# Photoshop Debate



## BmDubb (Oct 17, 2009)

I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography. 

I told him I personally thought it actually envolved more artistic ability... Because its art when you find the picture.. and shoot the picture... And its also a form of art when you're editing the photo.. Seeing the photo and what would look better and make the photo stand our more, and applying it... 

I was just curious as to where some of you would stand on this subject if you were in this conversation. I know probably 50% or more of photographers edit there photos.. Anyways, just an innocent, curious discussion?


----------



## Plato (Oct 17, 2009)

Well, I used to feel his way until I tried it myself!


----------



## robbie_vlad (Oct 17, 2009)

I use photoshop to touch up my photos personally. What most people who dont like photoshop don't understand is that almost anything you can do in photoshop can be done in the dark room with film if you have the know-how....


----------



## Felix0890 (Oct 17, 2009)

I agree with your comment on photoshop being artistic too.  Why? I believe photography is a way of showing someone a subject from a different point of view. Photoshop allows you to manipulate what reaction and emotions you get from your audience.  You can't always just take a picture of your subject and have your targeted result appear.  Sure, if you're very artistic you can go capture an emotion in a shot without PP, however, some complex and more artistic projects cannot be achieved without doing this.  

In the end, nobody has the right to say that something is not an art.  As long as you do that something with passion, anything can be, and is a form of art.


----------



## Plato (Oct 17, 2009)

robbie_vlad said:


> I use photoshop to touch up my photos personally. What most people who dont like photoshop don't understand is that almost anything you can do in photoshop can be done in the dark room with film if you have the know-how....



I shot mostly Kodachrome and you can't do anything with Kodachrome in the darkroom.  That's probably why it took me a while to try digital PP.


----------



## Overread (Oct 17, 2009)

I think its easy for people ot think that any application of photoshop is cheating on the image because photographers "back in the day of flim" didn't have photoshop. What many forget is that photographers back then did have editing methods - the darkroom - where all sorts of tricks and methods were used to optimise the shots they got.

Also many people think that JPEGs are unedited from the camera - when in truth they are edited with processing software inside. Its no difference if the camera or the photographer do those edits, save that the photographer can have far more control and put those changes specifically where they want them to be at the specific amounts, rather than just letting automatic camera codes do it for them

The rules are still the same - you cannot take a horrific shot and improve it to a fantastic shot in photoshop - the data is not there to improve on the original shot. So getting things right in camera is just as important as it was in the past. What can be done is you can enhance certain areas to get round limitations in the camera itself as well as specify certain process on certain areas.
For example you can edit shots so that highlights are not so glaring - or raise the darks a little  - sharpen certain areas only rather than the whole shot.

Where does it become cheating? Well that line is hard to draw - though we all have our own ideas of where it lands for us. Myself I will happily heal out dustspots on images and even clone out sticks and other small things that obscure the end resulting image - Things that I would have fixed infield if I had the chance, but often do not.


----------



## Jeffro (Oct 17, 2009)

I think there is a time for everything.  If they added a new techy thing to a camera and it edited the pic in camera   that is still an enhancement,  would he not use that either.?   I really dont like shots that are over photoshopped and you know it could not be done with out PS.  but Straight out of the camera and you have PS why not use it.


I think it comes down to people that dont know how to use PS complain about it!

But as a bonus there are still competitions that wont let you use any computer editing.


----------



## ann (Oct 17, 2009)

anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.

on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

ann said:


> anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.
> 
> on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.


 
I couldn't agree more. I use photoshop the way I use the darkroom. Density correction, color correction, dodge, burn, crop but that is where it stops. I have a real problem with "photographers" that have to fix their images with software. And unfortunately there are far too many that do that.


----------



## dyyylan (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> > anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.
> ...



But what's wrong with that? Other than the people that just slap photoshop filters onto their myspace pictures and call them "artsy", digital editing software is just another extension of artistic expression. To me, that's like criticizing a painter for using oil paints instead of acrylics because they dry slower and let you play with it too much.


----------



## TakenAptly (Oct 17, 2009)

I don't care either way personally.

Though I must say, I hold them as 2 completely different types of photography.  There's "pure" photography, and then there's photoshop'd.  I'm not going to say which is "better or worse" because it's completely subjective.  (when I say this I don't mean pure as in completely unedited.  I don't mind mild corrections (you know what I mean)  But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.)  It's get's where it isn't even photography, it's just digital art.

I mean comeon.. some photos are so edited that you might as well just be making a picture in photoshop.   I don't mind those pictures, they're often very amazing... but it starts to get where it's less about photography and more just digital art.  I hope this makes sense.. I'm damn tired lol.



> But what's wrong with that? Other than the people that just slap photoshop filters onto their myspace pictures and call them "artsy", digital editing software is just another extension of artistic expression. To me, that's like criticizing a painter for using oil paints instead of acrylics because they dry slower and let you play with it too much.


I agree with that first bit.. But there needs to be a boundary somewhere..  If we're just talking about photography as an art form, then you're right.. that's just an extension of artistic expression and it's perfectly alright.  But at what point does it quit being photography and start being digital art where you just started as a photograph initially?  Would that be considered the same thing?  Is that something different than just "photography"?

With the major changes in photography from film to digital and now we have programs such as photoshop these are questions that are eventually going to need answers.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 17, 2009)

There's an indefinable border you can cross at some point where a photo turns from something nice to something people immediately point at and say "That's been shopped". It's different on every photo, but in my humble opinion, it's like a woman's makeup. The best makeup job is one where you can't tell it's been used. 

Artificial lens flairs, faked blurs, added textures... yeah... you went over the line. Compensating saturation, a little tweak of the sharpness, a little more or less contrast. That's no different that what a good photo lab would do with a pro's film. And don't get me started on all the air-brushing used in magazines over the years before digital photography.

Digital post-production is a great tool to make a good shot better. When it's used to make a bad shot presentable, the end result is usually worse than the original.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 17, 2009)

Well, then, in that case: Tell him he's cheating by not using charcoal and paper to draw the scene.

*That* would be real art. . .


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

PhotoShop (or editing software) is to digital photography what the darkroom, filters, choice of film, and all kinds of other manipulations were to film photography. Debate Over! 




Jeffro said:


> I really dont like shots that are over photoshopped and you know it could not be done with out PS.



If I ever take time to scan some of my old stuff, you'll probably c&c that it is over PhotoShopped :lmao: but it is 100% film and a lot of hard work. Frankly, that style of images is what finally got me to buy a DSLR. Once I know how to use PS, I'll spend hours on a photo instead of days. What's wrong with that?



ann said:


> anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.
> 
> on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.



Although I agree with this as a general principle, one has to admit that sometimes it is possible to get a beautiful image out of something that started as trash. And in that case, what's wrong with that?

At one of my shows, a few photographers complained that my work looked like the stuff in their darkroom trashcan... They didn't have much more to say though when I asked them why they didn't frame it. 


The problem we have on forums and one of the reasons we have thread such as this is that there are plenty of members spending way more time nitpicking everything than creating images.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

TakenAptly said:


> But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.)



HDR has been around since the 1930s. It is photography.


----------



## TakenAptly (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> TakenAptly said:
> 
> 
> > But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.)
> ...



I apologize.  I'm new to photography and I was out of line talking about something I do not know very much about.  Thanks for correcting me.

Still the same, I do think there is a point where editing becomes digital art and less about photography.  I think there has to be a line somewhere, I don't know where, but it's there.


----------



## flea77 (Oct 17, 2009)

A lot of people I know divide this into two categories:

The first, photography, is capturing the scene as it was seen. Slight manipulations on a computer to make the scene look more like it did in real life do not alter it, but enhance it. 

The second is when you change the scene, and this is not photography, it is graphic arts. It does NOT matter if you did it in the darkroom or on a computer, you changed the scene.

