Photography without Photoshop

[DennyCrane]

Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.

 

[NateWagner]

Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.

+1

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

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!

Well, actually, you asked "My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?" You did not ask what people do, or don't do. :er:

As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it?

I hate responses like this, too. :er:

Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).

This is often a problem in getting the information you are looking for. Instead of using a brand name (Photoshop) had you searched for 'post processing' or 'editing' you would have found amazingly different results.

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!

Cool, just remember, you are less of a photographer if you rely on photoshop to make your images better!





:lmao:

 

[Village Idiot]

As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it?

I hate responses like this, too. :er:

Ever go and re-read any of your responses to certain post lately?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Which responses, which post, what, where?

 

[fast eddie]

My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore? I'm not talking about all the crazy effects you can do; I just mean things like fixing the sharpness, making an underexposed photo look brighter, or editing out distracting elements.

I think the big question we're all over looking is: as a Photoshop user, do you think it is necessary to use a camera to get great looking post processing or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use one anymore?

 

[LokiZ]

Chuckle :thumbup: ^

 

[NateWagner]

I think the big question we're all over looking is: as a Photoshop user, do you think it is necessary to use a camera to get great looking post processing or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use one anymore?

I have seen images that I would have sworn were a photograph but were really done entirely through photoshop.

That being said, I think there is a good reason that question has not been thought of here, because it's not something that people that typically frequent this forum would consider.

 

[matfoster]

"..the less art there is in painting the more painting there is." Pablo Picasso.

 

[dhilberg]

Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.

Speaking of Arizona Highways, the latest issue features a Q&A session with a photographer by the name of Joel Grimes, and some of his work is also featured (including the cover shot).

Anyway, one of the questions the photo editor asks him is right on topic with this thread:

You do a lot of postproduction work with your digital images. What's your take on technology versus artistry?

His response (boldface added for emphasis):

We often put the cart before the horse. The cart is the technical process, and the horse is the creative process. The minute we let the cart pull the horse we become technicians, and that's boring. The argument that a photograph ceases to be a photograph if you apply too much postprocessing doesn't hold up because we all draw a different line as to when we have gone too far. I look at myself as an artist first, and I happen to use the photographic process to fulfill my vision as an artist. Where to draw that line is of little interest to me. If you put the cart before the horse, you'll spend a lot of time talking about where that line is drawn.

I really agree with what he has to say here. We all draw our own line as to when too much is too much. I'm not sure why this topic gets so much regular discussion. Photographers have been "creating" images since photography has existed. It's no different than a painter "creating" an image, or a sculptor "creating" his/her latest work, etc. It's all about the vision of the artist.

 

[NateWagner]

But, if you're riding in the cart, and you aren't attached to the horse you're going to have a problem in getting anywhere.

Nobody on this forum would seriously say that the PP work is more important than the photo itself. Rather, the argument is that in the case of the cart and the horse, the two of them complement each other.

 

[kkamin]

But, if you're riding in the cart, and you aren't attached to the horse you're going to have a problem in getting anywhere.

Nobody on this forum would seriously say that the PP work is more important than the photo itself. Rather, the argument is that in the case of the cart and the horse, the two of them complement each other.

I think most people do put the cart before the horse, and the cart is why there are so many threads dedicated to camera bodies and lenses or technical skills like dragging shutters or color management. It seems like most enthusiasts approach photography like a construction worker whereas photography is more like being the architect or artist. Or people approach photography like a hammer and nail instead of a paint brush and canvas. I understand that it is easy to feel ownership over what you are doing if you can define it--like learning how to use a polarizing filter or remove noise from an image. Conversely, learning the creative applications of photography can be difficult to talk about and it is hard for a lot of people to feel that same sense of progression as when they learn concrete, technical skills. But I feel photography is all art. There is an underlying "why" to every shutter click. And every technical skill related to photography is a tool to support that "why" and is not an end on to itself.

