Dependence on Photoshop?

[Dr_Totenkopf]

Hay guys I am still new to photography only a handful of roles of film under my belt. But I have noticed that when someone gets a sightly off photo people go straight to Photoshop, and not back to the field. Shouldn't people to get a shot the first time and not in post? I have a stack of National Geographic magazines going back to the early 80's and the pictures in 85 are just as good as 05. I know most people don't have hundreds of roles of film for a shoot, But then DSLR cameras don't have that problem now do they. I may not be as senior here as a lot of you but I do think that my peers (new photographers) are becoming too dependent on post.

 

[Austin Greene]

Hay guys I am still new to photography only a handful of roles of film under my belt. But I have noticed that when someone gets a sightly off photo people go straight to Photoshop, and not back to the field. Shouldn't people to get a shot the first time and not in post? I have a stack of National Geographic magazines going back to the early 80's and the pictures in 85 are just as good as 05. I know most people don't have hundreds of roles of film for a shoot, But then DSLR cameras don't have that problem now do they. I may not be as senior here as a lot of you but I do think that my peers (new photographers) are becoming too dependent on post.

Post is a tool, and tools are meant to be used, but only to an extent. Does it replace being able to capture the image you want in the field? Absolutely not, but in some cases while 99% of that shot you want lines up, that last 1% just wont, and post can help with that. Going out and trying to recapture a photo that didn't quite come out how you envisioned it is near impossible in many cases. I do agree, however, that in some cases post is used too much. If your taking a photo and composing it while thinking to yourself "eh, I can just fix it in post, no reason to really worry about it right now" as far as things like composition basic lighting goes, then you might have a problem imo.


Also, "hay" is for horses

 

[chuasam]

I consider myself an image creator, not as much a photographer. Contrary to popular belief, to get a great image, you have to first start with a great photograph. I consider the photograph right out of my camera as the raw product. Much like the fact that the file format that I shoot in is RAW.

Harken back to the early days when people ate food pretty much as it was found (before fire was discovered), I consider Photoshop a way to finish my images. I am able to fix the inevitable spots and minor blemishes on the models, sometimes stray hair or irregularities in the background (or that damn sensor dust). I can create mad fantasy images that do not even exist in real life.

this for example is a composite of two separate faces on top of a third body of a completely different gender.

Retouching is a new art form in itself. Much like the way Photography was treated in the days of Stieglitz and the other pioneers. Just as surrealism can exist alongside pictorialism, retouching is yet another way to bring realism into the surreal.

*end of soap box*

 

[Bossy]

You know people who shoot film process and post process too right?

 

[chuasam]

You know people who shoot film process and post process too right?

Shhhhhh Don't spoil it for him. Next you're going to tell him that Santa isn't real.
Truth is...Photoshop just makes it easier. See?

 

[EIngerson]

You have NEVER said WOW to a photo that had no PP done to it. Ever

 

[bianni]

Photographers before go straight to the darkroom to process their films (reversal or negatives) then during enlargement, crop and correct color through filtration on their enlargers , do some dodging and burning. With reversal, your exposure has to be on the dot but corrections can be made during color separation prior to printing or using transparency duplicating films and do some corrections during exposure. For slightly overexposed transparencies, they duplicate the original using contact process and align with the original as in photoshop during blending in multiply mode. For more detailed retouching they did dye transfers.
Photoshop just made it easier doing it outside the darkroom.

 

[ann]

I come from the tradition school of photography which taught us to get it right in camera, and that still holds true for me and i stress that in my classes.

Post processes are for being creative. Either in the darkroom or on the computer.

There is nothing wrong with trying to correct something in post processing but what drives me crazy is the lazy photographer who doesn't take the time to get it right and just says or thinks "oh, well, I will FIX IT later.

THat for me is a different mentality.

 

[jriepe]

My cousin who is getting into photography as a hobby recently bought his first DSLR, a Nikon D3100. He sent me an email saying he's not pleased with many of the images. I sent an email back explaining to him that pressing that shutter button is but one step in the digital process and that image editing is a huge part of photography. When an image is slightly underexposed, the white balance is off, a busy background needs to be blurred, something in the image needs to be cloned out most photographers will want to enhance that image instead of leaving as is. What do you gain by leaving it as is? I can't recall an image I was totally happy with straight from camera. A digital camera will capture a lot of information but at times the information captured needs to be brought out in post processing. Sharpening an image can bring out detail that you wasn't even aware was there.

But I will say, in the beginning I, myself, was questioning post processing. That was before I fully understood it and thought it was something used as a tool of deceit like turning a blue jay red or turning green eyes blue. Once I got into it and learned why image editing is done I would never be without an image editing program. Ever look at a picture of a Playboy playmate and marvel at such perfect skin? Was it really that perfect or do you suppose some image editing just may have been done and even during the days of film?

Jerry

 

[jaomul]

There will always be disagreement here me thinks. I see it like this. If your camera only shoots jpeg, it has a software editor built in that makes the tweaking decisions for you, you bring your card to the machine and get them printed. Statistics are often made up on the spot but this is prob 95% of the worlds photos right now. This I think is comparable to taking shots with a generic film and bringing it to your 1 hr photo lab.(by the way great photos have been made here)

If you can adjust the setting on your camera for sharpness contrast etc, your getting a bit more creative somewhat like the person who picks a specific type of film due its properties.

If you edit your photos yourself on a computer (maybe in raw) you are making the decisions that your camera was previously making for you. This is like the guy who knows what he is doing with a negative, processing it in a specific way. The digital camera can add or take from a photo depending on the way it is set up, a film camera should not have any impact on the photo, it just has the settings for the shot to be taken (like a raw file from digital)

I was on a weekend away recently and had my camera but no other gear (tripod or filters etc) and saw a scene that I liked but thought no matter hoe I meter this the sky will be to bright or the land to dark. I shot it in raw using evaluative metering, knowing that I could have a stop either side to balance the exposure (or cheat in photoshop as some will say). A guy using film could do the exact same thing in a darkroom, although using film he may have a dynamic range advantage.

 

[imagemaker46]

Before all the computers and software photos had to be shot right the first time.(reshoots weren't always an option) Yes work was done in the darkroom, and it took a different type of skill. Photoshop is a great tool, but it has become a crutch for people. The attitude of "so what if it's not right, I can fix it later" isn't the way to become a better photographer. Getting as much right in the camera is what helps people learn how to take a picture.

I learned on film, have shot hundreds of thousands of rolls of film, I made mistakes along the way. I like digital, it makes some areas easier, but in the end I still get it right in the camera first. The rule I work with is, what could have been in the darkroom is ok for digital.

 

[Overread]

I have to say most of the serious photoshop users I know - the kind of people who do and will make big changes to the original photo are normally even more paranoid about getting it right in camera. If you have to change or adjust things in the editing stages you always lose out somewhere - be it resolution, quality or simply hours and hours of time.

In the end I don't mind how people shoot - you can do almost no editing or you can make a collage - just so long as you don't try to lie to me (by all means take a picture of a captive animal and photoshop it into the wilds - but when I ask how it was done don't dare say its a natural wild shot )

 

[jake337]

My cousin who is getting into photography as a hobby recently bought his first DSLR, a Nikon D3100. He sent me an email saying he's not pleased with many of the images. I sent an email back explaining to him that pressing that shutter button is but one step in the digital process and that image editing is a huge part of photography. When an image is slightly underexposed, the white balance is off, a busy background needs to be blurred, something in the image needs to be cloned out most photographers will want to enhance that image instead of leaving as is. What do you gain by leaving it as is? I can't recall an image I was totally happy with straight from camera. A digital camera will capture a lot of information but at times the information captured needs to be brought out in post processing. Sharpening an image can bring out detail that you wasn't even aware was there.

But I will say, in the beginning I, myself, was questioning post processing. That was before I fully understood it and thought it was something used as a tool of deceit like turning a blue jay red or turning green eyes blue. Once I got into it and learned why image editing is done I would never be without an image editing program. Ever look at a picture of a Playboy playmate and marvel at such perfect skin? Was it really that perfect or do you suppose some image editing just may have been done and even during the days of film?

Jerry

Getting it right in camera isn't about leaving it "as is". It gives one a better base exposure to work with in post production.

You take a piece of **** and paint it gold. It's still ****.

or

You can take a piece of gold and create a beautiful piece of jewelry.

 

[Overread]

I'm also just going to post this:

 

[naptime]

those national geographic images from 85 were processed also. it was simply done in a darkroom instead of Photoshop.


and i think you'll find that most photographers get it as right as they can in camera first. because it saves time in Photoshop.

any pp that has to be done, takes time. time costs money. the less work they have to do in pp the higher their profit margin.