I also get annoyed at all the people saying "if they could do it in the dark room then I can do it in photoshop" when someone says they do not like photoshopped images. The problem is that they may have been ABLE to do it in the darkroom, but the people complaining about photoshopped images probably would not approve of the manipulation whether it is done in photoshop, in a darkroom, on a canvas, or chiseled in stone.

Personally, and only in my little opinion, I dislike images in the second category as a general rule. An overdone HDR to me, or a color image that has been desaturated, is no different than this magazine cover:







Allan


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

TakenAptly said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > TakenAptly said:
> ...



Believe me you are far from the only one who thinks HDR is new. There is very little new in photography.

As far as a line, there shouldn't be one if we are talking about art. If we are talking about commercial work, the wants of the client is your line. Very simple and easy.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

I don't personally understand the mentality of folks who "hate" and "have a real problem" with what anyone else does with their own photos or their own art.  For me, _*how*_ a person gets to a finished composition is less important than the finished composition itself.

If someone slips a graduated sunset filter in front of the lens during the shoot, or introduces it during the print process in the dark room, or does it digitally in Photoshop, it's all the same to me when I look at the finished product - it either works or it doesn't for that particular composition.

If someone masks and double exposes in front of the camera at the time of the shoot, or later during the making of the print in the darkroom, or takes two separate photos and does it in Photoshop, it's all the same to me when I look at the finished product - it either works for that composition or it doesn't.

If a vignette is placed in front of the camera lens, or in front of the enlarger lens, or done in Photoshop, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If a makeup artist covers a model's pimples with Max Factor before the photo is shot, or an artist with a brush paints it out later, or a talented darkroom person uses masks to 'clone' them out, or someone using Photoshop clones or heals them out, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If someone has an assistant push wires or branches out of the way while shooting a scene, or an artist with a brush paints them out later, or a talented darkroom person uses masks to 'clone' them out, or someone using Photoshop clones or heals them out, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

If someone applies sharpening in camera while shooting JPGs, or applies it with an unsharp mask in a darkroom, or uses one of the sharpening methods in Photoshop, it's all the same to me - it either works for that composition, or it doesn't.

When I look at a magazine cover or an album or CD or DVD cover, should I start hating and caring and get all worked up because the name of the magazine or artist and the rest of the writing that's been incorporated as part of the cover art wasn't captured in the camera at the time of the shoot, but was added later by various means?  Of course not.  That would be silly.  But it's just another part of the editing process a photo goes through, and why there's often room left in photos for that copy to be placed later, especially at the top.

And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Editing and enhancing is a fact of life in professional photography, especially in glamor, fashion and product photography.  If the intent is print, especially if the intent is print for advertising or promotion of some kind on a grand distribution scale, you can bet somebody somewhere in an art department is going over every square centimeter of it with a fine tooth comb, looking to correct imperfections.

And it has always been that way.  Long before Photoshop was even an idea, and even when computers were rooms full of people making calculations with slide rules and adding machines, photos were being enhanced and manipulated at all stages of the craft, from the set up of the shot, all the way through to the final print.

Any photographic media that ever went to print (including Kodachrome), especially for advertising and promotional purposes of magazines, movie stars, fashion, products and so on, was subject to editing and enhancements covering every conceivable 'trick' before the public saw them, and that's just a fact of photographic industry life.

So, all that said, my answer to folks who "hate" Photoshop or Photoshopping or Photoshop users is: "To each his own.  C'est la vie..", while I think to myself, "noob..."


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

flea77 said:


> Slight manipulations on a computer to make the scene look more like it did in real life do not alter it, but enhance it.



HDR is not a slight manipulation. However the pure intended goal of it is to make the image match the reality. No camera has/sees the dynamic range that the human eye does. HDR brings the photo back to what the human eyes saw.

Yet it is not a slight manipulation.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 17, 2009)

For me, it's all about me trying to express the message I want to convey.
I may see a sight, but there's a message that I want to convey through this sight. Therefore it is the image that I am after, and photography, along with photoshop, dark room and any other method are merely tools that I employ. If the final image does not convey the message that I am trying to tell, then the image is useless to me.

However, I do have things that I don't do. If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

molested_cow said:


> If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.


So, a double (or more) exposure on film in the camera is not a photograph?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

Buckster said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

dyyylan said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > ann said:
> ...


 
Because when it gets to this point it is no longer photography, it is more graphic design.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

molested_cow said:


> If I am claiming an image to be a photo, I will not add things that didn't exist in the image before. If I don't claim that it is a photo, then it's technically a 2D design piece, well, anything goes as long as I achieve my goal.



Well, I guess you should let collectors know that Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer.

Jerry Uelsmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> dyyylan said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...


To me, photography has always been about graphic design; photo*GRAPHIC* design.

From the concept, to the set dressing, to the model selection, to the clothing and makeup, to the lighting, to the lens choice, to the DOF and shutter speed, to the filters, to the film choice, to the developing method, to the paper choice - it's ALL about designing a final GRAPHIC image, isn't it?


----------



## Plato (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> TakenAptly said:
> 
> 
> > But HDR and more intensified editing techniques is just not pure photography.)
> ...



How did they do it with film?  I figure they had to start with multiple transparencies but what next?


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

TakenAptly said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > TakenAptly said:
> ...


 
I agree but there is a lot of things that used to be done in camera that are now done with software, that is still photography. Where I think the line is is when the image that is taken is lost in everything else because it is not a good image and therefore needs to be fixed. Then it becomes graphic art to me.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

Buckster said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > dyyylan said:
> ...


 
Photographic is painting with light. If that is what you are doing then it is photography. However, trying to fix a bad image in photoshop is not photography. I think you are ignoring the light part.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...


I'm just pointing out that photography incorporates and is very much about graphic design; That the two terms are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I think that saying, "trying to fix a bad image in Photoshop is not photography" is the same as saying, "trying to fix a bad image in developing is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the darkroom is not photography" or "trying to fix a bad image in the print process is not photography".  In all cases, it is simply a way of working with an image captured with light.

I can't find any legitimate reason to summarily disqualify any particular set of tools or techniques used in working with images captured with light anywhere from concept to final print, but that's just me.  Your mileage may vary.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

Buckster said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


 
Come on, you know the images I am talking about.

Do you do photography for a living?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

The simple fact of the matter is that this can be discussed for the next 100 years and people will still not agree. Get over it and go shooting.

You want to put limits on your work, go right ahead. But don't put limits on mine. Thank you very much. The way this is usually said is: to each his/her own.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> The simple fact of the matter is that this can be discussed for the next 100 years and people will still not agree. Get over it and go shooting.
> 
> You want to put limits on your work, go right ahead. But don't put limits on mine. Thank you very much. The way this is usually said is: to each his/her own.


 
Agreed!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...


Yeah, I do.  I just don't know where, _exactly_, the line is crossed from Dean Collins to Andy Warhol, and I'm not prepared to make a stand about it, either way, even if I cared about that line, which I don't.  What others do with their photography is no sweat off me, especially not with regards to the tools they use, whatever those tools are.  I'm certainly not going to hate them for it, whatever it is, and I don't have a serious problem with any of it.

Again, that's just me.  Live and let live, I say.  If they can make a living with a camera, an editor and some marketing, good for them.



CSR Studio said:


> Do you do photography for a living?


When I was young, I was a musician, an artist, a photographer; Idealistic, passionate, wanting to chase the dream...  Ah, youth...  But no, when it came right down to it, I didn't have the patience to go through the 'starving artist' phase to seriously chase any of them, and went into telecommunications engineering instead, where I've spent the past 30 years making my living.

I've played some bar and party gigs on occasion, made a few recordings, even played at the 25th anniversary of Woodstock, but I'm not a working musician by any means.  I still make art, and manage to sell some here and there, but nothing major.  Similarly, my photography has been limited to weekend warrior shooting for most of that time.  The sales I've made along the way wouldn't pay for the gear I've bought in that time.    But it makes me happy, so it's all good.

At long last, I can now devote myself to it a lot more, and I'm making more cash from it, but it's still not my primary source of income, and I don't know that it ever will be.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

Buckster said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


 
There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.

