# The tendency to over-Photoshop?



## manaheim (Jan 19, 2009)

In recent months I've come to realize that in order to keep up with the expectations of the times on saturation and contrast and such, that I must seemingly err on the side of over-photoshopping files.

For example, look at these images (not mine)

The Beauty Of Urban Decay | Inspiration | Smashing Magazine

Many of these are very nice.  Very stunning images and whatnot, but a LOT of them seem WAY over-photoshopped to my eye.  Extreme contrast, saturation and sharpness boosts that are clearly done in post-processing.

Is this right?  Is it wrong?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  I'm curious of thoughts.

Also... was it even possible to do this with film prior to Photoshop?  If so, did it take extraordinary means to do so?  Or was it common?


----------



## Battou (Jan 19, 2009)

I don't know, I did not check the link yet but I'll tell you there is some film I have shot that comes out of the camera with amazing color saturation with out the help of Photoshop.


----------



## Overread (Jan 19, 2009)

Its like the HDR factor - its a popular move with photography at this current point in time. I suspect if you study the themes over a long period of time you will see many changes like this occur - as different methods become possible and popular - as well as how much of this is possibly for the layman to reproduce themselves.

right/wrong/good/bad its not really any of those things to me - its just fashion.

It might be limiting in what the press and economic market produce in the way of photography, but that has always been the case. There are always standards in the market and expectations which restrict what can be "popular" and - of course - these also change as well. How and what makes them change is something that I don't know and I suspect that its not something that anyone really has full control over (though there will be strong players that will push for their vision)


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 19, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ...but a LOT of them seem WAY over-photoshopped to my eye.  Extreme contrast, saturation and sharpness boosts that are clearly done in post-processing.



Look at those again.  Do you see the problem that occurred long before the processing?  Boring subject matter and light, or at best mediocre and common place.  That's the problem.  The over processing is just an attempt to make something out of nothing, and that's very tricky to actually pull off.  The subject matter can't hold the viewer's attention, and they begin to dwell on the processing.  Better to come up with compelling subject matter and interesting light to begin with.  Then no one will pay attention to the processing whether it's a light touch or heavy handed.

"The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster." -Ansel Adams



manaheim said:


> Also... was it even possible to do this with film prior to Photoshop?  If so, did it take extraordinary means to do so?  Or was it common?



I haven't bought film in a few years, but extra and ultra saturated films have always been popular.  When Velvia was introduced half the photogs loved it, and the other half thought it was an abomination.  I've heard it's the photo contest winningest film ever.  The colors it produces are not particularly accurate to any reality I've been part of.  Kodak and Fuji both offered several ultra saturated versions of their pro neg films too.

Many of these fancy Photoshop manipulations are technically possible in the darkroom.  Obviously burning and dodging are basic darkroom techniques, but unsharp masking and sophisticated contrast manipulations are possible.  They just take all day, you have to do it in the dark, and there's no saving or going back.  Once you goof you have to start from the beginning, and if each test print takes all afternoon it may be weeks before the finished photograph is realized.  

The color darkroom is particularly difficult because you can barely use any safelight, and it's hard to tweak color one way without effecting it in other ways that we'd rather not change.  In Photoshop we can adjust each slider/input individually without effecting the others.  In the color darkroom it's like they are all interconnected, and sliding one means messing up some of the others.

So while yes, this stuff could be done with film, it was such a pain in the ass that no one would ever bother to do it with anything but their best work.    I used to USM about 6 to 8 landscape photos a year; it was always from 4x5 film, large prints, and definitely my best stuff.  Now all of my family snaps get unsharp masked!    Do they need it?  Not really.  Does it make them masterpieces?  Nope.  Do I think they look better because of it?  Yep.  

I think everybody gets fascinated with new tools and techniques for a while.  I couldn't keep my hands off the saturation when I first started digital processing.  HDR and the over-the-top Photomatix tonemapped look really grabbed me too.  Dave Hill, Dragen, etc..., but I find the thrill wears off the gimmicky, flashy stuff pretty quick.  People either move on to the next image trend or fall back on the fundamentals.

