Photography without Photoshop

[NateWagner]

yeah, this thread does come back quite a bit doesn't it.

 

[Big Mike]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

I've seen people with that opinion, who aren't new to photography....some are long time pros. They are just new to (scared of) computers. :er:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

I see it as being caught up in the hype of elitism.
Purists are boring. :mrgreen:

The minute they crop, straighten, sharpen, or do anything to the image on a computer, they are hypocrits.
Whatever. :er:

 

[NateWagner]

I suppose there are always outliers (particularly the group of which you are speaking), even so, I stick by my original and unprovable hypothesis that those who are serious about their photography tend to actively PP their images.

 

[epp_b]

Here's the tldr: Processing is not cheating. Period. Believe that it is and you'll never break out of the mediocrity of the snapshot.

 

[Joves]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

No not even close. Some of us have always tried to keep the having to manipulate the photos to a minimum. When I was developing and printing my own film many years ago, I hated having to do alot of work in post. Besides in film you tried to get it pretty much right when shot because of costs associated with lots of screw ups. What I find and have heard people say now is ah it OK I can photoshop that out or, fix that in post. I think I have got the image I wanted now if I only have to adjust levels and, maybe contrast. For many of us old timers it is a habit to try and get it right first and, not later.

 

[mdith4him]

Hello "Photoshop vs. No Photoshop" thread. I hadn't seen you in days!

haha, sorry :blushing: I did a search and didn't find all that much. At least it's not as ubiquitous as the "what type of camera/lens should I buy" threads...right?

Very little has changed since digital except the tools we use to manipulate photos. Retouching, compositing, multi exposure, and just about every special effect I can think or has been done with film. Granted it's cheaper, and not nearly as messy as with a computer but photo manipulation is not a new idea. The grandfather of "workflow" IMHO was Ansel Adams. He didn't achieve those fabulous results in the camera alone. If that was the case he could've sent his film out anywhere to have it developed. He had a very precise PP routine.

Thanks for this! I knew alterations/retouching could be done in a dark room (I took a photo class in high school), but I didn't know the amount of PP that could be done.

I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.

I agree. I posted a similar thread a couple days ago.
Although..it is very tempting when you see all the results of other peoples editing.
I have used it and will use it a lot more i'm sure, but personally i hope to someday be able to get great shots that i wont feel the need to edit at all.
I use Paint Shop Pro 7...simply because ive been using it way before i really got into photography so its what im used to.

I'm sorry but I disagree completely. It's all about the finished Image, whatever it takes to get there. If you start limiting tools where do you stop? Should certain lenses be forbidden? Do certain subjects not qualify as photographs? I've seen a lot of photographs I don't like but they are still photographs. From latin photography means "painting with light". So the only the absence of light would disqualify a photograph? And if you think the little bit of manipulation you've seen is disturbing, well, you aint seen nothin yet!

I can kind of see both sides of this. It seems to me more like the merging two art forms (photography and digital art). I still think it's a photo...just with some extra added stuff thrown in.


Thanks for all the responses!

 

[Felix0890]

Every time this thread comes along, the general consensus towards the end is if you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody's telling you one way is right or wrong. Some love it, some hate it. Just do what makes your funny bone tingle.

 

[NateWagner]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

No not even close. Some of us have always tried to keep the having to manipulate the photos to a minimum. When I was developing and printing my own film many years ago, I hated having to do alot of work in post. Besides in film you tried to get it pretty much right when shot because of costs associated with lots of screw ups. What I find and have heard people say now is ah it OK I can photoshop that out or, fix that in post. I think I have got the image I wanted now if I only have to adjust levels and, maybe contrast. For many of us old timers it is a habit to try and get it right first and, not later.

I don't get the "No not even close"

Maybe I left some out, but one thing I said was

I have found that (at least for me) when I post process an image and put time into it, I see my photograph more critically and I see what I wish I had done differently. If nothing else, putting time into the photo once it is taken is a great learning tool for future images. If once you take the picture you just leave it at that there is less focus on improvement.

