Photoshop Debate

[fiveoboy01]

Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS.

For you. Not for me.

Therein lies the problem, and why the OP started the thread... one photographer pushing their opinion on another.

I ain't sharing mine here. But it's sure entertaining to read all the back-and-forth...

 

[Rekd]

The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.

That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!

Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here. I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs. For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere. It's for the love of driving.

Still cant get my head around why it bothers you so much how other people make a living or do their hobbies, because it probably doesn't directly affect you. (Not being rude, just honest in my perception).

I totally agree on the fantastic and obvious Bokeh between the drive and the destination. I've ridden around the back roads and coasts of San Diego and So Cal on sport bikes with my wife for a decade perfectly happy just finding new places to go for the sake of going.

As far as money goes, if someone wants to pay me to take shots with no post processing, after I tried to convince them they'd be better off with a pro, I'd take the shots just the way they ask and be more than happy to get paid for it, though I don't think I'd feel good charging my normal rates.

The reality is that I shoot motorsports 85% of the time. Until this month, it was exclusively with a Sony Cybershot. I usually do some cropping and from time to time adjustments on color or sharpness. Once in a while I'll do something more to get a specific effect.

This particular shot has been cropped. That's it. I could dress it up real good if I wanted to, but I don't because it's a clean shot. (CORRacing Chula Vista June 2007 Josh Baldwin (This is signed, hanging on my wall ))

Camera: Sony DSC-H5
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 160
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

Now that I am selling more work and can afford a better camera, I plan on taking full advantage of Gimp, Irfanview, Auto Mode and what-ever else I can do to get good results now, knowing I'm in for a learning curve after not using a manual camera for nearly two decades.

I've never shot motorsports with a manual camera, and I'm really looking forward to being able to bring shots like the one below to life with minimal pp. (This has not been adjusted, was taken in auto mode)

Camera: Canon EOS 50D <---- My second day with this camera. Traded for a 7D, got it last night. :thumbup:
Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 80 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

And yes, I think I owe an apology to anyone I got too personal with, including you oxy. Can I call you oxy?

 

[swiminjane]

I would personally agree with the other guy. To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched. However, we have to make money like everyone else, right? So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.

 

[syphlix]

maybe... but since when did anyone really care who the better raw photographer is lol

 

[ANDS!]

I would personally agree with the other guy. To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched. However, we have to make money like everyone else, right? So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.

Theres no such thing as a "raw" untouched photograph. Every picture that comes out of a camera is put through an image editing algorithm - even the "raw" file preview on-camera goes through a conversion process. When you go in to your camera, and fiddle with the color-presets and saturation levels - you are essentially adjusting the look of the photograph.

Photoshop then is simply the natural extension of this process; getting right in a supplemental program what the camera didn't.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I would personally agree with the other guy. To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched. However, we have to make money like everyone else, right? So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.

This is like, in the film days, saying let's compare negatives to see who is the best photog. Sorry, but it makes no sense.

 

[oxcart]

Couple of things I want to make a little clearer - I take pics with no notion of ever making money from them. They're for me and that's about that. I don't even really share them with friends and family much. Maybe this will sound silly, it probably does but it's how I see it:

- I'm fully aware that there are lots of photographers who dedicate a lot of time and money to photography and they have a full appreciation of everything that they do. But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it. And it makes me a little sad to see it.

That's all. There used to be something a tiny bit special about taking the time to understand what's going on when you're taking a picture. For a lot of folks nowadays it's an unnecessary complication.

 

[Rekd]

Couple of things I want to make a little clearer - I take pics with no notion of ever making money from them. They're for me and that's about that. I don't even really share them with friends and family much. Maybe this will sound silly, it probably does but it's how I see it:

- I'm fully aware that there are lots of photographers who dedicate a lot of time and money to photography and they have a full appreciation of everything that they do. But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it. And it makes me a little sad to see it.

That's all. There used to be something a tiny bit special about taking the time to understand what's going on when you're taking a picture. For a lot of folks nowadays it's an unnecessary complication.

