Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said, there is a thin line between use and abuse.
And that line is different for everyone. As it should be.
Quote:
Why a photographer does that he/she does depends on the purpose. Take magazine cover shots for example. Most of them are so heavily processed that a good photoshopper could make a bad photographer look exceptionally good.
Not necessarily. Bad lighting is bad lighting - there is little to nothing that PS can do to fix that.
I'm a little surprised by the bolded part of your statement, and I'm leaning towards an assumption that you might not have used Photoshop very much?
I certainly feel like I accomplished something when i finish the post processing in Photoshop and have the finished result, I shoot exclusively in RAW now, so post processing is a given, but I find the "puritan" opinion of some (mainly amateur/hobby, like me) that Photoshop is an evil.
It certainly has made post processing easier, but it's not like they didn't touch up magazine covers before Photoshop, it was just done manually.
Photoshop is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a lightroom, it might have some more or some more convenient features, but so does our cameras, that's all in the technological evolution.
I have Photoshop CS3. But it can't replace a personal experience. The only thing it delivers is ability to tweak pictures to levels sometimes impossible on the field. I do occasionally shoot RAW but haven't used PS for processing yet (the CS3 is still on my old computer and refuses to install on Windows 7). I don't use RAW regularly, and the last time I shot all RAW was couple of months ago being the official photographer for a large family party.
Speaking of convenience, I'm perhaps moving in the direction opposite to the technology, while being able to admire the technology and use it occasionally. Even a few months ago, I wouldn't have cared for manual lenses or for DOF scales on the lens, as opposed to the conveniences of a modern lens, including the DOF Preview button. The Sony A55, for example has a convenient 10 fps shooting mode. It has come in handy, a lot. The problem, I hate that Sony restricted it to a mostly automatic mode (I could shoot manually at a lower rate, however).
So conveniences aside, I feel that the personality of the lens, the camera and the photographer itself is being replaced by the ability to define a photograph on computer screens.
Take this picture for example, that I posted in the Bokeh thread:
The photo is almost as it came out of the camera, with cropping out of the stem (still visible). For this, I had to consider the subject and the framing, along with the strengths of the lens in use. Or, I could have just ignored most of it and used Photoshop to create similar or even better effect for the bokeh using the lens blur effects. So ultimately it would come down to whether I want to enjoy Photoshop, or what I can accomplish on the field.
Now, there are times where PS can come to the rescue. An example of that is in the picture which shows a little CA in the foliage at almost wide open against high contrast area...
I was afraid of that happening considering the conditions but had virtually no control over it (the option being using higher ISO and f/4.0 or face the possibility of slight blur as this was taken handheld at a 35mm effective 300mm). It would make for a good candidate for Photoshop tweaking which I did not go for (the photo above was also cropped for online sharing). I like the fact that all those colors and exposure are natural, as captured by the camera through the lens and using the settings I wanted.
Not necessarily. Bad lighting is bad lighting - there is little to nothing that PS can do to fix that.
Not necessarily true. And that is without going overboard with replacing the entire lighting effect on a photo. In fact, I was going to mention a Landscape Photography tutorial earlier that I came across couple of weeks ago, to see if there might be extra tips and tricks. All I found was a tweak on Photoshop, to transform a landscape (seashore) taken under cloudy/dull skies to a high contrast turquoise blue water (but still cloudy skies). Personally, I would have preferred the original, as it appears virtually everybody who saw the tutorial did. But then, I can see that, presented on its own, the Photoshopped version would be a better "seller" to the audience.
I have Photoshop CS3. But it can't replace a personal experience. The only thing it delivers is ability to tweak pictures to levels sometimes impossible on the field. I do occasionally shoot RAW but haven't used PS for processing yet (the CS3 is still on my old computer and refuses to install on Windows 7). I don't use RAW regularly, and the last time I shot all RAW was couple of months ago being the official photographer for a large family party.
You say you haven't used PS for processing yet so how can you objectively say what it delivers? If you don't even regularly shoot in RAW, you probably don't have a great need for post processing software anyway. That doesn't mean photographers can't benefit from shooting in RAW and post processing with PS.
