Photoshop and Photography!

Sharkbait · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
So you want to tell me that PS rules over Photography or the other way around?

In my eyes, neither. They're both tools--means to an end. If I go all the way west, I end up in China. If I go all the way east, I end up in China. Different routes, same destination.

vonnagy · Mar 19, 2004

terri said:
As an art form that may become cheapened in value due to technological improvements.

When camera came out - people said the same thing - it cheapens the value of portraits and painting because it was available to the masses. Painter felt threatened by this.

However, did painting portraits and realistic scenes stop after photography became common place. No they became even more valued, imho

It also helped the avdent of super-realism in the art world.

Photoshop and programs have a tendency to scare old school photographers, but i think it will add, not detract from their work. Matt mentioned earlier his love for silver gelatin is a sample of this. Sure anyway can play with these graphics programs, but how many can do well? Does that make them any less of artist?

Contrary to popular belief - it just the same same amount of time to photoshop an image sometimes to achieve what the artist wants than it does for a darkroom artist to achieve their artistic goals.

Only because the medium has moved from photo paper to pixel does not mean they are any less of artist. It does not cheapen their work nor the work of traditional photographers.

:soapbox:

ksmattfish · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
So you want to tell me that PS rules over Photography or the other way around?

Does a hardcore/genuine photographer choose to ignore PS ??

Once upon a time I'm sure there was an uproar when crazy folks started shooting pics on newfangled film rather than glass plates. And Edward Weston had to be talked into printing on gelatin silver paper by his sons.

Photoshop is just another part of photography. How, or if, you choose to use it is up to you. There is not, never was, and never will be a consensus on what "genuine" photography is; it's an opinion. I say you do what floats your boat, and if you enjoy the process, then most likely your work will improve.

As far as "hardcore" goes, I shoot 4x5 while listening to the Dead Kennedys, I'm as hardcore as it gets. At least until a guy shows up with an 8x10 camera. Have you seen these "Ultra Large Format" guys? Those guys are freakin' hardcore!

danalec99 · Mar 19, 2004

Its all about control or command over one's respective area.

danalec99 · Mar 19, 2004

When camera came out - people said the same thing - it cheapens the value of portraits and painting because it was available to the masses. Painter felt threatened by this.

However, did painting portraits and realistic scenes stop after photography became common place. No they became even more valued, imho It also helped the avdent of super-realism in the art world.

Thats an excellent perspective

terri · Mar 19, 2004

I love to get Vonnagy all riled up. :twisted: You tell us, baby!!!

danalec99 · Mar 19, 2004

PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result.

But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!

ksmattfish · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result.

But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!

That's just it. You are the artist. Cameras, chemistry, and software are just tools.

Digital Matt · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!

Better not buy a digital camera then.

markc · Mar 19, 2004

Is the enlarger the artists? Should people only be making contact prints?

Harpper · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result.

But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!

It sounds like you haven't used PS much. A lot of your concerns would be easier explained if there was a way for you to simply try out PS for awhile before you jump to these conclusions.

First of all, PS is not a some magical robot that will just make your pictures perfect automatically. You are always the artist because you have to tell PS what to do in order to make your pictures perfect. For example, you need to know if increasing or lower exposure levels will make the shot better. You are also the one who decides if the lighting is correct for what your focal point is. You are the one who decides if some object is in the wrong place and should be crop. You, the artist, control how things turn out so how can PS be the artists?

I don't want to confuse you even more by explaining PS's full abilities but for the most part PS is primarily used by photographers as a touch up/correction tool. Tool being the key word. If you really don't like PS then the simple solution is to not use it. You can get by without it as a photographer but it's just another tool that can be used to get your pictures the way you want them.

danalec99 · Mar 19, 2004

I never mentioned that I'm against PS. PS in fact is a beautiful tool. I never said that I do not have plans to use it. Certain prfessional work defenitely calls for the US of PS. The whole point is, Photoshop should not take precedence, since it would limit this whole procedure called 'photography'. I'm not talking graphic or digital design here. In graphic/digital design, yes, we use computers to obey our commands. We are the ones who control the show and make the picture better. I do not dispute that factor.

I was just talking about plain old fashined photography!

I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.

danalec99 · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 wrote:

I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.

When we do that, it is the PS that takes the front seat!

malachite · Mar 19, 2004

In the latest issue of B&W magazine (April 2004) one of the spotlight features is on Nathan McCreery. And excerpt from that interview:

I think your epuipment is secondary to the process," McCreery says. "It doesn't matter what kind of camera you are holding in your hands, it's the equipment between your ears that's most important. It's the culture you come from, the way you see things, the way you think - that matters. I believe those are the things that cause one photographer to be different from another. The equipment is completely beside the point. I think it was Paul Strand who said, 'Isn't it interesting that our equipment has improved, and out photographs haven't'".

drlynn · Mar 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.

To me, this is the eqiuvalent of saying, "I don't want to have to take any special steps in the darkroom. I shouldn't have to dodge, burn, crop, etc any oif my images. They should be able to hang on a wall straight from the camera."

I don't think that is a realistic expectation. Changing a photo's white balance, etc while it's still inside the memory of your DSLR is no different than doing it in Photoshop, or in the darkroom.

And I have to disagree with the notion that any average Joe can make masterpieces with a disposable camera and PS. PS cannot correct a blurry photo from a cheap lens. Too much sharpening in PS looks artificial and is easily spotted, even by untrained eyes.
My $0.01 (half-price sale

)