# Anyone else not so crazy about photoshop?



## clemaire (Jul 7, 2011)

To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating. All these effects people add is cool and all, but its not as special as the original photograph. It's too artificial for my taste. I took a photography class and the majority of the time spent in class was learning how to use photoshop. I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Lauwerecht (Jul 7, 2011)

I prefer using lens filters but using software instead, gives the photographer more options.


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 7, 2011)

Please, not another I never edit my photos thread 

Photoshop is a TOOL. It can be used correctly or wrongly (is that a word?) To say you don't use Photoshop is to say you don't know or want to know how to use it properly


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating.



*yawn*


----------



## analog.universe (Jul 7, 2011)

Art is art!  Filter, cheat, edit, stack exposures, scribble on it with a sharpie, doesn't matter to me... If it speaks to someone then it's good art!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

these are the same discussions here in the last several months that I could find.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/231409-thoughts-photoshop.html
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/235791-photoshop.html
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/247952-post-processing.html
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...48274-photoshop-how-often-do-you-all-use.html
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/graphics-programs-photo-gallery/246297-photoshop-another-way.html


----------



## Lauwerecht (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?



What kind of things are the real techniques which you feel were ignored?


----------



## reedshots (Jul 7, 2011)

A bad image is a bad image and PS wont make it better, a good image can be a great image with a little post in PS.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 7, 2011)

I suppose dodging and burning in a traditional darkroom is cheating? Same with cropping and enlarging? I suppose people who use film shouldn't push or pull their exposures. In addition, everyone should use the same film stock, because using an oversaturated film stock would be cheating.

Want to know a secret? Your camera processes each and every photo you take, making adjustments, just like Photoshop might make. And if you shoot RAW, you absolutely need something (like Photoshop) to process it, unless you want a terrible image.

Just like adding a filter to your lens, or changing the ISO, or any other tweak you can do "in camera," Photoshop is a tool to be used however the photographer (read: Artist) wishes to use it. If you choose not to use it, because it's "cheating" that's your choice. But that would be like trying to build a house without a hammer. It's certainly possible, but it's going to be much harder to accomplish, and the result will be terrible.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 7, 2011)

Gaerek said:
			
		

> Photoshop is a tool to be used however the photographer (read: Artist) wishes to use it. If you choose not to use it, because it's "cheating" that's your choice. But that would be like trying to build a house without a hammer. It's certainly possible, but it's going to be much harder to accomplish, and the result will be terrible.


Hahahaha so any photos that don't go into photoshop are terrible? Wow so all photos before photoshop came out must be tormenting to look at. (and there is definitely things photoshop can do that they couldn't do in the darkroom)


----------



## Raian-san (Jul 7, 2011)

I guess why use a stove, when you can go outside and start a fire with rocks and cook your own food.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating. All these effects people add is cool and all, but its not as special as the original photograph. It's too artificial for my taste. I took a photography class and the majority of the time spent in class was learning how to use photoshop. I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?



I feel you dog. I'm completely anti-photoshop. I don't sharpen, adjust contrast or nothing. I just get that **** right in the camera and don't have to worry about cheating like all the other losers out there. What's a layer?

Check out this one right here. I smacked her hand until it started glowing and told her if she moved, I'd be makin' her face glow next!


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 7, 2011)

Its all art.  Its all a matter of personal preference.  There is no such thing as cheating in art. 

Unless you can capture the wave / particle duality of the photons bouncing off your subject you are making compromises.


----------



## oldmacman (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think you missed the part where he said if you shoot RAW then it must have PP otherwise it looks awful.


----------



## NateS (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating. All these effects people add is cool and all, but its not as special as the original photograph. It's too artificial for my taste. I took a photography class and the majority of the time spent in class was learning how to use photoshop. I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?



I assume that you shoot film and not digital?  Surely you're not a hypocrite..??  Based on your theory shooting digital is cheating as well.  Maybe you should learn how to get that junk done with one shot instead of shooting and reviewing.  I also assume that you shoot full manual with your film body?  If not, you are cheating by letting the camera do a lot of the work instead of creating the art with your own knowledge and abilities.

Digital is for posers.  Film RULES!!


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 7, 2011)

OP you seem to have your mind set and that makes this thread pointless and argumentive. Don't use PS then, I don't care.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 7, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> I smacked her hand until it started glowing and told her if she moved, I'd be makin' her face glow next!


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


oldmacman said:


> I think you missed the part where he said if you shoot RAW then it must have PP otherwise it looks awful.



This. ^^^^

Reading comprehension > You

You also missed the part where I said that your camera processes each photo you take. Guess what, if you shoot film, the place you get your film developed also processes your image. There is no such thing as a photo that is real. A photo is a 2d representation of a 3d world at a specific moment in time. Try making photos without any processing in them, and let's see how far you get...

A flash is a tool.
A lens filter is a tool.
A tripod is a tool.
Interchangable lenses are tools.
Photoshop is a tool.
You, sir, are a tool.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 7, 2011)

Sorry for offending you by my refusal to use photoshop lol. I'm so foolish


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 7, 2011)

So, do you just stick your memory card right into the printer, and print your images?


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Sorry for offending you by my refusal to use photoshop lol. I'm so foolish



No offense at all. You're just another noob who thinks you know better than those of us who've been doing this for years. We see your kind here dozens of times per week. It's ok, when I first went digital, I took a stand against post processing, just like you. Then I realized I was being stupid, and wised up. Don't want to use photoshop? Doesn't bother me at all. But good luck with your photography!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 7, 2011)

Am I the only one to ask this?