Maybe I see things from a different side, but examining the shots afterwards and looking to see what mistakes I made are part of my reason for PP. Yes, I may try to correct some of them in post, but more than that I see what I missed in post, and take care to not have that happen again in the future.

Besides, as has been and will be mentioned Post Processing is always done and has always been done. Getting it right in camera is great, because then when you PP it will be even better.

Also, I have heard people say, Oh I will clean it up later... but I don't hear that much at all.

Instead I hear a lot of people saying they want to have the picture be natural, almost as a cop-out because they don't want to put the time into it. (They're also the ones who won't clean up a flower or separate it from the bunch because that's not how it really is).

 

[Dominantly]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

I see it as being caught up in the hype of elitism.
Purists are boring. :mrgreen:

The minute they crop, straighten, sharpen, or do anything to the image on a computer, they are hypocrits.
Whatever. :er:

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[skieur]

Beyond the other reasons for postprocessing, experts in the technical side have recognized that digital cameras do not replicate the scene the way it actually looks in either RAW or jpeg.

In Color Correction for Digital Photographers Ted Padova says very clearly that every digital photo requires colour correction with some requiring a greater amount than others.

Any photo tends to average out the scene from the brightest area to the darkest corner, from objects that blend in to those that visually stand out and from the palest shade to the brightest and most vibrant colour.
Our eyes tend to see differences within a scene that the camera makes disappear in its averaging of a scene. We tend to see detail in a shadow area or highlight area that does not show up in the photo. We see a pale orange that ended up looking beige in the photo or dark red hair that ended up as brown.

In short, some of us also do postprocessing to bring the photo closer into line with what we saw with our eyes and to make it more "real".

skieur

 

[jnm]

i used a trial version of photoshop to make a few panoramas, but other than that i just use the lightroom 3 beta.

as for now im not using photoshop or any other program like it. mostly because i have neither the time nor the desire to learn it right now and i'm happy with my current results.

 

[epp_b]

Post-processing is not used for "fixing" pictures; it's used for completing them.

 

[DScience]

I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I've come full circle on the question of PP and my feelings have evolved with each stage in my photography.

In the very beginning I didn't have a good grasp of the spectrum of PP, whether digital or in the darkroom. Being a relative purist in most things I began photographing with the mindset that I was going to get the best shot possible in camera and avoid the need for PP. At that stage I found the mindset helpful because it forced me to really learn exposure and manual control of my camera. I wanted to get the perfect exposure in camera every time.

As I learned more about the RAW format I was using, I realized that this wasn't the most practical or realistic approach if I wanted to optimize my photography. When shooting digital my mindset changed to that of getting the most useful information within my RAW file so that I could realize my visualization for that particular shot. I would then use basic color, contrast, WB, etc to make the final image match my visualization. I still try to get the crop and composition in camera because I don't care to do that in PP.

Now that I'm more interested in analog film I'm beginning to understand the extent to which images can be processed in the darkroom. I have studied the process of the masters and I appreciate the extent to which many of them relied upon manipulation in the printing process to realize their images.

My entry into analog was the fully manual Polaroid 600SE. Instant film isn't amenable to manipulation in the manner of other film so my goal when shooting with the 600SE was to nail the metering and get the perfect exposure with the first shot. Although slightly misguided, this served as another exercise in learning exposure and was worth the effort.

Now when shooting film my goal is to get the best possible negative for realizing my vision for the image. Not too different than shooting for the best RAW file in digital. I'm only beginning to understand the extent to which the qualities of the negative can be manipulated in the development process. Enlarging and printing adds a whole new layer of complexity. The process of crafting an image is only beginning at the time of exposure.

All that being said, I have little interest in the highly processed images that blur the lines between photography and graphic/computer design. That is a matter of taste and philosophy. You have to decide where you stand, understanding that your beliefs will evolve as you grow as a photographer.

I will also agree that no amount of processing will FIX a bad picture.