Here is the thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/180976-wedding-pic-c-c.html


----------



## Plato (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm new to PS.  Just for giggles, I took an old Kodacolor photo that was scanned several years ago and I played around with it.  I believe that it looks better and that it looks "real."


----------



## Buckster (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.
> 
> Here is the thread:
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/180976-wedding-pic-c-c.html


I agree with you, but it would be just as bad if it had been blurred and converted to B&W by ANY means, not just Photoshop.

And really, I think that's always been one of the main points.  Bad photos are bad photos, Photoshopped or not.  But so many people diss Photoshop regardless of the final image, which is often quite wonderful, even with extensive editing, and that's just closed-minded, IMHO.

I refer to the opening post of this thread.  The guy "hates" images that have been photoshopped.  He doesn't even have to SEE IT - his "HATE" is pre-determined by the use of the tool that was used -without regard for HOW it was used.  That's irrational.

There's no telling how many professional photos he's seen in magazines and online that he loves, without the slightest clue that they've been photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, just because it wasn't obvious to HIM.

Bad photos is one thing.  Bad editing is another.  That's true with OR without Photoshop.  But not _*ALL*_ Photoshop editing, even _*extensive*_ editing, is automatically bad.


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2009)

ann said:


> anything i can do in the darkroom why not on a digital file.
> 
> on the other hand it does drive me crazy for the idea, "i don't have to have good technique, i will just fix it in ......" fill in the blank.


 
The person who says that usually has BOTH lousy technique and lousy Photoshop skills. 

skieur


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

Buckster said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > There is a perfect example of what I am talking about in another thread about taking a mediocre image and making it better by converting it to b&w. I think that is ridiculous.
> ...


 
No, I don't hate Photoshop, I love it in fact. It has made so many things so much easier. But I do hate bad photos. And I will leave it there.


----------



## ann (Oct 18, 2009)

Although I agree with this as a general principle, one has to admit that sometimes it is possible to get a beautiful image out of something that started as trash. And in that case, what's wrong with that?


for me, this is called artistic vision


 p.s.the above quote is from CSR, i would also agree with "but i do hate bad photos".

recently i attended a workshop for Capture NX2 and the fellow giving the workshop said the following.

editing will not make a "crappy" photo , great, 

editing can take a good photo and elavate it a notch

and it can help make a terrific photo outstanding, if that is the wish of the photographer.


----------



## Overread (Oct 18, 2009)

It is important to remember there is a difference between:

"It does not matter how I shoot, I will just fix it in editing"

"It came out worse than I thought it would, but I might be able to fix it with editing to something a little better"

Though I would also say that it is not right to get angry (per se) at people who have the mindset of the first quote - it is their right to think that way if they so choose to -- even though many here would encourage (and it really should be to encourage) them to adopt the mindset of the latter - that of going for the best one can in camera


----------



## skieur (Oct 21, 2009)

Overread said:


> It is important to remember there is a difference between:
> 
> "It does not matter how I shoot, I will just fix it in editing"


 
That comment is based on ignorance, since it is almost impossible to fix bad composition or a bad camera angle with editing.  Even an out-of-focus subject cannot be fixed by "sharpening".

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2009)

I stopped reading this thread several days ago, 'cause I've been involved in several similar threads elsewhere and they usually devolve into disagreements that will never be resolved. Red Sox or Yankees? Coke or Pepsi? Ford or Chevy trucks? Republican or Democrat? Dick York or Dick Sergeant? Van Halen or Van Hagar? etc,etc,etc.

A pretty intelligent old-line silver-based photographer named Erwin Puts, a Leica authority of some repute, wrote a blog article a few years ago,and his thesis was basically along these lines: in analog or silver-based photography, the goal was always to create an image that would be captured and fixed in silver, for all eternity. Sure, there were darkroom machinations and montage techniques that could be done, but in traditional "Photography", the goal was a fixed, stable, finite image. 

His thesis regarding "Digital Photography" was that the old paradigm was no longer valid---no longer is the image a fixed, finite arrangement of silver crystals or dye layers--NO, while performing this new thing called Digital Photography, the image was subject to constant revision. The image never really exists in any SOLID, TANGIBLE form, like a slide or negative; the digital image is always subject to a computer and software interpretation, or re-interpretation, or re-re-re-re-interpretation.

I'd been shooting all digitally for about eight years before I read that article, and I'd never really thought of it that way. I learned photography in the 1970's and 1980's, when manipulation was tedious,laborious,and not very common. I shot digital images and just "developed" them pretty simply, with most of the work having come on the shooting end. I never really have gotten into the filters and the Photoshop actions, pasting in backdrops,or applying textures. But to younger shooters who learned in the all-digital area, they practice more what I consider to be Graphic Arts--not true, old-school "Photography" with the capital P, but something newer, and very different.

The dividing line in Photoshop love it or hate it is almost like the dividing line between old fogey music and 1950's rock and roll, or between classic rock lovers and younger people who grew up on hip-hop and rap music. The older generation often dislikes the new stuff very intently, while the younger set likes the new stuff and laughs at "Geezer Rock" or "Butt Rock" or "Hair Bands". The Photoshop: love it /hate it? question's answer might also be related to the question, "So, what kind of music do you like?"


----------



## Zachery (Oct 22, 2009)

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm a complete beginner, and haven't started to use Photoshop yet, although I intend to do so soon. I've just enrolled on a really good online photography course.  In my humble opinion, if you're haven't got any talent as a photographer Photoshop will not help you in any way - garbage in, garbage out - but if you do have the talent then you'll probably create even better images using this technology.


----------



## txphotog (Oct 22, 2009)

I touch up my photos after taking them. I personally feel that it's ok to post process a photo after taking it. It's not cheating by any means. It's just a digital process that's done to suit the liking of the photog. I think people are cheating themselves if they don't do it.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 22, 2009)

You guys are still going on about this? Yeesh. Cloud hit it on the head; you want to put limits on your work, that's fine, just don't bother me about it and don't accuse me of "cheating" nor play the self-righteous-holier-than-thou card.

 Anyone want some?


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 22, 2009)

Photoshop = the new dark room.

/thread.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

/rant-on/

What a stupid argument.:meh:

That's like saying a Formula 1 driver isn't really a racer because he's got computers helping control the car. Really, how stupid is that? 

Professional photographers have been post processing their stuff for as long as we've known how to project an image on a piece of film. From using flash bulbs to double exposure to cropping to adjusting lighting, brightness and contrast to air-brushing etc etc etc.

Seriously, people that are crying about "professionals" post processing their work need to STHU already. Unless, of course, you're signing the checks, then feel free to get sub-par work for your buck. :twak:

/rant-off/


----------



## Dao (Oct 22, 2009)

This is just a "TOOL" ...  

Word processor vs typewriter?
You are using Word to type your essay with automatic spell check and grammar check??  You are cheating!!


Regular wood saw/Axe vs chain saw?
I can chop this tree with my hand tools!!  


Horse vs car?
What??  You said you have a green automobile??  Look at mine!!  0 MPG


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm not fond of PS.  It's taking away something of the art of taking photographs.  I understand that post processing is not a new idea and that's not what I mean.  

- PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all
- pictures can be rescued in PS 
- generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos

I remember years ago taking pics with my dad.  We'd go out to the coast very early in the morning to make the best of the early morning light, especially if there was bad weather expected.  Now; just crank up the contrast of a mediocre shot in PS - job done.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> I understand that post processing is not a new idea and that's not what I mean.
> 
> - PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all
> - pictures can be rescued in PS
> - generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos



Wait. What?

- Photoshop is too easy? It doesn't require any skill at all? *cough*Bull*****cough*

- Yeah, pictures CAN be rescued. That's a GOOD thing.

- Generally, it seems like MORE care is being taken with photos. 

Wow. Just wow.

(For the record, most of the photos I post here and on flickr are cropped and re-sized only. Very few get run through Gimp unless I'm giving/selling them to someone else.)