I'm GENUINELY curious... if you think your work is so much more brilliant without the use of photoshop... can I see some examples?  I'm not even trying to be snarky... I just want to see the skill level of the person we're talking to here.

Your photos MIGHT be brilliant... they might not be.  But they COULD be... but I won't know that until I see them... sooooo... can I see 'em?


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 7, 2011)

I agree, would love to see some shots


----------



## kasperjd4 (Jul 7, 2011)

Get over it. I hope you know that photoshop was developed to recreate things you do with film. Are you saying you should never edit film either? So people like Ansel Adams & Robert Frank are cheaters?? EVERYONE edits their photos in one way or another.

 Do you shoot in JPEG?? Your camera is already editing your photos for you. 

The first time I ever used film I *edited* it before i even developed the negatives by pushing the film. 

[h=1]&#8220;Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.&#8221; - Ansel Adams[/h]


----------



## Malone (Jul 7, 2011)

Gaerek said:


> You, sir, are a tool.



Maybe I'm taking this out on context, but I find this hilarious. :lmao:


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 7, 2011)

Malone said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > You, sir, are a tool.
> ...



No, it's meant to be taken exactly the way you took it.


----------



## lyonsroar (Jul 7, 2011)

Alas,
I have nothing witty to say.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 7, 2011)

e.rose said:
			
		

> Am I the only one to ask this?
> 
> I'm GENUINELY curious... if you think your work is so much more brilliant without the use of photoshop... can I see some examples?  I'm not even trying to be snarky... I just want to see the skill level of the person we're talking to here.
> 
> Your photos MIGHT be brilliant... they might not be.  But they COULD be... but I won't know that until I see them... sooooo... can I see 'em?



I never said anything about my work being brilliant. What I was getting at is that in my experience (which really isn't much) PS seemed that way to me. I was wondering if people felt the same, and I guess not. Maybe it was just a poor experience in the class i took. Please keep in mind I'm new at this. if you really want to see some pics I took, I have some from earlier today on my thread asking for critiques.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Maybe it was just a poor experience in the class i took.



I'm 100% certain that's what it was.  

I understand your frustration about people teaching photoshop *as* photography... because it's not a replacement for it.  I had a rant not too long about about someone trying to do that to me while I was looking at applying at schools last year (and I have since then decided against that).  However, as everyone has said, photoshop is a *tool* *for* your photography.

It was just a bad class you took if it made you feel that they were trying to replace actual photographic technique entirely with photoshop.  The more you do this, and the more you learn about photography *and* photoshop, the more you'll grow to appreciate what it can do and you'll be able to use the tool tastefully and to your liking, to develop, yet keep your photos "real".


----------



## clemaire (Jul 7, 2011)

e.rose said:
			
		

> I'm 100% certain that's what it was.
> 
> I understand your frustration about people teaching photoshop *as* photography... because it's not a replacement for it.  I had a rant not too long about about someone trying to do that to me while I was looking at applying at schools last year (and I have since then decided against that).  However, as everyone has said, photoshop is a *tool* *for* your photography.
> 
> It was just a bad class you took if it made you feel that they were trying to replace actual photographic technique entirely with photoshop.  The more you do this, and the more you learn about photography *and* photoshop, the more you'll grow to appreciate what it can do and you'll be able to use the tool tastefully and to your liking, to develop, yet keep your photos "real".



Thanks! That makes me feel a lot better. Gosh these people really hate threads like this lol


----------



## e.rose (Jul 7, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Gosh these people really hate threads like this lol



You speak the truth.  I took a visit to your other thread btw.


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 7, 2011)

I hate threads like these because they're without context or merit and generally the OP's intent is to simply stir the pot. 

I love Photoshop for photo editing. I know about 2% of it's potential and that 2% impresses the crap out of me. I strive to learn more with every use. The objective is to use PS but not make it's use obvious, but contrary to make one question whether the photo was edited at all


----------



## malkav41 (Jul 8, 2011)

Only reason I'm not so crazy about Photoshop is the $$$. Photography is not a poorman's hobby.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Sorry for offending you by my refusal to use photoshop lol. I'm so foolish



I totally agree dog!


----------



## shortpants (Jul 8, 2011)

e.rose said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I smacked her hand until it started glowing and told her if she moved, I'd be makin' her face glow next!


This is a beautiful quote to start my day off with :lmao:


----------



## Geaux (Jul 8, 2011)

Sounds like someone doesn't know how to use photoshop...


----------



## subscuck (Jul 8, 2011)

OP, if you want flat, soft, lifeless pics with a narrow tonal range between shadows and high lights, by all means, print those bad boys sooc, frame 'em and hang 'em. If, however, you want to replace the sharpness anti-aliasing robbed your pics of, increase the dynamic range between shadows and high lights and add some contrast to make them look the same way your naked eye saw the scene, learn to use PS correctly. And always remember there's a huuuuuge difference between editing and manipulating. We edit to make a photo look natural and real. We manipulate to do silly s h i t. Like adding Osama Bin Laden holding a bic lighter to the classic pic of the Hindenburg going up in flames. See the difference?


