photoshop photography

[Mgw189]

You are talking my ballgame now. I am a graphic artist. Graphic art is the act of drawing, painting, or print making. Technically, Photography is graphic art. Photography is an art form, and it is graphic, as it is visual. So, you can't escape the classification no matter which way you turn.

Secondly, there are things you are capable of doing in photoshop that you just can't do with a camera, bottom line. I know this, because I have been using photoshop for 10 years. With a camera, to get one effect, sometimes you sacrifice another. With photoshop, it allows you to add all desired effects into one photograph.

Photoshop is without a doubt irreplacable. That is a fact, not an opinion. There also is no denying that. This is coming from the mouth of someone who has very extensive experience in the program, as well as that many years dealing with professional photographers for the medium for my work.

ALL credible professionals use photoshop. There are just too many factors that a camera can't cover, that the program can.

I dont disagree with any of that really. I have a problem with people that rely on photoshop to fix everything though. Yes most photographers use Photoshop to an extent. Photoshop has revolutionized photography there is no doubt about it. However It still bothers me when someone takes so so images fixes them in photoshop and call themselves a photographer.

 

[TheUndisputed]

I dont disagree with any of that really. I have a problem with people that rely on photoshop to fix everything though. Yes most photographers use Photoshop to an extent. Photoshop has revolutionized photography there is no doubt about it. However It still bothers me when someone takes so so images fixes them in photoshop and call themselves a photographer.

I will agree with that statement 150%! I know a few like that. They can't do the magic behind the lens, and rely on the program as a crutch to make up the distance.

I can't stand it when people do that, and call themselves professional photographers. In fact, some buddies of mine and I have made up a nick name for those. We call them "Photoshoptographers."

 

[Mgw189]

And stated once, I will state a thousand times. ALL CREDIBLE photographers use it.

I would disagree with this statement 100% to say that a photographer that doesnt use photoshop is not credible is insane. There are many out there that are perfectly credible that dont use photoshop.

 

[TheUndisputed]

I would disagree with this statement 100% to say that a photographer that doesnt use photoshop is not credible is insane. There are many out there that are perfectly credible that dont use photoshop.

Fashion Photographer Jerry Avenaim | Los Angeles Photographers | Specializing in Celebrity Photography, Commericial and Advertising Digital Photography - Jerry Avenaim
Solomodels - Wendy Satio
Body Painting, Photography, Body Art, Erotic Fine Art, and Model Portfolios: The Portfolio of Dewayne Flowers in Columbus and Atlanta Georgia - Dwayne Flowers
ModelMayhem.com - Kelvinbushan - Photographer - Atlanta, US - Kelvin Bushan

All extremely wealthy photographers. Every single one of them use photoshop. To think they don't, is insane.

Now, show me a list of millionaire photographers that don't use photoshop, and I will accredit your statement.

 

[Mgw189]

So your definition of credible photographer is to make over a million dollars? Wealth is a poor measure of credibility in my opinion.

 

[TheUndisputed]

So your definition of credible photographer is to make over a million dollars? Wealth is a poor measure of credibility in my opinion.

Not necessarily. However, they didn't become rich doing what they do because the are under credited. That is the thing. If you show me a list of some that have gotten loaded off of what they do, and didn't use photoshop, their credibility as a photographer is undeniable. That is my point in using wealth as an example. I'm still willing to bet you can't show me any.

Those photographers I listed are not hand me down inheritance beneficiaries. They got wealthy by doing photography. THAT, in itself, guarantees their credibility.

And that is my total point, no one has yet to be able to show me a photographer that has made a widely known name for themselves and doesn't use photoshop. It just doesn't exist. Which brings us back to the point to be made. Any real credible professional photographer not only uses photoshop, but also understands that it is a necessity.

 

[Mgw189]

I cant run off a name of photographers to be honest mostly because I dont know a lot of them. I am new to photography and dont have any real role models when it comes to photography. As far as photographers that dont use photo shop yet are famous there have been many. Ansel Adams comes to mind most quickly I am sure there are many here that could name a lot more. While even those like Adams didnt have photoshop they still had developing tricks that they used.

 

[TheUndisputed]

I cant run off a name of photographers to be honest mostly because I dont know a lot of them. I am new to photography and dont have any real role models when it comes to photography. As far as photographers that dont use photo shop yet are famous there have been many. Ansel Adams comes to mind most quickly I am sure there are many here that could name a lot more. While even those like Adams didnt have photoshop they still had developing tricks that they used.

Ansel Adams died before Photoshop had even thought about being created. The first version of photoshop didn't arise until about 4 years after Ansel's death (the first version came out in 1988). Even then, adjustment layers and other attributes that became necessities for photography didn't get implemented into photoshop for another 8 years (1996). Camera RAW wasn't even implemented as even an optional plugin until the 7.0.1 update in 2002. I assure you that if Ansel were around for digital photography and new print measures, he would use Photoshop as well. That is also undeniable.

