Photoshop

[three]

Hello Just wanting general opinion here. Do you consider a photog "good" when they use photoshop on nearly every photograph?

 

[reznap]

Do you consider a film photographer "good" when he develops nearly every one of his negatives?

A picture is a picture.

 

[McMommy]

I was thinking the same thing earlier, after posting my photos of the babies!

On one hand, I feel like my skills could eventually be developed enough to take the photo EXACTLY the way that I like it. But in reality, I want certain features to really pop, and especially with little guys, I want the colors vivid and fun and wonderful. While the best photos I take have all these features, I still enhance my very favorite parts, because I want the viewer to see what I saw.

Maybe that's just me with portrait-type photos. I don't think I'd edit a landscape photo too much, but it also doesn't appeal to me like a pair of gorgeous blue eyes and bright-colors all around!

 

[three]

Do you consider a film photographer "good" when he develops nearly every one of his negatives?

A picture is a picture.

You obviously did not understand the question if you are equating a good photographer with the ability to develop film. :roll: here we go...

 

[jajomo]

I'm a PP addict! and proudly admit it. I look at it like this..my picture is my canvas and my edits are my paints. I really don't like natural shots...only because its not what I like. Can I appericate natural un processed shots yes. Can I see the beauty in the simplicity of them of course. Do I understand that skilled photographers can do so much more with talent and skill then PP....but its not my style and thats what it all boils down too..do what makes you happy its your camera and your pictures.

 

[reznap]

Do you consider a film photographer "good" when he develops nearly every one of his negatives?

A picture is a picture.

You obviously did not understand the question if you are equating a good photographer with the ability to develop film. :roll: here we go...

You come in here and your FIRST post is a stupid question - appears to be troll bait - with a million possible answers. You're not going to get anything except opinions because the matter in question is purely subjective.

And then you criticize my answer and 'roll your eyes'

Also you obviously don't understand much about developing film if you're equating it to just an 'ability.' Not only are there tons of techniques, chemical variations, film papers...

..Guess I took the bait.

 

[pbelarge]

three

Maybe you do not understand what you posted.


There are no cameras available today the can produce a photograph the same way a human sees the world, let alone his/her specific moment. B&W is a little different, color has a much larger spectrum.

Without Post production of photographs (which has been going on for as long as photography has been developed (pun intended), we would not always be able to produce what each individual sees when shooting.


Photoshop or any other program will not replace a well composed shot, it helps a photographer to render more closely what his eye-mind saw the moment he pressed the shutter button. Which a camera cannot do itself.


One of the big differences today is the quality of the programs available. Regardless of the quality, one still needs to be a good photographer.
One of the big differences is, the photographer can also become an artist in the sense of say a painter, with the programs available today.

The people I see who complain are generally the 'older crowd' and the new crowd who think of photography like the old crowd...

 

[eric-holmes]

Do you consider a film photographer "good" when he develops nearly every one of his negatives?

A picture is a picture.

You obviously did not understand the question if you are equating a good photographer with the ability to develop film. :roll: here we go...

You come in here and your FIRST post is a stupid question - appears to be troll bait - with a million possible answers. You're not going to get anything except opinions because the matter in question is purely subjective.

And then you criticize my answer and 'roll your eyes'

Also you obviously don't understand much about developing film if you're equating it to just an 'ability.' Not only are there tons of techniques, chemical variations, film papers...

..Guess I took the bait.

:thumbup: +1

and what is this "here we go again crap"? You are brand new here.

 

[outamyway]

troll

 

[EhJsNe]

A film photographer processing his film...thats his post proessing. The darkroom is their photoshop.
Digital photographers dont have darkrooms. Their darkrooms are Photoshop (or whatever they use)
So basically, NOT using Photoshop is like not devoloping your film. (Okay, its not THAT extreme...)

But your question is really broad, I can use Photoshop just to fix white balance and fix the exposure.
Or, I can use Photoshop to make a TOTALLY different picture, changing just about every aspect of the image.

Youre never going to get the answer you want on such a broad question.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Film developing is exactly the same as post processing, just much more difficult, expensive, dangerous, and time consuming. Many of photoshop techniques are based on things photographers would do in a darkroom. To answer your question, no it doesn't make a bad photographer. If you have a really cool landmark you want to shoot but have tons of tourists around it, should you just never EVER shoot that landmark, shoot it with tons of people just to feel like a legit photographer, or do you do multiple exposures and stack them to remove the people?

I think you have a misconception of what post processing is and also what cameras are capable of.

 

[table1349]

Do you consider a film photographer "good" when he develops nearly every one of his negatives?

A picture is a picture.

You obviously did not understand the question if you are equating a good photographer with the ability to develop film. :roll: here we go...

You obviously do not understand photography which makes asking questions about photography a bit of a challenge.

 

[KmH]

You also don't understand Photoshop because it is mostly the computer version of darkroom techniques that have been used for over 100 years.

 

[three]

It wasn't a stupid question, just a general opinion question and wow, such anger. A simple yes or no would have been adequate. I was saying "here we go" because I knew even replying to that statement was going to get a very negative response from the ones who feel it necessary to spew and make smart-ass comments whenever they can get a chance. And if my question appeared to be troll bait- then why troll it? Simply don't answer. Thanks for real answers. I see now why people from ILP discouraged use of this forum. Nothing like experiencing it yourself

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

What's ILP?