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > oxcart said:
> ...


 
Running auto levels is easy. Doing more advanced editing is not. It doesn't take 2 seconds to touch up and do effective and non over bearing skin enchancements on portrait work. Photos can be recovered in the dark room as well. Film has a higher dynamic range. Using film is easy. You drop it off at the lab and have them process it for you. That doesn't require any skill at all.

Lighting takes skill. I've seen some amazing photos of digital and film medium that have had very little processing and have had amazing lighting and planning to acheive what looks like something that would be unacheivable. Salvador Dali anyone? I'm sorry uncle Burnie processes 100 photos in a minute with Elements and that makes mad, but real photographer still put time, effort, and thought into their work regardless of how the final image gets to where it's going.

Stop being self righteous. Stop making assumptions. Stop stereotyping people.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Stop being self righteous. Stop making assumptions. Stop stereotyping people.



Not bad advice, for an idiot. :lmao:


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Stop being self righteous. Stop making assumptions. Stop stereotyping people.



I'm not doing any of those things.  I don't appreciate one of my comments being responded to with 'bull****'.  Either we're having a civilised discussion or we're not.


----------



## HannahRebekah (Oct 22, 2009)

Photo editing take a LOT of skill and practice.  If you could see the difference between my noobishly edited photos and now, wow, there's a big difference.  And I still have a lot to learn.

Personally, I think that if you can edit a photo and make it appear better than straight from the camera, especially if you've done it in a way that no one can tell you did, you've done a great job.  Changing colors, etc. is fine, that's creative liberty and it can be so much fun, but somewhere along the line, someone's going to have a problem with/not like it.  If you're doing it for yourself or for a customer, though, then those are the only people you have to satisfy.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> - PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all


The automatic adjustments made by the lab on film for the past several generations didn't require any skill at all either.  But that's what you got unless you took charge of the processing and printing yourself, which has evolved into Photoshop.  Welcome to the 21st century.



oxcart said:


> - pictures can be rescued in PS


Some can.  Some can't.  It doesn't do much good to polish a turd.



oxcart said:


> - generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos


By noobs, wannabes, soccer moms and Uncle Joes.  Real photographers still take care to do it right.



oxcart said:


> I remember years ago taking pics with my dad.  We'd go out to the coast very early in the morning to make the best of the early morning light, especially if there was bad weather expected.  Now; just crank up the contrast of a mediocre shot in PS - job done.


That makes no sense.  Cranking up the contrast will not give the impression of early morning light, especially not with those harsh noon shadows blasting down on the subjects.


----------



## Overread (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> - generally, it seems like less care is being taken with photos



By who?
Its a legitimate question! You see the digital camera has opened up photography to the masses, its affordable to a resaonable level and the internet has allowed the masses to also distribute their work on a global scale. I see a lot of people say that the "quality in photography has gone" "People only like (badly done) HDR" and many many other similar comments - but that is not showing photography as a whole, it is just showing the people they are looking at. Spend a little longe ron the net or just flickr and you can find many many hobbyists who have taken photography very seriously and to very difficult areas and levels - many because they can at last affored to purchase the good/pro level equipment now.

Further PS has opened up a new form of torture - that of hte 100% crop - of viewing ones photos at 100% - 200% heck even more than that! For new keen photographers that is a whole new level of viewing shots and I would argue far more are trying to take even more care with their work than in the past


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > oxcart said:
> ...


Comments in blue.  I prefer the actual quote tags however.  You do know how to work those, right?


----------



## Foques (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart should've chosen a name of donkeycart.. when people ask me if they had stuttered, they usually end up with fist up their nose. get off your high horse.

Buckster is..well.. amazing at bringing the great points that I would have brought up. I can't thank you enough, chief.

PS. using quote marks takes no skill at all


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

Buckster said:


> You do know how to work those, right?



Yup, thanks.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

I think it's worth saying again... sorry for the repost.



About ATVs said:


> /rant-on/
> 
> What a stupid argument.:meh:
> 
> ...



I submit that there is millions more quality photos out there now than in the days of film only. donkey cart just seems to be mad that others are making good photos the new way and he/she's not.

Also, excellent post, Buck. Thank you.


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Stop being self righteous. Stop making assumptions. Stop stereotyping people.
> ...


 


oxcart said:


> I'm not fond of PS. It's taking away something of the art of taking photographs. I understand that post processing is not a new idea and that's not what I mean.
> 
> - *PS is too easy; the automatic adjustments don't require any skill at all
> - pictures can be rescued in PS
> ...


 
You're assuming Photo Shop is easy. You're being self righteous about taking time with photos and not using Photo Shop. You're assuming less care is being taken with photos. You're assuming people still don't get up at the ass crack of dawn for the perfect shot. Um...search the internet. You'll see people doing the opposite of everything you're assuming. You're stereotyping modern photographers a lazy people who suck at photography and have to let a computer do it for them.



oxcart said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > oxcart said:
> ...


 
And you assume the above things. It does take skill to use photoshop. I still know about 60k photographers(okay, maybe a little less since every member of the Strobist group isn't a photographer...maybe 30k-40k?) that take more care with setting up the shot and do more in the photography portion of the process than the post processing itself. 

And how many people from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were just snap shotting left and right without regards for photography? Oh wait...we have the internet now so it makes sharing of any photo easier. When's the last time you saw some one's set of polaroids from across the country?


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Plato (Oct 22, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> And you assume the above things. It does take skill to use photoshop. I still know about 60k photographers(okay, maybe a little less since every member of the Strobist group isn't a photographer...maybe 30k-40k?) that take more care with setting up the shot and do more in the photography portion of the process than the post processing itself.
> 
> And how many people from the 60's, 70's, and 80's were just snap shotting left and right without regards for photography? Oh wait...we have the internet now so it makes sharing of any photo easier. When's the last time you saw some one's set of polaroids from across the country?


 
I submit that the major issue is that everyone is ignoring the most important aspect of photography, i.e. the end result.  I hear allegations that PS is not "true" photography and that it's somehow cheating.  On the other hand, I've seen a large number of polished turds right here at TPF.  I keep my mouth shut when I see them because I expect an attitude like "I spent three hours in the studio and six hours at the computer so it's got to be great."

Personally, I don't care how you got there.  It could have been a lucky "grab shot" or something that involved many hours of work.  If the end result is a beautiful picture, nothing else matters and, in that respect, nothing has changed from film.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> If you're trying to persuade me that digital photography is not diluting the technical ability and skill involved in photography nowadays, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I fully appreciate there are people who don't use PS as a crutch, but for every one of them I'm quite certain there are 2 who do.



It has enhanced the technical ability and skill involved in photography. 

Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever! With the instant satisfaction of knowing what you get without having to go through developing and processing. With the ability to go through hundreds/thousands of pictures in a fraction of the time, and cost, it used to take. With the ability to look at EXIF data on every. single. picture. to find out what settings worked best. The list is endless.

Honestly, you seem very mad that you're stuck in the dark ages. Perhaps you're mad because so much new talent is taking away from your ability to get work. Perhaps you're mad because PS simply kicks your ass. I don't know why you're mad, but Holy crap, quit trying to tell people how to make art before someone knocks you out from underneath that chip on your shoulder! :twak:

(Who was the guy with the pick trying to compete with the rock digging machine and died of a heart attack because he couldn't accept defeat? Something to do with an ox, right?) Yep. Technology is here to stay. Get over it.


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Foques said:
> 
> 
> > oxcart should've chosen a name of donkeycart.. when people ask me if they had stuttered, they usually end up with fist up their nose. get off your high horse.
> ...



Um, no. That's not it. I'm guessing it's because he thinks you're just being stubborn. I agree.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, you seem very mad that you're stuck in the dark ages. Perhaps you're mad because so much new talent is taking away from your ability to get work. Perhaps you're mad because PS simply kicks your ass. I don't know why you're mad, but Holy crap, quit trying to tell people how to make art before someone knocks you out from underneath that chip on your shoulder! :twak:
> ...