----------



## ghache (Jul 8, 2011)

I think your not to crazy about it because you dont understand nothing about it. You probably just came out of the weekend course you did and you re like "God i hate photoshop, i give up"


----------



## clemaire (Jul 8, 2011)

ghache said:
			
		

> I think your not to crazy about it because you dont understand nothing about it. You probably just came out of the weekend course you did and you re like "God i hate photoshop, i give up"



You couldn't be more wrong. I took a semester course and I know a lot about it. It's the fact that all I learned was photoshop and not about actually taking the pictures


----------



## gsgary (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can you name one ? most of what is done in photoshop was done with film


----------



## usayit (Jul 8, 2011)

None of you remember darkroom techniques?  How about contrast filters in B&W darkroom?   Cross processing? 

I personally like my RAW images to be very flat and very very neutral...  allows for maximum control in post AND allow the chosen lens do its magic.   Its one of the first things I do when I evaluate a camera for purchase.    The difference between many photographers and I is that the process from the click to final print is what I enjoy.   This includes the lightroom or darkroom part.   I guess many focus on just the final image obsessed over its so called authenticity among other obsessions such as sharpness, grain, noise, etc.. 


This discussion kinda reminds me of the ones that take place when you get slide photographers in the same room with photographers who prefer negative w/ print.


----------



## usayit (Jul 8, 2011)

PS>  Behind each and every well known Brilliant photographer is a brilliant master in the darkroom.....   One of the most interesting parts the documentary, "War Photographer", was the interaction between James Natcheway and his darkroom specialist (I am embarrassed as I cannot remember his name) as they examine wall sized proofs...    You can tell they had a close working relationship.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 8, 2011)

Photoshop is a great tool in the right hands, it has been abused by photographers, in the newspaper, wire service world very little is allowed to be changed, basically what you do in a darkroom with a negative is all you are allowed to do, photographers have been fired from jobs for making changes.  I spent a lot of years working in the darkroom, and got to be pretty good at it, I miss that side of photography.

Every image I shoot goes though photoshop,  I don't make big changes, just a crop, re-size, minor contrast corrections if needed, pretty much same as working in a darkroom. What it has allowed me to do.........I've scanned 5000 negatives and slides since last year, preserving old sports images I've shot since the 70's, they were scratched, water damaged and now the digital files I have are perfect.  I could not have done that without photoshop.

I don't know any professional photographers that don't use it.


----------



## Tomasko (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh come on people! There exists a pure, RAW digital photo! 
101011101101010110001001010101000011000101010100101010101010101111001111

Any C&C?


----------



## adversus (Jul 8, 2011)

People who use cameras are cheating.  If you want to capture a moment in time, the pure method is to draw it out on a cave wall with plant-based pigments.  Otherwise you are just a cheater.


----------



## cdimitric (Jul 8, 2011)

I agree, Photoshop is just another tool. How you use it is up to you. 

Photography IS an art. I think it enhances the art to use photoshop but like any artist, if you dont know the art, no matter how well you use the tools (photoshop), your lack of creativity and skill will show. And with photoshop, once you know the art (photography) you can start to master the tools (example: photoshop) to create some interesting pieces of work.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 8, 2011)

Is there any limit to the extant of manipulation before it's no longer photography? I feel the skill is no longer needed to take the picture, but to edit it in post.


----------



## usayit (Jul 8, 2011)

If from an artistic intention... no.... no more than paint or drawings have to portray real life or objects.


If from a journalistic point....  yes.. there is a limit.   


Photography as an art or as a tool to record... very different things.


----------



## Tomasko (Jul 8, 2011)

A limit? There has always been done some manipulation to the photo. Or do you know somebody, who has put an actual film into a frame and then hanged it on his wall? During film days, you needed to possess some chemical knowledge, now you need to know, how to work with a PC. Is that really so HUGE difference? I don't think so.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 8, 2011)

Tomasko said:
			
		

> A limit? There has always been done some manipulation to the photo. Or do you know somebody, who has put an actual film into a frame and then hanged it on his wall? During film days, you needed to possess some chemical knowledge, now you need to know, how to work with a PC. Is that really so HUGE difference? I don't think so.



Hey buddy. That has nothing to do what I just said. Can you take it too far, meaning it doesn't even resemble the original photo anymore? I'm not talking about the minor touch ups done all the time.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 8, 2011)

I just can't imagine getting satisfaction as a photographer any more than a model should feel a sense of accomplishment who has 10 pounds shed of at the click of a mouse.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Is there any limit to the extant of manipulation before it's no longer photography? I feel the skill is no longer needed to take the picture, but to edit it in post.


You still need great images, done right, to create manipulations that are fantastic. Photo manipulation is a craft in and of itself. It's an art appreciated for what it is. Don't confuse the two. It seems you are not a purist after all.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 8, 2011)

As with GMO, I prefer the word "modify" instead of "manipulate". 

I remember when I made a similar thread. Ahh, the memories


----------



## Tomasko (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it does. If you think that it doesn't, you have never PPd a film in dark room and never witnessed all the "effects" which can be done.... Sure, PC pushes the limits further, but it is still the same thing - creating an ART. You are the photographer, camera is just a tool, as well as photoshop or any other editor. If I want to create some effect for my viewers, why shouldn't I use all the available tools I have? What is wrong about it? Being a photographer isn't about pressing a button, it's about being CREATIVE with your skills (not talking here about some documentary pictures). Understand that and maybe your frustration will be gone....