Once upon a time, not too long ago really, color photography was considered a gimmick, and too over the top for serious fine art photographers.


----------



## Jaymz77 (Jan 19, 2009)

It seems there is a super fine line that distinguishes a well taken photo manipulated in Photoshop, adding great detail and colors to a otherwise dull picture due to bad lighting, slight movement(no-IS lens) or an entry level camera and incorrect settings and a well taken photo over saturated, over sharpened and well, flat out over processed. I know I have been a victim of over-photoshopping and it seems that at the time I edited it, it looked fine but later seeing how much I over did it. I also will throw in that I think a lot of blame falls in our monitors. I have edited at work, on a little 17" dell cheapo monitor, saved to my thumb drive, go home and looked at it on my nice 24" View Sonic HD monitor and was just shocked at what I had done. I am sure that isn't all of it but it does amaze me at the difference looking at tpf forums on my nice monitor compared to my work cheapo monitor. 

Now, I never had the opportunity to get into film, but I think film and digital photography are having a larger and larger wedge put between them separating any similarities they once had due to more people having access to higher end equipment and software. In my mind I don't compare a digital photograph to a film photograph, they are art in their own respect.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 19, 2009)

ksmattfish is right. You can shoot the biggest action film (even with big stars) but if there's no story, there's no film. All the special effects in the world will not make it work.

A lot of those shots use tools without a goal. The very same visual treatment would be quite interesting with a person in it (for example.)


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

Iron Flatline said:


> ksmattfish is right. You can shoot the biggest action film (even with big stars) but if there's no story, there's no film. All the special effects in the world will not make it work.
> 
> A lot of those shots use tools without a goal. The very same visual treatment would be quite interesting with a person in it (for example.)



oh ya?  ever seen GIGLI?

asking about how much pp is like picking up a guitar and asking people what you what style you should play....

you should play what you wanna play....

you could play what everyone else is playing.... of course... this could make you look like a cheap ***** in the end...

in the end it's YOUR CAMERA, YOUR VISION, and YOUR RULES!

hey.... i kinda like that.... think i'll put that in my signature....

MY CAMERA, MY VISION, MY RULES!

Brilliant...


----------



## manaheim (Jan 19, 2009)

Some great insights and observations, particularly from ksmattfish (no surprise there!) 

I appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts.  I'm gonna go sit off and bend my mind around this a bit.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 19, 2009)

First off, let's get one thing straight: "Photoshop" is a proper noun.  It is not a verb.  Don't use it as one.

Onto the bedrock of your post...

There's nothing wrong with heavy processing on photos.  Do you think most of the photos people pay good money for are straight out of the camera?  Doubtful.

Personally, I find that there is rarely enough saturation and contrast straight from the camera, and it usually isn't quite the right tone. Most of what I do is just adjusting contrast, sharpening and tones until it "feels" right to me.

HDR is another story.  I think it generally tends to make things look radioactive and generally "ick".  I tried it for a little bit and then decided it was a fad.  I prefer to wait for the right lighting and use the correct exposure.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 19, 2009)

If we did away with over-saturated images, poor old Thomas Kinkade would starve to death.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 19, 2009)

epp_b said:


> First off, let's get one thing straight: "Photoshop" is a proper noun. It is not a verb. Don't use it as one.


 
You do realize, of course, that this one sentence basically made me ignore the rest of your post.



sabbath999 said:


> If we did away with over-saturated images, poor old Thomas Kinkade would starve to death.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 20, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> you should play what you wanna play....



Absolutely follow your own path.  All I'm saying is that if viewers are concentrating on how the photo was made then the subject has failed to catch their attention.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 20, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Personally, I find that there is rarely enough saturation and contrast straight from the camera,



I'm just the opposite.  When my DSLRs are set to the standard picture mode/parameters I get too much saturation and contrast.  It looks like Velvia to me, and I never liked the stuff.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 20, 2009)

This is not a question about good or bad, it's a question of style.  The pics Chris linked to at the top *are* stunning... but I've seen pictures that area equally stunning and don't suffer from the over PSing syndrome.

