so photoshop is acceptable in the digital photography community?

[iPhoto17]

it seems that people on these forums are very open to using photoshop to edit their pictures, i wouldve thought using photoshop wouldve been shamed upon, but i guess its accepted

is there a line drawn to an extent how photoshopped a picture is before its shamed upon or something?

 

[inTempus]

it seems that people on these forums are very open to using photoshop to edit their pictures, i wouldve thought using photoshop wouldve been shamed upon, but i guess its accepted

is there a line drawn to an extent how photoshopped a picture is before its shamed upon or something?

If you use Photoshop to enhance your pictures, you're a hack in our community. It's frowned upon greatly and I believe it's still a bannable offense being caught editing your images and posting them here.

Photoshop is for lamers. Real photographers shoot RAW and don't post their images online.

I got this shot right out of camera by the way. I can PM you my settings. I've converted it to JPG for you and broken my own rule about only using RAW. But I wanted you to see what is possible with the right camera and settings.

 

[Overread20]

ps don't mind InTempus - he is just itching as he waits for the 1DMIV release details - October 20th

You know when you go into camera menus on most digital cameras there is a list of settings to deal with saturation, colours, brightness even back and white or colour -- settings that will be applied to all the shots taken on that camera (JPEGS only if using a DSLR).
So most digital cameras have already edited your shot before you have it out of the camera. Just like with film cameras the digital results need editing before they are presentable as an image.
Digital cameras can shoot in a RAW mode which lets the photographer make these choices for colours, saturation etc... as well as more key choices like exposure and white balance as opposed to having the camera make those choices for them.

So its a choice - either the photographer makes it or the camera does what it thinks - which is mostly quite decent these days, but might not be the result the photographer wants.

As for taking things further - cloning out elements - adjusting highlights, colours etc.... Those are things that the photographer really has to decide on their own - unless govened by an overseeing body (eg working for a newspaper which might have limititations) or entry into a competition (many restrict edits to what is and is not allowed).

My own view is that as a photographer I am creating an image - I do my best to get that right in camera so that I have the best to work with after. Should the camera fail or be unable to get the result I desire then I will gladly use editing methods to get the results that I need. I don't hide how I edit when asked though and I do have limitations on how far I will edit a shot - I am a photographer (ooh titles) but no digital artist.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

PhotoShop is to digital photography what the darkroom is to film photography. Why should it not be acceptable? Most of what you can do in PS was done before either at the time of shooting or later in the darkroom.

What is not acceptable today, such as manipulation of images by news publications, was not acceptable before either. Aside from the technology, very little has changed in photography. Some people think that some techniques are new (HDR comes to mind) only because they don't know the history of the art.

 

[photobymike]

I agree with cloud walker. We are in a new era of photography. laptops are the dark rooms of today. There are certain limits but the is decided by the photographer. Everybody has there own opinions of what is to much

 

[iPhoto17]

i took 2 years of photogaphy in highschool and we had the dark room and everything, the only thing i probably did in the darkroom that i can do in photoshop is dodge and burning, some sepia toning, but mainly black and white

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I have images that were done with film (I am actually new to digital) that are way, way more manipulated than what inTempus posted here. PhotoShop makes it easier to some degree but it still requires quite a bit of skills and patience.

As I said there is nothing much new.

 

[iPhoto17]

I have images that were done with film (I am actually new to digital) that are way, way more manipulated than what inTempus posted here. PhotoShop makes it easier to some degree but it still requires quite a bit of skills and patience.

As I said there is nothing much new.

im new to digital too and im trying to get used to not having a light meter like my SLR, sometimes i find myself trying to use the light meter on my SLR and do whatever settings on the DSLR that i did on the SLR

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Tbh I think that what you are talking about is kind of like the situation of someone going from PC to Mac. They may not got about things quite the same way but the end result is the same.

A light meter is a light meter. A DSLR's metering system gives you more options than what you have in a film camera but Ansel Adams made his photos without all the options.

You just have to learn a somewhat different way of doing things.

 

[iPhoto17]

Tbh I think that what you are talking about is kind of like the situation of someone going from PC to Mac. They may not got about things quite the same way but the end result is the same.

A light meter is a light meter. A DSLR's metering system gives you more options than what you have in a film camera but Ansel Adams made his photos without all the options.

You just have to learn a somewhat different way of doing things.

unless my nikon d3000 does have a light meter that i cant see, becuase i dont know what shutter speeds i should be at in certain conditions

 

[UUilliam]

I am a (aspiring) photographer created from a digital Artist

I personally think a Photograph should be edited to look like the photographer had seen it / wanted the result to be, but as a Graphic artist, I like to mess around with images and create different effects that are almost (if not) impossible in real life scenes.

 

[UUilliam]

Tbh I think that what you are talking about is kind of like the situation of someone going from PC to Mac. They may not got about things quite the same way but the end result is the same.

A light meter is a light meter. A DSLR's metering system gives you more options than what you have in a film camera but Ansel Adams made his photos without all the options.

You just have to learn a somewhat different way of doing things.

unless my nikon d3000 does have a light meter that i cant see, becuase i dont know what shutter speeds i should be at in certain conditions

All digital camera's have a built in light meter, however it records Reflective light, not actual light, unlike an external light meter.

The light meter in camera is behind the mirror, some light passes through the merror and hits the sensor, My Film camera also has a built in meter (Canon 500N)

They are fairly accurate but I'm going to buy an external light meter.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

unless my nikon d3000 does have a light meter that i cant see, becuase i dont know what shutter speeds i should be at in certain conditions

Have you read the manual?

Or do you not have a manual? Here's a link for it: Nikon Product Manuals available for download

You'll find the D3000 about halfway down the page, the last one before the DSLR Accessories.

 

[iPhoto17]

unless my nikon d3000 does have a light meter that i cant see, becuase i dont know what shutter speeds i should be at in certain conditions

Have you read the manual?

Or do you not have a manual? Here's a link for it: Nikon Product Manuals available for download

You'll find the D3000 about halfway down the page, the last one before the DSLR Accessories.

its internal though, i meant to say one that i can look at to see if the f-stop and shutter are good enough to let enough light in

 

[iPhoto17]

ooooooo, i found the light meter in the viewfinder now