Photoshop and Photography!

markc · Mar 19, 2004

I think it's a very worthwhile goal to try to get the image the best it can be at the point when you press the shutter. I also think it's a very worthwhile goal to try to get the image to be even better once you get to the darkroom or in Photoshop. One does not preclude the other.

danalec99 · Mar 20, 2004

drlynn wrote:

They should be able to hang on a wall straight from the camera."

Yes, this is exactly what I had initially perceived. But I now see that there is more to it!

drlynn wrote:

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.

The average joe statement was not meant to be in the literal sense

. It was just a mild reference.

The thing is, if I could play with PS, I do not see the whole point in attempting to take a top-of-the-line shot with my DSLR. I just have to do a mediocre job with the camera and let the PS do the changes. Of course, it is me who would control the PS, BUT its the question of reliance. Should I rely on my lens or the Photoshop to make a better picture?!

Guess its the balance of both. And PS should be viewed as an additional feature on the camera![/color]

markc · Mar 20, 2004

danalec99 said:
The thing is, if I could play with PS, I do not see the whole point in attempting to take a top-of-the-line shot with my DSLR.

I think you still have a misunderstanding of what Photoshop can do. It isn't magic. To me, it's like saying that you don't have to learn to write well because you are using a word processor on a computer instead of a pen. The computer may have spell-checking and such, but if you don't know how to express your ideas effectively, you'll just have well-spelled ramblings, not a masterpiece.

danalec99 · Mar 20, 2004

I see the point now. Its the essay that matters; and not the 'spell check'!

ksmattfish · Mar 20, 2004

ksmattfish said:
There was a famous postcard photographer from Ottawa, KS, I can't remember his name, who did the original "We grow 'em big around here!" giant vegetable pics, giant fish, farm animals, etc...

here's the link to some of this guy's stuff

http://www.photographymuseum.com/talltale.html

joseph · Mar 23, 2004

I remain ambivalent about digital because of it's uncertain truth. Firstly, Yes, film development has similar conceptual frameworks, but... it does not make up for mistake, technical or artistic the way PS does. Well so what? part of excellence in photography is the technical and artistic skils. So call excellence is easier to achieve now, not years of experience but perhaps week or months with a good computer and editing program. Now computer skills determine determine excellence. Secondly, The most "manipulated" film photos, i.e saturated film, filters etc. still will look more like the real thing then manipulated digital with bumped up saturation and other digital tricks. IMO photography is the art of capturing the real. Nothing wrong with digital manipulation, it produces a newer art form, we may have a new name for it at some point. Anyway this is my rant.... I am totally digital, migrated from film about two years ago, digital is too compelling...my goal is to use PS only for cropping and curve adjustment this is IMO closer to the chemical dark room...still working on this goal. I tell you, I could not produce some of my photshoped images with film! I do not have the expertise. Good thread.

drdan · Mar 24, 2004

I recall Robert Heinlein talking about making calculations in the early days of rocketry that took several people, several days to do. There weren't any computers available and the amount and complexity of the calculations for achieving orbit etc were staggering. That amount of work made the results seem a lot more valuable, certainly much more of a personal accomplishment.

To an astronaut though, they just want those calculations to be correct! If accuracy can be more assured with a computer, great.

A lot of the "purity" of getting a picture from proper camera and darkroon technique is lost on viewers who are not photographers themselves. They are interested in the result and often have very little interest in the means.

As someone on this thread pointed out, highly manipulated photos are usually evident to almost everyone and not mistaken for reality. Even a film shot with a polarizer can result in a sky so blue anybody can tell it's not really realistic and that has nothing to do with PS. Photoshop is certainly changing things but people can still tell a good picture from a bad one just as easily as they ever could.

To reiterate what was already said here, computer skills may or may not translate in to artistic talent or even the sensibility to appreciate what looks good and what doesn't. PS can not give you talent, only tools.

As far as I can tell, PS does not have the ability to turn a bad photo in to a good one, believe me I've tried. I think the photographers who excel in the digital era are going to have the ability to take technically good pictures AND the ability to use PS effectively.

danalec99 · Mar 25, 2004

So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!

In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?

The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!

danalec99 · Mar 25, 2004

So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!

In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?

The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!

ksmattfish · Mar 25, 2004

danalec99 said:
So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!

In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?

The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!

The eye is directly connected to what is between the ears.

The camera is just a tool. Digital Rebel, Nikon F5, Super Speed Graphic, pinhole cam made from an oatmeal box. Four different tools that don't take even bad photos without the photographer.

drdan · Mar 25, 2004

Sorry danalec, I don't understand what you're saying exactly.

I've found that online you sometimes need to spell things out a little more than you do face to face since people can't get any of your intent from your tone of voice or body language.

danalec99 · Mar 25, 2004

From your message, one needs to conclude that it is the Rocket Scientist and his end result (Rocket), that matters NOT the TI Calculator/or any super computer that he uses for building the rocket.

danalec99 · Mar 25, 2004

Let me put it this way... whats in the head (read talent/skill)of the rocket scientist(s) that makes a top notch product.
Camera, Photoshop are all tools to achive the better result.

I dont know if I'm clear enough!

malachite · Mar 25, 2004

Seems like you're looking for an absolute definition. In my universe anyway, an absolute doesn't exist in any type of creative process. Breaking the rules, going against the grain, and attempts to re-invent the wheel is what creativity is all about. It's all in your head, literally. Make your own rules and you too can have your own universe

markc · Mar 25, 2004

That's my thought, also. There is no magic formula to making a great image. Mainly because not everyone can agree on what is a great image.

Imagine if you were trying to make a rocket and asked a bunch of people how to make a great one. Some of them would tell you how to make one that could deliver a satellite into orbit. Others would tell you how to make one that could deliver a weapon payload to the next continent. A few might tell you how to put wheels and a seat on it so that you could break the land-speed record. Others might even tell you how to make one that flies under water. A rocket good for delivering a weapon may not be good for delivering a satellite.

Even if you have a set goal like launching satellites, history will show many different ways of going about this. Some are better than others depending upon what you want to do, but most have been a success, meaning that they were good for what they were intended for.