Photoshop Question

[MelodySoul]

I think it's a great tool but can be overused. I do sometimes feel that cloning things out is kind of cheating. Don't get me wrong I've done it myself (on stray hairs or other small distracting elements) but I don't think it should be done all the time. There was a photo of the eiffel tower that someone posted recently and someone suggested cloning out a distracting lamp post. The lamp post is there and part of that scene, if anyone visits that spot it will be there so to me cloning it out is unnatural and wrong. That's just my opinion though.

 

[reg]

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.

Yeah, but the decision to not have any in-camera processing on RAW files (well that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?) is on purpose.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Well a good example is, lots of times your SLR will under expose an image to help make sure that something isnt completly blown out, or not as much as it might be. You may later need to photoshop it. Lots of point and shoot cameras dont use photoshop, but still manipulate an image to produce better colors and sharpness etc...

 

[toofpaste]

I grew up with photoshop. I'm addicted to it. My point of view is probably a lot different than all you older people.

 

[icassell]

I grew up with photoshop. I'm addicted to it. My point of view is probably a lot different than all you older people.

... signs toofpaste up for a 12 step program ...

 

[toofpaste]

... signs toofpaste up for a 12 step program ...

you have no idea how much I could use that

 

[Mike30D]

Think about it this way.... When you look at an Ansel Adams photograph, chances are that Ansel spent lots of time in the darkroom dodging and burning to get the look he wanted. No one ever said that was cheating did they?

We just do it digitally now that's all.

 

[spako]

Found this on funny stuff


"Ansel Adams: The First Hdr Photographer

Good old Ansel Adams was the first HDR photographer. He captured a greater range, using a development technique called ‘pulling’ to reduce the contrast of the negative in order to preserve a greater range of information on his negatives. This was developed into what was called the Zone technique. Since his time, film curves have gotten less steep (indicating a greater range of a workable negative)."

Personnally I love Photoshop, and use it as well as I can... cheating or not I believe either way you need some skill to get a good looking picture, and a crappy start image won't ever be an amazing piece of art no matter how much you photoshop around...to me it's the end result that counts because it's exactly that what other people will consider. as much as I like genuine photography I also love everything that's well postprocessed in photoshop. You can find crappy stuff in either category so give credit to those who do it well just my point of view

 

[nynfortoo]

I have no objection to digital manipulation and editing, as long as it's tasteful.

It seems to me that the people doing the most complaining think because the process is digital that it requires a few clicks and some sliders, without any thought- or creative-process at all. Like in most aspects of life, the people complaining are the people who don't understand.

(that wasn't directed at any of you. I've just been reading more and more readers' letters in magazines from old people shunning the digital age because it isn't, somehow, photography any more).

In my day...

 

[mrodgers]

In my opinion, there are 2 types of "photoshopping". There is the digital equivalent of developing, a process that is absolutely necessary. In film it was dodging and burning. In digital it is levels and curves. I don't see it as fixing a photo as much as it being fixing the limitations of the camera system.

The second is the image manipulation. These are the "fake" looking images. The ones that people post and say, "Looky here, I use a mosaic filter on my image." Or those images people post and call HDR when they are mostly tone mapped to a cartoony look.

I have a photo I took yesterday. It was of a blimp, quite close, up in the sky. When I take a photo of something up in the bright sky, the camera can not handle the contrast very well. I get purple fringing, the subject will look faded out, my camera just doesn't do well with the bright sky background. A slight adjustment to levels and going through a sharpening stage as a little bit of "digital development" made all the difference in the photo.

I'll add my example....

Original photo

Slight crop (limitation of my focal lenght), slight adjustment of levels (limitation of my camera) and slight sharpening (limitation of my camera)

 

[three_eyed_otter]

I think there is a difference between a photo and an image (the image is more "artsy")...Many times photoshop is the difference between the two. I only consider PS cheating when you are no longer true to the moment you tried to capture w/your camera and turn your photo into an image. The above blimp is definitely a good example; after being photoshopped the moment being captured by the photographer still remains true. Now after cropping had he decided to clone some clouds, eliminate some of the twiggy branches from that tree, and recolor the blimp to increase the focal pt...Well IMO the moment is no longer true and the photo becomes an image.

I severely complained to my wife about the transition we have had to endure over the last 8 yrs. of the photographer going from film to digital. I basically said I do not want anymore overly enhanced pictures of my daughter. Imagine a 5 yr. old posing in the window of an old wooden house (1800's) and her face being brushed to look like she is in Glamour magazine. The photographer claims that my daughter has natural lipsticked colored lips and blushy cheeks, we won't mention the eyes. Basically the photos were coming back w/my daughter looking like she had that damn tattoo make up on--I was about to puke. The last photo shoot we requested no beyond necessary digital enhancement and there is a noticeable difference in the photos.

All of that being said some ppl really like images e.g., the black & white bridal photo w/the bouquet in color. It's an image not a photo, but many a women request it.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[manaheim]

I severely complained to my wife about the transition we have had to endure over the last 8 yrs. of the photographer going from film to digital. I basically said I do not want anymore overly enhanced pictures of my daughter. Imagine a 5 yr. old posing in the window of an old wooden house (1800's) and her face being brushed to look like she is in Glamour magazine. The photographer claims that my daughter has natural lipsticked colored lips and blushy cheeks, we won't mention the eyes. Basically the photos were coming back w/my daughter looking like she had that damn tattoo make up on--I was about to puke. The last photo shoot we requested no beyond necessary digital enhancement and there is a noticeable difference in the photos.

All of that being said some ppl really like images e.g., the black & white bridal photo w/the bouquet in color. It's an image not a photo, but many a women request it.

have a good one
3Eo

Oof... yeah, that would drive me wild. There's a photographer that displays his stuff in our local mall that goes full-bore on that kind of thing and it drives me wild.

I mean, if it's the kind of look you are wanting and that pleases you, well, more power to you... but if I asked a photographer to take a picture of my child and he did a hack job like that on it, well... let's just call it a case of not taking the time to understand your customer.