grr

dod said:
But it can certainly make a decent one bad........................

There is actually a point here though. Pre digital people did manipulate images but I'll guarantee there's not too many on here that did. For most people it was 36 clicks, down to Boots and then see what you got back.

Now, digital imagery is so cheap that everyone thinks they're some sort of artist and some quite frankly hideous efforts at PP are all too often justified in the name of "art".

I don't have anything against PP per se, although I keep it to an absolute minimum nowadays, but I do think it's value is sometimes over emphasised.
Click to expand...

Was for me,shooting slide for stock,out of the camera to kodak,back to me,quick look on a lightbox,keepers of to my stock library :)
 
Dave1 said:
I suppose if you said you Gimped your photos people might think you were a little strange :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

When a work colleague asked how I had made a fake DVD cover, in particular how I had added something between a body and an arm I showed him the whole file in Gimp and explained I had used layer masks.
He almost fell for it when I suggested he read further by googling "gimp mask" :)
 
mart77 said:
So are you against all the film photographers that use darkroom techniques?
Such as cross processing, airbrushing, dodging and burning etc or are we assuming that this all started with photoshop and everyone just used to get their film processed in boots?
Click to expand...

But the thing is even at boots pp is carried out on every frame, exposure correction, colour correction to a point.
 
Davec223 said:
But the thing is even at boots pp is carried out on every frame, exposure correction, colour correction to a point.
Click to expand...

yes thats true but i was trying to point out that professional photographers take post production seriously, simply to point out that some dont do it well would be fair but to assume it should be as little post production as possible is utterly absurd.
 
mart77 said:
yes thats true but i was trying to point out that professional photographers take post production seriously, simply to point out that some dont do it well would be fair but to assume it should be as little post production as possible is utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with you, the trouble is a lot of people, the OP seems to be in this group aswell, just don't seen to understand that even their films taken into boots are corrected to some degree, so the pp is wrong comment just doesn't hold water.
 
Surely every photograph needs more contrast? :)

If you are happy with your photographs SOOC (I hate that acronym!) then that's boss!

To each their own I say what what!
 
mart77 said:
yes thats true but i was trying to point out that professional photographers take post production seriously, simply to point out that some dont do it well would be fair but to assume it should be as little post production as possible is utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

there are times when less is more ;)

http://www.psdisasters.com/
 
hayley.price said:
please excuse me if this offends any of you but is it only me that gets seriously anoiged when you read a so called photography magazine and the majority of it is about photoshop and photoshop tecnics, when i first got into photography there was no photoshop and photos were good because of the time and effort someone put into getting that photo!! now a days you can make a good photo without even having to leave your house!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry to have to say this Hayley but as Yv said above... photoshop is older than you :)
Before that, photographers could spend a lot of time processing their photos in the darkroom instead. Some of the processes in photoshop are even named after and perform the same effect as their darkroom equivalents.

Ansel Adams is a good one to look up...

“The (photographic) negative is the equivalent of the composers score… and the print is the equivalent of the conductors performance.” — Ansel Adams
 
I think that most of this thread has gone off the original topic. The way I read the OP, she was complaining about how much of the 'photography' magazine is dedicated to using Photoshop. IMO most of the magazines are the same, all saying you can 'do this or that with PS' rather than telling us how to make it better in camera and how to get the best out of the camera before using PP.
There are a few dedicated Photoshop magazines and books out there for those who want to use it, I personally would prefer to see the 'Photography' magazines concentrate on the tools of the trade rather than what you can create with a computer.
I very rarerly use any PP on my photos as I prefer the 'real' look of what comes out the camera, but I do use it when neccessary if I've made a hash of the image in camera. I've spent a lot of time setting up my cameras to give me the finish I want so I can shoot mainly Jpegs and can upload them any where with the minimum amount of PP such as a crop and resize.
 
Photoshop is just a tool, many people like to use it to express their artistic side, others use it for very basic tweeks.
Back in the days when film was king, people were always trying new developers or papers to get something extra out of the captured image.
If you really don't like editing software don't use it and stop buying the magizines, it's personal choice.
 