This is just a style that is coming into fashion now and hopefully will find it's place in our art, or just phase slowly out... it doesn't matter.

Which do I like?  I like both styles but tend to lean more towards the more natrual and less over-PPed photos.

For the amateur, do what you feel makes you happy.  For the pro, do what makes your clients happy.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Jan 20, 2009)

If you think these are over photoshopped than you've expressed an opinion that shows you're good enough to do your own thing. Trying to copy the rules of others is no way to get ahead.

Just like using the word Photoshop whichever way you like. There are no rules in photography just like there are no rules in language. Don't let people tell you what to do OR how to speak!


----------



## Garbz (Jan 20, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Is this right?  Is it wrong?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  I'm curious of thoughts.



No one here can answer that. They can just answer if they like it or not. Some of the images are good, some are not so good in my opinion. The only person you may ask if it is right or wrong was the photographer. It is his image, his vision. Disregarding what people think of Photoshopping, no one can deny that it is the photographer's art, and not the viewers.



manaheim said:


> Also... was it even possible to do this with film prior to Photoshop?  If so, did it take extraordinary means to do so?  Or was it common?



There is not an image on that page that could not have been done using various films and dark room techniques.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 21, 2009)

The line I think is just where it becomes obvious that the photo has been 'shopped.

If the photo has no credibility then it will be dismissed out of hand as eye candy.  The trick is to make the photo mean something to it's viewer.

For instance, on one hand you have a portrait which has been so over done that it makes the subject look like a mannequin.  On the other, the subjects face has had the blemishes and blackheads removed, teeth and eyes whitened, flyaway hair removed and so forth.

Show the average person off the street the first and they'll say OK, sure, next... because the person in the portrait doesn't look like a credible rendition of a real person.

Show them the second and they will look and look again and maybe even a third time because now they can connect with the subject- and are probably looking for flaws if for no other reason than self defense.  But they are still looking because of the connection no matter what it might be.

The hardest part of post production imo is in knowing when to quit.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 21, 2009)

This is a great discussion.

No huge surprises, I guess, but still... good stuff.

For me, personally it always boils down to that feeling like in doing X I'm somehow "cheating".  Photography should be about working with the camera and getting the right image off the camera, and making that image a true representation of what I saw at the time... or so I thought.

For a while I thought that and then one day I realized that 10 years or so ago, people would have probably called digital cheating... 20 years or so ago, people might have called autofocus cheating... 30 years or so ago, people might have called autoexposure cheating... etc.

...and that's just speaking to the pure technical side of things.

In the end, I guess none of it is "cheating", per se... it's just what is acceptable to you and your viewers.

However, perhaps there is importance in being able to at least identify it.  Most of us here can look at those images in that link and go "Wow, he/she did a lot of photoshop on that one and it makes it a stunning image, but without that work, this picture is actually kinda dull."  

Knowing what happened, how it was done, and how without that work the image would appeal or not appeal to us is a very deep level of technical analytic, that I tend to believe means that we can look at our own pictures, and know what we COULD do to gussy them up, and then individual choose to (or not to) do that as our personal photography morals deem appropriate.

Man I need to get more sleep. I'm not sure that made any sense.


----------



## Early (Jan 21, 2009)

I have to agree with manaheim.  Ive seen a lot of photos on here, that to my eye, would have been a real pleasure to view except for all the extra pp done on them, especially sharpness and contrast boosts.  Hopefully, its a fad and will soon play itself out.


