# What if Photoshop doesn't exist?



## shortpballer (Oct 6, 2012)

We have created an advertising portfolio based upon 100 percent reality.  Please take a look at our behance page to read more about what we do and our vision.  
I have included a photo here as a teaser to what we are doing.
If you like the work, please click the appreciate button at the bottom of the page.  And if you are on behance please follow us to keep updated.


What if Photoshop doesn't exist? Part 1 on the Behance Network


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 6, 2012)

Nice shots/

But a small nit.  

'What if Photoshop doesn't exist' is syntactically wrong I think.
I think it should be 'What if Photoshop&#8482; didn't exist?'


----------



## pic_chick (Oct 6, 2012)

^^^ agree!!!! But I like the photos


----------



## jake337 (Oct 6, 2012)

Off to buy film and play in a darkroom for me then.....


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 6, 2012)

...based on 100% reality? eh, not really. even less so if  you used a digital camera.  Just because you did not use a program like Photoshop, doesn't mean that adjustments weren't made in camera, like WB and ISO. The pictures were good, don't get me wrong, but saying "what if Photoshop didn't exist" and taking pictures with a new digital camera is like saying "what if cars didn't exist" and driving a motorcycle.


----------



## Mully (Oct 6, 2012)

When I started my career in Advertising photography there was no photoshop.  Then you had to be good at shooting film. Today it is a cakewalk.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 6, 2012)

why do people act like using editing programs is cheating or something? using Photoshop now in the digital age isn't all that different than film people making adjustments in the darkroom.Granted, it was a different skill set, but Photoshop is just the new editing tool and like any other tool, requires a certain amount of skill and practice to be proficient with it. Riding a  horse requires more skill and finesse than driving a car, (i mean English, not that easy western saddle stuff, and a snaffle bit, not straight bar.) but nobody is going to praise me for being "retro" or "classic" for riding a horse to work. When I got my emergency appendectomy, I sure didn't criticize the doctor for using every new and modern tool at his disposal to get the job done. Sorry doctor, you took the easy way out using that laser and MRI scanner...you should have shown real skill and done it the old fashioned way.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 6, 2012)

Mully said:


> When I started my career in Advertising photography there was no photoshop.  Then you had to be good at shooting film. Today it is a cakewalk.



Whether you shoot film or digital, you still need good composition and lighting from the beginning to create a great image. 

Post production doesn't make an image.  The photographer uses it as one of their mediums to create the final image, which is all that matters anyway.  How you got to that image is irrelevant.


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 6, 2012)

My point exactly.  Photographers have lost site of what makes a good photo.  I have no problem with photoshop, and I still use it today.  However, as I walk down the streets of Paris, I see advertisements every day that are OVER photoshopped, to the point that they don't even demonstrate the product in its reality.




jake337 said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> > When I started my career in Advertising photography there was no photoshop.  Then you had to be good at shooting film. Today it is a cakewalk.
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Oct 6, 2012)

romanticizing SOOC is something people started doing once film started dying. In reality, the inflexibility of slide film was seen as a huge drawback, not a benefit.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 6, 2012)

shortpballer said:


> My point exactly.  Photographers have lost site of what makes a good photo.  I have no problem with photoshop, and I still use it today.  However, as I walk down the streets of Paris, I see advertisements every day that are OVER photoshopped, to the point that they don't even demonstrate the product in its reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good photographers haven't lost sight of what makes a good photograph.  Society has learned to accept mediocre as being good.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 6, 2012)

Idk why so many people think they're cooler or better than anyone because they don't use PS. That's so dumb.

It's makes about as much sense to advocate for riding a horse while your car sits in the garage.

Photoshop and other image editors are nothing more than a tool in a skilled photographer's toolbox. Anyone evangelizing "no post processing" or bragging about it is either ignorant or lazy.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 6, 2012)

... as far as I can tell what this proves is that if you don't use photoshop, all your advertising will look like it came from 1987...


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ... as far as I can tell what this proves is that if you don't use photoshop, all your advertising will look like it came from 1987...



ROTFLMAO!