I think it depends on the magazine you buy - Digital Photo, for example, has a lot of PP articles in it but the Practical Photography range doesn't have so much

I wish I had the PS skills to create artwork with photographs, some images just lend themselves to it perfectly, others not so much.
 
modchild said:
I very rarerly use any PP on my photos as I prefer the 'real' look of what comes out the camera, but I do use it when neccessary if I've made a hash of the image in camera. I've spent a lot of time setting up my cameras to give me the finish I want so I can shoot mainly Jpegs and can upload them any where with the minimum amount of PP such as a crop and resize.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but how is this 'real'? Every photograph ever taken is an artificial creation. There is nothing remotely 'real' about any photograph. You say that "I've spent a lot of time setting up my cameras to give me the finish I want", so in other words, you are manipulating the final image to get a result that is pleasing to you. I do exactly the same, only I generally have my camera set to RAW as this maximises the efficiency of the sensor. I then judge each shot as it comes up on a screen big enough to show the image properly, and edit it accordingly. What I do not do is batch edit my files using auto settings regardless of changing conditions. Which is exactly what in-camera pre-sets do. (Or do you alter these between shots?)

I take it as a given that anyone aspiring to become a photographer will at all times do their best to get the best result of which they and their camera are capable of at the point of capture. After which, they make sure that the shot is properly finished using whatever software they prefer. It is a mistake to think the photographic process finishes when the shutter closes.
 
By saying I prefer the 'real' look I meant I want my photo to turn out how it looks in front of my eyes when I take the shot. I'm aware that it REALLY isn't 'real' and I'm also aware that by setting up my camera this way I automatically get some PP done to my image by the camera. What I don't want is to be sitting in front of a computer for hours trying to make a photo look like the subject I was looking at when I took it. I find I can shoot mainly Jpeg and get the look I want SOOC so I don't have to shoot RAW for everything. I have a basic set up in camera and then alter the shutter, aperture and ISO and use ex comp if neccessary, but the basic colouring, sharpness etc is done by the camera how I want it, so I don't just churn out batch edits of every photo.

But all this is really off the OP statement that a lot of photography magazines put too much emphasis on PS techniques instead of focussing on the tools and those who use them.
 
I think the point people in the thread are making is that there has always been photo processing/manipulation, even something like choosing film-type or what lab it goes to would alter a photos appearance let alone darkroom post-processing.
There's no such thing as a pure untouched photo like some people seem to want there to be, so there's not much point complaining about varying degrees of post processing that aren't to your taste.
If you want to make a career out photography then you'll probably be losing money by taking that stance and not accepting it.

I bet there were features on darkroom processing in 70s and 80s magazines, and if not very often, the only reason was because people didn't have darkrooms available like they do photoshop now.

Modchild if that's the way you want to shoot so be it. But it's not a "real" look to your photos. It's the camera post processing the photo to your personal tastes. There would be many situations for me where shooting in jpg would cause me to do a lot MORE post processing work to get my photos to look remotely how i saw them in real life. I bet there are for you too where the jpg white balance isn't right for instance.

For the record too... not everyone "churn out batch edits of every photo" when using raw. I love getting the most out of every single photo. Raw is the only way to do that.
 
modchild said:
By saying I prefer the 'real' look I meant I want my photo to turn out how it looks in front of my eyes when I take the shot. I'm aware that it REALLY isn't 'real' and I'm also aware that by setting up my camera this way I automatically get some PP done to my image by the camera. What I don't want is to be sitting in front of a computer for hours trying to make a photo look like the subject I was looking at when I took it. I find I can shoot mainly Jpeg and get the look I want SOOC so I don't have to shoot RAW for everything. I have a basic set up in camera and then alter the shutter, aperture and ISO and use ex comp if neccessary, but the basic colouring, sharpness etc is done by the camera how I want it, so I don't just churn out batch edits of every photo.

But all this is really off the OP statement that a lot of photography magazines put too much emphasis on PS techniques instead of focussing on the tools and those who use them.
Click to expand...

