# Photoshop... Love it? Hate it?



## tam_ried (May 29, 2012)

I'm a huge fan of photoshop, I love creating fantasy images however I know that many photographers don't like it at all. Just thought it would be interesting to see how many of you are fans (or not) and what your views on photoshop are?...

Good photographers don't need it? It is the digital dark room? It is super amazing and my life would be pointless without it? 

Also would be great to see the thing you have created in photoshop? 

Here is one of my first photoshop creations... I turned it into a shampoo advert for my portfolio...


----------



## TheKenTurner (May 29, 2012)

I love using photoshop, but no "professionally" although, I am 16 so I don't really do anything professionally, but I think you know what I mean  I personally really like using Lightroom for my RAW photos, and Photoshop just for messing around. Just my thoughts!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (May 29, 2012)

tam_ried said:


> I love creating fantasy images however ...



Do you have any idea what that really sounds like?  It sounds like you create fantasy images in PS because you have no idea how to do it otherwise... ie, in camera.

You know, it sounds like "I'm a natural light photog" which really means "I have no idea how to use lights."

It might sound better if you had more posts


----------



## tam_ried (May 29, 2012)

@ c.cloudwalker

And how do you suppose you recreate the image I posted in camera?


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

tam_ried said:


> @ c.cloudwalker
> 
> And how do you suppose you recreate the image I posted in camera?


While we wait with bated breath for that answer, I have a question.

Just out of curiosity, did you shoot any of the elements in your composite?  The woman?  The fish?  The shampoo? The water?  All?  Or do you get your images from stock, or just found on the web or what?

I love the image, btw, and I love my Photoshop.  :thumbup:


----------



## o hey tyler (May 29, 2012)

I do everything in my power when creating an image to make it so that I DO NOT have to use photoshop. I really can't stand the interface, or the amount of RAM that it demands. If there's a situation where I NEED photoshop, I will use it. I just prefer to get as much "right" in camera as possible.


----------



## Trever1t (May 29, 2012)

Photoshop or Gimp or whatever photo-editing software is nothing more or less than a necessary tool to "develope" digital imagery, for me. While I might have spent long hours in the darkroom hunched over the enlarger table I now spend at a comfy desk. 

Art is Art, doesn't really how it's created to me.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 29, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Art is Art, doesn't really how it's created to me.



Doesn't really either me at all.


----------



## Trever1t (May 29, 2012)

matter....doesn't matter to me :facepalm:


----------



## tam_ried (May 29, 2012)

Thanks Buckster 
Yes I shot all of the images...  I don't like to use stock unless I need a tornado or something else that I can't shoot... I put the gold fish in our pond and am happy to say he is still alive


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

tam_ried said:


> Thanks Buckster
> Yes I shot all of the images...  I don't like to use stock unless I need a tornado or something else that I can't shoot... I put the gold fish in our pond and am happy to say he is still alive


Nicely done!


----------



## Overread (May 29, 2012)

I've seen some fantastic composite photos which have been pulled together with the photo being only a part of the process. I think some photographers get hung up that "photography" must be a loan art - that if its combined with other mediums or ideas that it loses its purity. 

Generally those people are not wrong - however what they fail to do is to state their full meaning, which is that documentary style photography should be this. They try to paste that criteria over the whole medium which is wrong (at least in my view, if you can defend it I'll hear the argument).

In the end the only time I feel that its important is when asked how something was produced - and there in the photographer should retain their dignity and remain honest.


----------



## spacefuzz (May 29, 2012)

I really like the image, and I also love photoshop.  I dont always use it to modify things extensively, but when I do its a lot of fun!


----------



## rexbobcat (May 29, 2012)

I'm not a purist. I'll get it as right as I can in camera but if I don't then oh well. Unless the photo is OOF then I'll do what I have to to get the photo where I want it either with hardware or software


----------



## table1349 (May 29, 2012)

Don't love it, don't hate it.  Photoshop is just another tool to be used.  Like any tool it can be used in an acceptable manner or an unacceptable manner.


----------



## PeteNix (May 30, 2012)

In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around.  Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?


----------



## jake337 (May 30, 2012)

Everything in between the the initial vision and final created image are merely mediums for ones art.

Choose your own medium.  Who cares what others choose for theirs.


I sometime like watching this Nicholas Claris "making of" video.  I'm sure if you were to ask him if Post Production was necessary or not you would get a yes for an answer.  Not saying one cannot do it all in camera but even when someone is very serious about what the do in camera, they still bring it into post and finish creating their image.