First of all you need to quit generalizing about people. 

Secondly, why does it matter how other people come up with good shots? So ef'n what if they use PS to doctor something up. You ever erase something while writing? 

Lastly, the ONLY reason photography is "lost" to you is because YOU let it. YOU can still do film photography. NOBODY is putting a gun to your head to use PS. And most importantly, if you can't compete with the point and shoot turds that try to photoshop their way to fame, that's on YOU, not ME. I can take good pictures AND process them afterwards. 

Again, get over it already. Sheesh!


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

<<blank>>


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2009)

About ATV's wrote, "Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever!"

I had to laugh out loud about that, I really did. Today's photographers know less,and less,and less. I've been involved with photography for 35 years now,and every year I see people who understand fewer and fewer fundamentals.

Like, how to compare flash power in Guide Number, or how to compute a flash exposure using guide number: just last week, Strobist group leader Village Idiot tried to tell me that a cheap $99 Adorama Flash Point 320 monolight MUST be vastly more powerful than a $420 Canon 580 EX-II flash, even though with equal beam spread both units have a flash Guide Number of 118, in Feet, at ISO 100. Village Idiot tried to tell me, no, he tried to "school" me in open forum, by telling me that the Guide Number of the Canon speedlight was "58". Hah! The Guide Number is 58 in Meters, with the flash head zoomed to 105mm, which translates to 190 in Feet. Oh, yeah, today's photographers, "know more about photography now than ever". Uh, apparently not. After trying to 'correct' my comment about flash power of a Canon 580 flash in one post, the V-I in a second post in the same thread, tried again to "school" me by claiming a 150 watt-second,cheap, monolight and what he called a 50-watt-second Canon speedlight could in no way be comparable in flash output--but using a car analogy! Unfortunately, he's a Strobist member, a group leader, and yet he didn't understand the concepts of Guide Number in Meters, and Guide Number in Feet, nor the concept of stored energy, which in the USA is measured in watt-seconds, but which tells us nothing about the actual Guide Number--ie the "actual flash power output" of the flash.

Let me explain our young, 20-something Strobist group leader's line of thought, as he tried to correct me with his eroneous understanding and knowledge. His position was, in effect, "MY boat's fuel tank holds 150 gallons of fuel, and your boat's fuel tank holds 50 gallons of fuel---therefore my boat is three times faster and more powerful than your boat." That's the argument a young photog of today tried to "school" me with.

Today's photographer's rely more on automation than ever before. Many know nothing about depth of field, and do not even know how to read a depth of field scale. Who here can establish a 3:1 lighting ratio, either with a light meter, or by positioning two lights by distance? Who here understands why fill light is usually placed on-axis?  Who here can describe how to focus a 50mm lens at its hyperfocal distance? Use the depth of field preview much? Know how to figure out how high a flash must be to avoid redeye at 10 feet? Know how to use an extension tube? Know how much light a 1.4x teleconverter loses? Know what filter to use with B&W film for dark skies?

No, sorry dude, but 35 years around photography have shown me that on average, today's "photogs" know less and less and less about "photography" than at any time than in my lifetime. There's a difference between knowing how to catch a fish, gut a fish,then fillet a fish, and cook a fish--and going to a restaurant and pointing at the menu and having a fish dinner appear on your table 10 minutes later. Photography used to require real skill and knowledge...today, combing thru EXIF data to "find out what works" still isn't working, because I constantly see people calling themselves professional photographers, yet shooting horizontal portraits of standing subjects, over-vignetting images, blowing flash exposures, and using fill lights improperly, not knowing that a Fong Dong is useless outdoors, and not even understanding how their cameras work! 

Oh,yeah, EXIF information--that is one of the most hilarious examples of a person who has no training in any photographic fundamentals, talking about how great it is to be able to see what shutter speed and aperture the CAMERA SELECTED in Programmed mode.

"Today's photogs know more about photography now than ever!"
That made my day. There's an old saying, "You don't even know what you don't know." And THAT is the way I view many of today's digital photography practitioners--totally,totally lost without the aid of an automated camera and automatic light metering. Unable to answer even the most fundamental technical questions, simply because things are so,so easy now.

Today's photogs who grew up with the internet beg to see EXIF information, thinking that knowing an f/stop and a shutter speed will unlock the mysteries of photography. I see it all the time on photo forums; "Where's the EXIF information?" "What did you do with the EXIF info!!" It makes me amused to think there's a young guy here telling us that today's photogs know more about photography than ever before. I'm sure he buys much of his food frozen in bags and frozen in boxes, and since many homes have a microwave AND a conventional oven that, "Today's cooks know more about cooking than EVER before!" 

"Today's students know more about mathematics today than EVER before--- because they own calculators!"


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I've been involved with photography for 35 years now



Wow. I had to laugh. I really did. You're pretty stuck on yourself with your 35 years in photography. Want a cookie? :lmao:

As luck would have it, I've been working in our dark-room and playing with double-exposures, cropping and brushing with my dad since I was about 8. I shot film for many years.

Now that I'm 45, I suppose that would put us both at about the same level experience, at least in years. I've seen a HUGE jump in the number of photogs wanting to learn more about the art. Huge. Look at the success of the dozens (hundreds?) of photo courses on line. Think nobody is using them? (I made myself laugh, asking you if you "think"  )

What you fail to realize, besides your own arrogance compounded with an ample dose of ignorance, is that yes, there are millions more people taking crappy photos that don't give a flying rat's behind about settings. That won't change. Especially as the hi end cameras come into reach for the hobbiest.

But those that _are _doing more than taking snapshots are learning hand-over-fist more than those that were only using film to do more than take snapshots.

Your "35 years" of self-proclaimed excellence isn't going to change the fact that there are many many MANY times more people learning about how to take good shots now than ever before. You just have to be able to see outside the box. Look at the whole picture instead of just the n00bs that seem to overwhelm the easily distracted. 



> Oh,yeah, EXIF information--that is one of the most hilarious examples of a person who has no training in any photographic fundamentals, talking about how great it is to be able to see what shutter speed and aperture the CAMERA SELECTED in Programmed mode.


Again, your ignorance precedes you. I, like millions of others, can now use EXIF data to cycle through (manual) settings then find what worked best and record those for use in similar situations. If you don't think that's a good tool for learning, you should put the bong down and go outside to get some light. Don't be afraid of that bright yellow orb in the sky. I don't believe I mentioned that it pertained to people with "no training in any photographic fundamentals"


----------



## Dao (Oct 22, 2009)

I think this thread is making a turn  .......

Anyway ...  it is all about the end result.  If a professional (I am... of course ..NOT) photographer finish a photo shoot.  And do his/her routine process and hand the end result to his/her client.  The client love the photos ....  and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?"  Or do the client really care?

There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

Dao said:


> The client love the photos ....  and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?"  Or do the client really care?
> 
> There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.



That's why I said to not worry about how people make great shots, unless you're signing their checks!


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > The client love the photos ....  and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?"  Or do the client really care?
> ...



Then that's the core difference, it seems, between my approach and the approach of many of the posters here.  I don't simply take photographs to produce photographs.  For me, the process is as interesting as the end result.

If you go for a drive, sometimes it's not to get somewhere.  It's for the love of driving.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

I think for me it comes down to a subtle distinction in definition.

I don't consider every Tom, Dick and Harry who _*calls*_ himself a photographer an _*actual*_ photographer, at least not in the classic sense of the term.  There are literally millions of people who think they are photographers because they can now afford decent gear, get enough readily available info online to figure out how to use it well enough to take a pretty picture of a flower, and have their friends and family go "ooh" and "ahh".

But just because there are millions of those people these days, that's not to say that the technical knowledge or ability is lost or dying when it comes to the real, true working photographers out there, including the ones that are still learning their craft.  They don't deserve to be written off with the sweep of a generalized hand that says or implies that they don't know what they're doing or why, based on the fact that a million Tom, Dick and Harrys don't.