Fair dos, we all have our own way. But, to take a single example, I would never dream of applying the same amount of sharpening to every shot if I had time to do a proper job on it. Sharpening, correctly applied, is one of the most important determinants of how the final image will appear. And I don't 'have to' shoot RAW. Ever. I choose to when I can because it is capable of producing a superior result. I don't 'have to' buy expensive lenses either. But I do, and for exactly the same reason: I want the best results.
 
hayley.price said:
this magazine had one photo of a pyramid in it and they had this photo witch i thought was a nice simple photo that had a good look to it, but then they went and added it to the background of a picture of people and there camels witch wasn't even taken in the same location, no yes the end result looked a good photo, but it wasn't even real anymore it wasn't a picture of what the photographer saw it was a picture of something that would get him noticed the most
Click to expand...

They used this example to show you waht can be acheived in a photo, they said the pyramid on its own looks bland so added som interest into the forground to give the pyramid a sence of size.

The technic they used can be used for all sorts of stuff. Photo mags now do alot of photoshop stuff as its is so hard to use straight off, I like the mag personally as it teaches alot and gives me ideas for pics etc like the strawberry drop artical, I had a go and liked the outcome, but I still used photoshop to touch them up a little.
Not everything that comes out of your camera will be just the way you want it to be, there will always be room for improvement wether it be toning it up or toning it down to how you want it to look

spike
 
If a painter put camels into a painting that weren't there no one would be bothered but photography can't be art it has to be the image equivalent of a tape recorder.....sounds boring.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
I wouldn't be suprised if Hailey doesn't bother coming back to TP , to be quite honest, and I wouldn't blame her if she didn't.....
Click to expand...

Why? The OP made a rather ill-informed observation, which is more than likely due to inexperience. It has somewhat opened a debate on the subject with some very interesting opinions being put forward. Why is this a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
modchild said:
I think that most of this thread has gone off the original topic. The way I read the OP, she was complaining about how much of the 'photography' magazine is dedicated to using Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Not if you go to post #4 where Hailey "rewords" her original post, this makes it quite clear.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
I wouldn't be suprised if Hailey doesn't bother coming back to TP , to be quite honest, and I wouldn't blame her if she didn't.....
Click to expand...

I don't see why not, Hayley original post and post #4

hayley.price said:
please excuse me if this offends any of you but is it only me that gets seriously anoiged when you read a so called photography magazine and the majority of it is about photoshop and photoshop tecnics, when i first got into photography there was no photoshop and photos were good because of the time and effort someone put into getting that photo!! now a days you can make a good photo without even having to leave your house!!!
Click to expand...

hayley.price said:
that me re word that....


i have nothing against photoshop but when someone uses photoshop to improve every photo they take and cant simply upload a photo as they took it, thats not what i call photography and when these people do it to the point where the only thing the same as the original photo is the subject thats not a photo anymore its more like art! i might not be the best photographer in the world as many of you know, but i take pictures of the things i see, not what i think i should be seeing because it looks good,
Click to expand...

All people have done is point out where they feel she is misinformed or incorrect. Also the first line of her OP shows that she knew it could get heated, which IMHO it hasn't at all.
 
Last edited:
hayley.price said:
that me re word that....

i have nothing against photoshop but when someone uses photoshop to improve every photo they take and cant simply upload a photo as they took it, thats not what i call photography and when these people do it to the point where the only thing the same as the original photo is the subject thats not a photo anymore its more like art! i might not be the best photographer in the world as many of you know, but i take pictures of the things i see, not what i think i should be seeing because it looks good,
Click to expand...

I've never bought into this way of thinking.

EVERY image I submit for work is processed. Sharpening, contrast changes, noise reduction.... These are just a few things that get done, which are essential to create a set of images that work together as a set. If I ran stuff SOOC (despite them being raw) they'd look all over the shop and just wouldn't work for the reader.