Claris image builder, agence de publicite, photographie internet et presse Bordeaux, video, web agency, photo, communication, advertisement, agency


----------



## yerlem (May 30, 2012)

I like Photoshop as a tool to make art, I enjoy it.
 I don't like it when it is used for commercial/fashion photography, to make perfect human beings :/ I see it as false advertisement


----------



## KmH (May 30, 2012)

PeteNix said:


> what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?


Lots. But it involved smelly chemicals you didn't want to get on your skin or clothes, a special light sealed room, and some specialized tools.

Photoshop is based on wet darkroom editing techniques.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

Photoshop is simply a tool to help photographers, graphic artists etc. It can be used to create amazing images. It is used as a crutch by the less skilled to help fix mistakes with their photographs.

I use it almost everyday while restoring images that I have scanned, it would have been near impossible to do without using photoshop.  As a tool it is great.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

PeteNix said:


> In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around.  Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?
> 
> View attachment 10026



I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it.  Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software.  Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.


----------



## PeteNix (May 30, 2012)

KmH said:


> PeteNix said:
> 
> 
> > what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?
> ...



There are"lots" to learn within the world of photography for sure and right here you´ve got one very dedicated and obsessed student trying to master it all. But the point made was that you/we do have some very serious limitations with a just a camera, limitations that completely disappears if you add Photoshop (depending on skills that is) in to the process.  There are likely thousands and thousands of whoppin´great photographers out there,but who gets all attention nowadays...? 

It´s People like Joel Grimes & DaveHill.  

With some luck and a fairly modern camera, anyone could capture a special moment... but even tho it might have stunned the world back in the 1970´s, it just doesn´t anymore. You have to go far beyond that for to draw any attention to your work, and with just a camera at your disposal, your chance for success is just  too small for to even mention.   

Also, I would not call some people "puritans" just for refusing the implementation of Photoshop in to their lives.....a more adequate word for the odd phenomena would be ...Technophobes.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

The difference is that someone creates photo illustrations using software on a computer, and someone who uses a camera to capture moments in time.  Will the photo illustrations still be around in 50-60 years or will they have been replaced by another illustration?  Does a photo that was shot a hundred years ago still have the same meaning now?  Yes it does, it won't be replaced by a computer generated illustration.

Photoshop is not photography.


----------



## PeteNix (May 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> PeteNix said:
> 
> 
> > In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around.  Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?
> ...



I too grew up without Photoshop.. I even  saw the firstlanding on the moon ....LIVE!  
But, it was not until I discovered/learnt  Photoshop that I saw the light. My First Camera I got somewhere back in 1974 (Kodak Instamatic) but even tho I loved taking photos of everyone and everything it just never got my full attention. I bought one camera after another in hope for something... but naaaa! All I managed to do was to make one plain copy of sad reality after another... and what´s the bleeping point in that? (if not being in to time documentaries, that is)  Then one day ... I met... Photoshop 2... Instant love! And I spent X-years  trying to do things without the use of a manual, and finally one day... (pretty resent) my desire for mastering a Camera came back.


----------



## Buckster (May 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Photoshop is not photography.


Photoshop is a part of photography, just as the darkroom and retouching services were, and in some circles still are, a part of photography.


----------



## jake337 (May 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> PeteNix said:
> 
> 
> > In my case I´m not so sure I would have been that interested in photography if not a software like Photoshop had been around.  Personally Ihave a big softy for the absurd, and then, what would have been possiblewithout the use of Photoshop?
> ...



And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Photoshop is not photography.
> ...



Photoshop is just software.  Photography is painting with light.  You are correct that it is a part of photography.


----------



## unpopular (May 30, 2012)

For graphic design, I like it, though I am not sure I love it ... There just isn't anything better. For photography, I find it bloated and lacking in some areas. I prefer Photoline32 for its color space independence, HSL support and price. These first two two features won me over Photoshop, even though direct access to channels is more limited.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

jake337 said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > PeteNix said:
> ...



A skilled photographer doesn't have to be skilled at post process, that's why they have skilled computer people to do it.  I know lots of great and very skilled photographers that aren't very good with photoshop, they learn only as much as they need to know.  I don't agree with that approach, I prefer to know more than I need to know, even if I never use it.  I'm sure most would agree.   I'd rather be great with a camera than great with photoshop, but understand what you're saying, I'd rather be great at both.  I'll just stick with being pretty good with photoshop.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For graphic design, I like it, though I am not sure I love it ... There just isn't anything better. For photography, I find it bloated and lacking in some areas. I prefer Photoline32 for its color space independence and HSL support and price. These first two two features won me over Photoshop, even though direct access to channels is more limited.