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 6, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Good photographers haven't lost sight of what makes a good photograph.  *Society has learned to accept mediocre as being good.*



Yep... too many 6 day wonder MWACs! They have seriously lowered the scale of what is acceptable. And most of them use prints SOOC, because they can't afford photoshop, or it is "too complicated" for them to bother learning...


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 6, 2012)

So you can do selective color without photoshop... with a careful choice of subjects, and a little glitter. So?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 6, 2012)

You could do selective color in the darkroom, too. I'm guessing it involved a sponge?


----------



## Aloicious (Oct 6, 2012)

there's no need to wonder if photoshop exists, there's plenty of evidence to support that it has existed since 1988...


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Good photographers haven't lost sight of what makes a good photograph.  *Society has learned to accept mediocre as being good.*
> ...



I can afford photoshop, and I know how to use it VERY well.  Its not the problem.  The problem is that many photographers have today don't know the basics of photography - Light.  Again, I have no problem with photoshop, and in fact use it often.  Nice list of equipment in your signature Charlie... very classy...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2012)

Facebook pros would be in a right pickle if there was not PS to save their crap images


----------



## Tee (Oct 8, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Facebook pros would be in a right pickle if there was not PS to save their crap images



But Gary- you're giving them too much credit. FB togs use Picassa or the now defunct Picnik.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 8, 2012)

Tee said:
			
		

> But Gary- you're giving them too much credit. FB togs use Picassa or the now defunct Picnik.



I used to use picasa when shooting events and printing on site


----------



## Kolander (Oct 8, 2012)

30, 40, 50, 60 years ago, photographers used masks, brushes, filters and another "new Photoshop tricks" on film as well, everybody should know it.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

^^ and what a pain in the ass masks were back then.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2012)

This question reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch entitled, "*What if Sparticus had a Piper Cub?*" Too funny! (and also grammatically incorrect, but whateva', right?)


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 8, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> I used to use picasa when shooting events and printing on site



The key word being "used to"? Lol


----------



## TheoGraphics (Oct 8, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Idk why so many people think they're cooler or better than anyone because they don't use PS. That's so dumb.





jamesbjenkins said:


> It's makes about as much sense to advocate for riding a horse while your car sits in the garage.
> 
> Photoshop and other image editors are nothing more than a tool in a skilled photographer's toolbox. Anyone evangelizing "no post processing" or bragging about it is either ignorant or lazy.




THIS.

I'm pretty tired of people discounting other's work saying that "it would be nothing without Photoshop" or "I can tell that it's Photoshopped." I don't feel that using Photoshop to enhance or even "make" your images is "blasphemy" from a photographic standpoint. Sure, I can take nice photos SOOC, but I can make them look even better by tweaking them in Photoshop - so why wouldn't I? This isn't directed at the OP in any way, as I actually think this is a pretty cool project, and a cool challenge to create something awesome SOOC. I just get tired of people acting like Photoshop is the easy way out. People worked with their film negatives, altering reality and changing what it looked like SOOC decades before digital cameras even existed. I don't see how using Photoshop to do the same is any different.

Sorry for the rant!


----------



## spacefuzz (Oct 8, 2012)

*cough* *cough* Fatali gallery where he posts "No photoshop" signs next to his images. Because any darkroom post processing or shooting on Velvia is of course not counted as manipulation.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

I don't miss the darkroom at all. Do you people even know what was involved with making a contrast mask??


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 8, 2012)

Before Photoshop (tm)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Faking It


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2012)

shortpballer said:


> *Nice list of equipment in your signature Charlie... very classy*...



I like my toys! I can't tell if you are actually being nice... or if you are putting me down??? It is just what I have... period. (and that is the short list!)


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 8, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> why do people act like using editing programs is cheating or something? using Photoshop now in the digital age isn't all that different than film people making adjustments in the darkroom.Granted, it was a different skill set, but Photoshop is just the new editing tool and like any other tool, requires a certain amount of skill and practice to be proficient with it. Riding a  horse requires more skill and finesse than driving a car, (i mean English, not that easy western saddle stuff, and a snaffle bit, not straight bar.) but nobody is going to praise me for being "retro" or "classic" for riding a horse to work. When I got my emergency appendectomy, I sure didn't criticize the doctor for using every new and modern tool at his disposal to get the job done. Sorry doctor, you took the easy way out using that laser and MRI scanner...you should have shown real skill and done it the old fashioned way.



