Photoshop Vs Photography

[EOS_JD]

I think each has it's place John. Photoshop can't make a location, can't right a wrong composition or sort bad lighting. To make a great image it is still best to get it as close to perfect as you can in camera. That's when photoshop becomes a truly great tool.

Photoshop can right a wrong composition (called cropping), It can sort bad lighting (selective edits), It can add, subtract etc etc......

Whether it's now photography is another question though.

 

[Harlequin565]

I just wondered if people think that photoshop has improved photography allowing new possibilities or that it has kind of took away from the art itself and lessened the need to be as skilled with the camera? I like and use photoshop but at the same time it seems that someone who was really skilled using it could take any old picture and make it seem look great. And after all its not about being good on a computer but about capturing something that looks great. What do you think?

Both!

I've just picked up a collection of photography magazines going back to 2000, and am slowly plodding through them all. What strikes me, is that whilst Photography is an art, Printing is/was also an art. And by Printing, I mean the process of taking a neg and turning it into a glossy 8x10 or whatever.

The lengths some photographers/printers go to in a darkroom to dodge, burn, crop, retouch, hand colour and tone prints. Multiple exposures to attempt to bring out dark shadows or pull back blown highlights.

The thing about this is, that it used to take ages. Test strips, multiple prints, waiting for delevoping and drying... And it also took a fair bit of dedication and skill as well as space and money for a darkroom. I've worked in a darkroom at college. Make a mistake and there's no Undo button. Frustration got to me and I couldn't wait to get in front of Photoshop.

So the electronic darkroom (Photoshop/Lightroom/Whatever) is much more accessable to the average Joe. Computers are in nearly every house, and Elements is quite affordable to most people. You can tinker with an image,then come back to it. Mail it to yourself at work even and work on it at lunchtime. It's just so much more convenient. And so, it has become popular.

So, to answer your question. I think that Photoshop has improved Photography. It's made it more accessable to more people which is a good thing in my book. It's given more tools to the artist. It's also added to the number of numpties who think they can fix everything in PP :shrug:.

Photoshop doesn't hurt photography. Bad retouchers do.

That's why I bookmark Photoshop Disasters

:twocents:

Ian.

 

[specialman]

I've had some bizarre requests from clients, stemmed from the belief that anything is possible in photoshop

My MD always make a point of showing any guests to the company our 'photoshop' machines (just normal macs) and insisting that the repro team add leaves to otherwise bare trees. We did it once out of nesseccity and it looked pants back then. Every time he asks for it I cringe and go back to looking at camera porn

I'm still of the firm belief that you can't polish a turd.....

It still doesn't deter the folk from attempting it though!!

I was once vilified for bluntly (very bluntly) saying that someone's image wasn't worth the effort of pressing the shutter in the first place. The same applies to Photoshopping (as the generic term for pp).... there are some serious crimes against taste on this site (and many others), all done under the pretense that post-processing was a good idea in the first place....

 

[redhed17]

Most images are edited to some degree or another, always have been, always will.

Some people 'just sharpen and adjust levels', some 'just doge and burn', others will 'replace this or that'. All are manipulating the original image, it is up to the individual where they want to stop, and it is up to the viewer whether it makes a difference or not. :shrug:

Unless the Photo is put forward as being untouched, or a photo from a journalist representing fact, then I don't see a problem as long as the final result is pleasing. :shrug:

I saw a post online a few months ago about the 'Top 10 Doctored Photos' here.

I was amazed by many of the images, but the first edited images of the Civil War Generals is an excellent bit of editing at any time, never mind from 1865.

Also check out Oprah Winfrey's head put on to Ann Margaret's body.

 

[mrtoad]

Most images are edited to some degree or another, always have been, always will.

Some people 'just sharpen and adjust levels', some 'just doge and burn', others will 'replace this or that'. All are manipulating the original image, it is up to the individual where they want to stop, and it is up to the viewer whether it makes a difference or not. :shrug:

Unless the Photo is put forward as being untouched, or a photo from a journalist representing fact, then I don't see a problem as long as the final result is pleasing. :shrug:

I saw a post online a few months ago about the 'Top 10 Doctored Photos' here.

I was amazed by many of the images, but the first edited images of the Civil War Generals is an excellent bit of editing at any time, never mind from 1865.