----------



## goodoneian (Jan 21, 2009)

manaheim said:


> For me, personally it always boils down to that feeling like in doing X I'm somehow "cheating".  Photography should be about working with the camera and getting the right image off the camera, and making that image a true representation of what I saw at the time... or so I thought.



i didn't read the entire thread but skimmed it, but i've always felt the same way. which is why i try to do as little processing as possible unless it's fixing something i goofed up by accident (cloning out light stands etc.) or fixing my friends skin since they're self conscious of their pimples


----------



## Susan1114 (Jan 22, 2009)

Thank you so much for this thread.  I am a "get it right the 1st time" shooter myself.  I have a lot of technical things to learn so I don't want to lean to the PS method of photography in place of doing it right.  (I"m not saying that everyone does that here. ) I only own iPhoto so I'm very limited in fixing my photos.  I was playing with the idea of getting Photoshop (mostly to keep up with the Jones').  But I think I'll just keep plugging along with the intention of learning this art more naturally.  

I'm very fascinated with the PS photos and I am able to tell when I see them.  I'm not so impressed with the photography as I am with the technical aspect of them.  I'm thinking to myself "What program is this and how did they apply this effect?"  rather than "What were those settings and how did they work that light?".  So it's a different talent on both ends for sure.  Just two very different talents.  

Still trying to find my way


----------



## bevin (Jan 23, 2009)

epp_b said:


> First off, let's get one thing straight: "Photoshop" is a proper noun.  It is not a verb.  Don't use it as one.



photoshop definition | Dictionary.com

Gutted for you.....


----------



## lvcrtrs (Jan 23, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> For the amateur, do what you feel makes you happy. For the pro, do what makes your clients happy.


 
I love this quote. It's really says how it should be. You do need to learn how to take a picture and input from helpful people here is great. But if you are not selling your work, then a big part is - do you like what you are producing. If you worry so much about what other people say that it squashes your desire - well that's just not a good thing. Learn as much as you want to and go enjoy yourself.


----------



## DRoberts (Jan 23, 2009)

Processed or not, the final outcome will be judged by the individual viewer. What one may think is over-processed, might make a photo perfect for another.
As far as "cheating". There is no cheating in making a good photo better. You will not find a photo on a magazine cover that has not been processed. The diference is that the photographers are taking excellent quality photos and making them beter, rather than taking a crap photo and trying to make something out of it.
As long as the effort is taken to produce a good shot out of the camera to start with then there is no cheating with what you do afterwards.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 23, 2009)

What about the tendency to under process?  Daily I see many digital and film photos that need basic contrast adjustment among other things (wb, sharpening, color correction, etc...).  I'm not one that puts much stock in rules for art, but most photographs do look better with blacks that are actually black, and whites that are actually white.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 23, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> Processed or not, the final outcome will be judged by the individual viewer.
> 
> You will not find a photo on a magazine cover that has not been processed.



You will not find a photograph anywhere that has not been processed.  All photographic methods from Daguerreotype to digital require processing for the image to be seen by human eyes (I have heard of an X-ray method that can be used to create BW images from film without processing, but it's weird and no one uses it).  Without processing they remain opaque emulsions, blank paper, and raw data.  

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, *it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability.*" -Edward Steichen

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships!" -Ansel Adams


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 24, 2009)

I started out in the late 80's and I dont recall anyone ever complaining about how somebody cheated in the darkroom stage like people do now. You never heard of people believing it all needed to come right out of the camera either. Photography was a 2 step process divided between camera and darkroom .. you used your creativity with the camera but that was only half of it .. you then continued to use creative thinking and technique in the darkroom. 

I just try to ignore people who insist that photoshop is cheating .. those people obviously never worked in the pre-digital era on a professional level. We had tons of great gadgets, DIY inventions and creative techniques we used back then ... I would guess that is where 99% of the features in Photoshop originated from.
Personally I'm huge into playing with layers ... is that cheating? No because I did the exact same thing 20 years ago .. the only difference was it was more time consuming and I refered to it as "sandwiching film" instead of "working with layers"
Back then you could find all kinds of tools in my darkroom .. carboard, wire, nail polish, various sheets of glass, gel filters, pantyhose and fabrics, a microscope, exacto knives, loupes and lightboxes, brushes, sandpaper, sos pads, an assortment of common and uncommon chemicals, the list goes on .. Adobe just tool all that stuff and put it on a toolbar for me. I dont call that cheating. I call it progress in efficency.