Nor do they or the photographic industry as a whole deserve to endure disparaging remarks because Photoshop is a part of the modern work flow, just because Tom, Dick and Harry use it too.

Tom, Dick and harry won't be shooting for the cover of Vogue, Time or National Geographic, no matter how good they are with Photoshop, and there's a reason for that.  Those who actually do those shoots however, obviously know the craft, and not all of them are old guys and gals.  And those who will do so in future and are just learning their craft now - same thing.

As already stated,  in the end, here's where the rubber meets the road: The finished product and the client's satisfaction with it.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...


Then don't even bother loading your camera.  Just walk around looking through the viewfinder, adjusting aperture and shutter speed, applying filters, and pressing the shutter button.


----------



## terri (Oct 22, 2009)

Some of you need to tone it down a notch. Let the discussion continue without personalizing it!

I've received a couple of reported posts on this thread already - I'll have to close it if you can't police yourselves. 

Carry on!


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

Buckster said:


> oxcart said:
> 
> 
> > About ATVs said:
> ...



I expected you would reply with something like that.  Well done.


----------



## bp4life71 (Oct 22, 2009)

BmDubb said:


> I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography.
> 
> I told him I personally thought it actually envolved more artistic ability... Because its art when you find the picture.. and shoot the picture... And its also a form of art when you're editing the photo.. Seeing the photo and what would look better and make the photo stand our more, and applying it...
> 
> I was just curious as to where some of you would stand on this subject if you were in this conversation. I know probably 50% or more of photographers edit there photos.. Anyways, just an innocent, curious discussion?


 
I side with the OP.  I think their is more art in photos that involve editing.  Realistically, if you can get the shot out of the camera to look the way you want...thats ideal.  Realistically though, that can be tough.  There is no shame in editing your photos.  Think of the photo as the framing of the house, but the rest is all you and art.

I say do what you like!


----------



## bp4life71 (Oct 22, 2009)

Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS.  How you got there will not matter to a client or 99% of the people looking at your photo.....

Unless your a geeked up photo guy (like most here, and you are NOT THE MAJORITY) it won't matter.

I don't look at photos that have been edited and say, wow, that picture doesnt look so great anymore because they edited it.  I just simply say, thats a great picture.

Who cares how the final product got to be the final product.  Half the stuff guys are doing with full frame 3k plus cameras, I can do with my Canon XS and 5 min. of photoshop.  Maybe thats what their mad at!

Carry on!@


----------



## Plato (Oct 22, 2009)

I can appreciate where Derril&#8217;s coming from. Years ago, those that did not thoroughly understand the basic principles of photography were relegated to Kodak Brownies with black & white film that had almost a 6-stop latitude. Quite simply, the problem was that SLRs were unbelievably difficult to use. Hell, I doubt if more than a dozen TPF members have _ever_ used the manual functions that were S.O.P. when I started shooting. At the opposite extreme, any computer geek can buy an automated SLR today and create a polished turd in Photoshop.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > oxcart said:
> ...


Thank you kindly.  

Seriously though, I love the process as well.  I love the tactile connection I get with a mechanical camera operation in particular.  When I meter a couple of key spots and average them for exposure, advance the film, cock the mirror, turn the aperture and shutter dials, dial in that focus with a close look at a split image focusing screen, compose on the ground glass, press the plunger for the mirror lockup, then another plunger for the actual shutter trip, I'm in camera geek heaven.

But it means nothing if I don't have an image at the end of it all to validate what I did with all that, because I _*DO*_ have a goal - a photograph that displays not just a particular scene or subject, but that also demonstrates some competence on my part. 

If I had to choose between playing with cameras that produce no photos, or making photos without a camera, I'd choose the latter, and I'm pretty sure any client would agree with that decision.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS.



For you.  Not for me.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 22, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> BmDubb said:
> 
> 
> > I was out at a local public ( Live 1800's Farm ) today taking pictures.. I ran into another Photog there taking shots. We got to talking. And I was telling him how I use photoshop to " touch " up my photos, and put the final touches on them etc. He was saying he " hates when photographers use photo editing software to enhance there images... " and says " It takes the art out of photography.
> ...


 
So if I sharpen a RAW file that comes out of a camera as well as add contrast and adjust saturation, is that considered art?


----------



## Dao (Oct 22, 2009)

And someone may setup a darkroom at home, because he/she enjoy the process in the darkroom.  Same for those who enjoy tuning their work with the digital dark room.

Let's take an example, one can use a film camera and take multiple shots of a flower and create a end result with Orton effect.  The other can take one shot of the same flower and create a end result with Orton effect digitally.

The end result can be the same.   So, it doesn't really matter how you do it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 22, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> You guys are still going on about this? Yeesh. Cloud hit it on the head; you want to put limits on your work, that's fine, just don't bother me about it and don't accuse me of "cheating" nor play the self-righteous-holier-than-thou card.
> 
> Anyone want some?



Can't believe 2 more pages of this have been added since you brought out the popcorn... :lmao:


Guess I'll join you


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> bp4life71 said:
> 
> 
> > Final product is ALL THAT MATTERS.
> ...



Therein lies the problem, and why the OP started the thread... one photographer pushing their opinion on another. 

I ain't sharing mine here.  But it's sure entertaining to read all the back-and-forth...


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



Still cant get my head around why it bothers you so much how other people make a living or do their hobbies, because it probably doesn't directly affect you. (Not being rude, just honest in my perception). 

I totally agree on the fantastic and obvious Bokeh between the drive and the destination. I've ridden around the back roads and coasts of San Diego and So Cal on sport bikes with my wife for a decade perfectly happy just finding new places to go for the sake of going.

As far as money goes, if someone wants to pay me to take shots with no post processing, after I tried to convince them they'd be better off with a pro, I'd take the shots just the way they ask and be more than happy to get paid for it, though I don't think I'd feel good charging my normal rates. 

The reality is that I shoot motorsports 85% of the time. Until this month, it was exclusively with a Sony Cybershot. I usually do some cropping and from time to time adjustments on color or sharpness. Once in a while I'll do something more to get a specific effect. 

This particular shot has been cropped. That's it. I could dress it up _real_ good if I wanted to, but I don't because it's a clean shot. (CORRacing Chula Vista June 2007 Josh Baldwin (This is signed, hanging on my wall  ))

Camera:      Sony DSC-H5
Exposure:     0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture:     f/5.6
Focal Length:     17 mm
ISO Speed:     160
Exposure Bias:     0 EV
Flash:     Off, Did not fire







Now that I am selling more work and can afford a better camera, I plan on taking full advantage of Gimp, Irfanview, Auto Mode and what-ever else I can do to get good results now, knowing I'm in for a learning curve after not using a manual camera for nearly two decades. 

I've never shot motorsports with a manual camera, and I'm really looking forward to being able to bring shots like the one below to life with minimal pp. (This has not been adjusted, was taken in auto mode)

Camera:      Canon EOS 50D  <---- My second day with this camera. Traded for a 7D, got it last night. :thumbup:
Exposure:     0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture:     f/4.0
Focal Length:     80 mm
ISO Speed:     1600
Exposure Bias:     0 EV
Flash:     Off, Did not fire






And yes, I think I owe an apology to anyone I got too personal with, including you oxy. Can I call you oxy?


----------



## swiminjane (Oct 22, 2009)

I would personally agree with the other guy.  To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched.  However, we have to make money like everyone else, right?  So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.


----------



## syphlix (Oct 22, 2009)

maybe... but since when did anyone really care who the better raw photographer is lol


----------



## ANDS! (Oct 22, 2009)

swiminjane said:


> I would personally agree with the other guy.  To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched.  However, we have to make money like everyone else, right?  So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.



Theres no such thing as a "raw" untouched photograph.  Every picture that comes out of a camera is put through an image editing algorithm - even the "raw" file preview on-camera goes through a conversion process.  When you go in to your camera, and fiddle with the color-presets and saturation levels - you are essentially adjusting the look of the photograph.  