I haven't heard of PhotoLine, I'll have to take a better look. The screenshot looked very much like photoshop. Thanks for mentioning this.


----------



## unpopular (May 30, 2012)

The GUI is really goofy at times, and the layer independence (each layer is treated like an individual image) can be a hinderance as much as a help, especially if you resize a layer non-proportionally. But it costs like 60.


----------



## unpopular (May 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


While this is true of color slide photography, it is untrue of black and white photography, which I think digital is closer to in approach. Black and white photographers manipulate negatives all the time, the difference is that this manipulation is being done chemically, often in complete darkness, by adjusting development times according to exposure. The assertion that a good photographer 'gets everything right in camera' has merit, but I think that the approach under-utilizes that abilities of a camera to capture the widest possible range while minimizing signal to noise. Of course, such an approach (ETTR) would require that each capture be post processed.


----------



## jake337 (May 30, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Yeah, me too.  Your right though, that's why some of the best photography businesses have teams, right?  Someone who is the best at what they do in each independent area of photography.


But as a hobbyist I really have no choice unless I feel like paying some re-toucher to finish up my snapshots!


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



I agree.  I was great at printing in a darkroom, I grew up printing the majority of my Dad's work, which also was a learning lesson in how to shoot.  I helped teach darkroom at the university level to photojournalism students while I was still in high school.  There is a big difference between darkroom work and computer work, I found printing much easier, getting a buzz off the chemicals isn't something that I really miss, but there are times.


----------



## unpopular (May 30, 2012)

That's not a buzz. That's cyanide poisoning!


----------



## Kolander (May 31, 2012)

It is funny to read about the romantic era, when the photographers were so skillful to get The Moment alone with their camera :mrgreen:

In most cases, an anonymous lab employee worked so skilfully on the film with the brush and the masks and another tools to show those great moments.

Today we do the same with Photoshop, the one an only difference is that now people know! 

And of course PS is not only to create a tsunami hitting Chicago, but to achieve the highest quality in a sober portrait with a plain background.

I do love Photoshop as I love my best lenses, wish I had begun 15 years ago.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 31, 2012)

unpopular said:


> That's not a buzz. That's cyanide poisoning!



Some of the chemicals didn't taste that bad either.  It was usually pulling the all nighters doing rush jobs that by the next day life was a bit of a dream world. I guess I do miss those days.


----------



## biquer (Jun 10, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> Some of the chemicals didn't taste that bad either.  It was usually pulling the all nighters doing rush jobs that by the next day life was a bit of a dream world. I guess I do miss those days.



We have always used the media and technology available (tintypes to glass plates to commercial film to light meters to darkroom gymnastics and on and on). 
The digital age has just given us more tools to interpret our view of the world. 
Would J.S. Bach have eschewed electronics for the sake of artistic purity? I doubt it.


----------



## ScubaDude (Jul 5, 2012)

I love it: There's not a better editing tool out there.

I hate it: It's so complicated that I'll never learn it all, and there are a million ways to accomplish whatever it is you want to do.


----------



## KmH (Jul 5, 2012)

Photoshop gets used in ways it's designers never realized were possible. No one will ever learn it all.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2012)

That is the difference between tools like photoshop and even gimp, and toys like picnik and other "tools" in the fauxtographer toy box.

However, I do think a lot of the features being added are a little toyish...


----------



## The_Pearl_Poet (Jul 5, 2012)

I see photoshop as a less messy, more efficient, and more versatile version of the darkroom.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2012)

I guess how I really feel about photoshop is: I'd love to hate Photoshop, but in the end it's the best thing we've got. Unfortunately, Adobe knows this.


----------



## KenC (Jul 5, 2012)

ScubaDude said:


> I hate it: It's so complicated that I'll never learn it all, and there are a million ways to accomplish whatever it is you want to do.



Why is either of those a bad thing?  You can always feel like there's room to improve instead of feeling maxed-out.  As for the second, there are choices for how to do everything which don't produce exactly the same result.  You can either pick the easiest or the one that produces the best result, if the difference is important.

To me the only downside is that, as unpopular said, Adobe knows how much we like it and takes advantage.


