Photoshop Debate

[CSR Studio]

To me, photography has always been about graphic design; photoGRAPHIC design.

From the concept, to the set dressing, to the model selection, to the clothing and makeup, to the lighting, to the lens choice, to the DOF and shutter speed, to the filters, to the film choice, to the developing method, to the paper choice - it's ALL about designing a final GRAPHIC image, isn't it?

Photographic is painting with light. If that is what you are doing then it is photography. However, trying to fix a bad image in photoshop is not photography. I think you are ignoring the light part.

I'm just pointing out that photography incorporates and is very much about graphic design; That the two terms are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I think that saying, "trying to fix a bad image in Photoshop is not photography" is the same as saying, "trying to fix a bad image in developing is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the darkroom is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the print process is not photography". In all cases, it is simply a way of working with an image captured with light.

I can't find any legitimate reason to summarily disqualify any particular set of tools or techniques used in working with images captured with light anywhere from concept to final print, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

Come on, you know the images I am talking about.

Do you do photography for a living?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

The simple fact of the matter is that this can be discussed for the next 100 years and people will still not agree. Get over it and go shooting.

You want to put limits on your work, go right ahead. But don't put limits on mine. Thank you very much. The way this is usually said is: to each his/her own.

 

[CSR Studio]

The simple fact of the matter is that this can be discussed for the next 100 years and people will still not agree. Get over it and go shooting.

You want to put limits on your work, go right ahead. But don't put limits on mine. Thank you very much. The way this is usually said is: to each his/her own.

Agreed!

 

[Buckster]

Photographic is painting with light. If that is what you are doing then it is photography. However, trying to fix a bad image in photoshop is not photography. I think you are ignoring the light part.

I'm just pointing out that photography incorporates and is very much about graphic design; That the two terms are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I think that saying, "trying to fix a bad image in Photoshop is not photography" is the same as saying, "trying to fix a bad image in developing is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the darkroom is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the print process is not photography". In all cases, it is simply a way of working with an image captured with light.

I can't find any legitimate reason to summarily disqualify any particular set of tools or techniques used in working with images captured with light anywhere from concept to final print, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

Come on, you know the images I am talking about.

Yeah, I do. I just don't know where, exactly, the line is crossed from Dean Collins to Andy Warhol, and I'm not prepared to make a stand about it, either way, even if I cared about that line, which I don't. What others do with their photography is no sweat off me, especially not with regards to the tools they use, whatever those tools are. I'm certainly not going to hate them for it, whatever it is, and I don't have a serious problem with any of it.

Again, that's just me. Live and let live, I say. If they can make a living with a camera, an editor and some marketing, good for them.

Do you do photography for a living?

When I was young, I was a musician, an artist, a photographer; Idealistic, passionate, wanting to chase the dream... Ah, youth... But no, when it came right down to it, I didn't have the patience to go through the 'starving artist' phase to seriously chase any of them, and went into telecommunications engineering instead, where I've spent the past 30 years making my living.

I've played some bar and party gigs on occasion, made a few recordings, even played at the 25th anniversary of Woodstock, but I'm not a working musician by any means. I still make art, and manage to sell some here and there, but nothing major. Similarly, my photography has been limited to weekend warrior shooting for most of that time. The sales I've made along the way wouldn't pay for the gear I've bought in that time. But it makes me happy, so it's all good.

At long last, I can now devote myself to it a lot more, and I'm making more cash from it, but it's still not my primary source of income, and I don't know that it ever will be.

 

[CSR Studio]

I'm just pointing out that photography incorporates and is very much about graphic design; That the two terms are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I think that saying, "trying to fix a bad image in Photoshop is not photography" is the same as saying, "trying to fix a bad image in developing is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the darkroom is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the print process is not photography". In all cases, it is simply a way of working with an image captured with light.

I can't find any legitimate reason to summarily disqualify any particular set of tools or techniques used in working with images captured with light anywhere from concept to final print, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

Come on, you know the images I am talking about.

Yeah, I do. I just don't know where, exactly, the line is crossed from Dean Collins to Andy Warhol, and I'm not prepared to make a stand about it, either way, even if I cared about that line, which I don't. What others do with their photography is no sweat off me, especially not with regards to the tools they use, whatever those tools are. I'm certainly not going to hate them for it, whatever it is, and I don't have a serious problem with any of it.

Again, that's just me. Live and let live, I say. If they can make a living with a camera, an editor and some marketing, good for them.

Do you do photography for a living?

When I was young, I was a musician, an artist, a photographer; Idealistic, passionate, wanting to chase the dream... Ah, youth... But no, when it came right down to it, I didn't have the patience to go through the 'starving artist' phase to seriously chase any of them, and went into telecommunications engineering instead, where I've spent the past 30 years making my living.

I've played some bar and party gigs on occasion, made a few recordings, even played at the 25th anniversary of Woodstock, but I'm not a working musician by any means. I still make art, and manage to sell some here and there, but nothing major. Similarly, my photography has been limited to weekend warrior shooting for most of that time. The sales I've made along the way wouldn't pay for the gear I've bought in that time. But it makes me happy, so it's all good.

At long last, I can now devote myself to it a lot more, and I'm making more cash from it, but it's still not my primary source of income, and I don't know that it ever will be.

There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.

Here is the thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/180976-wedding-pic-c-c.html

 

[Plato]

I'm new to PS. Just for giggles, I took an old Kodacolor photo that was scanned several years ago and I played around with it. I believe that it looks better and that it looks "real."

 

[Buckster]

There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.

Here is the thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/180976-wedding-pic-c-c.html

I agree with you, but it would be just as bad if it had been blurred and converted to B&W by ANY means, not just Photoshop.

