# to Photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 16, 2008)

To photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.


*UPDATE:* When I started this poll I was almost completly agaist PP, you've made me see reason, thanks!


----------



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 16, 2008)

Whoops! Aciddent!


----------



## TATTRAT (Jan 16, 2008)

shoot, I wish I just knew how to use it.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

Ummm white balance?  Color saturation?


----------



## skieur (Jan 16, 2008)

It is not really a choice.  Postprocessing with some program is a requirement for all professional work and all dedicated enthusiasts use it as well.  Only beginners without a basic knowledge of digital photography would even consider not doing postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## nicfargo (Jan 16, 2008)

Word Skieur, Word!


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

I am a 100% newbie to photography and I still don't see where I would be with my D50 and no post processing.  Color saturation is something that usually should be different for each image.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 16, 2008)

I respect the people who strive for AS SHOT, but since I've been fixing and modifying other peoples work for almost 20 years (parallax, CC and compositing), AND view 99% of what I shot in PS, well I have no problem with sweetening a shot with a little curve or levels adjustment, or perhaps a modest tweak in saturation or color balance, etc... the future is now.

-Shea


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

DSLRs are basically designed for PP they take the image with all the data needed to make it great you just do those few tweaks it needs to really pop.


----------



## Sideburns (Jan 16, 2008)

I agree with skieur.  You can't not photoshop.  Well...sometimes it's ok...but to be honest...it's not cheating...it's digital darkroom.


----------



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 16, 2008)

Hm.. you guys are beginning to change my view!:idea:


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

Adding stuff that wasn't there is probably not good but there are a lot of little things that are meant to be done to images some images need high saturation some need low saturation.  Burning and dodging a few select areas adds emphasis.  Adding a unicorn and fire probably too far...


----------



## domromer (Jan 16, 2008)

A bunch of my teachers are very anti photoshop. I just think it comes from just getting out of the film dark age. Personally. I think there is nothing wrong at all with PS an image. And not just stuff that could be done in a traditional dark room. If something needs cloned out then be damned I'm going to clone it out.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 16, 2008)

Post-production everytime.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 16, 2008)

Post production at the very least to capture the scene that was there the camera doesn't always give you quite the saturation needed.


----------



## gmarquez (Jan 17, 2008)

Ls3D said:


> I respect the people who strive for AS SHOT




In digital photography at least, there is no such thing as "as shot"...so much processing goes on before you even get the RAW file (let alone the processed JPG file) that it's more of a philosophical question than a real question.

Even the printing process is an imprecise reproduction of what was "shot", and therefore we have varying levels of sharpening applied to printed pictures depending on size, media, etc.

Let's be clear here...the camera DOESN'T capture what your eye sees, it captures its interpretation of it.  You can tease out a rough approximation of what you saw, you can go an artistic direction, or you can play the "as is" game...but none of those techniques will exactly capture "reality" .


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 17, 2008)

That is a technicality IMO, I have digital shots I name 'as shot' because I just opened them and saved. Funny there is even a 'as shot' setting in my RAW importer.

So while I agree, sometime a vernacular has more than your meaning.

-Shea


----------



## Bevel Heaven (Jan 17, 2008)

yes PP is good.  But not too much peeps!  I look at a lot of other people's photos posted here, it the ongoing theme seems to be over sharpened, over contrasty, over everything.

C'mon people, some shots have been expertly re-crafted in PP and look magnificant.......  But it seems the vast majority are just fuzzy messes.

So my vote was YES but to add - please don;t over do it!


----------



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 17, 2008)

hm.. very interesting!


----------



## skieur (Jan 17, 2008)

Bevel Heaven said:


> yes PP is good. But not too much peeps! I look at a lot of other people's photos posted here, it the ongoing theme seems to be over sharpened, over contrasty, over everything.
> 
> C'mon people, some shots have been expertly re-crafted in PP and look magnificant....... But it seems the vast majority are just fuzzy messes.
> 
> So my vote was YES but to add - please don;t over do it!


 
I think most people should expect that like anything else postprocessing and Photoshop have their own learning curves and whether it is overdone or "expertly re-crafted" depends on where the photographer is in learning and experience using Photoshop.

I also find that some viewers incorrectly jump to the conclusion that a shot has been overly postprocessed just because there are bright, vibrant colours.  My experience is that a photographer will often get such saturated colours in landscapes if he/she is shooting in a wet climate or an area that is subject to a lot of rain.  I think of bright green and red earth in a few of my shots but the bright green was due to frequent fog and rain in the area, and the red earth was due to iron oxide.

skieur


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 17, 2008)

Yes.