Don't get me wrong, I don't like overprocessed photos either, but it is up to the photographer, what is he trying to accomplish, what is his goal, what does he want to say to viewers...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 8, 2011)

Tomasko said:


> Actually it does. If you think that it doesn't, you have never PPd a film in dark room and never witnessed all the "effects" which can be done.... Sure, PC pushes the limits further, but it is still the same thing - creating an ART. You are the photographer, camera is just a tool, as well as photoshop or any other editor. If I want to create some effect for my viewers, why shouldn't I use all the available tools I have? What is wrong about it? Being a photographer isn't about pressing a button, it's about being CREATIVE with your skills (not talking here about some documentary pictures). Understand that and maybe your frustration will be gone....
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't like overprocessed photos either, but it is up to the photographer, what is he trying to accomplish, what is his goal, what does he want to say to viewers...



I wish it were possible to 'like' something more than once.


----------



## KmH (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Sorry for offending you by my refusal to use photoshop lol. I'm so foolish


It's a proper noun, so it's Photoshop. It is however often used as a verb, and the lower case is then appropriate.



clemaire said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. I took a semester course and I know a lot about it. It's the fact that all I learned was photoshop and not about actually taking the pictures


Most college courses teach using Photoshop as a graphic arts tool (with Adobe Photoshop Classroom In a Book as the text), not as a application to be used for finalising a photograph that will not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.



clemaire said:


> ....Can you take it too far, meaning it doesn't even resemble the original photo anymore? I'm not talking about the minor touch ups done all the time.


As mentioned, there is no limit as far as art goes. What is gaudy and trite to one viewer, another see's as being amazing. Art (and photography) is often judged by people who have no visual art education, and thus no basis for determining what might or might not work beyond a viscerial, can't really explain why notion of like or don't like.

Also mentioned is that any photograph is an edited representation of reality even as an original photograph. The camera cannot see (record an image) the way a human sees.

Photoshop is mostly a collection of wet darkroom techniques that can now be done to a digital image on a computer.

I recommend you become very familiar with how a digital camera image sensor, the image file types, and digital image works if you want to control everything in the camera and forgo doing any image editing.

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5 

Image sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Color depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dynamic range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Visual arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Aze (Jul 8, 2011)

adversus said:


> People who use cameras are cheating.  If you want to capture a moment in time, the pure method is to draw it out on a cave wall with plant-based pigments.  Otherwise you are just a cheater.



Pssh, you're still cheating, I carve my cave walls with stones I find laying around.


----------



## coldmm803 (Jul 8, 2011)

I don&#8217;t like that people change out a background that consisted of houses or an ugly hill with an RV or an unappealing fence and replace it with an attractive sunset or something. This I consider manipulating. The end result may be more appealing but the image is no longer about what was captured in the moment or by finding a more appealing background before taking the initial photo. The resulting image may still be considered art but I don&#8217;t think it should be considered a photograph.

 I don&#8217;t mind people using editing software to enhance the detail in the photo that was taken such as adjusting exposure, saturation&#8230; on an over or underexposed sky or something. I also accept using multiple exposures (1 metered for the foreground and 1 metered for the background) taken within a short duration of each other, of the same content and merging them to create a more accurate representation of what the person experienced at that time or was happening around them (in regards to astrophotography and maybe a few other scenarios).

 Taken from Wikipedia for photograph _&#8220;Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see.&#8221;_ Photograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2011)

coldmm803 said:
			
		

> Taken from Wikipedia for photograph &ldquo;Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see.&rdquo; Photograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yes, Wikipedia is known for it's accuracy and truthiness. :roll:

The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Go do a search on some of the different types of film used over the years. They all look vastly different from one another. Taking a modern DSLR sensor as an example, the straight RAW image will look very different than the scene the photo was actually taken in. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.

Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.

I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography. Simply because the idea is so absurd. It means one of two things:

1) They don't know how a digital camera or film processing works.

Or

2) They're making hideous photographs


----------



## clemaire (Jul 8, 2011)

Gaerek said:
			
		

> Yes, Wikipedia is known for it's accuracy and truthiness. :roll:
> 
> The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Go do a search on some of the different types of film used over the years. They all look vastly different from one another. Taking a modern DSLR sensor as an example, the straight RAW image will look very different than the scene the photo was actually taken in. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.
> 
> ...



Don't you have something better to do?? You've typed a freaking photography textbook on this thread. Go play with your precious editing software or something.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, dude. YOU started the debate. Don't berate people for debating. If you don't want to play anymore, walk away.

Argue your point, or give up.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2011)

clemaire said:
			
		

> Don't you have something better to do?? You've typed a freaking photography textbook on this thread. Go play with your precious editing software or something.



I don't remember talking to you in that post. Now shoo.


----------



## clemaire (Jul 9, 2011)

Gaerek said:
			
		

> I don't remember talking to you in that post. Now shoo.





			
				Gaerek said:
			
		

> I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography. Simply because the idea is so absurd. It means one of two things:
> 
> 1) They don't know how a digital camera or film processing works.
> 
> ...



Well you sure were talking about me, and in a demeaning way.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2011)

clemaire said:
			
		

> Well you sure were talking about me, and in a demeaning way.



Two things:

1) I don't remember directing that towards you. If you take offense, that's on you.

2) Show me how my statement is wrong.

My point is this. There is NO such thing as a purist photographer. Every good photo you've EVER seen has had some level of processing and/or manipulation done to it. EVERY single one.


----------



## Raian-san (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm tired of this stupid thread. Are you serious? Are we not suppose to embrace technology and use it to our advantages? There's so many things in your life right now that you're cheating if you want to call Photoshop cheating. Do you drive? Do you take the bus, train, subway? Why not walk? That's the purist form isn't it? Why not do that it instead? What kind of career you're in? Or wait a minute, why are you using the internet? Why not write us all a written letter and put a bunch of stamps on it and ask us about how you feel about photoshop. Seriously, you're so ignorant that it's funny. Like people said, you have no idea about photoshop or how to do it. Just because you take the class doesn't mean you fully understand it. Shi* I take Math courses but that doesn't mean I understand 80% of it. 