----------



## bwlergh (Jan 24, 2009)

This is a matter of personal opinion and all of it depends on your skill and experience either in the darkroom or with photoshop.

Sure, inexperienced photoshop users will tend to overwork their images, but don't we all do it sometimes? I know I've done it enough times. Then two days later, I flick through the images and go "oh goodness gracious..." It's called working too closely to the subject.

On a totally different point. Why is photoshop so looked down upon anyway? I read an article the other day in a magazine, how photoshop work is looked down upon in comparison to work with film. Sometimes you can spend as many hours playing with photoshop as you would in the dark room. People who judge do not see the amount of work that goes into _well_ processed images.


----------



## Joves (Jan 24, 2009)

While I agree there are many who will over shop their photos. It really comes down to if they like it it is fine. I dont like the over processed photos but, some of those on the site did reming me of Velvia. Which I liked for certain subjects. Using Velvia for everything was plain stupid as, is the tendandcy of some to over process now.


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 24, 2009)

bwlergh said:


> On a totally different point. Why is photoshop so looked down upon anyway? I read an article the other day in a magazine, how photoshop work is looked down upon in comparison to work with film. Sometimes you can spend as many hours playing with photoshop as you would in the dark room. People who judge do not see the amount of work that goes into _well_ processed images.



Good question. There are so many factors I don't think it could ever be narrowed down to one specific event that has caused this reaction. It could extend all the way back to the digital revelation and be a snowball effect from the extreme hatred of the invention of digital cameras in the first place. It could also stem from the same attitude that was encouraged by photographers who had tens of thousands of dollars invested in their home darkrooms that would soon be replaced by a single program that was easily available for under $1000 .. not to mention all the years of experience they had invested in what has become totally obsolete in the mainstream. Basically a snowball effect that came from professionals fear of change and huge egos .. these opinions filtered down to newbie photographers as fact .. then those newbies become pros and continued to pass it on to another generation of newbies ... It could have to do with the over-abundance of photoshop users who have no dedication to the art and a pirated copy of photoshop. Combine that with the massive sharing capabilities we have through sites like flickr and you have an enormous amount of crap. In the pre-digital era the primary way photos got an audience was because the photographer obviously excelled in some way. Bad photography was not viewed on a massive global scale like it is today. I'm guessing this one has probably had a much larger impact on the photographic industry than we think.
Then you have to look at the educational factors. How many of you long-time photoshop users walk into a book store and flip through all the photoshop bibles and photoshop master books and think .. this is stupid !!! Those books are junk. They encourage the use of all the cheesy click once filters that result in very un-professional effects. Magazines push cheesy techniques that give un-professional results. Everyone popularizes plugins that  degrade the quality of an image .. and they do it in a way that teaches newcomers .. This will make your photos better !!! .. I hate noise reduction filters. It has gotten to the point that photographers use them when they don't even have any noise in the photo .. it's crazy. You don't fix a bad photo by exchanging one flaw for another. If it doesn't hold sentimental value and it's a bad photo ... it's a bad photo .. get rid of it. After 20+ years in photography, if I kept every single photo I took .. OMG it would be rediculous. You keep the best and junk the rest. People don't argree with this anymore .. and the result is .. a lot of bad photos that were attempted to be fixed with photoshop .. which adds to anti-photoshop thinking.
Ok enough ranting :mrgreen: ... no wait one more thing. If anyone is going to compain about a downfall in photography it shouldn't be the magazine industry. They started it when they started catertering professional magazines to the general public. I remember seeing an increase in film you could buy at walmart being pushed by pro magazines back in the day and thought .. What ???? Then more and more they moved from professional education and techqinues to here's how to take a good picture of your dog. We went from intensive zone system calculations to fetch fido. The general consumer far out numbers the serious photographer and that's where the money is. Greed has overcome dedication and the sense of pride in the artform. :thumbdown:


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 25, 2009)

When the wonder of the technology wears off the ignorant masses will go back to thinking that it's the same as it ever was.  Once upon a time film was looked at as the upstart new technology that was so easy anyone could be a photographer.  

