Can PhotoShop really fix everything

[Bitter Jeweler]

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?

 

[Early]

Re-cropping aside, it wouldn't surprise me if PS hurts more originals than it helps.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

 

[Derrel]

Who has been credited with the phrase, "you can't polish a turd?" I ask because I've honestly never heard or read any solid attribution for that quote, but I think it applies to Photoshop and bad photography. It seems that there are many new practitioners of photography who are anxious to polish their work, blissfully unaware of the phrase.

 

[Boomn4x4]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

:lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Who has been credited with the phrase, "you can't polish a turd?" I ask because I've honestly never heard or read any solid attribution for that quote, but I think it applies to Photoshop and bad photography. It seems that there are many new practitioners of photography who are anxious to polish their work, blissfully unaware of the phrase.

Yes, but this is in fact "The Beginners Forum", and editing in all it's forms, even when on "bad" images, teaches. It teaches beginers what needs to be achieved in camera, and how that can be accented later, if so desired. It teaches people to be aware of backgrounds. It teaches people that they need to get the exposure correct. It teaches people to pay attention to their focusing. It's excellent training wheels for a beginner. It gives them some reward, no matter how little, to keep going.

I think the OP posted this in the wrong place. To criticise a bunch of noobs while they are learning. Take the argument to some 'all pro' forum, where you all can stroke your beards and wax poetic.

:er:

 

[mwcfarms]

It's interesting to me that no has made a comment on this part of her post.

I think a lot of people need to go back to film and learn the hard way. Maybe they would respect photography and what it takes to make a GOOD photograph.

Why is it that people seem to think that learning "the hard way," is the best way of learning? Let's follow your logic to it's obvious conclusion. If people need to learn the hard way, then why don't you go and use the wet plate collodion process to take pictures? I mean, you'll certainly learn a lot by creating your own glass plates. It's also a lot harder than working with 35mm film, so maybe it'll help you to respect photography even more.

Whether you shoot film, digital, or glass plates is irrelevant. The "hard way" isn't another way of saying, the "better way." "Hard way" simply means the "hard way," nothing more, nothing less.

As far as photoshop is concerned here, it can't fix everything. It can cover up mistakes, but getting things right in camera is your best way of making the best photograph. Let's not forget also, that just because you shoot film doesn't mean you can't use photoshop.

This point is the best one I have read. :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?

let me correct myself - if I'd spent ages rebuilding a shot from the ground up I'd want to be known as a digital artist or something along those lines rather than a photographic artist because the photo is such a small part of the overall finished work..

It does however bring up the subject of photographic artists (people for whome its not just about getting it right in camera, but who will use the photo only as a part of the finished work and might heavily edit) - again this is where the quality of work often determins if the work is accepted or not - people who do this well are often accepted whilst those who do it poorly have not only their method, but the idea itself snubbed at.

 

[reznap]

Why do the threads with ZERO PICTURES get the most replies and traffic on TPF?

Let's stop the madness people.

 

[Overread]

thread has pic - now is legal thread - lets continue

Because as enthusiasts about photography we can do more than just look at pics, we can also talk about whole aspects (dicussion) of photography.

 

[Rrr3319]

[quote

thread has pic - now is legal thread - lets continue][/quote]

:lmao: wait... did you PHOTOSHOP that lemur in????

 

[Arch]

Slightly OT..

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?

Actually not always no. It very much depends on the individuals opinion to whether a photographer is an artist, or if the photographer himself considers that what he does is art.

If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man...

So again, like all things to do with art, it is subjective.

 

[Village Idiot]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

I did this all in camera; no Photoshop at all.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Slightly OT..

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?

Actually not always no. It very much depends on the individuals opinion to whether a photographer is an artist, or if the photographer himself considers that what he does is art.

Yes, that is all well and good, but by Overreads logic, the person using PS to that extent is not an artist, but a Graphic Designer. Further, the guy with the blank canvas is a Painter, the guy that works with marble is a Sculptor.

If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man...

He'd probably get tons of infractions here for his bluntness.

Most Universities offer photography the the "School of Fine Arts".
Whether that guy calls himself an artist is pretty moot. People can call themselves, or not, whatever they want. Photography is still conventionally, an art form.

So again, like all things to do with art, it is subjective.

As is the use of photoshop in photography, and for anyone to say one way is better, or proper, or more "pure", is quite frankly, stupid.

Funny that you then just grouped this into the Art category.

I'll also add, for fun, that, if the photographers output is print then he is a Printmaker.

 

[Overread]

Slightly OT..

...because a photographer is not an artist? What?

Actually not always no. It very much depends on the individuals opinion to whether a photographer is an artist, or if the photographer himself considers that what he does is art.

Yes, that is all well and good, but by Overreads logic, the person using PS to that extent is not an artist, but a Graphic Designer. Further, the guy with the blank canvas is a Painter, the guy that works with marble is a Sculptor.

Huh? I used the words digital artist not graphic designer
And lets not sway into are graphic designers artists or not

If you ask someone as infulential as Brian Duffy, if he is an artist, he would say that he was nothing more than a craftsman in a working industry. He never considered himself an artist, nor does he now, even if thousands of people in Londons art and fashion world tell him he is.
He is known for saying that 'all artists just talk sh!t'... he is a very blunt and open man...

He'd probably get tons of infractions here for his bluntness.

Most Universities offer photography the the "School of Fine Arts".
Whether that guy calls himself an artist is pretty moot. People can call themselves, or not, whatever they want. Photography is still conventionally, an art form.

So again, like all things to do with art, it is subjective.

As is the use of photoshop in photography, and for anyone to say one way is better, or proper, or more "pure", is quite frankly, stupid.

Actually I think context is something important in this grouping. We are trying here to decide if a photographer is an artist and if the use of photoshop makes them more or less of a "photographer". However I think we are failling to take into account the context of what this hypothetical photographer/artist/creature is producing and for what final output/outcome/intent.

I would say that someone who does journalist work might view their creations as something very different to an abstract photographer. The process for both is very similar - take a picture - but the context, output and intent are all very different things.

And then of course we have to consider the other side of the arts and that is viewers. Because once something is out to the world it is they who also have to decide just what it is to them - some might say that the journalists work is indeed art, other might say its a good record/capture.

Similarly the amount of editing used/allowed (by either a key influencial group (eg the guys boss) or the photographers own standards) will differ greatly based on the intended output as well as the "authenticity" of the image that the photographer is hoping to recreate (and that of course opens up a whole new bag of considering just what is and is not authentic within a photo)