You're either a troll,, since you just register this month, or just so naive and stupid.


----------



## Tkot (Jul 9, 2011)

clemaire said:


> To me, the way people manipulate pictures nowadays is kind of cheating. All these effects people add is cool and all, but its not as special as the original photograph. It's too artificial for my taste. I took a photography class and the majority of the time spent in class was learning how to use photoshop. I would have much rather have been learning real techniques and how to get effects without manipulating it in a computer. Any thoughts on this?



I completely agree. I only use Photoshop to scan, re-size and reprint negatives, and occasionally convert to black and white. To me, everything else is, as you say, "cheating", and I'd rather leave the image editing to the graphic designers and stick with the actually photography myself. In my opinion people should focus on getting their pictures right when they take them, not when they edit them on their computer. Not that I'm against manipulation or editing in general, I just think people should try to get it right the first time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 9, 2011)

Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
Perhaps that affects their opinion?


----------



## Edsport (Jul 9, 2011)

Getting it right or wrong in camera, a RAW file still needs contrast boost, sharpening etc. because those are not applied in camera...


----------



## subscuck (Jul 9, 2011)

Edsport said:


> Getting it right or wrong in camera, a RAW file still needs contrast boost, sharpening etc. because those are not applied in camera...



Then shoot jpeg and let the camera process it for you. Oh, wait, that's still cheating. My bad.


----------



## usayit (Jul 9, 2011)

So I wonder if portrait painters thought portrait photographers were cheating way way back when.....


----------



## coldmm803 (Jul 9, 2011)

Gaerek said:


> The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.


That is why I said that I am ok with editing to to reproduce a photograph to what the original scene looked like in person.



> Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.


 There is nothing wrong with a 20mm lens, it is capuring detail that was available at that time. It is not creating details or objects that were not present at the time. The lens isn't adding a castle to an image if there isn't a castle to begin with. I don't know about you but normal people are able to turn their heads, this allows the eye to observe a larger area.



> I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography.


I never said anything about being a purist. I suggested that editing is ok to a point, and that after changing out details that don't exist at the time of the photo that it shouldn't be considered a photograph.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 9, 2011)

The only people that dislike photoshop ( or photo editing in general ) are people who do not have the correct understanding of it. You probably took a comprehensive semester coarse that covered all sorts of excessive tricks,tools and techniques. The reality is that using Photoshop should be no different than developing film in a darkroom, choosing specific types of film to get a special look, or using filters on your camera. Furthermore, with todays RAW files you have to use an editor not only for the conversion but for minor sharpening due to the design of dSLRs. I suggest you try learning more about photography and photoshop in general. They really do go hand in hand. Photoshop isn't just for pasting peoples heads on other bodies for sh*ts and giggles. Do some people take it too far? Sure. Then again, how far is too far? If it serves the purpose of meeting the vision you had for your art? I will argue though that at a certain point it becomes more digital art and less photography.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2011)

coldmm803 said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with that definition is that it requires a photosensitive medium (film, sensor) that can resolve what the scene shows exactly as a human sees it. The problem is, no such medium (as far as I know) does that. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the ONLY way to get a digital image to reproduce close to what the original scene looks like is through processing.
> ...



Are you a photojournalist? If so, I can somewhat understand where you're coming from. Photojournalists need a level of integrity in their photos. I remember hearing a story about a photojournalist that moved the location of a single cloud in his photograph, to make it more pleasing to the eyes. He was right, it was more pleasing, but he also got fired from the publication he worked for and is most likely blacklisted. Most photographers are not photojournalists. The final image is what matters, no matter what tools and techniques we use to get there. The image I referenced earlier is an example of something that you say is wrong, but most photographers have no problem with, because it enhances the photo.



> > Here's another area where that definition fails. If I use, say a 20mm lens on a FF camera, is it not a photograph? The human eye doesn't have that kind of field of view. Using that definition, if you wanted to make a photograph, you would have to use a lens that has a FoV equal to that of a human eye.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a 20mm lens, it is capuring detail that was available at that time. It is not creating details or objects that were not present at the time. The lens isn't adding a castle to an image if there isn't a castle to begin with. I don't know about you but normal people are able to turn their heads, this allows the eye to observe a larger area.



First of all, I was using the strict definition you posted. Going by that, using a 20mm lens means you no longer have a photograph. Look in one place without moving your head. Remember what you see. Now pick up your camera and look through that 20mm lens. They look different. The 20mm lens gives you a FoV that is impossible for a human being to see. At extreme wide angles, you get barrel distortion. Our eyes don't see like that. Keep in mind, that I agree with you that using different lenses is ok. I just want to show you why using a strict definition from wikipedia about what a photograph is, is pretty silly.



> > I love it when people talk about being a purist in photography.
> 
> 
> I never said anything about being a purist. I suggested that editing is ok to a point, and that after changing out details that don't exist at the time of the photo that it shouldn't be considered a photograph.