This is the only art form I know where the art aspect is so ubiquitously ignored by its practicioners. I believe if you view photography as a process of creation or as an art, a lot of these PP issues would vanish. The camera isn't an objective recording device and never has been. The raw, unprocessed images coming out of the camera are not objective recordings. I agree with dhilberg in that you create photographs, and believe any creative photographer would agree too.

Joel Grimes, the person who made the horse and cart analogy, is a good example. He is a portrait photographer, but he feels he is first and foremost an artist. If you look at his images, they rise high above mediocrity; you feel that his images are full of ideas, themes, motifs, and he posses a profound understanding of expression. You don't see pictures of people standing on tie die bed sheets in his basement. And I doubt be gets into equipment debates with anyone.

http://www.joelgrimes.com

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

This is the only art form I know where the art aspect is so ubiquitously ignored by its practicioners. I believe if you view photography as a process of creation or as an art, a lot of these PP issues would vanish. The camera isn't an objective recording device and never has been. The raw, unprocessed images coming out of the camera are not objective recordings. I agree with dhilberg in that you create photographs, and believe any creative photographer would agree too.

This is one of the funny things I find here. The "I want to be a photographer, because I like taking pictures" sensability. I have yet to see anyone come here and say, "I am looking for a new hobby, I think I'll be an artist." In my time here, I have gotten the sense that people feel, to be a photographer, all you need is a camera. Creativity, talent and even a grasp of the language of "art" is rarely considered to be a part of the equation. The majority that come here are simply going to learn how to take better snapshots. Repeatedly you see people use techniques simply because they can, like selective color, or vignetting, for example. They aren't thinking about whether the particular technique works for a given image or not, they do it because they want to.

My favorite thread ever, is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."

:er:

 

[kkamin]

This is one of the funny things I find here. The "I want to be a photographer, because I like taking pictures" sensability. I have yet to see anyone come here and say, "I am looking for a new hobby, I think I'll be an artist." In my time here, I have gotten the sense that people feel, to be a photographer, all you need is a camera. Creativity, talent and even a grasp of the language of "art" is rarely considered to be a part of the equation. The majority that come here are simply going to learn how to take better snapshots. Repeatedly you see people use techniques simply because they can, like selective color, or vignetting, for example. They aren't thinking about whether the particular technique works for a given image or not, they do it because they want to.

My favorite thread ever, is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."

:er:

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking up photography as a hobby or being an enthusiast. Everyone takes pictures and I can see how a lot of people want to get better at it. I have hobbies that I know I will never master, either because I don't have the time or aptitude, but do them because I enjoy them. I'm not judging people who want to pursue photography short of being an expert at it.

But I find it somewhat ironic that the creative side of photography is ignored for most. For the casual shooter, photography can be pictures of your kids growing up. For the enthusiast it can be pictures of ducks in your backyard or of classic cars. But photography can also be Man Ray, Robert Frank, Richard Avedon, and Cindy Sherman. It can express the feelings and attitudes of a culture. It can capture beauty in a unique way and as profound as any art form. It can inspire social change. The creative forces at play in great works, are identical in the enthusiasts work. But more often than not, they are not being harnessed or recognized. For the photographer who isn't addressing the creative side of photography is creating somewhat arbitrary works--they are not in full control of their image making.

The reason I am saying this is, is that I am restating my belief that if photography is viewed as a subjective process of creation, a completely creative endeavor, the PP question would be a non-question.

I suppose if paintings could somehow be created in 1/500th of a second or music could be scored and recorded in that time, there would be similar issues in those mediums.

 

[Proteus617]

My favorite thread ever, is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."
:er:

Hey guys! I think I need a hobby and decided to take up oil painting. I bought a neat oil painting machine. It's the XJ3000, paid $973 dollars for it at Best Buy, do you think I got a deal? So, I went outside, pointed it at a duck (I set the big "mode" knob to "duck"). I pushed the button, and it painted a picture of a duck! But my picture of a duck sucks! It doesn't even look like a duck. I really like your picture of a duck. What mode did you use? Maybe I should save up for the XJ4000.