My feelings exactly. its there, use it!


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> shortpballer said:
> 
> 
> > *Nice list of equipment in your signature Charlie... very classy*...
> ...



We can trade if it makes you feel more secure, lol.

But seriously, you have a pretty decent collection there.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT ... nope. it's just useless.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT ... nope. it's just useless.




Yeah it is. Should have been title "What if Man didnt have a dick"


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

Or "I'd shoot film but I don't really know how"


----------



## unpopular (Oct 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> shortpballer said:
> 
> 
> > *Nice list of equipment in your signature Charlie... very classy*...
> ...



I think I'll put my list of scrappy gear in my signature ... even the broken/mutilated/half disassembled stuff.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > shortpballer said:
> ...



Thanks, Disko!


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT ... nope. it's just useless.
> ...



So you are saying that for some "Men/etc".. PS can act as a virtual penile compensatory device?     lol!


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 9, 2012)

Back in my film days, I shot almost exclusively slides. Either it was 'right' or it was gone. 

The only improvement that Photoshop and its kin have provided is 
1. The per-frame cost is effectively zero (in respect to a previous thread, camera gear depreciated/needed replacement in those days, too)
2. I now spend hours and hours at the computer trying to 'improve' (OK, =FIX=) my marginally acceptable shots as well as correct a sometimes non-horizontal horizon, etc
3. My throw-away rate has gotten worse since going digital!

Maybe I'd be happier going back to film?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 9, 2012)

While I agree with you to some extent, my "throw away" rate also has gotten worse. I remember having a pretty hard time deciding which slides are "keepers". I think though that this is more because 'per shot is essentially zero'. I don't really have a 'fix it in post' attitude, I didn't with film and I don't now. Because I ETTR, I actually don't have a whole lot of wiggle room on the hilights - in fact, if my effective latitude is around 6 stops, and I want to keep most of the data above middle grey, then I really only have 3 stops to work in before blowing ... sounds a lot like slide film.

But now I have this "oh well, might as well shoot it" kind of 10,000 monkeys shooting 10,000 cameras attitude about things.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 9, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I don't miss the darkroom at all. Do you people even know what was involved with making a contrast mask??



^^^ This.

I've never used the darkroom but the almost-elitist attitude of "omg photography has just gotten worse sing PS and digital" is just irritating.

I'll do whatever I have to to get the image I want, even if I screw it up in-camera. If I can get the end result to my liking then who really has to know (and who really cares?) how underexposed/overexposed the original was? Seriously.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 9, 2012)

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> ^^^ This.
> 
> I've never used the darkroom but the almost-elitist attitude of "omg photography has just gotten worse sing PS and digital" is just irritating.
> 
> I'll do whatever I have to to get the image I want, even if I screw it up in-camera. If I can get the end result to my liking then who really has to know (and who really cares?) how underexposed/overexposed the original was? Seriously.



Ive gone back to film because digital is so bloody boring


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 9, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Ive gone back to film because digital is so bloody boring



I can understand this. I think that film can have feel a little more fulfilling like you're actually creating something organic.

Hence is why I'm trying to figure out how to do tintypes.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 9, 2012)

There is a dichotomy here because some people are looking at the process as some sort of challenge/fun/end point and others see the image as the end point.

I sometimes walk the 5.2 miles round trip to the grocery store because I want the exercise but that doesn't make the groceries taste any better.

I shot a lot of slide film and I kept most of them because they were often the only shots I had of a scene - because they cost 25 cents apiece - and I didn't like to throw away a quarter.On the whole, the best shots I had weren't nearly as good as my best shots now.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 9, 2012)

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

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

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

Just because a piece of software has made photography easier doesn't mean I don't have to try as hard to do it right in the first place.


----------



## timor (Oct 9, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Photoshop has made life easier for not only most photographers but also for graphic artists and photo editors as well.........Just because a piece of software has made photography easier doesn't mean I don't have to try as hard to do it right in the first place.