----------



## HughTFall (Jul 20, 2012)

I am a  photographer, and I know a little about Photoshop. In fact, I am practicing it for over a month now. I'm not saying that I hated or loving it. It's just that I find it interesting.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

"A good/great photographer gets the image right with the camera not the software." This may be true, but how many images does it take to get that perfect photo? Photoshop allows us to bring back from the dead the images we messed up. And while it may promote laziness, PS is ultimately a tool to help our each and every shot look it's greatest and to achieve images nearly unimagined by a camera alone.
Also, I think Lightroom is plenty of muscle for a majority of retouching. It is a lot easier to learn and navigate as well.


----------



## KmH (Jul 20, 2012)

Adobe designed Lightroom as a *compliment* to Photoshop CS.

Lightroom's intended main function is image database management. Lightroom has a number of 'modules'. One of them, the Develope module (a Raw converter application), is the same edit rendering engine that Photoshop Camera Raw uses - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).

The first version of ACR was included with Photoshop 7, 10 years ago. The first version of Lightroom that appeared in 2007 used ACR 3, which was included with Photoshop CS 2 (Photoshop 9).

In other words, if you have Photoshop CS 6, you have in the Camera Raw plug-in essentially the same edit rendering engine used in Lightroom 4's Develope module - ACR 7, but with all the additional editing capability that is Photoshop CS 6.

Note that Photoshop CS 6 also includes Bridge 5, an image organizing and browser tool. Bridge can open far more file types than Lightroom can because Bridge is designed to work with most of Adobe's software applications. Additionally, ACR 7 can be hosted by both Bridge and CS 6, opening up more batch processing possibilities.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

KmH said:


> Adobe designed Lightroom as a *compliment* to Photoshop CS.



I agree with you here... to a point. Lightroom was specifically designed for photographers. Like I said, for a majority of retouching, Lightroom is very effective and easier to learn. Plus it has the advantage of being able to work with a multitude of images instead of a single image at a time (without coaxing the Batch Beast from its lair). 

I am simply stating that Lightroom is an alternative to Photoshop when you are doing basic adjustments. If you have a large-scale project though, Photoshop and all of its complexities still reigns as king.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 20, 2012)

TonysTouch said:
			
		

> I agree with you here... to a point. Lightroom was specifically designed for photographers. Like I said, for a majority of retouching, Lightroom is very effective and easier to learn. Plus it has the advantage of being able to work with a multitude of images instead of a single image at a time (without coaxing the Batch Beast from its lair).
> 
> I am simply stating that Lightroom is an alternative to Photoshop when you are doing basic adjustments. If you have a large-scale project though, Photoshop and all of its complexities still reigns as king.



Technically you can work with multiple images without the "Batch Beast".  In ACR you can open as many images as you want and do everything in ACR that LR can do. You can also edit 1 image in ACR then apply those settings to as many photos as you want in Bridge without opening the individual images. 

I do think LR is more intuitive and easier to learn then photoshop though


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

Can you do spot adjustments in ACR? Or use a clone stamp? I know you can in Lightroom, but haven't heard of it in ACR. (I always use Lightroom first for the database features and RAW manipulation.


----------



## usayit (Jul 20, 2012)

workflow management.... Lightroom

photo editing.. Photoshop


comparison between the two is pointless because they have different purposes which is why many use both and they do compliment each other.  If you insist on a comparison or get into a this or that debate,  then you know neither enough to have any say so in the matter.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 20, 2012)

Photoshop is part of the reason I went back to film.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 20, 2012)

TonysTouch said:
			
		

> Can you do spot adjustments in ACR? Or use a clone stamp? I know you can in Lightroom, but haven't heard of it in ACR. (I always use Lightroom first for the database features and RAW manipulation.



Camera Raw has spot adjustments, but you don't have the clone stamp, or healing brush tool until you migrate the photo into photoshop.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 20, 2012)

I like photoshop very much , even though I am using it really for its basic purpose. I just do a lot of enhancements, I don't do serious manipulation of photos, touch ups of portraits and scenics to make them more visually appealing.  Though I would love to learn some of the tricks to do some of the more creative things. Being able to do what I do is more than enough to meet my purpose and I am able to do much of what I used to do in a dark room now in a very short amount of time. So yes I like photoshop a lot.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 20, 2012)

TonysTouch said:
			
		

> Can you do spot adjustments in ACR? Or use a clone stamp? I know you can in Lightroom, but haven't heard of it in ACR. (I always use Lightroom first for the database features and RAW manipulation.



You can do the same thing in ACR as Lightroom. They both have a spot removal tool that operates in two different modes - clone or heal.


----------

