Photoshop Debate

[Plato]

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

Thanks.

 

[musicaleCA]

*hands epp some popcorn* Here you go. Now you know why I just sit and watch.

 

[apertureman]

Obviously I'm quite late with my response, but I'll put in my $0.02.

I am a graphic designer by profession and often deal with images, prepare jobs to run on the color press, and I use Photoshop on a daily basis.

Like it or not, most publishers would adjust your photos anyway, because besides being converted into CMYK or Grayscale color workspace, LEVELS must be adjusted to compensate for the press gain.

While I agree photographers need to be diligent about taking pictures and trying their best to achieve great results when they trip the shutter, what if I wasn't so lucky with exposure, but I love the shot? Would I throw it out if I can just do minor adjustments to the RAW file? What if I was a pro photographer and my client wanted that picture, what would I tell them if I had thrown out the photo???

There is one good point though. I do not like making drastic adjustments to photographs, because I would sub-conscientiously slack off out on the field while taking my photos, knowing that I could always adjust them later.

Last point: I love the ability of Photoshop to restore old and scratched photos! I am working on scanning and fixing a bunch of old photos of my grandparents and great grandparents and I am excited to get them printed and looking like new!

 

[gentry1242]

I am still a relative novice to photoshop, but the most useful application I have found is to isolate and draw attention to a specific item in the photo through adjusting the color levels. I believe that adjusting color, just redirects the viewers focus, and does not qualify as misuse of photoshop to achieve a false result.

I do not like it when items in the photograph are manipulated outside their colors. The subject and background, should be left unskewed.

So if you only retouch color, I think it is just fine.
If you add/remove/skew elements of the photo, I think that is trying to perpetuate a falsehood.

 

[Caffler]

I don't personally understand the mentality of folks who "hate" and "have a real problem" with what anyone else does with their own photos or their own art. For me, how a person gets to a finished composition is less important than the finished composition itself.

this, in my opinion, is the crunch. if the finished piece is aesthetically pleasing, then it doesn't matter if the "artist" used photoshop or a collection of garden spades to get the result.

 

[DennyCrane]

Amen to that.

 

[skieur]

Amen to that.

In total agreement.

skieur

 

[flashlady]

I can see his point because I grew up with a film camera. In fact in high school (1987 - 1990) for photography class everything we created was from film. We had to take the pictures, use a grey card, know our shutter speeds and apertures, manually focus (God help you if your vision was blurry), etc etc., then develop the negatives, pray they weren't damaged in the process, let them hang dry, then take them into the darkroom (where the chemical could make you faint - that vinegary smell OMG LOL) and we all know the rest.

Photography, just as music is not real photography unless you know the traditions. Its nice that music can be made on beat machines, and high tech computer equipment, and not to say these tools are easy, but a true musician should also know how to read and/or write music and play an instrument. Photoshop should be a tiny part of your enhancements (i.e. a huge zit that won't quit LOL) and I love photoshop, I 've been using it for years and consider myself and expert with Adobe tools, but you shouldn't depend upon it to make your pictures professional looking. Your knowledge of the camera, lighting, etc., is what makes a good photographer.

That's why I'm here because I'm old school, and I'm trying to learn the new SLR camera's, otherwise I would still be dragging around my old 1980 Nikon LOL, and man that thing is heaaavy!

I think because of modern technology we have become overwhelmed with perfection i.e. album covers where singers are over-airbrushed, that we don't see the beauty in a natural untouched shot.

But Photoshop is cool, I dont bash the tool, just the over-usage.

 

[flashlady]

Obviously I'm quite late with my response, but I'll put in my $0.02.

I am a graphic designer by profession and often deal with images, prepare jobs to run on the color press, and I use Photoshop on a daily basis.

Like it or not, most publishers would adjust your photos anyway, because besides being converted into CMYK or Grayscale color workspace, LEVELS must be adjusted to compensate for the press gain.

While I agree photographers need to be diligent about taking pictures and trying their best to achieve great results when they trip the shutter, what if I wasn't so lucky with exposure, but I love the shot? Would I throw it out if I can just do minor adjustments to the RAW file? What if I was a pro photographer and my client wanted that picture, what would I tell them if I had thrown out the photo???

There is one good point though. I do not like making drastic adjustments to photographs, because I would sub-conscientiously slack off out on the field while taking my photos, knowing that I could always adjust them later.

Last point: I love the ability of Photoshop to restore old and scratched photos! I am working on scanning and fixing a bunch of old photos of my grandparents and great grandparents and I am excited to get them printed and looking like new!

Very good points

And yes Photoshop is awesome for retouching old photos! I found a picture of my fathers brother that passed away when he was very young, and it was his only picture of him, but it had been damaged terribly over time and I retouched it and gave it to my father framed for a Christmas gift. My father was overwhelmed.

True indeed photoshop is an amazing tool.

All points of view are well taken into consideration.

Thank you for posting this!

