Is it all how you photoshop?

[shmne]

in that case it wouldn't be the photographer or his/her equipment that did the job, it'll be the post processing software that should get the award.

Photoshop doesn't have a "Make good art" button. Rule number one.

It isn't the software that should get the award, but rather the amazing artist that made it.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

There is more to it than "getting it right in camera".

I disagree... as a famous photographer said"

"you can't polish a turd..."

A shot has to be good before you PS it to make it better. Getting it right in camera is where it all starts.

I don't think Bitter was saying that getting it right in camera was not important - but that its only one side of the coin and that the other is editing the shot as well.

Yes, thank you Overread. I was not suggesting you can take a bad image and make it better. I am also rather offended that I am apparently thought of as such an idiot. As my comments have obviously not been read, the art of photography only starts with the image and through PP you can do amazing things you could NEVER do in camera. For purists, the art stops the moment the shutter release is pressed, for others it is only the begining.

 

[Plato]

Is it all how you photoshop[sic]?

Digital is no different than film in that you can't get great images by mastering only the camera. You must also master the darkroom, or in the case of digital, Photoshop and/or its brethren.

Did you process your own Kodachrome?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Did you process your own Kodachrome?

Did everyone have the ability to process there Kodachrame at home?

 

[Plato]

Did you process your own Kodachrome?

Did everyone have the ability to process there Kodachrame at home?

Only those with a quarter of a million dollars to spend for the equipment. That's a quarter mil in pre-inflation 1960 dollars.

 

[rufus5150]

So clearly only people with a quarter of a million dollars (give or take) should be allowed to Photoshop. Adobe is so missing out on a good profit margin! Just think we should all just send our SD and CF cards to some big processor in the sky and get back what we get back and we should like it!

Things change.

For the post-process naysayers I have nothing to say except: Get real, digital photo editing is here to stay and while you stand there perched upon your soapbox with your rapidly decaying purist megaphone, the rest of us are going to sell digitally manipulated images by the hundreds and a new wave of photographic artist will be borne, much as the color did to black and white, and black and white did to formal brush portraiture, which, on and on, down to cave drawings with urine and coal for ink.

To the OP: Yes, every single one of them is photoshopped, or gimped, or apertured or lightroomed, or manipulated some way by some process either by throwing their hands up and letting the system do what it wants to do (let's face it, even in full on manual you're still letting the computer inside the camera do some of the guesswork for you in terms of color rendering), or by meticulously choosing what to apply and how to process the images to get them how they want. Most cameras simply do not boost the midtones the way that the eye finds appealing, and the precise reason that there was such a choice in film types before. You can't really tell a digital camera to 'process this as though it is loaded with type X film which is particularly sensitive to green saturation'. The digital process has moved that decision elsewhere in the image creation pathway.

 

[Plato]

So clearly only people with a quarter of a million dollars (give or take) should be allowed to Photoshop. Adobe is so missing out on a good profit margin! Just think we should all just send our SD and CF cards to some big processor in the sky and get back what we get back and we should like it!

Things change.

For the post-process naysayers I have nothing to say except: Get real, digital photo editing is here to stay and while you stand there perched upon your soapbox with your rapidly decaying purist megaphone, the rest of us are going to sell digitally manipulated images by the hundreds and a new wave of photographic artist will be borne, much as the color did to black and white, and black and white did to formal brush portraiture, which, on and on, down to cave drawings with urine and coal for ink.

To the OP: Yes, every single one of them is photoshopped, or gimped, or apertured or lightroomed, or manipulated some way by some process either by throwing their hands up and letting the system do what it wants to do (let's face it, even in full on manual you're still letting the computer inside the camera do some of the guesswork for you in terms of color rendering), or by meticulously choosing what to apply and how to process the images to get them how they want. Most cameras simply do not boost the midtones the way that the eye finds appealing, and the precise reason that there was such a choice in film types before. You can't really tell a digital camera to 'process this as though it is loaded with type X film which is particularly sensitive to green saturation'. The digital process has moved that decision elsewhere in the image creation pathway.

Your point being that this statement is wrong?

"Digital is no different than film in that you can't get great images by mastering only the camera. You must also master the darkroom, or in the case of digital, Photoshop and/or its brethren."

 

[jealous]

if it is true that all photographers are artists. then you are making an image right? thats what you do - so how you get to the final result doesnt make a difference what-so-ever. infact id say you are more of an artist if you do more PP, because you are creating an image rather than simply recording an image. dont stress it, anyone can take a wonderful picture. just practice - no biggie

 

[UUilliam]

I was into GFX Design before photography, I got into photography mainly to takem y own stock photos with crystal clear images, then i realised images dont turn out like that xD
But it got me into photography, And i really like it, and now i am more into GFX design, photography wise,

I used to be against PP in photography, Arguing, It isnt photography if your editing it
But i edit almost ALL my photo's before i upload it, wither it is minor, or major
it all goes to improving the image (although some just ruin it, but once i upload here, getc&ci then go back revise it, and keep changing it till i get an output i like.)
I learn new photoshop stuff ALMOST everyday
Like the orton effect, The first time i tried it was yesterday
and it is fairly obvious if you look at my thread in the beginners forum "over doing the orton effect?"

 

[Actor]

Ansel Adams, who was trained as a classical pianist, said "The negative is the composer's score. The print is the performer's interpretation." (Probably not an exact quote, but close.) Adams was excited by the possibilities of the coming digital revolution, which he never got to experience fully. Today he might say "The RAW file is the composer's score. The inkjet is the performer's interpretation."

 

[flea77]

I used to be against PP in photography,

Why? Incredible things were done in the darkroom way before Photoshop, how is it really different?

Arguing, It isnt photography if your editing it

Well technically you were correct, it is not photography, it is graphic arts. In your mind does the technical term for what you are doing diminish your work?

Now personally, I am against heavy PP either in the darkroom or in Photoshop as a general rule, but that is my personal taste.

Allan

 

[UUilliam]

I used to be against PP in photography,

Why? Incredible things were done in the darkroom way before Photoshop, how is it really different?

Arguing, It isnt photography if your editing it

Well technically you were correct, it is not photography, it is graphic arts. In your mind does the technical term for what you are doing diminish your work?

Now personally, I am against heavy PP either in the darkroom or in Photoshop as a general rule, but that is my personal taste.

Allan

My quote was completely on digital, I have never touched film unfortunately =[ would like to though, It seems much more exciting.

 

[manaheim]

It's all a matter of opinion, but I don't consider it photography if you were unable to capture anything close to your final product using the camera. It's still art, however, and art using photography as a source... much like paint would be a source for a painter.