to Photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.

[Alex_B]

I think most people should expect that like anything else postprocessing and Photoshop have their own learning curves and whether it is overdone or "expertly re-crafted" depends on where the photographer is in learning and experience using Photoshop.

I also find that some viewers incorrectly jump to the conclusion that a shot has been overly postprocessed just because there are bright, vibrant colours. My experience is that a photographer will often get such saturated colours in landscapes if he/she is shooting in a wet climate or an area that is subject to a lot of rain. I think of bright green and red earth in a few of my shots but the bright green was due to frequent fog and rain in the area, and the red earth was due to iron oxide.

skieur

true, true and true.

Some of my film images have colours which many would call totally overprocessed if it was digital just shoot in the right climate and in the right time of the year and day ....


And then there is Velvia for slides ... wow, then you get some contrast and colours

 

[Phil the Photographer]

But they are photograble, just use the right film and paper.

hence, if you call recolouring the sky in PS cheating, then sepia and grain in PS are also cheating

OK! OK! You've made me see reason! PP is important! No need to rub it in!:er:

 

[Christie Photo]

A bunch of my teachers are very anti photoshop. I just think it comes from just getting out of the film dark age.

Your teachers need to buy a calendar... maybe even do a bit of homework. I gotta tell ya... digital photography is not the same as film photography. There are different concerns and different challenges. I suspect because they're DIFFERENT MEDIA.

Take the portrait industry for example. NO film photographer worth his salt would ever make prints without first doing some general retouching on the negative. And perhaps more importantly, the lab always made some color corrections in printing. Many effects were done "in-camera," like soft focus and vignetting. Why would a DIGITAL photographer do anything less?

-Pete

 

[Alex_B]

OK! OK! You've made me see reason! PP is important! No need to rub it in!:er:

I agree that one can go overboard with sharpening, contrast, and everything. but this is just the same as using the wrong film for the wrong task. You would not shoot portrait with Velvia for example (there are people who call Fujia Velvia "Disneycolor" because of its extreme saturation).

you start to influence the outcome already at the stage of processing (without any post, and by this i mean, processing the film chemically, or converting the RAW data into an image). if it is done well, it looks good, if it is done not so well, it looks bad. And if it is done to cover some failures you did during the original exposure, then it has to be done very well to look not cheap.

 

[Alex_B]

A bunch of my teachers are very anti photoshop. I just think it comes from just getting out of the film dark age.

Please do not call it that!

There was also a lot of light in that age .. and still is.

 

[monkeykoder]

I can't wait to start doing B&W film...

 

[The_Traveler]

To me the object of making a picture creating a reproduction of what the photographer can see in his/her mind's eye? And that image may not be what the physical eye actually sees.

Post-processing software - just like the use/choice of camera, film, paper developer, light, filter, angle, f stop, shutter speed, post-processing software, etc. - is a tool to create that picture.

Arguing about whether PP is OK is like discussing whether an artist can only use a certain kind of pencil or brush.

 

[ianm]

There is post processing - digital darkroom - and "making photography NOT photography" so as i see it image correction of an image and keeping it basically AS the photograph is enough photoshoping.

 

[The_Traveler]

There is post processing - digital darkroom - and "making photography NOT photography" so as i see it image correction of an image and keeping it basically AS the photograph is enough photoshoping.

That's a distinction without a difference.

The picture is the picture as you took it and as the camera delivered it.
If you do anything to change it to look like your eyes and CNS remember or want it to be, then your activity is the exact same as major PSing.

Is this picture below 'wrong' because of the PSing?

 

[ianm]

there is a difference ^that^ there is not what you saw through the lense, you made that image in photoshop - where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.

 

[Christie Photo]

...where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.

They're still photographs.

You're simply pointing out the difference between "creating photographs" and "taking pictures."

-Pete

 

[ianm]

you're not "creating photographs" though, that's the point - once you take it into ps and go as far as colour selecting one bit and making the rest b/w or adding extra bits to the "photograph" it ceases to be a "photograph", yes, you used a "photograph" to create "an image" but is no longer "a photograph"

 

[Christie Photo]

...it ceases to be a "photograph"...

Well then.... what does it become?

What shall we call these images? Hmmmmm......

 

[ianm]

an image, a creation, artwork, a manipulated image (which is basically a closer descriptive, considering what's done to it)

 

[Arch]

there is a difference ^that^ there is not what you saw through the lense, you made that image in photoshop - where as editing a photo with simple brightness and contrast to improve the image you saw through the viewfinder the only thing that keeps your photos as photos.

your getting a bit mixed up ..... the above image is a manipulated image... but it still all falls under the photography umbrella. The same as if a negative was minipulated in the darkroom (remember you can still blend 2 images to one in the darkroom as well as many other types of minipulation) but its still a photo.