Photoshop Question

[projectmayhem160]

I've noticed when people critique my photographs the word "photoshop" is said often. For example, "you can really make that color pop with photoshop" or "if you would just photoshop that out of there it would be perfect." I feel that using photoshop is like cheating, that I should get the ideal picture when I'm behind the camera and not create it on my computer later.

My question is, is there anyone here that is against using photoshop? If you are, why?

 

[reg]

To not use the tools you have would be silly. People have been manipulating their images in a film darkroom for decades.

I mean, really, if you're using a DSLR and shooting RAW they tend to NOT be as sharp and saturated out of the camera than a P&S Jpeg on purpose. The makers do it on purpose. It's a better thing. I want control over my photos.

 

[icassell]

I don't particularly like overmanipulated images, but that's personal taste. I also DO use PS to adjust things a bit as I see necessary. Then again, in the 35mm days, I did alot of work in the darkroom to make things look just right. I was taught early on to try to make the image as good as possible in the camera to save lots of darkroom (Photoshop) work later on. I'd rather spend my time behind a lens than at the computer monitor.

 

[reg]

I'd rather spend my time behind a lens than at the computer monitor.

While that's true for composition, etc. I would really like to stress to the OP that sharpening, saturation, etc. "photoshop" is a part of near every, if NOT every professional digital photographer's workflow.

 

[icassell]

While that's true for composition, etc. I would really like to stress that sharpening, saturation, etc. "photoshop" is a part of damn near every, if NOT every professional digital photographer's workflow.

No argument here and, as I said, I do use it just as I cropped, dodged, burned, etc. in the darkroom. I just try to minimize what I need to do with it.

 

[Resin42]

I think cheating is a harsh word. PS can be used to make an average photo stunning and make a stunning photo the best thing you've ever done, what's wrong with that? It seems like a masocistic pursuit of perfection to disgard good shots because you didn't capture it exactly how you wanted it.

I imagine every photographer's proudest moments are the shots which needed no editing though and the aim is to get more of those moments.

 

[Mike30D]

To not use the tools you have would be silly. People have been manipulating their images in a film darkroom for decades.

I mean, really, if you're using a DSLR and shooting RAW they tend to NOT be as sharp and saturated out of the camera than a P&S Jpeg on purpose. The makers do it on purpose. It's a better thing. I want control over my photos.

I wouldn't exactly say it's done on "purpose". RAW images are soft due to the anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. This reduces the sharpness of the image in order to reduce aliasing in diagonal lines and Moire in details that are fine and repetitive.

 

[Mike30D]

I've noticed when people critique my photographs the word "photoshop" is said often. For example, "you can really make that color pop with photoshop" or "if you would just photoshop that out of there it would be perfect." I feel that using photoshop is like cheating, that I should get the ideal picture when I'm behind the camera and not create it on my computer later.

Photoshop is only bad when you are constantly using it to correct crappy photos to begin with. Post processing and any "after effects" should be used to enhance an image.

As long as you are aiming for correct exposure in the camera, then I don't see anything wrong with Photoshop.

Sometimes you do have to use it to clone stuff out, I don't believe that's bad.

 

[K8-90]

I think of it in terms of plucking eyebrows.
Some eyebrows need a little work to be the best they can be. But you want to maintain the integrity of the original photo, I mean eyebrow. As in, it should still look like the original when speaking of it's shape. You can't make it something it is not. And you have to carefull of over plucking :lmao:

 

[icassell]

I think it is a good artistic exercise to be minimalist -- to try to get along without PS -- to improve your skill as a photographer, not just as a technician. But, as Mike30D points out, those of us who shoot in RAW need sharpening tools. I kept getting comments that my images were soft until I learned that. I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what was wrong (and I have less and less of that hair to afford to be able to do that).

 

[bigalbest]

While that's true for composition, etc. I would really like to stress to the OP that sharpening, saturation, etc. "photoshop" is a part of near every, if NOT every professional digital photographer's workflow.

I personally never sharpen any of my photos and rarely change the saturation. And I don't have anything against slight adjustments in Photoshop, it's great for small corrections. It just shouldn't be used to rescue poorly shot pictures because the effects become obvious and often result in poor prints (which look decent on a monitor). Still, as a beginner I often used these techniques myself and their flaws only became obvious over time. And I've also seen some great work from people who are really good at these adjustments, it just strikes me as digital art and not necessarily photography in the traditional sense.

 

[icassell]

, it just strikes me as digital art and not necessarily photography in the traditional sense.

Well, I'm not sure it's less photography than darkroom manipulations were .... depends, I guess ...

 

[bigalbest]

Well, I'm not sure it's less photography than darkroom manipulations were .... depends, I guess ...

It just depends how far you take it. Where the line is, I don't know but I certainly wouldn't call limited use of PS "cheating".

 

[Joves]

Well, I'm not sure it's less photography than darkroom manipulations were .... depends, I guess ...

I agree. I find that the sensors dont always render everything as I saw it. Especially when it comes to saturation, the either over saturate or, under. I will sometimes sharpen too. But it is still nothing diffrent than I used to do with film during processing.

 

[manaheim]

I wouldn't exactly say it's done on "purpose". RAW images are soft due to the anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. This reduces the sharpness of the image in order to reduce aliasing in diagonal lines and Moire in details that are fine and repetitive.

I think it is a good artistic exercise to be minimalist -- to try to get along without PS -- to improve your skill as a photographer, not just as a technician. But, as Mike30D points out, those of us who shoot in RAW need sharpening tools. I kept getting comments that my images were soft until I learned that. I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what was wrong (and I have less and less of that hair to afford to be able to do that).

mmm... actually the softness isn't a RAW issue, it's a digital one, and technically not on all cameras, but certainly on most. Most cameras have a filter/screen (can't think of the name at the moment) that's placed over the sensor to essentially average out the colors on the pixels. It has a softening effect, but avoids moire and stepping patterns that would be the result with out it.

To OP: I used to agonize over this a bit, but I gave up. There are a few things to consider.

1. What is your art? Photography is an art, but then so are some of the amazing things you can do in Photoshop. Do I call a massively modified picture a good picture? No... I might call it a neat piece of art, however.

2. There are some limitations in digital for which Photoshop is an answer... such as the sharpening situation. The simple fact is that we're using a digital item* of relatively small size to represent a very "analog" scene of reflecting light... when you have "unlimited pixels" being represented by "limited pixels" yer gonna have you a problem. Gotta compensate somehow...

3. What's cheating, really? Think about this for a moment. I use Photoshop. Is that cheating? Hell, I use a digital camera and can take nearly unlimited pictures with instant "development" and see my results and make adjustments... that seems kinda cheating over my old AE1. But then my AE1 Program had auto-exposure settings and a computer on board. That seems kinda cheating over the full manual Canon my Dad had. But hell, his camera had a roll of film... that seems kinda cheating over the slide-based job his grandfather had... don't we drive cars to work? What's this telephone nonsense? Pavement? Forced hot water? Fire? The Wheel?!?!?!!? WHO ALLOWED THIS WHOLE WHEEL FOOLISHNESS!?!?!

Kinda silly, I know... but think about it. 50 years from now you'll be telling your grandkids that whatever photographic technology they are using is cheating, and you'll hearken back to the grand ole' days of Photoshop CS3 and your 12 megapixel DSLR.