Yabbut, it's a hobbie for you.

And it's definetly NOT a dying art. There are more people learning the art of photography now than ever before. Period. Sorry Derrel, there just are. Yeah, many of them aren't using film any more, but they're out there.

Yeah, there's also more people taking advantage of technology and using it to try to call themselves a professional while getting slammed in a car forum for pretending to be something they're not, but that's ok. It won't hurt you one ioda.

Peronally, I plan on taking full advantage of technology to help me get over the hump with my new equipment. But I also can't wait to spend the next few years learning how to use the equipment as-is. :mrgreen:

 

[Overread]

But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it. And it makes me a little sad to see it.

I'm very curious as to how you have come to this conclusion. Surely with more people able to now start photography as a hobby or even a job and with more people now learning the ropes of how it all works shouldn't there not only be increasing in the general spread of photographic skills but also the active development of new ones?
I can say for certain that I have seen new setups with digital gear involving lasers, flashes and butterflies with outstanding results. Sure not everyone is doing it they never were back in the past.
And sure there is a big skills divide between the sports mum and the hobbyist and the working pro - but honestly that was there too - it was just that sports mum's camera really was vastly less powerfull than the pros and cost far more than most could easily afford for quick snaps

 

[camz]

IMHO I think it's all these labels and terms that box and set limits to the art in itself. In Camera(SOOC), Photoshop(PP) etc etc. All in all it's just a matter of consciousness and perception. When I started photography I had no clue what in the world photoshop was. I tried to get everything right in Camera, I even bought a external light meter and walked around with it in order to practice getting the exposures right. I was trying to be the perfectionist in camera as much as possible. I then learned about photoshop in High School and guess what...I thought it was cheating. Manipulating images digitally defeats the purpose...dah dah dah. That's how I saw it. Then I found that my photography reached a plateau and started researching and found images that were photoshopped and surely enough I wanted to try it....and guess what? I learned photoshop and so the journey began.

I completely understand what it means for purists out there and how much of a threat photoshop is to them. Just how a click of a mouse doesn't justify the thousands of dollars in equipment they've invested. But in reality all it is (like mentioned above)a tool to get where you want to be. It's a perception of where you are in your photography because all photographers will have to start learning the art in camera first. Once they've hit that ceiling I've seen alot of the self claimed purist eventually take the next stop called photoshop including me.

 

[epp_b]

Processing is half of what is involved in making any photo. Period.

 

[Plato]

Processing is half of what is involved in making any photo. Period.

So it's not a photo if processing is 49% or 48% or 1% or even 51% or 52% or 99%?

 

[epp_b]

Don't take it so literally. "Half" meaning "part". In the same way that I'd say my dog is half portie and half poodle while having no idea what percentage of the genes she inherited from each breed.

There's an indefinable border you can cross at some point where a photo turns from something nice to something people immediately point at and say "That's been shopped". It's different on every photo, but in my humble opinion, it's like a woman's makeup. The best makeup job is one where you can't tell it's been used.

I'd say that's an accurate statement and good way of summarizing it, except for the odd case where manipulation is the purpose (take 1x.com's "Creative Edit" category, for example ... you know they're fake, but they somehow look "real").

 

[Plato]

Don't take it so literally. "Half" meaning "part". In the same way that I'd say my dog is half portie and half poodle while having no idea what percentage of the genes she inherited from each breed.

There's an indefinable border you can cross at some point where a photo turns from something nice to something people immediately point at and say "That's been shopped". It's different on every photo, but in my humble opinion, it's like a woman's makeup. The best makeup job is one where you can't tell it's been used.

I'd say that's an accurate statement and good way of summarizing it, except for the odd case where manipulation is the purpose (take 1x.com's "Creative Edit" category, for example ... you know they're fake, but they somehow look "real").

Gee, I thought that when you said "half," you meant "half." I didn't realize that you really meant "somewhere greater than zero and less than 100%"

 

[epp_b]

OK, OK, processing is "part"... sheesh :roll: