Photoshop Debate

[Foques]

oxcart should've chosen a name of donkeycart.. when people ask me if they had stuttered, they usually end up with fist up their nose. get off your high horse.

Buckster is..well.. amazing at bringing the great points that I would have brought up. I can't thank you enough, chief.

PS. using quote marks takes no skill at all

 

[oxcart]

You do know how to work those, right?

Yup, thanks.

 

[Rekd]

I think it's worth saying again... sorry for the repost.

/rant-on/

What a stupid argument.:meh:

That's like saying a Formula 1 driver isn't really a racer because he's got computers helping control the car. Really, how stupid is that?

Professional photographers have been post processing their stuff for as long as we've known how to project an image on a piece of film. From using flash bulbs to double exposure to cropping to adjusting lighting, brightness and contrast to air-brushing etc etc etc.

Seriously, people that are crying about "professionals" post processing their work need to STHU already. Unless, of course, you're signing the checks, then feel free to get sub-par work for your buck. :twak:

/rant-off/

I submit that there is millions more quality photos out there now than in the days of film only. donkey cart just seems to be mad that others are making good photos the new way and he/she's not.

Also, excellent post, Buck. Thank you.

 

[oxcart]

<<blank>>

 

[oxcart]

<<blank>>

 

[Village Idiot]

Stop being self righteous. Stop making assumptions. Stop stereotyping people.

I'm not doing any of those things. I don't appreciate one of my comments being responded to with 'bull****'. Either we're having a civilised discussion or we're not.

I'm not fond of PS. It's taking away something of the art of taking photographs. I understand that post processing is not a new idea and that's not what I mean.

- PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all
- pictures can be rescued in PS
- generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos

I remember years ago taking pics with my dad. We'd go out to the coast very early in the morning to make the best of the early morning light, especially if there was bad weather expected. Now; just crank up the contrast of a mediocre shot in PS - job done.

You're assuming Photo Shop is easy. You're being self righteous about taking time with photos and not using Photo Shop. You're assuming less care is being taken with photos. You're assuming people still don't get up at the ass crack of dawn for the perfect shot. Um...search the internet. You'll see people doing the opposite of everything you're assuming. You're stereotyping modern photographers a lazy people who suck at photography and have to let a computer do it for them.

I understand that post processing is not a new idea and that's not what I mean.

- PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all
- pictures can be rescued in PS
- generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos

Wait. What?

- Photoshop is too easy? It doesn't require any skill at all? *cough*Bull*****cough*

- Yeah, pictures CAN be rescued. That's a GOOD thing.

- Generally, it seems like MORE care is being taken with photos.

Wow. Just wow.

Yes PS is too easy. Did I stutter? I didn't say it doesn't require any skill at all. More care is being taken with photographs, not with photography.

And you assume the above things. It does take skill to use photoshop. I still know about 60k photographers(okay, maybe a little less since every member of the Strobist group isn't a photographer...maybe 30k-40k?) that take more care with setting up the shot and do more in the photography portion of the process than the post processing itself.

And how many people from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were just snap shotting left and right without regards for photography? Oh wait...we have the internet now so it makes sharing of any photo easier. When's the last time you saw some one's set of polaroids from across the country?

 

[oxcart]

<<blank>>

 

[Plato]

And you assume the above things. It does take skill to use photoshop. I still know about 60k photographers(okay, maybe a little less since every member of the Strobist group isn't a photographer...maybe 30k-40k?) that take more care with setting up the shot and do more in the photography portion of the process than the post processing itself.

And how many people from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were just snap shotting left and right without regards for photography? Oh wait...we have the internet now so it makes sharing of any photo easier. When's the last time you saw some one's set of polaroids from across the country?

I submit that the major issue is that everyone is ignoring the most important aspect of photography, i.e. the end result. I hear allegations that PS is not "true" photography and that it's somehow cheating. On the other hand, I've seen a large number of polished turds right here at TPF. I keep my mouth shut when I see them because I expect an attitude like "I spent three hours in the studio and six hours at the computer so it's got to be great."

Personally, I don't care how you got there. It could have been a lucky "grab shot" or something that involved many hours of work. If the end result is a beautiful picture, nothing else matters and, in that respect, nothing has changed from film.

 

[Rekd]

If you're trying to persuade me that digital photography is not diluting the technical ability and skill involved in photography nowadays, we'll have to agree to disagree. I fully appreciate there are people who don't use PS as a crutch, but for every one of them I'm quite certain there are 2 who do.