Photoshop then is simply the natural extension of this process; getting right in a supplemental program what the camera didn't.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 22, 2009)

swiminjane said:


> I would personally agree with the other guy.  To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched.  However, we have to make money like everyone else, right?  So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.



This is like, in the film days, saying let's compare negatives to see who is the best photog. Sorry, but it makes no sense.


----------



## oxcart (Oct 22, 2009)

Couple of things I want to make a little clearer - I take pics with no notion of ever making money from them.  They're for me and that's about that.  I don't even really share them with friends and family much.  Maybe this will sound silly, it probably does but it's how I see it: 

- I'm fully aware that there are lots of photographers who dedicate a lot of time and money to photography and they have a full appreciation of everything that they do.  But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it.  And it makes me a little sad to see it.  

That's all.  There used to be something a tiny bit special about taking the time to understand what's going on when you're taking a picture.  For a lot of folks nowadays it's an unnecessary complication.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Couple of things I want to make a little clearer - I take pics with no notion of ever making money from them.  They're for me and that's about that.  I don't even really share them with friends and family much.  Maybe this will sound silly, it probably does but it's how I see it:
> 
> - I'm fully aware that there are lots of photographers who dedicate a lot of time and money to photography and they have a full appreciation of everything that they do.  But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it.  And it makes me a little sad to see it.
> 
> That's all.  There used to be something a tiny bit special about taking the time to understand what's going on when you're taking a picture.  For a lot of folks nowadays it's an unnecessary complication.



Yabbut, it's a hobbie for you. 

And it's definetly NOT a dying art. There are more people learning the art of photography now than ever before. Period. Sorry Derrel, there just are. Yeah, many of them aren't using film any more, but they're out there.

Yeah, there's also more people taking advantage of technology and using it to try to call themselves a professional while getting slammed in a car forum for pretending to be something they're not, but that's ok. It won't hurt you one ioda.

Peronally, I plan on taking full advantage of technology to help me get over the hump with my new equipment. But I also can't wait to spend the next few years learning how to use the equipment as-is. :mrgreen:


----------



## Overread (Oct 22, 2009)

oxcart said:


> But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it.  And it makes me a little sad to see it.



I'm very curious as to how you have come to this conclusion. Surely with more people able to now start photography as a hobby or even a job and with more people now learning the ropes of how it all works shouldn't there not only be increasing in the general spread of photographic skills but also the active development of new ones?
I can say for certain that I have seen new setups with digital gear involving lasers, flashes and butterflies with outstanding results. Sure not everyone is doing it they never were back in the past.
And sure there is a big skills divide between the sports mum and the hobbyist and the working pro - but honestly that was there too - it was just that sports mum's camera really was vastly less powerfull than the pros and cost far more than most could easily afford for quick snaps


----------



## camz (Oct 22, 2009)

IMHO I think it's all these labels and terms that box and set limits to the art in itself.  In Camera(SOOC), Photoshop(PP) etc etc.  All in all it's just a matter of consciousness and perception.  When I started photography I had no clue what in the world photoshop was.  I tried to get everything right in Camera, I even bought a external light meter and walked around with it in order to practice getting the exposures right.  I was trying to be the perfectionist in camera as much as possible.  I then learned about photoshop in High School and guess what...I thought it was cheating.  Manipulating images digitally defeats the purpose...dah dah dah.  That's how I saw it.  Then I found that my photography reached a plateau and started researching and found images that were photoshopped and surely enough I wanted to try it....and guess what? I learned photoshop and so the journey began.

I completely understand what it means for purists out there and how much of a threat photoshop is to them.  Just how a click of a mouse doesn't justify the thousands of dollars in equipment they've invested.  But in reality all it is (like mentioned above)a tool to get where you want to be.  It's a perception of where you are in your photography because all photographers will have to start learning the art in camera first.  Once they've hit that ceiling I've seen alot of the self claimed purist eventually take the next stop called photoshop including me.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 22, 2009)

Processing is half of what is involved in making any photo.  Period.


----------



## Plato (Oct 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Processing is half of what is involved in making any photo.  Period.



So it's not a photo if processing is 49% or 48% or 1% or even 51% or 52% or 99%?


----------



## epp_b (Oct 22, 2009)

Don't take it so literally.  "Half" meaning "part".  In the same way that I'd say my dog is half portie and half poodle while having no idea what percentage of the genes she inherited from each breed.



> There's an indefinable border you can cross at some point where a photo turns from something nice to something people immediately point at and say "That's been shopped". It's different on every photo, but in my humble opinion, it's like a woman's makeup. The best makeup job is one where you can't tell it's been used.


I'd say that's an accurate statement and good way of summarizing it, except for the odd case where manipulation is the purpose (take 1x.com's "Creative Edit" category, for example ... you know they're fake, but they somehow look "real").


----------



## Plato (Oct 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Don't take it so literally.  "Half" meaning "part".  In the same way that I'd say my dog is half portie and half poodle while having no idea what percentage of the genes she inherited from each breed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gee, I thought that when you said "half," you meant "half."  I didn't realize that you really meant "somewhere greater than zero and less than 100%"


----------



## epp_b (Oct 22, 2009)

OK, OK, processing is "part"... sheesh :roll:


----------



## Plato (Oct 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> OK, OK, processing is "part"... sheesh :roll:



Thanks.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 23, 2009)

*hands epp some popcorn* Here you go. Now you know why I just sit and watch.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 23, 2009)

*Obviously I'm quite late with my response, but I'll put in my $0.02.

I am a graphic designer by profession and often deal with images, prepare jobs to run on the color press, and I use Photoshop on a daily basis.

Like it or not, most publishers would adjust your photos anyway, because besides being converted into CMYK or Grayscale color workspace, LEVELS must be adjusted to compensate for the press gain.

While I agree photographers need to be diligent about taking pictures and trying their best to achieve great results when they trip the shutter, what if I wasn't so lucky with exposure, but I love the shot? Would I throw it out if I can just do minor adjustments to the RAW file? What if I was a pro photographer and my client wanted that picture, what would I tell them if I had thrown out the photo???

There is one good point though. I do not like making drastic adjustments to photographs, because I would sub-conscientiously slack off out on the field while taking my photos, knowing that I could always adjust them later.

Last point: I love the ability of Photoshop to restore old and scratched photos! I am working on scanning and fixing a bunch of old photos of my grandparents and great grandparents and I am excited to get them printed and looking like new!*


----------



## gentry1242 (Oct 23, 2009)

I am still a relative novice to photoshop, but the most useful application I have found is to isolate and draw attention to a specific item in the photo through adjusting the color levels.  I believe that adjusting color, just redirects the viewers focus, and does not qualify as misuse of photoshop to achieve a false result.

I do not like it when items in the photograph are manipulated outside their colors.  The subject and background, should be left unskewed.

So if you only retouch color, I think it is just fine.
If you add/remove/skew elements of the photo, I think that is trying to perpetuate a falsehood.


----------



## Caffler (Oct 23, 2009)

Buckster said:


> I don't personally understand the mentality of folks who "hate" and "have a real problem" with what anyone else does with their own photos or their own art.  For me, _*how*_ a person gets to a finished composition is less important than the finished composition itself.



this, in my opinion, is the crunch. if the finished piece is aesthetically pleasing, then it doesn't matter if the "artist" used photoshop or a collection of garden spades to get the result.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 23, 2009)

Amen to that.


----------



## skieur (Oct 25, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> Amen to that.


 
In total agreement.

skieur


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

I can see his point because I grew up with a film camera. In fact in high school (1987 - 1990) for photography class everything we created was from film. We had to take the pictures, use a grey card, know our shutter speeds and apertures, manually focus (God help you if your vision was blurry), etc etc., then develop the negatives, pray they weren't damaged in the process, let them hang dry, then take them into the darkroom (where the chemical could make you faint - that vinegary smell OMG LOL) and we all know the rest.