And that is my next point. You just named off a photographer that died in the early 1980's. WAY before photoshop had even been thought up yet. Name a photographer that has a huge name for himself, that exists today, that doesn't use photoshop. You won't find any, period. Every real credible photographer uses it. At this rate, that statement is becoming undeniable. For the lack of ability for anyone to be able to show me otherwise.

 

[mikerocks4250]

Every photographer will run her/his images through a post-processing application such as Photoshop. No image is ever as good as it could be coming out of the camera; just like in the days of the wet darkroom, you can burn, dodge, colour-correct, etc to get the best possible final product.

Thats what my photo teacher always says. "You can't take a bad photo and photoshop it good."

 

[fiveoboy01]

Only someone who has never used photoshop and doesn't understand it, would make such a comment.

Wrong. Your interpretation of what he said.

Your opinion of the photograph does not make my point invalid. I stated you cant get the same effect with a camera, and you can't. Therefore, my argument is valid and still stands. Nice try.

No, you can't get that effect with a camera, I'll give you that. My point is that who'd want to? I guess "different strokes" as they say. To my eyes it's not even a photo anymore after being butchered with that fake sunburst.

Ok, let me rephrase, not dissing. He was demeaning the credibility of the usefulness of the program.

What specifically did he say that demeaned the usefulness of photoshop? Please quote him.

And stated once, I will state a thousand times. ALL CREDIBLE photographers use it.

First, define credible.

Second, if your assertion is correct, then you should have no problem providing a list of all "credible" photographers.

 

[lako16]

that viper with the sunlight did seem pretty unrealeastic

 

[TheUndisputed]

Wrong. Your interpretation of what he said.

Wrong, cheech. My interpretation is one of 10 years experience using the program. Probably one more credible than any interpretation you have to offer as far as photoshop is concerned. You might want to stick to something you know. I am a graphic designer, not a photographer. I have been using photoshop since 5.0.

No, you can't get that effect with a camera, I'll give you that. My point is that who'd want to? I guess "different strokes" as they say. To my eyes it's not even a photo anymore after being butchered with that fake sunburst.

Lot's of people want to. In fact, the tools used to create that exact same effect are part of one of the most bought plug ins for photoshop by professional photographers. It's called Aurora 2. It creates clouds, Moons, Suns, Eclipses, water, grass, and the list goes on. It was created to give photographers an extensive means to engage ideas in a photograph that were never achieveable before. It's not a cheap plug in either. It runs about as much as a new dSLR lens will run you.

Once again, a fact that is much more credible than your opinion.

What specifically did he say that demeaned the usefulness of photoshop? Please quote him.

If I really have to go back and spell that information out for you in crayon, you need to go back to school for reading and comprehension. Everyone that reads that is capable of understanding that he is demeaning the usefulness of the program to photographers in his statement. If you can't see that, you are definitely a few fries short of a happy meal, skipper.

First, define credible.

Credible - adj. - Worthy of confidence, reliable

Any other definition you need, cheech?

Second, if your assertion is correct, then you should have no problem providing a list of all "credible" photographers.

You're back pedalling, and it's more abundant now than ever. You ran out of arguementative material, so you are attempting to drag it out. I have already quoted credible photographers. I could sit here and do it all day. However, the limitations are this.

The photographer's portfolio's can be found on thier websites. Most of them have work printed for major magazines, which makes their work credible to anyone, not just myself.

Now, your turn, show me some that have credibility and don't use photoshop. Once again, you can't do it. Now, go argue with someone on your same mental level. It's obvious that with me, you are out of your league, cupcake.

Toodles.

 

[TheUndisputed]

that viper with the sunlight did seem pretty unrealeastic

Only because you saw the before photograph. If you would have just seen the one with the sunlight, you wouldn't have had a clue. Oh yeah, and BTW, even the original photo was edited in photoshop.

 

[Sandspur]

Okay.

First - Photography is and always has been a two-stage process: (1) capture, and (2) realization of the final image.

Second - Today, that process usually includes a digital camera and Photoshop or some other electronic image management system.

Third - Photoshop serves three distinct purposes. They are:
a. optimize the image,
b. enhance the image, and
c. manipulate the image.

ALWAYS! in that order.

And finally, why argue about it?

The camera is a tool of communication. The software is a tool to refine that communication (or modify, or transform, or screw-up ... user's choice!)

 

[Mgw189]

Only because you saw the before photograph. If you would have just seen the one with the sunlight, you wouldn't have had a clue. Oh yeah, and BTW, even the original photo was edited in photoshop.

I would disagree there. Both shots look like they were processed in photoshop.