 

[flashlady]

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.

LOL!!!!!

 

[flashlady]

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.

Forgive me if I'm not understand what you are saying. But this is my 2 cents.

I wouldn't go as far to say that the appreciation is gone. If you are doing it professionally, you would handle the new digital camera the same way you would with the old. Like I said earlier, I'm old school, and use to film camera's but using the digital camera requires skill and eye just as the old camera. I'm having to learn my SLR now, just as I did my film camera back in the day, and it's not as easy as it appears.

I grind my teeth when taking pictures with my SLR just as back in the day (without the vinegar smell though LMAO).

But every time you use technology, and no matter how many new buttons the tools may have, though high tech, you still have to know those f-stops, shutters speeds.

I say anyone who takes pictures for the love of it, are true photographers, whether using new technology or old.

I love them both.

 

[flashlady]

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.

Excellent points! :thumbup:

 

[flashlady]

I think this thread is making a turn .......

Anyway ... it is all about the end result. If a professional (I am... of course ..NOT) photographer finish a photo shoot. And do his/her routine process and hand the end result to his/her client. 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.

Personally I've found that it depends upon the client, but now days most clients want digital enhancements and you can't argue with a client, besides photoshop is amazing, you can't deny that. Some clients like their photographs raw and untouched, others want the works lol, especially ones who have issues with their skin, i.e. pimples, scars etc.

Using photoshop is fun, even I can't deny that.

I started getting into photoshop as means of creating website designs, but now I'm getting a little tired of creating websites, but I'm still addicted to photoshop, so having the skill of modern technology with new has its bonuses because you can please a wide range of people and still keep your love for each medium without becoming prejudice/biased.

It's just MY personal belief that when you shoot professionally, you should know the basics or professional photography and use photoshop as an exciting added extra. But that's just my preferences you know?

 

[flashlady]

I think for me it comes down to a subtle distinction in definition.

I don't consider every Tom, Dick and Harry who calls himself a photographer an actual photographer, at least not in the classic sense of the term. There are literally millions of people who think they are photographers because they can now afford decent gear, get enough readily available info online to figure out how to use it well enough to take a pretty picture of a flower, and have their friends and family go "ooh" and "ahh".

But just because there are millions of those people these days, that's not to say that the technical knowledge or ability is lost or dying when it comes to the real, true working photographers out there, including the ones that are still learning their craft. They don't deserve to be written off with the sweep of a generalized hand that says or implies that they don't know what they're doing or why, based on the fact that a million Tom, Dick and Harrys don't.

Nor do they or the photographic industry as a whole deserve to endure disparaging remarks because Photoshop is a part of the modern work flow, just because Tom, Dick and Harry use it too.

Tom, Dick and harry won't be shooting for the cover of Vogue, Time or National Geographic, no matter how good they are with Photoshop, and there's a reason for that. Those who actually do those shoots however, obviously know the craft, and not all of them are old guys and gals. And those who will do so in future and are just learning their craft now - same thing.

As already stated, in the end, here's where the rubber meets the road: The finished product and the client's satisfaction with it.

Exactly! I always say the only difference between new and old cameras is everything is not ONLY on the outside of the camera LOL (and again the vinegary smell - can't get over that smell )

I'm only 37 years old (may be older for some LOL), but I think I've grown up when things were merging from old to new, but old was still used, but I'm telling you, being a perfectionist and a photographer since high school, learning new equipment takes just as much time as when my dad first let me used his film camera back in the day. I think I'm going to have to take a college course.

It's like being a doctor, if you are doing it professionally, you never stop learning because things continue to change, you just have to keep up, but the new shouldn't devalue the old.

Those final results can make or break you professionally.

 

[KenL]

In all the years that I have seen/heard the "debate" over whether or not to post-process I have not found many people that changed their opinion......

In the film days most people had their film processed and printed and that was done in a machine that automatically adjusted (post-processed) the prints. If you did not want that you could give the film to a pro lab for processing "as is", or you could shoot slides because those were always done "as is". Then there were those that could do their own processing and printing in a darkroom, and my hat goes off to them because that is real dedication!

Then along came digital. The majority use point and shoots. Some switched to DSLR as they became available. The vast majority of shooters barely know their cameras and few even know how to use such things as aperture priority, shutter priority, and let's not even mention under and over exposure, or more 'exotic" settings. Most of these people are hard pressed to do anything other than figuring out how to print these photos. For so many, doing post-processing is akin to setting up a darkroom for film processing. An impossibly daunting task, so they just dismiss that notion and don't think about it.

Now we don't have to rely on a machine or spend days post-processing by trial and error in a darkroom. We can do it to one degree or another in something like Photoshop. Even photo printers now come with LCD screens to view, modify and crop before printing.

I'm not ever going to try to convince someone to do post-processing. It reminds me of an old adage, that says, "Prejudice is not arrived at through logic, so logic cannot overcome prejudice."