It has enhanced the technical ability and skill involved in photography.

Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever! With the instant satisfaction of knowing what you get without having to go through developing and processing. With the ability to go through hundreds/thousands of pictures in a fraction of the time, and cost, it used to take. With the ability to look at EXIF data on every. single. picture. to find out what settings worked best. The list is endless.

Honestly, you seem very mad that you're stuck in the dark ages. Perhaps you're mad because so much new talent is taking away from your ability to get work. Perhaps you're mad because PS simply kicks your ass. I don't know why you're mad, but Holy crap, quit trying to tell people how to make art before someone knocks you out from underneath that chip on your shoulder! :twak:

(Who was the guy with the pick trying to compete with the rock digging machine and died of a heart attack because he couldn't accept defeat? Something to do with an ox, right?) Yep. Technology is here to stay. Get over it.

 

[oxcart]

<<blank>>

 

[Rekd]

oxcart should've chosen a name of donkeycart.. when people ask me if they had stuttered, they usually end up with fist up their nose. get off your high horse.

OMGz - like... ok... you said... ok.... OMG - that's like you made a joke. Because a donkey is an animal that's often seen as an object of ridicule. So you... ok, yeah, I see.... you compared my username to a donkey!

Um, no. That's not it. I'm guessing it's because he thinks you're just being stubborn. I agree.

 

[Rekd]

Honestly, you seem very mad that you're stuck in the dark ages. Perhaps you're mad because so much new talent is taking away from your ability to get work. Perhaps you're mad because PS simply kicks your ass. I don't know why you're mad, but Holy crap, quit trying to tell people how to make art before someone knocks you out from underneath that chip on your shoulder! :twak:

A couple of points:

- photography is very much only a hobby for me
- I have a fairly solid background in image processing
- I worked for a number of years in a couple of fairly well known photolabs

I'm not angry because I'm out of work. I'm not angry because I can't get my head around PS. Part of me is pissy because everyone with a couple of hundred quid who buys a DSLR thinks they're a photographer. Digital is accessible and powerful. But for the majority of people it's easy. Forget actually having any idea of what's going on or any kind of discipline, just knock it onto P mode and wing the pics through PS afterwards. Job done.

Obviously everyone is not like this. But when you're dealing with the public for any length of time you get jaded. Photography was something very special to me growing up. Something pure. And that's being lost.

First of all you need to quit generalizing about people.

Secondly, why does it matter how other people come up with good shots? So ef'n what if they use PS to doctor something up. You ever erase something while writing?

Lastly, the ONLY reason photography is "lost" to you is because YOU let it. YOU can still do film photography. NOBODY is putting a gun to your head to use PS. And most importantly, if you can't compete with the point and shoot turds that try to photoshop their way to fame, that's on YOU, not ME. I can take good pictures AND process them afterwards.

Again, get over it already. Sheesh!

 

[oxcart]

<<blank>>

 

[Derrel]

About ATV's wrote, "Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever!"

I had to laugh out loud about that, I really did. Today's photographers know less,and less,and less. I've been involved with photography for 35 years now,and every year I see people who understand fewer and fewer fundamentals.

Like, how to compare flash power in Guide Number, or how to compute a flash exposure using guide number: just last week, Strobist group leader Village Idiot tried to tell me that a cheap $99 Adorama Flash Point 320 monolight MUST be vastly more powerful than a $420 Canon 580 EX-II flash, even though with equal beam spread both units have a flash Guide Number of 118, in Feet, at ISO 100. Village Idiot tried to tell me, no, he tried to "school" me in open forum, by telling me that the Guide Number of the Canon speedlight was "58". Hah! The Guide Number is 58 in Meters, with the flash head zoomed to 105mm, which translates to 190 in Feet. Oh, yeah, today's photographers, "know more about photography now than ever". Uh, apparently not. After trying to 'correct' my comment about flash power of a Canon 580 flash in one post, the V-I in a second post in the same thread, tried again to "school" me by claiming a 150 watt-second,cheap, monolight and what he called a 50-watt-second Canon speedlight could in no way be comparable in flash output--but using a car analogy! Unfortunately, he's a Strobist member, a group leader, and yet he didn't understand the concepts of Guide Number in Meters, and Guide Number in Feet, nor the concept of stored energy, which in the USA is measured in watt-seconds, but which tells us nothing about the actual Guide Number--ie the "actual flash power output" of the flash.