Sorry but I can't have a conversation with someone who passes judgement on something they haven't even used.
You say you haven't used PS for processing yet so how can you objectively say what it delivers? If you don't even regularly shoot in RAW, you probably don't have a great need for post processing software anyway. That doesn't mean photographers can't benefit from shooting in RAW and post processing with PS.
Sorry but I can't have a conversation with someone who passes judgement on something they haven't even used.
You're not having a conversation when you're working on assumptions as opposed to the actual arguments made. You assumption that I haven't used PS is misguided, probably picked up from me not having used it to process RAW. To let you know, hence, that even occasional users of RAW need software, and I have used only proprietary software supplied with the camera(s) so far, that would be with the old Sony F828 and now Sony SLT-A55. They make for a very basic software compared to PS or LR. I have considered getting LR, however.
BTW, are you a Briton? I'm heading that way next month.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-09-2011 at 01:53 PM..
I always try to take the best shot I possibly can and look for anything in the frame that shouldn't be there when I'm composing and so on. I do think, however, that most digital photos need at least a small amount of tweaking, and I don't see that as cheating. Personally, I haven't yet learned enough about even Photoshop Elements to do much with my photos beyond the basic editing.
What's sad, I think, is that some new photographers see these fantastic photos (some of which have been heavily edited in post-processing) and think that everyone else is a way better photographer than they are. It's akin to women comparing themselves to all the air-brushed and Photoshopped models and actresses that grace the pages of tabloids and magazines today. They look more perfect than they are, and we women wonder why we can't ever look that good, no matter how hard we try.
I have Photoshop CS3. But it can't replace a personal experience. The only thing it delivers is ability to tweak pictures to levels sometimes impossible on the field. I do occasionally shoot RAW but haven't used PS for processing yet (the CS3 is still on my old computer and refuses to install on Windows 7). I don't use RAW regularly, and the last time I shot all RAW was couple of months ago being the official photographer for a large family party.
Speaking of convenience, I'm perhaps moving in the direction opposite to the technology, while being able to admire the technology and use it occasionally. Even a few months ago, I wouldn't have cared for manual lenses or for DOF scales on the lens, as opposed to the conveniences of a modern lens, including the DOF Preview button. The Sony A55, for example has a convenient 10 fps shooting mode. It has come in handy, a lot. The problem, I hate that Sony restricted it to a mostly automatic mode (I could shoot manually at a lower rate, however).
So conveniences aside, I feel that the personality of the lens, the camera and the photographer itself is being replaced by the ability to define a photograph on computer screens.
Take this picture for example, that I posted in the Bokeh thread:
The photo is almost as it came out of the camera, with cropping out of the stem (still visible). For this, I had to consider the subject and the framing, along with the strengths of the lens in use. Or, I could have just ignored most of it and used Photoshop to create similar or even better effect for the bokeh using the lens blur effects. So ultimately it would come down to whether I want to enjoy Photoshop, or what I can accomplish on the field.
Now, there are times where PS can come to the rescue. An example of that is in the picture which shows a little CA in the foliage at almost wide open against high contrast area...
I was afraid of that happening considering the conditions but had virtually no control over it (the option being using higher ISO and f/4.0 or face the possibility of slight blur as this was taken handheld at a 35mm effective 300mm). It would make for a good candidate for Photoshop tweaking which I did not go for (the photo above was also cropped for online sharing). I like the fact that all those colors and exposure are natural, as captured by the camera through the lens and using the settings I wanted.
But you need a good "negative" to work with to create a great end product, one can certainly "rescue" some unfortunate images with Photoshop, but that really isn't any different than what people do and did in lightrooms before digital became the norm. When I did a photography class we almost exclusively shot monochrome and developed it ourselves. We were taught some of the many ways of altering an image to get what you want and ways to "salvage" bad pictures.
I won't argue that Photoshop hasn't enabled a much larger portion of the population to edit their photos, nor that some amateurs tend to overexpose their photos, but I just don't see how it's any different than going into a lightroom and doing that work in the more tedious manual way. The camera and shot is only part of the equation, developing has always been the other and Photoshop is simply the new way of developing a photo.