Nicely said.
This discussion is between pros v.pros ? Amateurs v. amateurs ? Or pros v. amateurs ? Does it have a point ? Image in film photography based 75% on personal skill of a photographer, image in digital photography bases 75% on skill of a programer (not only PS). For pro there is no question: whatever is better, faster and more cost effective, he depends on his clients. For an amateur whatever makes his heart beat faster.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 9, 2012)

It seems that photographers are really unique in the extent of their fascination with the past. While I can appreciate darkroom photography, that doesn't mean that I hold it up to some kind of ridiculous level.

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

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

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

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

*Yes. That's right. The great Ansel Adams didn't shoot SOOC, this doesn't mean he didn't know what the negative would look like in the end, that is after all what the Zone System was designed for. But also, the Zone System is essentially RAW processing for film, compensating gamma by manipulating processing - Adams even wrote as far in The Negative, a book anyone who thinks film is all SOOC should read.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 9, 2012)

Oh- and just before anyone goes on about how it's the artists job to communicate with the client about visual requirements ... perhaps you've had the pleasure of working exclusively with art directors, but I've been the only art director I've _ever _worked with. Most of my small business owner-clients had the visual vocabulary of their business administration degree....


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 9, 2012)

Getting it right in photography. At the base level I suppose it's being able to record what your eyes are seeing. Producing an image that doesn't require a lot of work to make it look like what you saw.  Being able to compose the image, make the correct camera adjustments and record it without the overuse of post software.

I agree with what you're saying and would have no desire to go back to film. I don't think it's unique to photographers to look back to the past. I'm sure in many other professions they look back to the past to understand how things are being done today.


----------



## timor (Oct 9, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Getting it right in photography.


 Is not easy and PS is one additional opportunity for mistakes. Sometimes very funny:
12 worst photoshop mistakes ever - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN9_JITA9Zc&NR=1&feature=endscreen


----------



## unpopular (Oct 10, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Getting it right in photography. At the base level I suppose it's being able to record what your eyes are seeing



but the eye doesn't see without the mind.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Getting it right in photography. At the base level I suppose it's being able to record what your eyes are seeing
> ...



...and I can't walk without legs.  I don't understand your point.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 10, 2012)

The point is that what we see isn't objective. The point of processing is to emphasize our impressions. Even if we had a camera which had the dynamic range, resolution and color depth of strictly biological sensory organs, this would not eliminate the need for post processing.

As one of the most experienced members here, I'm sure you know that feeling of passing by a great experience without photographing it because you KNOW that there is no way you can adequately document it. Or when you come home JAZZED only to find that all the photos suck - not because of any technical reason, but because the medium failed to capture what you saw.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 10, 2012)

I have to say that while I now understand what you're saying I have to disagree with looking at images I've shot and not seeing exactly what I was looking at.  If you eliminate some of  the sensory side of just being at the specfic location, sound, smell, and just using eyes.  I shot a sunset on kodachrome back in the 70's, when I looked at the original slides for the very first time, they were what I saw, the colours were all there. I did no post processing on them.  I have been in this situation on many occations where no post was required to make the image look the same as what I saw.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 10, 2012)

I have also shot stuff that has sucked, generally it was because I was playing with a new technique and it just didn't work the way I hoped.  In a lot of these situations I did have a gut feelng that they wouldn't work.  On the other side I have been surprised at times when something works when I wasn't expecting it to.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2012)

Pretending that not using photoshop (or not using any other thing) makes your photographs more "honest" or "real" is a big mistake.

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

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

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


----------



## MK3Brent (Oct 10, 2012)

Cool shots, thanks for posting them.

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

My favorite was the candid portraits. 

Hope to see you post again!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 10, 2012)

What if Photoshop *did not *exist?**

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

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

What you've presented here is a tired and worn out argument laiden with logical flaws.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Pretending that not using photoshop (or not using any other thing) makes your photographs more "honest" or "real" is a big mistake.
> 
> Every photograph is a lie. Every photograph is a single instant in time, a single frame carved out of the world.
> 
> ...




What if the photographer shoots a single frame and it remains unaltered, is that considered a true photograph?