And really, I think that's always been one of the main points. Bad photos are bad photos, Photoshopped or not. But so many people diss Photoshop regardless of the final image, which is often quite wonderful, even with extensive editing, and that's just closed-minded, IMHO.

I refer to the opening post of this thread. The guy "hates" images that have been photoshopped. He doesn't even have to SEE IT - his "HATE" is pre-determined by the use of the tool that was used -without regard for HOW it was used. That's irrational.

There's no telling how many professional photos he's seen in magazines and online that he loves, without the slightest clue that they've been photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, just because it wasn't obvious to HIM.

Bad photos is one thing. Bad editing is another. That's true with OR without Photoshop. But not ALL Photoshop editing, even extensive editing, is automatically bad.

 

[skieur]

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.

The person who says that usually has BOTH lousy technique and lousy Photoshop skills.

skieur

 

[CSR Studio]

There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.

Here is the thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/180976-wedding-pic-c-c.html

I agree with you, but it would be just as bad if it had been blurred and converted to B&W by ANY means, not just Photoshop.

And really, I think that's always been one of the main points. Bad photos are bad photos, Photoshopped or not. But so many people diss Photoshop regardless of the final image, which is often quite wonderful, even with extensive editing, and that's just closed-minded, IMHO.

I refer to the opening post of this thread. The guy "hates" images that have been photoshopped. He doesn't even have to SEE IT - his "HATE" is pre-determined by the use of the tool that was used -without regard for HOW it was used. That's irrational.

There's no telling how many professional photos he's seen in magazines and online that he loves, without the slightest clue that they've been photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, just because it wasn't obvious to HIM.

Bad photos is one thing. Bad editing is another. But not ALL Photoshop editing, even extensive editing, is automatically bad.

No, I don't hate Photoshop, I love it in fact. It has made so many things so much easier. But I do hate bad photos. And I will leave it there.

 

[ann]

Although I agree with this as a general principle, one has to admit that sometimes it is possible to get a beautiful image out of something that started as trash. And in that case, what's wrong with that?


for me, this is called artistic vision


p.s.the above quote is from CSR, i would also agree with "but i do hate bad photos".

recently i attended a workshop for Capture NX2 and the fellow giving the workshop said the following.

editing will not make a "crappy" photo , great,

editing can take a good photo and elavate it a notch

and it can help make a terrific photo outstanding, if that is the wish of the photographer.

 

[Overread]

It is important to remember there is a difference between:

"It does not matter how I shoot, I will just fix it in editing"

"It came out worse than I thought it would, but I might be able to fix it with editing to something a little better"

Though I would also say that it is not right to get angry (per se) at people who have the mindset of the first quote - it is their right to think that way if they so choose to -- even though many here would encourage (and it really should be to encourage) them to adopt the mindset of the latter - that of going for the best one can in camera

 

[skieur]

It is important to remember there is a difference between:

"It does not matter how I shoot, I will just fix it in editing"

That comment is based on ignorance, since it is almost impossible to fix bad composition or a bad camera angle with editing. Even an out-of-focus subject cannot be fixed by "sharpening".

skieur

 

[Derrel]

I stopped reading this thread several days ago, 'cause I've been involved in several similar threads elsewhere and they usually devolve into disagreements that will never be resolved. Red Sox or Yankees? Coke or Pepsi? Ford or Chevy trucks? Republican or Democrat? Dick York or Dick Sergeant? Van Halen or Van Hagar? etc,etc,etc.

A pretty intelligent old-line silver-based photographer named Erwin Puts, a Leica authority of some repute, wrote a blog article a few years ago,and his thesis was basically along these lines: in analog or silver-based photography, the goal was always to create an image that would be captured and fixed in silver, for all eternity. Sure, there were darkroom machinations and montage techniques that could be done, but in traditional "Photography", the goal was a fixed, stable, finite image.

His thesis regarding "Digital Photography" was that the old paradigm was no longer valid---no longer is the image a fixed, finite arrangement of silver crystals or dye layers--NO, while performing this new thing called Digital Photography, the image was subject to constant revision. The image never really exists in any SOLID, TANGIBLE form, like a slide or negative; the digital image is always subject to a computer and software interpretation, or re-interpretation, or re-re-re-re-interpretation.

I'd been shooting all digitally for about eight years before I read that article, and I'd never really thought of it that way. I learned photography in the 1970's and 1980's, when manipulation was tedious,laborious,and not very common. I shot digital images and just "developed" them pretty simply, with most of the work having come on the shooting end. I never really have gotten into the filters and the Photoshop actions, pasting in backdrops,or applying textures. But to younger shooters who learned in the all-digital area, they practice more what I consider to be Graphic Arts--not true, old-school "Photography" with the capital P, but something newer, and very different.

The dividing line in Photoshop love it or hate it is almost like the dividing line between old fogey music and 1950's rock and roll, or between classic rock lovers and younger people who grew up on hip-hop and rap music. The older generation often dislikes the new stuff very intently, while the younger set likes the new stuff and laughs at "Geezer Rock" or "Butt Rock" or "Hair Bands". The Photoshop: love it /hate it? question's answer might also be related to the question, "So, what kind of music do you like?"

 

[Zachery]

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm a complete beginner, and haven't started to use Photoshop yet, although I intend to do so soon. I've just enrolled on a really good online photography course. In my humble opinion, if you're haven't got any talent as a photographer Photoshop will not help you in any way - garbage in, garbage out - but if you do have the talent then you'll probably create even better images using this technology.

 

[txphotog]

I touch up my photos after taking them. I personally feel that it's ok to post process a photo after taking it. It's not cheating by any means. It's just a digital process that's done to suit the liking of the photog. I think people are cheating themselves if they don't do it.