Photography without Photoshop

[Felix0890]

FACT: Photoshop makes you look cool.

 

[LokiZ]

How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"

Do you need to add PP? No.

Sure you do! Perfect set-up does NOT equal perfect shot. You don't read posts. Digital cameras do NOT perfectly replicate a scene. Of course with a limited "eye". some photographers don't realize that basic fact.

Postprocessing IS REQUIRED to make that supposedly perfect setup to equal a perfect shot.

skieur

I guess I'll start with I "usually' agree with the bulk of your posts. Actually have taken away quite a bit from your work here. Maybe that is due to my "untrained eye". In any case I do thank you for all the post I have taken away positive feedback from.

I don't think the op was looking for wrong or right answer more a list of multiple opinions from us so as to form an opinion she/he could form on their own. I could be wrong. I don't read posts.

Yes, and digital audio to the "trained ear" is lacking what true analog can bring to the table. so your statement about digital cameras not being able to perfectly replicate the scene... My vocation being in electronics I can fully agree with you on that one. That much is fact for sure. but to define what all people will accept as guidelines for the perfect will never happen.

So in ending... I would love to have a trained eye such as yours. I honestly would. Hell, I would even settle for better eyes that don't border legally blind without glasses. But all we can give out is opinions as the OP requested. Some how I believe that should you Skieur, weed out all you deem as untrained in the eye department... there would still be differing opinions on how much pp is deemed excessive or inadequate as to create the "prefect shot"

Anyway start up the poll! me and Skieur have our answers ready and poised to submit.

My opinions stand firm as I am sure yours do also. I respect you for that. And I am sure that in the future I will find myself taking away positive feedback from you again Skieur, no harm done.

edited: "dang dislexia anyway!"

 

[LokiZ]

FACT: Photoshop makes you look cool.

LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?

 

[LokiZ]

Fact: When an OP asks us if we usually use PP to make our photographs look good, I am pretty sure they are asking us about the PP that we can actually control not the automated PP created inside our cameras in fractions of a second.

Ok so it's not a fact... I just like writing the word "fact" in front of what I type. Makes me feel cool like an Apple user!

 

[epp_b]

LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?

Not possible. Photoshop has more than one button.

 

[DennyCrane]

LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?

Not possible. Photoshop has more than one button.

Post of the day.

 

[Village Idiot]

I didn't see this post yesterday. Has anyone mentioned that some one posted this exact same question last week...and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that...

 

[skieur]

How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"

Do you need to add PP? No.

Sure you do! Perfect set-up does NOT equal perfect shot. You don't read posts. Digital cameras do NOT perfectly replicate a scene. Of course with a limited "eye". some photographers don't realize that basic fact.

Postprocessing IS REQUIRED to make that supposedly perfect setup to equal a perfect shot.

skieur

I guess I'll start with I "usually' agree with the bulk of your posts. Actually have taken away quite a bit from your work here. Maybe that is due to my "untrained eye". In any case I do thank you for all the post I have taken away positive feedback from.

I don't think the op was looking for wrong or right answer more a list of multiple opinions from us so as to form an opinion she/he could form on their own. I could be wrong. I don't read posts.

Yes, and digital audio to the "trained ear" is lacking what true analog can bring to the table. so your statement about digital cameras not being able to perfectly replicate the scene... My vocation being in electronics I can fully agree with you on that one. That much is fact for sure. but to define what all people will accept as guidelines for the perfect will never happen.

So in ending... I would love to have a trained eye such as yours. I honestly would. Hell, I would even settle for better eyes that don't border legally blind without glasses. But all we can give out is opinions as the OP requested. Some how I believe that should you Skieur, weed out all you deem as untrained in the eye department... there would still be differing opinions on how much pp is deemed excessive or inadequate as to create the "prefect shot"

Anyway start up the poll! me and Skieur have our answers ready and poised to submit.

My opinions stand firm as I am sure yours do also. I respect you for that. And I am sure that in the future I will find myself taking away positive feedback from you again Skieur, no harm done.

edited: "dang dislexia anyway!"

To simplify things,

1. if you have a good "eye", then you recognize that PP is for more than just fixing mistakes and therefore necessary.

2. If you don't recognize that PP is necessary for more accurately depicting the scene, then you don't have a photographic "eye", since you don't "see" the differences between the camera shot and the view with your eyes.

So, the "photographically blind" non-photoshop users would probably pick number 2, and the "picky" photoshop users would pick number 1.

So, the simple question is NUMBER 1 or NUMBER 2??

skieur

 

[mdith4him]

Thanks again for all the posts guys! LokiZ, you're right--I really just wanted to know what people do and what they don't do for PP, not an argument!

As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it? It should have been fairly obvious by the subject of the thread what would be discussed and your "I've already seen this a million times" comments aren't helpful. But last time I checked this was a beginner's sub-forum and so I'm asking a beginner's question. Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).

The rest of the poster's comments have made me rethink this issue entirely and I'll definitely add "Learn how to use a PP program" to my ever-increasing list of things to learn about photography!

 

[Village Idiot]

Thanks again for all the posts guys! LokiZ, you're right--I really just wanted to know what people do and what they don't do for PP, not an argument!

As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it? It should have been fairly obvious by the subject of the thread what would be discussed and your "I've already seen this a million times" comments aren't helpful. But last time I checked this was a beginner's sub-forum and so I'm asking a beginner's question. Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).

The rest of the poster's comments have made me rethink this issue entirely and I'll definitely add "Learn how to use a PP program" to my ever-increasing list of things to learn about photography!

Because one day I'm hoping noobs will learn how to search.

 

[mdith4him]

As noted previously, I did do a search for "photoshop" in the handy search box at the top of the page. Apologies for not reading through 14 pages worth of results.

 

[Village Idiot]

As noted previously, I did do a search for "photoshop" in the handy search box at the top of the page. Apologies for not reading through 14 pages worth of results.

10 of which were probably "Is Photo Shop a crime", threads.

 

[mdith4him]

Many of them looked more like "Photoshop Tips" and people asking how to do certain things in PS.

 

[Casshew]

For all the cameras I've had, and all the photos I've take over the years, I can honestly say there was only a handful that were perfect, in my opinion just the way they were, straight from the camera.

I don't know if that makes me a lousy photographer :blushing: but when it happens, it's an awesome feeling to look at your pic and say "I wouldn't do a thing to it" :thumbup:

 

[kkamin]

You need a darkroom to print film negatives. By virtue of the process you make corrections and creative adjustments in order to produce a print.

As many have already commented, digital PP is just an offspring of the chemical darkroom. Everything you see in print (magazines and newspapers) has been touched (not bad touch).

I suppose if you want to shoot jpegs and not post process, you could see it as analogous to shooting slide film or Polaroid. But imo it doesn't make you more pure or natural; it is just another type of creative choice. I think people who believe that there is an objective, more natural form of photography don't understand what photography is on a deeper level. The camera is converting an infinite resolution, infinite color, temporal, three dimensional world into a very defined 2-D artifact. Our brains recognize the symbols within photograph, but it is just a piece of paper or backlit LEDs on a display. There is nothing natural about photography. You are always creating illusion.