What can you do about ignorance?  I was asked if the colors in this photo were real.







me:  What do you mean?

them:  Are they created in Photoshop?

me:  I had a polarizing filter on, but yes, I used Photoshop to process it (and admittedly did some tweaking).

them:  Oh.

They came out of the conversation thinking that I had cheated somehow, and I came out of the conversation thinking they were ignorant of photographic process.  At this point to I really want to educate them about color photography?  I could point out that film and digital use layers of filtered BW (or filter patterns) to simulate color, and that there is no such thing as "real colors" when it comes to photography.  But what's the point?  What's important to her, and what she really asked me is:

Is this how the camera saw the scene?  And the honest answer is no.

The question that is important to me is:  *Is this photo accurate to what what I saw and experienced visually when I stood there and made the exposure?*  And the answer is yes.  Cameras don't see contrast like this between bright blue sky and clouds, but my eyes do.  This photo is very accurate to reality as I experienced it standing there wearing polarized sunglasses.  I did increase saturation, but I did it with the pol filter, just as I used to do with film, and not in Photoshop (not that I'm against it, I just like what the pol filter does better).  The rocks and the lichen and the sky looked like this to my eyes.  The camera came up with a drab, inferior Xerox copy of what was really there.  It took processing to get around the limitations of the device.  

I know how to do everything I did to the photo in PS in the traditional darkroom although it would have taken me much, much longer.  Not counting the warm up time I'd need it would take me several days, if not a week or more, to get to a finished print.  PS took me about 30 min.  People often place extra value on tasks that require more time and effort.  For me what's important has been narrowed down to the finished print:  either it's good or it's not, and all I care about how much time I spent making it is that I hope I'm not wasting a bunch of time on bad photos.

"To say of a picture, as is often said in its praise, that it shows great and earnest labour, is to say that it is incomplete and unfit for view." -James McNeill Whistler


----------



## roadkill (Jan 25, 2009)

"Beauty is in the eye..."


----------



## slapshot (Jan 25, 2009)

Watched a program on Ansel Adams on PBS a month or more ago. He explained the story behind, _Moonrise Over Hernandez_. I was somewhat shocked to see the difference in the original unaltered print to the final copy that we all know so well and enjoy. Vast difference.

Speaking only on behalf of myself, when I was shooting film I employed a totally different mind-set and feel for the subject matter depending totally on whether I was shooting in colour or b&w.

The conditions (obviously) played an important factor in how I manipulated the subject matter (ISO/filter choice/angle/DOF/etc) but there was more to it than just technical manipulation. The _feel_ or _mood_ of the image that I was trying to convey would ultimately determine what film I would use - colour vs b&w. Once the choice was made then the technical aspects were considered.

Was I wrong in selecting a daylight film under flourescent conditions (or vise-versa) or employing a deep red R25 filter to accent the white billowy clouds against the blue sky in a b&w image? In my mind, no. I used the tools available to me to convey what I wanted the final image to be.

I dunno....perhaps I've rambled on and have not made any sense.

Anyway, the short of it is (IMHO), use what you have available to create that final image. If the "trickery" overwhelms the viewer than I suppose you still have some work to do to master your craft. To use a hockey euphemism: if you notice the refs on the ice they aren't doing their job.


----------



## timethief (Jan 29, 2009)

ksmattfish said:


> The question that is important to me is:  *Is this photo accurate to what what I saw and experienced visually when I stood there and made the exposure?*  And the answer is yes.  Cameras don't see contrast like this between bright blue sky and clouds, but my eyes do.  This photo is very accurate to reality as I experienced it standing there wearing polarized sunglasses.  I did increase saturation, but I did it with the pol filter, just as I used to do with film, and not in Photoshop (not that I'm against it, I just like what the pol filter does better).  The rocks and the lichen and the sky looked like this to my eyes.  The camera came up with a drab, inferior Xerox copy of what was really there.  It took processing to get around the limitations of the device.
> 
> I know how to do everything I did to the photo in PS in the traditional darkroom although it would have taken me much, much longer.  Not counting the warm up time I'd need it would take me several days, if not a week or more, to get to a finished print.  PS took me about 30 min.  People often place extra value on tasks that require more time and effort.  For me what's important has been narrowed down to the finished print:  either it's good or it's not, and all I care about how much time I spent making it is that I hope I'm not wasting a bunch of time on bad photos.