RAW convert
White Balance 
Crop
Dodge/Burn
Saturate
Contrast
Curve color adjustments
B&W Convert
Selective sharpening
Spot/Heal/Clone
Sensor dirt or other distractions


... and that's just the minimum to get a decent image. Almost all of these are improvements I would have done one way or another in the dark room prior to Photoshop. 

But I've never acquired the skill to assemble/collage or add/combine elements. Some people are great at it, I appreciate it as a creative choice, but it's not my particular hobby.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

> But I've never acquired the skill to assemble/collage or add/combine elements. Some people are great at it, I appreciate it as a creative choice, but it's not my particular hobby.



I remember seeing some EXCELLENT combination work done with negatives in the darkroom when I was taking history of photography.  Something like 100 negatives used in one scene to get the photograph that the artist was looking for it was gorgeous and there was no way he could have gotten all the models to the scene to actually take the photograph (much less having been able to get them in the semi-unclothed state that they were in)


----------



## lifeafter2am (Jan 17, 2008)

To me, its all about replicating what I used to do in the darkroom.  So as others have said: dodging, burning, contrast, brightness, etc...

It seems almost like there is a split, like the digital v film, now there are the PS v Non-PS.  I don't care if you use a lot of photoshop to make a stunning image, it is still a stunning image.  

Mokeykoder:  Agreed completely.  I also remember being shown and told about people doing this with negatives and such.  So, really, there is not argument for this, other than it probably just makes it easier to do the work than using a darkroom.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

I would almost say it would be much more difficult to do well digitally you would be stuck with a lot more artifacts then again I'm neither experienced with darkroom or PS.


----------



## Honeybee (Jan 17, 2008)

Well, I'm not so good a photoshop but I have used it. The thing is, is I personally don't like to see photos over done in pp. To me, if it's over-done in my eyes, than it doesn't make it a genuine picture. But everyone has their opinion on this. One person might think it's a wonderful picture even with all the added and what-not done to it in photoshop while the person sitting next to him may think it's a horrible picture. I think photoshop should be used to bring out some things that be lacking in the picture but when over done and looks like a painting I say it's not a picture. But hey...that's just my opinion. I've learned to be happy with what i produce and also that not everyone will see what i see.

do what makes you happy and satisfied with your work.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

Even if it looks like a painting I could still see it being art which IS what some people are after.


----------



## Honeybee (Jan 17, 2008)

I agree. it is art. and like you said it's what _some _people are after.


----------



## Emerana (Jan 17, 2008)

it should have been to post process or not cause not everyone uses photoshop.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 17, 2008)

Phil the Photographer said:


> To photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.
> 
> 
> I personally only use photoshop for non-photograble effects (Example-*Sepia or Grained effects*)



But they are photograble, just use the right film and paper.

hence, if you call recolouring the sky in PS cheating, then sepia and grain in PS are also cheating


----------



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 17, 2008)

Honeybee said:


> Well, I'm not so good a photoshop but I have used it. The thing is, is I personally don't like to see photos over done in pp. To me, if it's over-done in my eyes, than it doesn't make it a genuine picture. But everyone has their opinion on this. One person might think it's a wonderful picture even with all the added and what-not done to it in photoshop while the person sitting next to him may think it's a horrible picture. I think photoshop should be used to bring out some things that be lacking in the picture but when over done and looks like a painting I say it's not a picture. But hey...that's just my opinion. I've learned to be happy with what i produce and also that not everyone will see what i see.
> 
> do what makes you happy and satisfied with your work.


________________________________________________________________

   Exactly!


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 17, 2008)

skieur said:


> I think most people should expect that like anything else postprocessing and Photoshop have their own learning curves and whether it is overdone or "expertly re-crafted" depends on where the photographer is in learning and experience using Photoshop.
> 
> I also find that some viewers incorrectly jump to the conclusion that a shot has been overly postprocessed just because there are bright, vibrant colours.  My experience is that a photographer will often get such saturated colours in landscapes if he/she is shooting in a wet climate or an area that is subject to a lot of rain.  I think of bright green and red earth in a few of my shots but the bright green was due to frequent fog and rain in the area, and the red earth was due to iron oxide.
> 
> skieur



true, true and true.

Some of my film images have colours which many would call totally overprocessed if it was digital   just shoot in the right climate and in the right time of the year and day ....


