What if Photoshop doesn't exist?

Photoshop has made life easier for not only most photographers but also for graphic artists and photo editors as well. It has made "screwed up" images easier to fix. The attitude not just from photographers, but the average person is that having to work from a near perfect image is no longer necessary. This isn't directed at just amateurs, but professionals as well. The majority of skilled photographers still work to achieve that near perfect image in camera, a lot of the time it is absolutely necessary that is done right, especially where deadlines are concerned.

As I've said before I grew up shooting film and working in the darkroom for decades. I didn't get into re-touching negatives, that took a a different skill set and there were professional re-touch masters, it wasn't easy. I did use an airbrush on prints to remove things that clients wanted removed, and it wasn't easy. It could take days or weeks to get images just right. What photoshop and other software offers is instant fixes that really only require a limited knowledge of the software. There are people that I consider masters at working with photoshop, the majority aren't photographers, they are the graphic artists, similar to the negative re-touch masters.

I like photoshop it has made my job easier, especially since I started scanning 40 years of slides and negatives. I work as hard at getting my images as close to perfect coming out of the camera now, as I did when I shot film.

Just because a piece of software has made photography easier doesn't mean I don't have to try as hard to do it right in the first place.
 
imagemaker46 said:
Photoshop has made life easier for not only most photographers but also for graphic artists and photo editors as well.........Just because a piece of software has made photography easier doesn't mean I don't have to try as hard to do it right in the first place.
Click to expand...
Nicely said.
This discussion is between pros v.pros ? Amateurs v. amateurs ? Or pros v. amateurs ? Does it have a point ? Image in film photography based 75% on personal skill of a photographer, image in digital photography bases 75% on skill of a programer (not only PS). For pro there is no question: whatever is better, faster and more cost effective, he depends on his clients. For an amateur whatever makes his heart beat faster.
 
It seems that photographers are really unique in the extent of their fascination with the past. While I can appreciate darkroom photography, that doesn't mean that I hold it up to some kind of ridiculous level.

Animators embrace and are excited by computer animation. Film makers don't necessarily lament about the days of 0.20/foot processing rates. That doesn't mean that animators don't appreciate hand-drawn cells or cinematographers don't miss the flicker of film. Graphic artists sure as hell don't miss lith tape, halftone film, process cameras and dusty negatives ... nevermind the cost involved ... but that does not mean I can't appreciate a letterpress, or dream of even owning one - but I'm not about to use it for commercial work unless the project needs one.

Every commercial artist knows that the more you get "right" the first time, the less it will cost to get right after - time is money. But what exactly is "getting it right" in photography? If I thought that the advertisement would look awesome dark with high contrast, does not mean that my client would agree. If I did this "in camera" without considering any other option, I'd have no choice but to go back and reshoot. If i shot to maximize data, I could manipulate contrast and tone to some extent in post. I wouldn't be sitting there with the client when he says "oh yeah, that looks great! but could we make it a bit brighter" with my reply being ".....uhm, sure, of course, but I shot it like I would slide film so, uhm, give me a week to reshoot it; that is unless you like noise!"

SOOC has merit, don't get me wrong - and any tonal translation will damage the image to one degree or another, but in the real world of SNR and histogram artifacts - SOOC just isn't practical - nor is it technically accurate to digital, nor even is it historically accurate to film.

In reality, the image on film doesn't exist until it's processed, and how a photograph is processed will affect how it appears - really, no different in theory, anyway, than digital. It seems like you just send off your film and it comes back one way and one way only - but that is only because labs sell consistency. And when it comes to b/w film, you can't really appreciate it's capabilities without this understanding. Ansel Adams never shot SOOC.

Yes. That's right. The great Ansel Adams didn't shoot SOOC, this doesn't mean he didn't know what the negative would look like in the end, that is after all what the Zone System was designed for. But also, the Zone System is essentially RAW processing for film, compensating gamma by manipulating processing - Adams even wrote as far in The Negative, a book anyone who thinks film is all SOOC should read.
 
Last edited:
Oh- and just before anyone goes on about how it's the artists job to communicate with the client about visual requirements ... perhaps you've had the pleasure of working exclusively with art directors, but I've been the only art director I've ever worked with. Most of my small business owner-clients had the visual vocabulary of their business administration degree....
 
Getting it right in photography. At the base level I suppose it's being able to record what your eyes are seeing. Producing an image that doesn't require a lot of work to make it look like what you saw. Being able to compose the image, make the correct camera adjustments and record it without the overuse of post software.