That's my fault. I should have been more clear about who that was directed to. It wasn't directed towards you, more the attitude of some of the people that posted here. But let me comment on your second sentance there. 
So where's the line? Is it ok to boost contrast, boost saturation, adjust curves/levels, crop, straighten, sharpen, pano stictch, perspective correct,   etc? Can I clone things out of my image? All of these things are used  to enhance a photo, but they manipulate what was actually there and do  not show it how it actually is. The end result of all of these things is still a photograph. What if I stole a cloud from another image, and added it to a new image? Is it still a photograph? I believe so.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is a general comment to those who thing editing/manipulation is bad. Look at my avatar picture. I'll show the original that one came from, so you can see the detail. I've posted this before, I believe.







Do you see anything at all wrong with this photo? As far as processing and manipulation is concerned, anyway. I realize it's not a perfect image, but I'm here to illustrate something. It looks pretty natural, doesn't it? Let me tell you what I did to this image.

1. Set up on my kitchen counter. Used 430exii flash, mounted on camera w/ diffuser. Pointed up into a reflector which gave some directed light, from the diffuser, and the rest bounced onto the subject to give a softer light. In essence, I *manipulated* the light to suit my needs. Is that ok to do, purists?
2. I had to hold the stock of the gun to tilt it more towards to camera. It's not lying flat on the counter. Did I cross a line, since the gun couldn't possibly sit like that on it's own?
3. Post-Production now. Adjusted curves/levels - Reason: Image needed boosted contrast, and black/white points were too close together. Essentially, the blacks weren't black, and the whites weren't white. I probably could have even went further with it. Too much, purists?
4. I thought the color of the shells didn't look like what most people thought a shotgun shell looked like. They were more of a purplish reddish color, than the bright red you see, so I adjusted to color on them. Uh oh, I probably just toed over a line now!
5. Since this was taken on my kitchen counter, there were stains and scratches and things like that all over. I'm sure you all know where this is going. I, God Forbid, Cloned them out!!!111one I'm probably going to photographer hell for that one, eh purists?
6. I sharpened the image using a couple different techniques. This isn't nearly as bad as steps 4 and 5, I'm sure...
7. Lastly, I cropped and re-sized for posting online.

In essence, the photo is only helped by what I did. It looks more real, and more natural now. Imperfections that I had little control over, were removed. Is there something wrong with that? Now, let me show you the original, unedited, sooc RAW image so you can see why I did what I did.






It's dull, it's flat, it has serious distracting imperfections. It looks fake, almost. There's a distracting ammo holder in frame. In essence, even though I got EVERYTHING right in camera, without processing, it looks like crap. 10 minutes of work in photoshop, and it's 10 times better. This, my friends, is why we use photoshop. If you want to show off images like the one on the bottom, I won't stop you, but I will tell you what you did wrong (and it will involve using some kind of post processing). Or, you can just shoot jpeg, let the camera decide how to manipulate your photos, and call yourself a purist so you can feel better about yourself.


----------



## Tkot (Jul 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
> Perhaps that affects their opinion?



Maybe it's because I prefer being out actually taking pictures than sitting on my ass in front of a screen. Maybe my youthful energy compels me to do so.

I don't know about the OP, but for me photoshop and image manipulation are completely separate things from photography. I'm not against it, I just don't like to do it. If I'm going to pursue photography as a career, I KNOW I'm gonna have to start using it, but at this point, while I'm still learning, I want to get my images as good as they can possibly be right out of the camera. That's my goal.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 9, 2011)

Tkot said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
> ...


An admirable goal and probably the right direction.  The unfortunate part, is until you learn to process your photos, you won't know which ones are really good and what settings you used to achieve that.

It is pretty often that we see threads on here about a photographer that has hit a wall...just can't seem to get better and doesn't understand why.  Their images recieve praise and they are in focus and they show the subject, but they just don't have that 'wow' factor that they see in the magazines.  They become discouraged and think that it must be some 'magical' gift that they just don't have.  Occasionally, when they have 'editing ok', as you do(ironically, enough), I will process one of their photos how I would process it just to show them a comparison.  Often, it takes about a minute in photoshop to take that same image to the next level...WB corrections, curves, a few targeted adjustments and suddenly they see what they had been looking for but couldn't figure out how to achieve.

There is no such thing as making it perfect SOOC...never has been.  Even in the film days.  Part of the reason some people hated the transition from film to digital is that they no longer had a crew of lab techs to fix their mistakes.  They had just assumed that their pics were the cat's meow straight out of the camera and digital was screwing it up.  It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2011)

Tkot said:
			
		

> Maybe it's because I prefer being out actually taking pictures than sitting on my ass in front of a screen. Maybe my youthful energy compels me to do so.
> 
> I don't know about the OP, but for me photoshop and image manipulation are completely separate things from photography. I'm not against it, I just don't like to do it. If I'm going to pursue photography as a career, I KNOW I'm gonna have to start using it, but at this point, while I'm still learning, I want to get my images as good as they can possibly be right out of the camera. That's my goal.



No, instead sitting on a your ass in front of a screen, arguing on a photography forum with complete strangers trumps both editing photos and taking photos.

Photoshop and image manipulation are the same thing. The only thing Photoshop (or any other photo editing program for that matter) let's you do is adjust pixels. Whether you're changing the WB, contrast,  sharpness, or cloning, adding/removing elements, all you're doing is adjusting pixels.

Editing/manipulation goes hand in hand with taking photographs. The sooner you learn that, the quicker you'll start to see an improvement in your work. I look at Photoshop as any other tool I might use in the field. It allows me to get the shot I want, just like flashes, filters, reflectors, etc do.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 9, 2011)

Tkot said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Clemaire or Tkot can explain why their common characteristic is young age and lack of experience?
> ...



