purist. I suggested that editing is ok to a point, and that after changing out details that don't exist at the time of the photo that it shouldn't be considered a photograph.

That's my fault. I should have been more clear about who that was directed to. It wasn't directed towards you, more the attitude of some of the people that posted here. But let me comment on your second sentance there.
So where's the line? Is it ok to boost contrast, boost saturation, adjust curves/levels, crop, straighten, sharpen, pano stictch, perspective correct, etc? Can I clone things out of my image? All of these things are used to enhance a photo, but they manipulate what was actually there and do not show it how it actually is. The end result of all of these things is still a photograph. What if I stole a cloud from another image, and added it to a new image? Is it still a photograph? I believe so.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is a general comment to those who thing editing/manipulation is bad. Look at my avatar picture. I'll show the original that one came from, so you can see the detail. I've posted this before, I believe.

Do you see anything at all wrong with this photo? As far as processing and manipulation is concerned, anyway. I realize it's not a perfect image, but I'm here to illustrate something. It looks pretty natural, doesn't it? Let me tell you what I did to this image.

1. Set up on my kitchen counter. Used 430exii flash, mounted on camera w/ diffuser. Pointed up into a reflector which gave some directed light, from the diffuser, and the rest bounced onto the subject to give a softer light. In essence, I manipulated the light to suit my needs. Is that ok to do, purists?
2. I had to hold the stock of the gun to tilt it more towards to camera. It's not lying flat on the counter. Did I cross a line, since the gun couldn't possibly sit like that on it's own?
3. Post-Production now. Adjusted curves/levels - Reason: Image needed boosted contrast, and black/white points were too close together. Essentially, the blacks weren't black, and the whites weren't white. I probably could have even went further with it. Too much, purists?
4. I thought the color of the shells didn't look like what most people thought a shotgun shell looked like. They were more of a purplish reddish color, than the bright red you see, so I adjusted to color on them. Uh oh, I probably just toed over a line now!
5. Since this was taken on my kitchen counter, there were stains and scratches and things like that all over. I'm sure you all know where this is going. I, God Forbid, Cloned them out!!!111one I'm probably going to photographer hell for that one, eh purists?
6. I sharpened the image using a couple different techniques. This isn't nearly as bad as steps 4 and 5, I'm sure...
7. Lastly, I cropped and re-sized for posting online.

In essence, the photo is only helped by what I did. It looks more real, and more natural now. Imperfections that I had little control over, were removed. Is there something wrong with that? Now, let me show you the original, unedited, sooc RAW image so you can see why I did what I did.

It's dull, it's flat, it has serious distracting imperfections. It looks fake, almost. There's a distracting ammo holder in frame. In essence, even though I got EVERYTHING right in camera, without processing, it looks like crap. 10 minutes of work in photoshop, and it's 10 times better. This, my friends, is why we use photoshop. If you want to show off images like the one on the bottom, I won't stop you, but I will tell you what you did wrong (and it will involve using some kind of post processing). Or, you can just shoot jpeg, let the camera decide how to manipulate your photos, and call yourself a purist so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[Tkot]

Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
Perhaps that affects their opinion?

Maybe it's because I prefer being out actually taking pictures than sitting on my ass in front of a screen. Maybe my youthful energy compels me to do so.

I don't know about the OP, but for me photoshop and image manipulation are completely separate things from photography. I'm not against it, I just don't like to do it. If I'm going to pursue photography as a career, I KNOW I'm gonna have to start using it, but at this point, while I'm still learning, I want to get my images as good as they can possibly be right out of the camera. That's my goal.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
Perhaps that affects their opinion?

Maybe it's because I prefer being out actually taking pictures than sitting on my ass in front of a screen. Maybe my youthful energy compels me to do so.

I don't know about the OP, but for me photoshop and image manipulation are completely separate things from photography. I'm not against it, I just don't like to do it. If I'm going to pursue photography as a career, I KNOW I'm gonna have to start using it, but at this point, while I'm still learning, I want to get my images as good as they can possibly be right out of the camera. That's my goal.

An admirable goal and probably the right direction. The unfortunate part, is until you learn to process your photos, you won't know which ones are really good and what settings you used to achieve that.

It is pretty often that we see threads on here about a photographer that has hit a wall...just can't seem to get better and doesn't understand why. Their images recieve praise and they are in focus and they show the subject, but they just don't have that 'wow' factor that they see in the magazines. They become discouraged and think that it must be some 'magical' gift that they just don't have. Occasionally, when they have 'editing ok', as you do(ironically, enough), I will process one of their photos how I would process it just to show them a comparison. Often, it takes about a minute in photoshop to take that same image to the next level...WB corrections, curves, a few targeted adjustments and suddenly they see what they had been looking for but couldn't figure out how to achieve.

There is no such thing as making it perfect SOOC...never has been. Even in the film days. Part of the reason some people hated the transition from film to digital is that they no longer had a crew of lab techs to fix their mistakes. They had just assumed that their pics were the cat's meow straight out of the camera and digital was screwing it up. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.