What is it precisely that puritans feel is the "cheating" or fake part of photography with Photoshop?
I don't know what you mean with using Photoshop not being able to replace a "personal experience", I used to develop my film photos to my liking, I do the same with Photoshop, post processing, just as with film, is to me very much part of the process, and not a step I've ever preferred to skip.
I always try to take the best shot I possibly can and look for anything in the frame that shouldn't be there when I'm composing and so on. I do think, however, that most digital photos need at least a small amount of tweaking, and I don't see that as cheating. Personally, I haven't yet learned enough about even Photoshop Elements to do much with my photos beyond the basic editing.
What's sad, I think, is that some new photographers see these fantastic photos (some of which have been heavily edited in post-processing) and think that everyone else is a way better photographer than they are. It's akin to women comparing themselves to all the air-brushed and Photoshopped models and actresses that grace the pages of tabloids and magazines today. They look more perfect than they are, and we women wonder why we can't ever look that good, no matter how hard we try.
Just my thoughts.
I definitely agree; that's where the uneasiness comes in for me. I've used Photoshop to correct lighting (like horrible underexposed faces, ew), but to edit someone's face for blemishes, etc. is somewhat pushing it for me. I wouldn't want for someone to see the picture of the subject only to meet them in real life and be disappointed. (I'd rather have it the other way around!) I also feel that beginners in photography seem to be disappointed with their work when comparing photoshopped--minor or major tweaking--images on, say, Flickr. When I started a few years ago, taking pictures of downtown skylines, I couldn't get the high contrast that I wanted between the lights and dark night and kept asking myself, "What am I doing wrong?" only to find out they'd tweaked the levels. It's kind of unfair to people unaware of Photoshop to think that those with Photoshop are better photographers than they are. In any case, PS has the power to make any bad picture great, putting less emphasis in the important skills of composing an image, etc. when out in the field. Of course, this could go both ways, as it can turn a great photo into a spectacular one.
I'm not against tweaking images, as others have pointed out that it's similar to the darkroom, but I truly admire those who explain their step in producing the final image. It significantly helps new photographers learn the skill in producing an effect through trial-and-error, which I find much more useful than topics learned in a photography class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
Most "snapshots" are a surprise. Most experienced photographers would prefer to see something close to what they imagined it would be before they clicked the shutter. But every photographer probably does both to some degree at some point.
That's a great perspective. I have taken photos only to have the camera do its own thing and realize that it's better than what I pre-visualized beforehand. I guess if I look at it this way, it really isn't 'cheating' then.
This one is just that example. I took this picture because of downtown LA lights, and the sky was a greyish, VERY-faint-blue color. However, the sensor saw it differently and it came out to this colorful photograph which I admire. About 2/5ths of my best shots are from accidental snapshots from my trigger happy index finger, then after realizing its potential, I recompose and take it using proper technique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzannewright
I am a photographer and I edit! One of my bestest friends is an international wedding photog and she edits. I don't think my customers care if I edit, they just want the best darn picture they paid for!!
I guess that would be an exception to editing out blemishes, as I'd expect my pictures to be dark good if I paid a photographer.
In any case, PS has the power to make any bad picture great, putting less emphasis in the important skills of composing an image, etc. when out in the field.
This is simply wrong. Nothing has the ability to make a bad photo great. Maybe bring it from bad to mediocre, but there isn't a program made that takes all the effort out of a great shot. Cropping will change the composition a bit, but so would cropping an image made with film. You cannot take a crappy composed image and "fix" it in PhotoShop. Same as you cannot fix a badly underexposed or overexposed image and make it right, it will introduce bad noise and produce a crappy image... just like you started with. Out of focus is out of focus and there is nothing you can do with a computer program.
Yes you can tweak a few things, but you cannot make a bad photo great.
Yes you can tweak a few things, but you cannot make a bad photo great.
But with Photoshop, you can make old woman becomes young girl like this
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
