Anyone else not so crazy about photoshop?

[cdimitric]

I agree, Photoshop is just another tool. How you use it is up to you.

Photography IS an art. I think it enhances the art to use photoshop but like any artist, if you dont know the art, no matter how well you use the tools (photoshop), your lack of creativity and skill will show. And with photoshop, once you know the art (photography) you can start to master the tools (example: photoshop) to create some interesting pieces of work.

 

[clemaire]

Is there any limit to the extant of manipulation before it's no longer photography? I feel the skill is no longer needed to take the picture, but to edit it in post.

 

[usayit]

If from an artistic intention... no.... no more than paint or drawings have to portray real life or objects.


If from a journalistic point.... yes.. there is a limit.


Photography as an art or as a tool to record... very different things.

 

[Tomasko]

A limit? There has always been done some manipulation to the photo. Or do you know somebody, who has put an actual film into a frame and then hanged it on his wall? During film days, you needed to possess some chemical knowledge, now you need to know, how to work with a PC. Is that really so HUGE difference? I don't think so.

 

[clemaire]

A limit? There has always been done some manipulation to the photo. Or do you know somebody, who has put an actual film into a frame and then hanged it on his wall? During film days, you needed to possess some chemical knowledge, now you need to know, how to work with a PC. Is that really so HUGE difference? I don't think so.

Hey buddy. That has nothing to do what I just said. Can you take it too far, meaning it doesn't even resemble the original photo anymore? I'm not talking about the minor touch ups done all the time.

 

[clemaire]

I just can't imagine getting satisfaction as a photographer any more than a model should feel a sense of accomplishment who has 10 pounds shed of at the click of a mouse.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Is there any limit to the extant of manipulation before it's no longer photography? I feel the skill is no longer needed to take the picture, but to edit it in post.

You still need great images, done right, to create manipulations that are fantastic. Photo manipulation is a craft in and of itself. It's an art appreciated for what it is. Don't confuse the two. It seems you are not a purist after all.

 

[Compaq]

As with GMO, I prefer the word "modify" instead of "manipulate".

I remember when I made a similar thread. Ahh, the memories

 

[Tomasko]

A limit? There has always been done some manipulation to the photo. Or do you know somebody, who has put an actual film into a frame and then hanged it on his wall? During film days, you needed to possess some chemical knowledge, now you need to know, how to work with a PC. Is that really so HUGE difference? I don't think so.

Hey buddy. That has nothing to do what I just said. Can you take it too far, meaning it doesn't even resemble the original photo anymore? I'm not talking about the minor touch ups done all the time.

Actually it does. If you think that it doesn't, you have never PPd a film in dark room and never witnessed all the "effects" which can be done.... Sure, PC pushes the limits further, but it is still the same thing - creating an ART. You are the photographer, camera is just a tool, as well as photoshop or any other editor. If I want to create some effect for my viewers, why shouldn't I use all the available tools I have? What is wrong about it? Being a photographer isn't about pressing a button, it's about being CREATIVE with your skills (not talking here about some documentary pictures). Understand that and maybe your frustration will be gone....

Don't get me wrong, I don't like overprocessed photos either, but it is up to the photographer, what is he trying to accomplish, what is his goal, what does he want to say to viewers...

 

[The_Traveler]

Actually it does. If you think that it doesn't, you have never PPd a film in dark room and never witnessed all the "effects" which can be done.... Sure, PC pushes the limits further, but it is still the same thing - creating an ART. You are the photographer, camera is just a tool, as well as photoshop or any other editor. If I want to create some effect for my viewers, why shouldn't I use all the available tools I have? What is wrong about it? Being a photographer isn't about pressing a button, it's about being CREATIVE with your skills (not talking here about some documentary pictures). Understand that and maybe your frustration will be gone....

Don't get me wrong, I don't like overprocessed photos either, but it is up to the photographer, what is he trying to accomplish, what is his goal, what does he want to say to viewers...

I wish it were possible to 'like' something more than once.

 

[KmH]

Sorry for offending you by my refusal to use photoshop lol. I'm so foolish

It's a proper noun, so it's Photoshop. It is however often used as a verb, and the lower case is then appropriate.

You couldn't be more wrong. I took a semester course and I know a lot about it. It's the fact that all I learned was photoshop and not about actually taking the pictures

Most college courses teach using Photoshop as a graphic arts tool (with Adobe Photoshop Classroom In a Book as the text), not as a application to be used for finalising a photograph that will not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.

....Can you take it too far, meaning it doesn't even resemble the original photo anymore? I'm not talking about the minor touch ups done all the time.

As mentioned, there is no limit as far as art goes. What is gaudy and trite to one viewer, another see's as being amazing. Art (and photography) is often judged by people who have no visual art education, and thus no basis for determining what might or might not work beyond a viscerial, can't really explain why notion of like or don't like.

Also mentioned is that any photograph is an edited representation of reality even as an original photograph. The camera cannot see (record an image) the way a human sees.

Photoshop is mostly a collection of wet darkroom techniques that can now be done to a digital image on a computer.

I recommend you become very familiar with how a digital camera image sensor, the image file types, and digital image works if you want to control everything in the camera and forgo doing any image editing.

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

Image sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Color depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Visual arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aze]

People who use cameras are cheating. If you want to capture a moment in time, the pure method is to draw it out on a cave wall with plant-based pigments. Otherwise you are just a cheater.

Pssh, you're still cheating, I carve my cave walls with stones I find laying around.

 

[coldmm803]

I don’t like that people change out a background that consisted of houses or an ugly hill with an RV or an unappealing fence and replace it with an attractive sunset or something. This I consider manipulating. The end result may be more appealing but the image is no longer about what was captured in the moment or by finding a more appealing background before taking the initial photo. The resulting image may still be considered art but I don’t think it should be considered a photograph.

I don’t mind people using editing software to enhance the detail in the photo that was taken such as adjusting exposure, saturation… on an over or underexposed sky or something. I also accept using multiple exposures (1 metered for the foreground and 1 metered for the background) taken within a short duration of each other, of the same content and merging them to create a more accurate representation of what the person experienced at that time or was happening around them (in regards to astrophotography and maybe a few other scenarios).

Taken from Wikipedia for photograph “Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see.” Photograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gaerek]

Taken from Wikipedia for photograph “Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see.” Photograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Or

2) They're making hideous photographs

 

[clemaire]

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.

Or

2) 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.