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> What if the photographer shoots a single frame and it remains unaltered, is that considered a true photograph?



Sure, it's a true photograph. But that just makes it a true lie. Every photograph is such a small fragment of anything resembling "truth" that we might as well treat it as a lie.

A photograph can be true within itself -- it can be a fair and accurate representation of what was inside that frame at that moment in time. Does that make it true? It omits an entire world, and it omits all time but the moment of exposure. It might represent the photographer's honest and best effort to represent the situation properly, and it might succeed, but we cannot know that. If I select a single sentence from Moby Dick to represent the novel, is it "true"? Is it even a reasonable question to ask?

If I selected honestly, as fairly as possible, and with great skill, I might be able to convey some small sliver of the essence of the book to you with that selected sentence, perhaps. It certainly could not convey the entire sense of the book, however. At best, I can fail approach the whole truth. If I select a different sentence, I could convey an utterly slanted idea of the book to you, at worst I could tell a complete and utter lie to you, with no part of the truth. But still, both sentences would be unaltered fragments of the book. The would be, in that sense, true. They would be "unphotoshopped".


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 11, 2012)

Framing can be deceiving...


----------



## timor (Oct 11, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Framing can be deceiving...


Or more likely is a tool of an expression ?


----------



## andywag (Oct 13, 2012)

shortpballer said:


> My point exactly.  Photographers have lost site of what makes a good photo.  I have no problem with photoshop, and I still use it today.  However, as I walk down the streets of Paris, I see advertisements every day that are OVER photoshopped, to the point that they don't even demonstrate the product in its reality.




And of course pre 1990 (release of adobe photosop 1.0) no billboard ads "stretched" reality did they ??


----------



## shortpballer (Oct 15, 2012)

Some people took this post as an attack - something it was never meant to be.  I created a series of photographs based upon the basics of photography, rather than based upon a photographers skills to delete, blend, move, or create pixels in photoshop.  Again, I have used photoshop heavily in the past.  However, something I have noticed when people see our gallery photos or the photos in our commercial book, they have a great response to the fact that they are created without photoshop.  Photoshop is a great tool that will remain in my toolbox.  Yet it is just a tool, not a doctor...


----------



## MK3Brent (Oct 15, 2012)

shortpballer said:


> Some people took this post as an attack - something it was never meant to be.


Welcome to TPF!!!


----------



## kokonut (Jan 18, 2013)

I liked them a lot! Very nice shoots...maybe they are right about the technology and the digital world...but I like the result. Know how to use photoshop or any other product is also part of an expertise...if you have it.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 18, 2013)

All that would be different- Aldus Photostyler would not have gone under.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 18, 2013)

My two cents...

Dodging
Burning
Contrast adjustment
Perspective control
Expanding & contracting Tonal range.
Grain managment

All image manipulation done in the darkroom, all done in photoshop, all done by the masters of both media. I probably miss film as much as anyone, but I'm also enjoying working in the new world of digital photography.

Hand coloring B&W prints was being done in the 1800's. They were photoshopping before Photoshop was cool.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 18, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> My two cents...
> 
> Dodge
> Burn
> ...



AND...whats with all these people cheating by using AF lenses? or AE? Metering?  for that matter...why aren't people still loading film sheets one plate at a time....damn hipsters and their roll/cartridge film.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

Hey, pixmedic, I just recently learned that collodion was actually invented as a wound dressing! And some "liquid bandaid" products today are basically collodion even now.

Just add silver halides and.. bam, wet plate photography!


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Hey, pixmedic, I just recently learned that collodion was actually invented as a wound dressing! And some "liquid bandaid" products today are basically collodion even now.
> 
> Just add silver halides and.. bam, wet plate photography!



rigid collodion is also used in the theater and movie industries for fake scars. it wrinkles the skin as it dries, and looks just like healed scars. the Joker from "the dark knight" had his facial "scars" done with rigid collodion. i havent personally seen it used in the field, but i HAVE seen doctors in the ER use a variant of it for clean lacerations. just like superglue.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 19, 2013)

Iodine and Mercury, ftw! Mad as a photographer, dag's true old skool, biatch!


----------