Photography, just as music is not real photography unless you know the traditions. Its nice that music can be made on beat machines, and high tech computer equipment, and not to say these tools are easy, but a true musician should also know how to read and/or write music and play an instrument. Photoshop should be a tiny part of your enhancements (i.e. a huge zit that won't quit LOL) and I love photoshop, I 've been using it for years and consider myself and expert with Adobe tools, but you shouldn't depend upon it to make your pictures professional looking. Your knowledge of the camera, lighting, etc., is what makes a good photographer.

That's why I'm here because I'm old school, and I'm trying to learn the new SLR camera's, otherwise I would still be dragging around my old 1980 Nikon LOL, and man that thing is heaaavy!

I think because of modern technology we have become overwhelmed with perfection i.e. album covers where singers are over-airbrushed, that we don't see the beauty in a natural untouched shot.

But Photoshop is cool, I dont bash the tool, just the over-usage.


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

apertureman said:


> *Obviously I'm quite late with my response, but I'll put in my $0.02.*
> 
> *I am a graphic designer by profession and often deal with images, prepare jobs to run on the color press, and I use Photoshop on a daily basis.*
> 
> ...


 
Very good points

And yes Photoshop is awesome for retouching old photos! I found a picture of my fathers brother that passed away when he was very young, and it was his only picture of him, but it had been damaged terribly over time and I retouched it and gave it to my father framed for a Christmas gift. My father was overwhelmed.

True indeed photoshop is an amazing tool. 

All points of view are well taken into consideration.

Thank you for posting this!


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> swiminjane said:
> 
> 
> > I would personally agree with the other guy. To see who is a better photographer the pictures should be raw and untouched. However, we have to make money like everyone else, right? So to stay competitive now-a-days we have to touch up our pictures so I have no problem with photographers using the technology available to them.
> ...


 

LOL!!!!!


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

oxcart said:


> Couple of things I want to make a little clearer - I take pics with no notion of ever making money from them. They're for me and that's about that. I don't even really share them with friends and family much. Maybe this will sound silly, it probably does but it's how I see it:
> 
> *- I'm fully aware that there are lots of photographers who dedicate a lot of time and money to photography and they have a full appreciation of everything that they do. But with the accessibility of digital photography, I'm quite certain there is a loss of the techniques and skills because so many people are picking up the hobby/passtime whatever you call it. And it makes me a little sad to see it.*
> 
> That's all. There used to be something a tiny bit special about taking the time to understand what's going on when you're taking a picture. For a lot of folks nowadays it's an unnecessary complication.


 
Forgive me if I'm not understand what you are saying. But this is my 2 cents.

I wouldn't go as far to say that the appreciation is gone. If you are doing it *professionally*, you would handle the new digital camera the same way you would with the old. Like I said earlier, I'm old school, and use to film camera's but using the digital camera requires skill and eye just as the old camera. I'm having to learn my SLR now, just as I did my film camera back in the day, and it's not as easy as it appears. 

I grind my teeth when taking pictures with my SLR just as back in the day (without the vinegar smell though LMAO).

But every time you use technology, and no matter how many new buttons the tools may have, though high tech, you still have to know those f-stops, shutters speeds.

I say anyone who takes pictures for the love of it, are true photographers, whether using new technology or old.

I love them both.


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

camz said:


> IMHO I think it's all these labels and terms that box and set limits to the art in itself. In Camera(SOOC), Photoshop(PP) etc etc. All in all it's just a matter of consciousness and perception. When I started photography I had no clue what in the world photoshop was. I tried to get everything right in Camera, I even bought a external light meter and walked around with it in order to practice getting the exposures right. I was trying to be the perfectionist in camera as much as possible. I then learned about photoshop in High School and guess what...I thought it was cheating. Manipulating images digitally defeats the purpose...dah dah dah. That's how I saw it. Then I found that my photography reached a plateau and started researching and found images that were photoshopped and surely enough I wanted to try it....and guess what? I learned photoshop and so the journey began.
> 
> I completely understand what it means for purists out there and how much of a threat photoshop is to them. Just how a click of a mouse doesn't justify the thousands of dollars in equipment they've invested. But in reality all it is (like mentioned above)a tool to get where you want to be. It's a perception of where you are in your photography because all photographers will have to start learning the art in camera first. Once they've hit that ceiling I've seen alot of the self claimed purist eventually take the next stop called photoshop including me.


 

Excellent points! :thumbup:


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

Dao said:


> I think this thread is making a turn .......
> 
> Anyway ... it is all about the end result. If a professional (I am... of course ..NOT) photographer finish a photo shoot. And do his/her routine process and hand the end result to his/her client. The client love the photos .... and do you think the client will ask "Are you using photoshop to make these beautiful photos?" Or do the client really care?
> 
> There are tools available for us to use, use it or not is up to that person.


 
Personally I've found that it depends upon the client, but now days most clients want digital enhancements and you can't argue with a client, besides photoshop is amazing, you can't deny that. Some clients like their photographs raw and untouched, others want the works lol, especially ones who have issues with their skin, i.e. pimples, scars etc.

Using photoshop is fun, even I can't deny that.

I started getting into photoshop as means of creating website designs, but now I'm getting a little tired of creating websites, but I'm still addicted to photoshop, so having the skill of modern technology with new has its bonuses because you can please a wide range of people and still keep your love for each medium without becoming prejudice/biased.

It's just MY personal belief that when you shoot professionally, you should know the basics or professional photography and use photoshop as an exciting added extra. But that's just my preferences you know?


----------



## flashlady (Nov 6, 2009)

Buckster said:


> I think for me it comes down to a subtle distinction in definition.
> 
> I don't consider every Tom, Dick and Harry who _*calls*_ himself a photographer an _*actual*_ photographer, at least not in the classic sense of the term. There are literally millions of people who think they are photographers because they can now afford decent gear, get enough readily available info online to figure out how to use it well enough to take a pretty picture of a flower, and have their friends and family go "ooh" and "ahh".
> 
> ...


 

Exactly! I always say the only difference between new and old cameras is everything is not ONLY on the outside of the camera LOL (and again the vinegary smell - can't get over that smell )

I'm only 37 years old (may be older for some LOL), but I think I've grown up when things were merging from old to new, but old was still used, but I'm telling you, being a perfectionist and a photographer since high school, learning new equipment takes just as much time as when my dad first let me used his film camera back in the day. I think I'm going to have to take a college course.

It's like being a doctor, if you are doing it professionally, you never stop learning because things continue to change, you just have to keep up, but the new shouldn't devalue the old. 

Those final results can make or break you professionally.


----------



## KenL (Nov 6, 2009)

In all the years that I have seen/heard the "debate" over whether or not to post-process I have not found many people that changed their opinion...... 

In the film days most people had their film processed and printed and that was done in a machine that automatically adjusted (post-processed) the prints. If you did not want that you could give the film to a pro lab for processing "as is", or you could shoot slides because those were always done "as is". Then there were those that could do their own processing and printing in a darkroom, and my hat goes off to them because that is real dedication! 

Then along came digital. The majority use point and shoots. Some switched to DSLR as they became available. The vast majority of shooters barely know their cameras and few even know how to use such things as aperture priority, shutter priority, and let's not even mention under and over exposure, or more 'exotic" settings. Most of these people are hard pressed to do anything other than figuring out how to print these photos. For so many, doing post-processing is akin to setting up a darkroom for film processing. An impossibly daunting task, so they just dismiss that notion and don't think about it. 

Now we don't have to rely on a machine or spend days post-processing by trial and error in a darkroom. We can do it to one degree or another in something like Photoshop. Even photo printers now come with LCD screens to view, modify and crop before printing. 

I'm not ever going to try to convince someone to do post-processing. It reminds me of an old adage, that says, "Prejudice is not arrived at through logic, so logic cannot overcome prejudice."


----------



## bp4life71 (Nov 6, 2009)

Final product is all that matters.  If you like a picture, does it matter how the image is produced?  Does that make you like it less?


----------