I really don't think that it could be concluded in a better way. All that you said seems to fit like the last piece of a puzzle. My hat's off to you.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 29, 2009)

slapshot;1515424 said:
			
		

> Watched a program on Ansel Adams on PBS a month or more ago. He explained the story behind, _Moonrise Over Hernandez_. I was somewhat shocked to see the difference in the original unaltered print to the final copy that we all know so well and enjoy. Vast difference.



If it was the same show that I saw, on it, they also mentioned that Adams was famous for reprinting shots over and over, some even hundreds of times.  Some would say that he moved further away with each modification from the original, others, perhaps Ansel himself would have said that he is going closer towards finding the truth of the picture.

Since this thread started, I've been looking at the "other side" of the post processing side and well, there is good and bad easily on either side.  One can under-process as easily as one can over-process.

The thing is... where is the line?  More importantly, where is the line for each person?

Going from one end to the other, I must admit that I am having a lot of fun and learning about what my tastes are.

Example:

Little to no PSing:





Moderate PSing:





What I would call "over the edge" PSing (there was a reason behind why, though):





As far as the line, well, it is really tough to say what that line is, becuase it depends on the person and the situation.  Personally, #3 is too far overboard for me, yet I have someone that FLIPPED and is getting a 16X24 on canvas of this picture for themselves to hang in their living room.

Post processing, no matter what it is, will be based on the tastes and needs of the situation and people involved.  A main factor is also "demand".  If someone walked up to me and commissioned me to do 50 family portraits in the #3 "overboard" style, you can bet I would do it, though it is not to my taste.

Is there one answer to this?  Well, just like there is no answer to "what camera" or "what lens" or "what lighting setup" or anything else when it comes to photography, there is no one specific answer to this just like there was no one correct style of painting.  Monet or Piccaso... Arbus or Adams, all were artists that projected a style that was the correct answer... for them and their needs, and each was correct in their own way.  

I think having that attitude where PPing is concerned places the conversation in the same general arena.  There is no one answer that fits all needs.


----------



## bwlergh (Jan 30, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Moderate PSing:



TBH I think that this one looks more over photoshoped than the other two, you can clearly see that the skin on his face was overworked in some places yet left be in others for some unknown reason. 

There is good photoshop and bad photoshop.

Even though this image has a moderate amount of photoshop work, it is by far more overdone (or underdone/incomplete, making it look less good, for lack of better wording) than the image number 3, reason: Image 3 in my opinion is more of an artistic interpretation of the original photograph taken. It was turned into a newspaper cartoon like image and is rather pleasing to my eye.


----------



## abraxas (Jan 30, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ... in order to keep up with the expectations of the times ...



Meh.


-
PS - Excellent images there Jerry.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 31, 2009)

bwlergh said:


> TBH I think that this one looks more over photoshoped than the other two, you can clearly see that the skin on his face was overworked in some places yet left be in others for some unknown reason.
> 
> There is good photoshop and bad photoshop.
> 
> ...Image 3 in my opinion is more of an artistic interpretation of the original photograph taken. It was turned into a newspaper cartoon like image and is rather pleasing to my eye.



Proof that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". 

And, oh  yes, I am very aware that there is good and bad PSing, and I am quite capable of doing more of the bad stuff than the good... lol.  As I said, I've just recently started into this "world" and these are pretty much some of my first forays into it.  Pushing the extremes I hope is going to help me decide what my preferences are.

The discussion is less about good and bad PSing and though this is obviously more important in the end, the discussion is more about as to what is that line that crosses into too much PSing.