I agree with what you're saying and would have no desire to go back to film. I don't think it's unique to photographers to look back to the past. I'm sure in many other professions they look back to the past to understand how things are being done today.
 
The point is that what we see isn't objective. The point of processing is to emphasize our impressions. Even if we had a camera which had the dynamic range, resolution and color depth of strictly biological sensory organs, this would not eliminate the need for post processing.

As one of the most experienced members here, I'm sure you know that feeling of passing by a great experience without photographing it because you KNOW that there is no way you can adequately document it. Or when you come home JAZZED only to find that all the photos suck - not because of any technical reason, but because the medium failed to capture what you saw.
 
I have to say that while I now understand what you're saying I have to disagree with looking at images I've shot and not seeing exactly what I was looking at. If you eliminate some of the sensory side of just being at the specfic location, sound, smell, and just using eyes. I shot a sunset on kodachrome back in the 70's, when I looked at the original slides for the very first time, they were what I saw, the colours were all there. I did no post processing on them. I have been in this situation on many occations where no post was required to make the image look the same as what I saw.
 
I have also shot stuff that has sucked, generally it was because I was playing with a new technique and it just didn't work the way I hoped. In a lot of these situations I did have a gut feelng that they wouldn't work. On the other side I have been surprised at times when something works when I wasn't expecting it to.
 
Pretending that not using photoshop (or not using any other thing) makes your photographs more "honest" or "real" is a big mistake.

Every photograph is a lie. Every photograph is a single instant in time, a single frame carved out of the world.

Any editor worth his salt can lie just as well with a crop as with an erasure. Any photographer can lie as well with a carefully selected vantage point as with a crop. Photojournalism people have this hilarious thing they do where they pretend that their images are more honest because they don't allow certain kinds of alterations, for instance. You can select one image over another, and you can crop, so the game is over -- you can tell any damn story you want. Pretending that since you don't use photoshop you're incapable of lying is purely a sham designed to make the newspaper appear honest.

Applying it to fashion and advertising doesn't make any sense at all. The photographs are staged to start with.
 
Cool shots, thanks for posting them.

I liked your portfolio as well.
There's some really nice shots in them as well.

My favorite was the candid portraits.

Hope to see you post again!
 
What if Photoshop did not exist?**

I reject your premise entirely, as these were shot with a digital camera, and a JPEG file straight out of your digital camera is heavily modified and "photoshopped" version of what data the sensor originally captured.

I also reject your premise that what you are capturing is reality. What you see in your reality is your interpreation of what you see in your reality. Don't assume more. For example, the shot of the glasses-- when you were shooting this photo, did your eyes heavily de-focus the background to the extreme you've shown here? I'm guessing not. Lenses allow us to capture the world differently than even our eyes see.

What you've presented here is a tired and worn out argument laiden with logical flaws.
 
amolitor said:
Pretending that not using photoshop (or not using any other thing) makes your photographs more "honest" or "real" is a big mistake.

Every photograph is a lie. Every photograph is a single instant in time, a single frame carved out of the world.

Any editor worth his salt can lie just as well with a crop as with an erasure. Any photographer can lie as well with a carefully selected vantage point as with a crop. Photojournalism people have this hilarious thing they do where they pretend that their images are more honest because they don't allow certain kinds of alterations, for instance. You can select one image over another, and you can crop, so the game is over -- you can tell any damn story you want. Pretending that since you don't use photoshop you're incapable of lying is purely a sham designed to make the newspaper appear honest.

Applying it to fashion and advertising doesn't make any sense at all. The photographs are staged to start with.
Click to expand...


What if the photographer shoots a single frame and it remains unaltered, is that considered a true photograph?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

My Family Portrait

< Previous Thread

Kathy

Next Thread >

Most reactions

Similar threads

P
Wildlife Photography at night
Replies
8
Views
2K
K9Kirk
K9Kirk
SquarePeg
Photography is the best hobby!
Replies
11
Views
2K
Cinka
Cinka
terri
Interview with Ysarex!
Replies
11
Views
2K
Ysarex
Ysarex
Dao
Regarding the security advisory for Canon digital cameras related to PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol)
Replies
1
Views
663
NE-KID
NE-KID
terri
Interview with Webestang64!
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
webestang64
webestang64

New Topics

TPF Gallery Photos

[No title]
Tulip
Maiden
4529-Owl
FB_IMG_1690862836993.jpg
Western Gunfighter
3267-old356
Lone Cloud
Frog1.jpg
[No title]
3267-2old356
Snow
Back
Top