While I commend you for wanting to get your images the best they can be in camera, I think this sentence is completely wrong. As I stated in my previous post, using photoshop techniques in the basic sense is no different than darkroom techniques, film choice, or using many filters. They DO go hand in hand. Processing or developing images, as well as characteristics of different media (  your cameras own built in processing algorithms are a good example ) have been a part of photography since the very first camera. Do you HAVE to process pictures? No. It is, however, a waste not to though. As you clearly are aware based on your post, if you want to get anywhere in photography you will have to learn. So I guess in a sense that in and of itself makes the two go hand in hand.


----------



## shortpants (Jul 9, 2011)

OP go make yourself a camera obscura and call it a day. Modern technology sucks!


----------



## Edsport (Jul 9, 2011)

A painter has tools like an easel, brushes, canvas, paint etc. and he'll paint a scene. He used tools to do a painting. Did he cheat because he used tools? Photographers use tools to do a photo, camera, photoshop, flashes, reflectors etc. Using a reflector to change the scene cheating? Photoshop to change the contrast cheating?


----------



## jaomul (Jul 9, 2011)

Free will, PP, don't PP. Opinions are like....... And no one is necessarily right or wrong


----------



## Tkot (Jul 10, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> An admirable goal and probably the right direction.  The unfortunate part, is until you learn to process your photos, you won't know which ones are really good and what settings you used to achieve that.
> 
> It is pretty often that we see threads on here about a photographer that has hit a wall...just can't seem to get better and doesn't understand why.  Their images recieve praise and they are in focus and they show the subject, but they just don't have that 'wow' factor that they see in the magazines.  They become discouraged and think that it must be some 'magical' gift that they just don't have.  Occasionally, when they have 'editing ok', as you do(ironically, enough), I will process one of their photos how I would process it just to show them a comparison.  Often, it takes about a minute in photoshop to take that same image to the next level...WB corrections, curves, a few targeted adjustments and suddenly they see what they had been looking for but couldn't figure out how to achieve.
> 
> There is no such thing as making it perfect SOOC...never has been.  Even in the film days.  Part of the reason some people hated the transition from film to digital is that they no longer had a crew of lab techs to fix their mistakes.  They had just assumed that their pics were the cat's meow straight out of the camera and digital was screwing it up.  It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.


Good points. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm taking it one step at a time. Once I feel like I've figured out how to do things well on the camera and I feel like I'm doing the best I can do with that, I'll move on to image manipulation and work on getting that down. I've accepted that I'm gonna have to do it at some point, but I don't have the time to learn that as well as get out and actually take pictures, which is why I got into photography in the first place.



Gaerek said:


> No, instead sitting on a your ass in front of a screen, arguing on a photography forum with complete strangers trumps both editing photos and taking photos.
> 
> Photoshop and image manipulation are the same thing. The only thing Photoshop (or any other photo editing program for that matter) let's you do is adjust pixels. Whether you're changing the WB, contrast,  sharpness, or cloning, adding/removing elements, all you're doing is adjusting pixels.
> 
> Editing/manipulation goes hand in hand with taking photographs. The sooner you learn that, the quicker you'll start to see an improvement in your work. I look at Photoshop as any other tool I might use in the field. It allows me to get the shot I want, just like flashes, filters, reflectors, etc do.


Touche.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 10, 2011)

Tkot said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > An admirable goal and probably the right direction.  The unfortunate part, is until you learn to process your photos, you won't know which ones are really good and what settings you used to achieve that.
> ...



I can understand where you are coming from.  We have all felt overwhelmed at one point in time.  There is so much to learn and it is wise to concentrate your efforts if you don't feel like you can learn it all at once.  Heck, no worries.  Pick a picture style you like, shoot in JPEG, and learn all about the photography, but tone down the rhetoric a bit.  You came off as somebody who thought they were too good for post processing their photos, as somebody who would 'just get it right in the camera'.  I think you have found that you are talking to people who have already been where you are at and have moved on and I commend you for that.  The important thing is that you are progressing.  There really isn't much to photography at the point of caputre...heck, all you have is a few options....shutter speed, aperture, focal length, composition, ISO, and lighting.  Sure, it's a bunch, but once the photo is captured, you have a ton more options, and some of them are necessary.

You'll get there, I have no doubt about it.  Just try not to be so argumentitive in the process.  Most of us have been where you are.  We all adhered to the same mantra of get it right in camera and you shouldn't have to post process.  It was a lie.  Honestly, it was a lie portrayed upon us by people who wanted us to think they were better than us.  They wanted us to think that since we had to 'manipulate' our images we weren't as good and it just kept getting passed down to new photographers.  Those people were insecure and they were misleading.  There have always been corrections made to photos, and there always will be.  By ignoring that, you may be deleting images that could actually be great with just a few simple adjustments.

Here is an example from today... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...hoto-gallery/249853-new-shot-c-c-welcome.html  There are three different images posted...one from the OP.  One edited from another member.  One edited by me.  I'd like to know your thoughts on the thread and the images and if you felt what I did was cheating.


