Photoshop... Love it? Hate it?

[PeteNix]

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around. Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

 

[jake337]

Everything in between the the initial vision and final created image are merely mediums for ones art.

Choose your own medium. Who cares what others choose for theirs.


I sometime like watching this Nicholas Claris "making of" video. I'm sure if you were to ask him if Post Production was necessary or not you would get a yes for an answer. Not saying one cannot do it all in camera but even when someone is very serious about what the do in camera, they still bring it into post and finish creating their image.

Claris image builder, agence de publicite, photographie internet et presse Bordeaux, video, web agency, photo, communication, advertisement, agency

 

[yerlem]

I like Photoshop as a tool to make art, I enjoy it.
I don't like it when it is used for commercial/fashion photography, to make perfect human beings :/ I see it as false advertisement

 

[KmH]

what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

Lots. But it involved smelly chemicals you didn't want to get on your skin or clothes, a special light sealed room, and some specialized tools.

Photoshop is based on wet darkroom editing techniques.

 

[imagemaker46]

Photoshop is simply a tool to help photographers, graphic artists etc. It can be used to create amazing images. It is used as a crutch by the less skilled to help fix mistakes with their photographs.

I use it almost everyday while restoring images that I have scanned, it would have been near impossible to do without using photoshop. As a tool it is great.

 

[imagemaker46]

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around. Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

View attachment 10026

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

 

[PeteNix]

what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

Lots. But it involved smelly chemicals you didn't want to get on your skin or clothes, a special light sealed room, and some specialized tools.

Photoshop is based on wet darkroom editing techniques.

There are"lots" to learn within the world of photography for sure and right here you´ve got one very dedicated and obsessed student trying to master it all. But the point made was that you/we do have some very serious limitations with a just a camera, limitations that completely disappears if you add Photoshop (depending on skills that is) in to the process. There are likely thousands and thousands of whoppin´great photographers out there,but who gets all attention nowadays...?

It´s People like Joel Grimes & DaveHill.

With some luck and a fairly modern camera, anyone could capture a special moment... but even tho it might have stunned the world back in the 1970´s, it just doesn´t anymore. You have to go far beyond that for to draw any attention to your work, and with just a camera at your disposal, your chance for success is just too small for to even mention.

Also, I would not call some people "puritans" just for refusing the implementation of Photoshop in to their lives.....a more adequate word for the odd phenomena would be ...Technophobes.

 

[imagemaker46]

The difference is that someone creates photo illustrations using software on a computer, and someone who uses a camera to capture moments in time. Will the photo illustrations still be around in 50-60 years or will they have been replaced by another illustration? Does a photo that was shot a hundred years ago still have the same meaning now? Yes it does, it won't be replaced by a computer generated illustration.

Photoshop is not photography.

 

[PeteNix]

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around. Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

I too grew up without Photoshop.. I even saw the firstlanding on the moon ....LIVE!
But, it was not until I discovered/learnt Photoshop that I saw the light. My First Camera I got somewhere back in 1974 (Kodak Instamatic) but even tho I loved taking photos of everyone and everything it just never got my full attention. I bought one camera after another in hope for something... but naaaa! All I managed to do was to make one plain copy of sad reality after another... and what´s the bleeping point in that? (if not being in to time documentaries, that is) Then one day ... I met... Photoshop 2... Instant love! And I spent X-years trying to do things without the use of a manual, and finally one day... (pretty resent) my desire for mastering a Camera came back.

 

[Buckster]

Photoshop is not photography.

Photoshop is a part of photography, just as the darkroom and retouching services were, and in some circles still are, a part of photography.

 

[jake337]

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around. Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

View attachment 10026

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...

 

[imagemaker46]

Photoshop is not photography.

Photoshop is a part of photography, just as the darkroom and retouching services were, and in some circles still are, a part of photography.

Photoshop is just software. Photography is painting with light. You are correct that it is a part of photography.

 

[unpopular]

For graphic design, I like it, though I am not sure I love it ... There just isn't anything better. For photography, I find it bloated and lacking in some areas. I prefer Photoline32 for its color space independence, HSL support and price. These first two two features won me over Photoshop, even though direct access to channels is more limited.

 

[imagemaker46]

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around. Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?

View attachment 10026

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...

A skilled photographer doesn't have to be skilled at post process, that's why they have skilled computer people to do it. I know lots of great and very skilled photographers that aren't very good with photoshop, they learn only as much as they need to know. I don't agree with that approach, I prefer to know more than I need to know, even if I never use it. I'm sure most would agree. I'd rather be great with a camera than great with photoshop, but understand what you're saying, I'd rather be great at both. I'll just stick with being pretty good with photoshop.

 

[imagemaker46]

For graphic design, I like it, though I am not sure I love it ... There just isn't anything better. For photography, I find it bloated and lacking in some areas. I prefer Photoline32 for its color space independence and HSL support and price. These first two two features won me over Photoshop, even though direct access to channels is more limited.

I haven't heard of PhotoLine, I'll have to take a better look. The screenshot looked very much like photoshop. Thanks for mentioning this.