And then there is Velvia for slides ... wow, then you get some contrast and colours


----------



## Phil the Photographer (Jan 17, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> But they are photograble, just use the right film and paper.
> 
> hence, if you call recolouring the sky in PS cheating, then sepia and grain in PS are also cheating


 

  OK! OK! You've made me see reason! PP is important! No need to rub it in!:er:


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 17, 2008)

domromer said:


> A bunch of my teachers are very anti photoshop. I just think it comes from just getting out of the film dark age.



Your teachers need to buy a calendar...  maybe even do a bit of homework.  I gotta tell ya...  digital photography is not the same as film photography.  There are different concerns and different challenges.  I suspect because they're DIFFERENT MEDIA.

Take the portrait industry for example.  NO film photographer worth his salt would ever make prints without first doing some general retouching on the negative.  And perhaps more importantly, the lab always made some color corrections in printing.  Many effects were done "in-camera," like soft focus and vignetting.  Why would a DIGITAL photographer do anything less?  

-Pete


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 17, 2008)

Phil the Photographer said:


> OK! OK! You've made me see reason! PP is important! No need to rub it in!:er:



I agree that one can go overboard with sharpening, contrast, and everything. but this is just the same as using the wrong film for the wrong task. You would not shoot portrait with Velvia for example (there are people who call Fujia Velvia "Disneycolor" because of its extreme saturation).

you start to influence the outcome already at the stage of processing (without any post, and by this i mean, processing the film chemically, or converting the RAW data into an image). if it is done well, it looks good, if it is done not so well, it looks bad. And if it is done to cover some failures you did during the original exposure, then it has to be done very well to look not cheap.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 17, 2008)

domromer said:


> A bunch of my teachers are very anti photoshop. I just think it comes from just getting out of *the film dark age*.



Please do not call it that! 

There was also a lot of light in that age  .. and still is.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 17, 2008)

I can't wait to start doing B&W film...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2008)

To me the object of making a picture creating a reproduction of what the photographer can see in his/her mind's eye? And that image may not be what the physical eye actually sees.

Post-processing software - just like the use/choice of camera, film, paper developer, light, filter, angle, f stop, shutter speed, post-processing software, etc. - is a tool to create that picture.

Arguing about whether PP is OK is like discussing whether an artist can only use a certain kind of pencil or brush.


----------



## ianm (Jan 17, 2008)

There is post processing - digital darkroom - and "making photography NOT photography" so as i see it image correction of an image and keeping it basically AS the photograph is enough photoshoping.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 17, 2008)

ianm said:


> There is post processing - digital darkroom - and "making photography NOT photography" so as i see it image correction of an image and keeping it basically AS the photograph is enough photoshoping.



That's a distinction without a difference.

The picture is the picture as you took it and as the camera delivered it.  
If you do anything to change it to look like your eyes and CNS remember or want it to be, then your activity is the exact same as major PSing. 

Is this picture below 'wrong' because of the PSing?


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

there is a difference ^that^ there is not what you saw through the lense, you made that image in photoshop - where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> ...where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.



They're still photographs.

You're simply pointing out the difference between "creating photographs" and "taking pictures."

-Pete


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

you're not "creating photographs" though, that's the point - once you take it into ps and go as far as colour selecting one bit and making the rest b/w or adding extra bits to the "photograph" it ceases to be a "photograph", yes, you used a "photograph" to create "an image" but is no longer "a photograph"


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> ...it ceases to be a "photograph"...



Well then....   what does it become?

What shall we call these images?  Hmmmmm......


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

an image, a creation, artwork, a manipulated image (which is basically a closer descriptive, considering what's done to it)


----------



## Arch (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> there is a difference ^that^ there is not what you saw through the lense, you made that image in photoshop - where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.



your getting a bit mixed up ..... the above image is a manipulated image... but it still all falls under the photography umbrella. The same as if a negative was minipulated in the darkroom (remember you can still blend 2 images to one in the darkroom as well as many other types of minipulation) but its still a photo.


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

sorry, i have to disagree - where the digital format is concerned, that is not a photograph - i would do that type of treatment on an image for an ad or marketing campaign, you said it yourself - it's a manipulated image


----------



## Arch (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> you said it yourself - it's a manipulated image



so bearing in mind that photoshop is a digital darkroom.... about the 2 negatives that are merged to one image in the darkroom.... thats a manipulated image, so its not a photo?


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

Archangel said:


> (remember you can still blend 2 images to one in the darkroom...



I used to do this in the camera (multiple exposures).  And all these years I thought I was making photographs.  Hmmmm.....