However, hayley's original comment about the amount of Photoshop-based features is a pertinent one, although the number of processing features in photo mags is probably rooted in the fact the 'teaching' photography isn't that suited to print media because of the variables that are peculiar to each shoot differ so much depending on what it is you're shooting.
 
Last edited:
Not even a hint of Mrs Merton lol
I have been giving this one some more thought however and it seems to me the word "editing" has been lost in a cloud of photoshop.
To me editing happens before shot as well as post. many disagree but in my eyes, when i approach a given subject im already editing, what film should i use, what iso will i push or it pull to, what lens, camera, digital or film, it goes on. Then there is the most basic post edit, what images make it through to the next stage and which get discarded or deleted.
I think what the op is getting at are the heavily edited post production images you see like hdr, montage and the usual colour pop rubbish that seemed to flood the place after shindlers list lol
I've been shooting lots of film recently and while i don't have a dark room i scan my negs and carry out darkroomesqe adjustments in photoshop such as contrast control and dodge and burn, im not ashamed of this step as it has become part of my workflow and i don't overcook things anymore. I think the galleries on my website show a progression from my early attempts to my most current work (service at Patrick's)
Early work now seems to be over cooked, highly saturated and over the top cheese lol and while i feel these are my only crimes im glad i haven't replaced any sky's, inserted pyramids or cloned any dogs out of the backgrounds.
While i am not an advocate of heavily altered images the truth is that throughout the short history of photography, practitioners have been bending the truth since the beginning.

Cameras never lie but photoshop has its lawyer on speed dial
 
hayley.price said:
please excuse me if this offends any of you but is it only me that gets seriously anoiged when you read a so called photography magazine and the majority of it is about photoshop and photoshop tecnics, when i first got into photography there was no photoshop and photos were good because of the time and effort someone put into getting that photo!! now a days you can make a good photo without even having to leave your house!!!
Click to expand...

Top tip.
Unless your already doing so, try the British journal of photography.
It will re instill your faith in photography on a monthly basis.
 
the PP argument has got to be the most pointless ever - even eclipsing nikon vs canon , dslr vs csc , and digital vs film in its utter aimlessness

If you shoot raw - some PP is essential
if you shoot jpg processing is applied in camera
if you should film and develop it yourself you apply PP in the darkroom, and
if you should film and send it away the lab does it for you

thinking you can have photography without PP , is like an artist thinking he never need mix paint or sharpen his pencil.

(which is why photo magazines cover PP - and always have , back in the day it was darkroom techniques, wheras now its lightroom (or photoshop ort paintshop pro or whatever) )

(leaving over this being pointed out would deeply childish - but if she does i'm sure we'll survive the loss )
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
the PP argument has got to be the most pointless ever - even eclipsing nikon vs canon , dslr vs csc , and digital vs film in its utter aimlessness
Click to expand...

Nothing is important as the Nikon vs Canon debate!

I mean, everyone knows Canon is best, don't they? :D
 
well yes obviously - which is why the debate is so pointless :lol:
 
hayley.price said:
please excuse me if this offends any of you but is it only me that gets seriously anoiged when you read a so called photography magazine and the majority of it is about photoshop and photoshop tecnics, when i first got into photography there was no photoshop and photos were good because of the time and effort someone put into getting that photo!! now a days you can make a good photo without even having to leave your house!!!
Click to expand...

A recent shoot I did was for an interior company. We sourced a derelict house, then the company delivered about £50k in goods to the house, which we unloaded, and then a team dressed the rooms in curtains, sofas, tables, flowers and ornaments. I then proceeded to spend the next 9 hours lighting and shooting all of the scenes, after which, the owner of the company, myself, the art directors, and others, loaded all the stuff back onto the truck. Then I went home and spent 20 hours spread across two days in photoshop retouching, compositing, and enhancing everything I'd shot.

But I took a look on your Facebook page, and I must say I was personally blown away by the "time and effort" you spent shooting flowers, horses, bugs or whatever, and just dumping the images from your camera straight onto the internet.

It helped remind me what real hard work is. Not like me, who didn't spend a total of 13 hours on a shoot making sure everything was perfect FOR photoshop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top