Image #3 had the most aggressive amount of PSing done to it and when compared to the original is also the furthest away from "reality".  I really feel that I went into some serious non-reality mode when I was playing with this one.  :lmao:

Like everything in life, one person's garbage is another person's treasure.  I sold #3 and the owner has ordered a 16X24 on canvas, framed of this photo for their living room.  Not something that I would personally do.  :er:



			
				abraxas said:
			
		

> PS - Excellent images there Jerry.


Thank-you!


----------



## bwlergh (Feb 1, 2009)

Sorry, I should have explained myself better, what I meant was there is a very fine line between:

too much photoshop/good photoshop/bad photoshop/one's interpretation

Somehow the lot are interconnected and if you bump one of the one way or another the rest go with it, causing it to be overphotoshoped. It's not a case of if, but, or maybe sitting on the fence, it happens.

Lets say you are trying to achieve a certain effect, you finish the first round of PS work. A week later, you have a look at those images and think "Goodness gracious... what have I done?" What that tendency comes from, is not reviewing your work after you have completed it. When you work too closely to something, you don't see the effect one little thing might have on the whole image.

Oh and I loved your photos too Jerry.


----------



## Joves (Feb 1, 2009)

I find the third one you posted Jerry is interesting because it has the look of a painting. Which makes it more toward the art side of things.


----------



## CaitlinsCreations (Feb 2, 2009)

Ok, I skimmed through the link, but that's not THAT bad...

I am a wedding photographer, and pretty much ALL of my competition now a-days uses photoshop and photoshop actions to amp up and "modernize" their portfolio.  So I have to, too, or my stuff starts to look bland in comparison.  It's practically impossible to have some images without that intense saturation, etc. without them seeming "dull" now.  So that is where I spend a lot of my time now--playing with photoshop.

Not that I mind--don't get me wrong.  I love ps, and have a lot of fun playing around with my pics, but it is getting kind of crazy that clients are starting to expect that look right out of the camera.  They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images.  A lot of people think that that is the normal look.


----------



## guppyman (Feb 3, 2009)

I agree that photos shouldn't be over photoshopped. 

I have seen many HDR-ed images that are too colourful for my preferences.


----------



## Early (Feb 4, 2009)

CaitlinsCreations said:


> Ok, I skimmed through the link, but that's not THAT bad...
> 
> I am a wedding photographer, and pretty much ALL of my competition now a-days uses photoshop and photoshop actions to amp up and "modernize" their portfolio.  So I have to, too, or my stuff starts to look bland in comparison.  It's practically impossible to have some images without that intense saturation, etc. without them seeming "dull" now.  So that is where I spend a lot of my time now--playing with photoshop.
> 
> Not that I mind--don't get me wrong.  I love ps, and have a lot of fun playing around with my pics, but it is getting kind of crazy that clients are starting to expect that look right out of the camera.  They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images.  A lot of people think that that is the normal look.


Good points!  You gotta go with the flow!  I blame Hollywood.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 4, 2009)

CaitlinsCreations said:


> I am a wedding photographer...
> 
> They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images.  A lot of people think that that is the normal look.



Then just price your packages accordingly so that your extra time in post processing is paid for.  As a professional, you have less "creative freedom" than someone like me who is not getting paid to make anyone else but me happy.  :mrgreen:

Then again, I am also not doing weddings at $2000-3000 or more per event (but am seriously considering do that next year.  I am putting in tons of time in practice and experience in the PSing and photography end, and equipment-wise I am already better equipped than roughly about 75% of the pro  wedding photographers that I know).

If massively PSed "Dragan" style portraits are what your clients are hiring you for, and you want the business, you will do it and just have to ramp prices up to accommodate.  I know lots of pro wedding photographers that have pricing packages and extra post processing as an extra cost item on the list.  An easy way to make a little more cash from each event!


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Feb 4, 2009)

It is your own choice to develop your style however you want. I have seen photographer that are very successful and only shoot film and use very little Photoshop and others that rely on Photoshop as their signature style. Do what you like to do and when you are good enough people will buy it.


----------

