means to an end

[Ysarex]

OK.
As a wood worker and someone who use to build plastic models I can add in my opinion on this that is a bit more on point here.

if the initial product is higher quality, then the photo shopping is minimal.

if the initial product is poor, the end results will show it.

I'm not talking about being sloppy or making mistakes. Don't screw-up and don't waste time trying to fix screw-ups. However it's just as likely that the initial product will be of the highest quality and the "photoshopping" required will be extensive as well. I'm also talking about doing that.

Joe

Sorry I'm busy at the moment and this needs more explanation. It's about extending our capability beyond the limitations of our cameras. It applied historically; That's what The Zone System is about. Zone System practitioners are not sloppy in their methodology. But they jump the hoops that they do because they can't correct the lighting in the scene. The Zone System at it's core is an adaptive methodology that compensates for less than ideal scene lighting.

Move ahead to digital today and the same problem exists. The camera can only take you so far. When the scene lighting becomes adverse (and it frequently does) we can move beyond the limitations imposed by the camera. To do that will likely require more precision and closer attention to detail. It's not about fixing screw-ups it's about extending our ability to do more.

in wood working a poor choice in wood, wood grain, end finish (pre-varnish) will clearly show on a finished product.

In plastic model building and in the automotive finish industry, your base ( the unfinished work) will show its flaws no matter how much primer paint, glue, filler or anything else you put on.
And if it doesn't show at first it eventually will.

From my perspective, the GI-GO mantra is only true to the extent of the initial photograph. Do all the adjusting you want. If its poor to begin with, it will be poor int he end.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

This is a bit six of one, half a dozen of the other but all the same you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so my feeling is getting as much done towards the end result before the image leaves the camera is always a plus point.

I wasnt thinking so much "garbage in" as i was something more along the lines of: is a good photographer/great photoshopper = great photographer/good photoshopper.

Obviously you want the best shot you can get right from the shutter release, but do you ever reach a point of diminishing returns? IE: a point in your photography where learning better processing skills would get you better results than more camera skills?



Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

The camera is a tool to produce as good a latent image as possible, the darkroom is where the finished photo is created. The digital process doesn't differ that much in principle from the chemical one, imo. Making a good job of the negative doesn't guarantee a great photo but a bespoke suit from sackcloth is rare. Camera and processing skills are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP It's not about fixing screw-ups it's about extending our ability to do more.

Elegantly stated.