Let me explain our young, 20-something Strobist group leader's line of thought, as he tried to correct me with his eroneous understanding and knowledge. His position was, in effect, "MY boat's fuel tank holds 150 gallons of fuel, and your boat's fuel tank holds 50 gallons of fuel---therefore my boat is three times faster and more powerful than your boat." That's the argument a young photog of today tried to "school" me with.

Today's photographer's rely more on automation than ever before. Many know nothing about depth of field, and do not even know how to read a depth of field scale. Who here can establish a 3:1 lighting ratio, either with a light meter, or by positioning two lights by distance? Who here understands why fill light is usually placed on-axis? Who here can describe how to focus a 50mm lens at its hyperfocal distance? Use the depth of field preview much? Know how to figure out how high a flash must be to avoid redeye at 10 feet? Know how to use an extension tube? Know how much light a 1.4x teleconverter loses? Know what filter to use with B&W film for dark skies?

No, sorry dude, but 35 years around photography have shown me that on average, today's "photogs" know less and less and less about "photography" than at any time than in my lifetime. There's a difference between knowing how to catch a fish, gut a fish,then fillet a fish, and cook a fish--and going to a restaurant and pointing at the menu and having a fish dinner appear on your table 10 minutes later. Photography used to require real skill and knowledge...today, combing thru EXIF data to "find out what works" still isn't working, because I constantly see people calling themselves professional photographers, yet shooting horizontal portraits of standing subjects, over-vignetting images, blowing flash exposures, and using fill lights improperly, not knowing that a Fong Dong is useless outdoors, and not even understanding how their cameras work!

Oh,yeah, EXIF information--that is one of the most hilarious examples of a person who has no training in any photographic fundamentals, talking about how great it is to be able to see what shutter speed and aperture the CAMERA SELECTED in Programmed mode.

"Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever!"
That made my day. There's an old saying, "You don't even know what you don't know." And THAT is the way I view many of today's digital photography practitioners--totally,totally lost without the aid of an automated camera and automatic light metering. Unable to answer even the most fundamental technical questions, simply because things are so,so easy now.

Today's photogs who grew up with the internet beg to see EXIF information, thinking that knowing an f/stop and a shutter speed will unlock the mysteries of photography. I see it all the time on photo forums; "Where's the EXIF information?" "What did you do with the EXIF info!!" It makes me amused to think there's a young guy here telling us that today's photogs know more about photography than ever before. I'm sure he buys much of his food frozen in bags and frozen in boxes, and since many homes have a microwave AND a conventional oven that, "Today's cooks know more about cooking than EVER before!"

"Today's students know more about mathematics today than EVER before--- because they own calculators!"

 

[Rekd]

I've been involved with photography for 35 years now

Wow. I had to laugh. I really did. You're pretty stuck on yourself with your 35 years in photography. Want a cookie? :lmao:

As luck would have it, I've been working in our dark-room and playing with double-exposures, cropping and brushing with my dad since I was about 8. I shot film for many years.

Now that I'm 45, I suppose that would put us both at about the same level experience, at least in years. I've seen a HUGE jump in the number of photogs wanting to learn more about the art. Huge. Look at the success of the dozens (hundreds?) of photo courses on line. Think nobody is using them? (I made myself laugh, asking you if you "think" )

What you fail to realize, besides your own arrogance compounded with an ample dose of ignorance, is that yes, there are millions more people taking crappy photos that don't give a flying rat's behind about settings. That won't change. Especially as the hi end cameras come into reach for the hobbiest.

But those that are doing more than taking snapshots are learning hand-over-fist more than those that were only using film to do more than take snapshots.

Your "35 years" of self-proclaimed excellence isn't going to change the fact that there are many many MANY times more people learning about how to take good shots now than ever before. You just have to be able to see outside the box. Look at the whole picture instead of just the n00bs that seem to overwhelm the easily distracted.

Oh,yeah, EXIF information--that is one of the most hilarious examples of a person who has no training in any photographic fundamentals, talking about how great it is to be able to see what shutter speed and aperture the CAMERA SELECTED in Programmed mode.

Again, your ignorance precedes you. I, like millions of others, can now use EXIF data to cycle through (manual) settings then find what worked best and record those for use in similar situations. If you don't think that's a good tool for learning, you should put the bong down and go outside to get some light. Don't be afraid of that bright yellow orb in the sky. I don't believe I mentioned that it pertained to people with "no training in any photographic fundamentals"