----------



## Tkot (Jul 10, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> I can understand where you are coming from.  We have all felt overwhelmed at one point in time.  There is so much to learn and it is wise to concentrate your efforts if you don't feel like you can learn it all at once.  Heck, no worries.  Pick a picture style you like, shoot in JPEG, and learn all about the photography, but tone down the rhetoric a bit.  You came off as somebody who thought they were too good for post processing their photos, as somebody who would 'just get it right in the camera'.  I think you have found that you are talking to people who have already been where you are at and have moved on and I commend you for that.  The important thing is that you are progressing.  There really isn't much to photography at the point of caputre...heck, all you have is a few options....shutter speed, aperture, focal length, composition, ISO, and lighting.  Sure, it's a bunch, but once the photo is captured, you have a ton more options, and some of them are necessary.
> 
> You'll get there, I have no doubt about it.  Just try not to be so argumentitive in the process.  Most of us have been where you are.  We all adhered to the same mantra of get it right in camera and you shouldn't have to post process.  It was a lie.  Honestly, it was a lie portrayed upon us by people who wanted us to think they were better than us.  They wanted us to think that since we had to 'manipulate' our images we weren't as good and it just kept getting passed down to new photographers.  Those people were insecure and they were misleading.  There have always been corrections made to photos, and there always will be.  By ignoring that, you may be deleting images that could actually be great with just a few simple adjustments.
> 
> Here is an example from today... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...hoto-gallery/249853-new-shot-c-c-welcome.html  There are three different images posted...one from the OP.  One edited from another member.  One edited by me.  I'd like to know your thoughts on the thread and the images and if you felt what I did was cheating.



You hit the nail on the head! And your right, my first post was a little bit hoity-toity wasn't it? Haha. But this is good, a short discussion later and my point of view has already changed, like you said!

And that's a good point, there aren't all that many features in the camera to master, just shutter speed, aperture, and the rest... I guess part of it is that I just can't afford photoshop right now, I have to save up for my textbooks for college :/. Right now I have GIMP, just cause it was free. But since I don't understand how any of it works, I don't use it that much, haha. That explains it!

As for those three images, WOW, the difference is really noticeable! You may make a believer out of me yet! I like your edit the best, that's some nice work there!

I really appreciate your patience and willingness to make your point in a polite way Kerbouchard. This has been the best feedback I've received on this forum yet, so thank you! By the way, I just read your signature and that is a great quote!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 10, 2011)

FWIW, as a student, you get about 80% off the retail price of Photoshop...That puts the complete Photoshop CS5 Extended Suite at around $200 bucks...not exactly cheap, but a steal for a student.  Might be worth looking into when you have some extra money.

No reason to hate on something just because it's expensive.  Adobe has actually done a really good job with trying to make their software affordable to people who can't afford to pay full price.

And, also, FWIW, Photoshop Elements is a lot cheaper and was designed for people who don't want or have the need to do a lot of post processing.  It's also offered at a student discount.


----------



## Tkot (Jul 10, 2011)

True, true. I'll look into it! Thanks!


----------



## Proteus617 (Jul 10, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> FWIW, as a student, you get about 80% off the retail price of Photoshop...That puts the complete Photoshop CS5 Extended Suite at around $200 bucks...not exactly cheap, but a steal for a student.  Might be worth looking into when you have some extra money.



Last winter a friend and I spent some time in his darkroom.  We printed 6 photos each for an exhibition at a local bar.  Chemicals, film and 3 boxes of 11x14 paper ran us about $200.  That was before the hike in precious metal prices drove up the cost of emulsions.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 10, 2011)

Proteus617 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, as a student, you get about 80% off the retail price of Photoshop...That puts the complete Photoshop CS5 Extended Suite at around $200 bucks...not exactly cheap, but a steal for a student.  Might be worth looking into when you have some extra money.
> ...


Printing digitally isn't really even cheaper either. Lets say if you're doing 6 11x14's on fine art paper similar in weight and feel to good RC or god forbid fiber paper, that can get expensive quick, and it STILL wouldn't have the tonal range that a solid silver print will have. 




You know, for the last 2 months or so, i've barely shot my DSLR (D700). I've been burning through rolls in my F100's like it was the 90's and having them scanned so I can put them online. Photoshop is a key tool for the hybrid workflow. If I need to make slight curves adjustments or selective dodging/burning, I need PS or LR. I'll get my film soup'd-n-scan'd, than bring it into LR to sort through and export. Honestly that's about all I usually need, which is the nice thing about film, it's a great time saver


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 10, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Honestly that's about all I usually need, which is the nice thing about film, it's a great time saver



Yep, it is...and that is because a group of lab techs have already fixed everything that would have been up to you to fix if you were shooting digital.  If you aren't using that D700, I'll be glad to take it off your hands for a decent price.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 10, 2011)

Tkot said:


> As for those three images, WOW, the difference is really noticeable! You may make a believer out of me yet! I like your edit the best, that's some nice work there!


I'm not trying to make a believer out of you.  I just wanted you to see some of the options in front of you.  As far as the edit, it took less than a minute, but I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## matt hkd (Jul 10, 2011)

my opinion is that if you use photoshop to better represent what was there in real life, then that's okay and the better software you have to do that, the better off we are. cameras apply sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc by itself, and you can't expect it to get it right every time, so as long as you're going for what was actually there, then you're okay. Also I think that when people use it as a creative tool to make whatever images they want as art, that's okay too. I draw the line at using photoshop to manipulate an image that you say is supposed to be real but actually is not.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 10, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly that's about all I usually need, which is the nice thing about film, it's a great time saver
> ...


pretty much, and nope


----------



## mickmac (Jul 10, 2011)

Love photoshop. Use it every day for many different reasons. To the original poster, you have to understand that not all photography is the same. i work as a product photographer. A lot of the time, the products I am given to shoot are not what the final product needs to look like. These can vary from a simple color correction or clipping path to having to shoot 3 or 4 different products and merge parts from each into one image. Photoshop allows me to do this easily.


----------