-Pete


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

no - how can it be when you just described it as a manipulated image?


----------



## Arch (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> no - how can it be when you just described it as a manipulated image?



if you heal a dust spot or use curves you are manipulating the image... which means apart from the snapshot section this whole forum isnt really photogrpahy.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

ianm said:


> no - how can it be when you just described it as a manipulated image?



I once made a photo of a home site.  In the background was a telephone pole with a lamp.  I has an airbrush artist do some work to hide/delete the pole.  Did my image cease being a photograph when the artwork was applied?


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

Archangel said:


> if you heal a dust spot or use curves you are manipulating the image... which means apart from the snapshot section this whole forum isnt really photogrpahy.




Oh!  Dust spotting!  Something done at EVERY pro lab.  Good point.


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 18, 2008)

The set of manipulated images and the set of photographs are not disjoint (they have common elements.  Just because an image isn't good for documentation doesn't make it any less of a photograph.


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

well, we'll just have to agree to disagree


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

I'll make one more point, then I think I'll have to leave this discussion.

When I would shoot a church interior during a wedding on type S film, would you say the image was NOT a photograph until the lab corrected the color balance making the scene more like it appeared to the naked eye?

-Pete


----------



## ianm (Jan 18, 2008)

whatever you take via your slr or point and shoot is a photograph - computer manipulated (not edited) images are, just what they are computer manipulated images


----------



## Honeybee (Jan 18, 2008)

Are people really getting upset over this 'question'? Why can't it just be that people have their own views on the subject. Some want to create a masterpiece in photoshop while some just want to keep their photos simple, yet beautiful. People believe what they want and have their own ideas on what makes a wonderful picture. Who really cares what the other thinks on pp? Some use it a little while others may use it alot to enhance certain things they 'saw'. Either way, it is still photography and art work. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Can you people agree to disagree? Get your point out there and let it be. No need to continue arguing . People have their own mind and thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

Honeybee said:


> Can you people agree to disagree?



Heh...  funny you should ask.

I don't believe I can...  at least not on this point.  The "agree to disagree" is always the best exit strategy when one cannot substaniate what one is asserting.

A lot of people pass through here wanting to learn.  It's very important to me that the information they get is correct.

I offered three situations (dust spotting, airbrush work, and color correction) of manipulating photographs that involve NO PhotoShop...  NO computers.  Just film, an enlarger and artwork.  Not one of these was addressed.

Oh well.

-Pete


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 18, 2008)

I think that some people have not grasped the fact that there is no such thing as an un-manipulated picture.  

Making believe that some set of manipulations (usually ones that are traditional and mostly invisible) are OK and others are outside the realm of 'photography' is not a question of 'views', it is just silly.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 18, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> I think that some people have not grasped the fact that there is no such thing as an un-manipulated picture.  ...not a question of 'views', it is just silly.



Well said.

-Pete


----------



## Honeybee (Jan 18, 2008)

Well for me....I can see what everyone is saying. My point is....you won't be changing anyone's mind on how they feel about it. I've only been a digital user and have never proccessed film myself. So, i see the point that is being made. There is no difference between pp in photoshop and developing your own film. 

I think the point that whoever is trying to make is that too much pp (or none at all) in _his_ eyes doesn't seem to be genuine picture. What is so wrong with him having an opinion? You have yours. Would you like someone to keep trying to throw s*** in your face on their veiw point? prolly not. 

So you've made your statement. Some that are here to learn will read this and make their own decision on what they believe is right or wrong. which prolly isn't the right way to put that, cuz their is no right and wrong.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 18, 2008)

I think that most people are responding to IanM's wanting to claim 'photography' as his own definition and telling everyone else that what they are doing is not photography.

If he had said, "It's not what I do, everyone would have gone 'OK'." But since he persists in a basic misconception of the process, we are all happy to persist in trying to enlighten him.

It is part of our religion to proselytize.


----------



## Honeybee (Jan 18, 2008)

I gotcha Traveler.  


I guess i'm just trying to help both sides out. I stated my opinon on the matter.  Me and my boyfriend actually agrued about this very subject the other day. And i just came to realize that not everyone will agree on how much photoshop to use. I think it's wonderful for some pictures.  But me, I guess I just want to have mine as close as possible to what i saw when snapping the pix.  But some people envision more when settting up a shot and think of the things they could do to it in photoshop before they even hit the computer.

I for one, appreicate everyone's work. I might not like it, but hey, it is an art form and you have to appreciate it.


----------