Also check out Oprah Winfrey's head put on to Ann Margaret's body.

not wanting to be too retro...transparencies dont get a lot of pp..except when being reproduced
in the raw form is when they are judged

 

[redhed17]

not wanting to be too retro...transparencies dont get a lot of pp..except when being reproduced
in the raw form is when they are judged

And how many people shoot /or have shot with transparencies in comparison to normal emulsion film and/or now digital? :shrug:

Transparency obviously negated editing of the image, but then you could choose not to do any editing to an image anyway. Transparencies were just forcing you into that, obviously by choice, to get other benefits.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[mrtoad]

And how many people shoot /or have shot with transparencies in comparison to normal emulsion film and/or now digital? :shrug:

Transparency obviously negated editing of the image, but then you could choose not to do any editing to an image anyway. Transparencies were just forcing you into that, obviously by choice, to get other benefits.

Different strokes for different folks.

as i stated...i was a bit retro...there was a time...adjust position on zimmer frame..when trannies of any size were called for for photographic reproductions...

and now of course digital reigns along with the advent of pp...
transparencies could be copied and post processed in that respect though as many have done with their slide copiers to crop and retake so increasing contrast with differing tranny films
a lot of hard work though and i agree with you...and most sensible folks here that pp on digital is part of the process

thanks :|

 

[joxby]

Nobody's arguing that PP isn't part of the process.
What matters is the product and the context in which it is presented.
I find it laughable that I can be presented with a photograph with orange mountains when in reality they are grey.
Now I wouldn't like it to seem that this opinion stifles creativity, but lets just get real for a minute, by all means enhance, dodge burn, brighten/contrast, clone bits, do whatever you have to do to make it worthwhile, just don't take the p***.
Grey to orange is taking the p*** imo, sky swapping is taking the p***, adding a stampede of deer to a train/scape is taking the p***, cloning 40 bins, 2 park benches and 600 yards of pylon cable is taking the p***.
Here's an idea, shooting a scape where the sky and the ground actually existed at the same time and place is infinitely more impressive, sometimes not entirely convenient...but...well boo bladdy hoo.
I feel this is a middle of the road ideal, it doesn't feel unstable or ambiguous, its not as simple as anything goes, but that's just far too convenient.
I don't go with the purist angle and I don't think "the camera already altered everything anyway" is a balanced argument for unlimited jiggery pokery.

I'd just like to add, I shoot product on digital for money.
Sometimes I have to do shed loads of manipulation, I don't consider a lot of this work to be photographic at the end, but it doesn't matter what I think, the guy with the cheque decides what it is and what he wants, I couldn't care less and neither could he as long as he gets his image in the catalogue.
This is a manufactured environment, with external pressures, anything goes in the pursuit of the pound note.
On personal projects, I couldn't do anything like that if I planned on presenting them as photographs.

 

[Denyerec]

Nuff said.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Nobody's arguing that PP isn't part of the process.

Maybe, but the title of the thread is 'Photography VS Photoshop', I guess that's where the animosity comes from, a misconception or misunderstanding of the application and capability of post production.

What matters is the product and the context in which it is presented.

Very true, but is there any evidence to suggest any of the material mentioned, has been presented incorrectly?

Now I wouldn't like it to seem that this opinion stifles creativity, but lets just get real for a minute, by all means enhance, dodge burn, brighten/contrast, clone bits, do whatever you have to do to make it worthwhile, just don't take the p***.

It certainly is restricting creativity by suggesting that we have to 'get real'.
Why are we confined to realism without first determining an idea and why is it taking the mick if we oppose?

Grey to orange is taking the p*** imo, sky swapping is taking the p***, adding a stampede of deer to a train/scape is taking the p***, cloning 40 bins, 2 park benches and 600 yards of pylon cable is taking the p***.

Just a few examples that in one way or more, meet your criteria of 'taking the ****':

http://immanuel.deviantart.com/art/The-Gathering-105217170

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/3480047893/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennvioletta/3951101767/

http://abduzeedo.com/incredible-new-portfolio-dave-hill Note the behind the scenes video.

Not one of them boast realism nor any journalistic nature.

I post these as single examples only and not for the judgement of the photographer's work as a whole.

Here's an idea, shooting a scape where the sky and the ground actually existed at the same time and place is infinitely more impressive, sometimes not entirely convenient...but...well boo bladdy hoo.

There is an overwhelming abundance of photographers who do exactly that, take a photo and choose not to alter anything, there's really nothing unique or novel about the idea.

It maybe infinitely more impressive to some, as it's their preferences/tastes - totally fair enough, but why does anything that oppose these preferences have to be a 'crock of crap' or 'taking the mick'?

What's wrong with 'Not to my taste' and 'Each to their own'?

I don't go with the purist angle and I don't think "the camera already altered everything anyway" is a balanced argument for unlimited jiggery pokery.

Agreed, the 'camera already altered everything...' are very poor grounds for any kind of debate but I'm unwilling to accepting that your not, even the tiniest smidge, dangling to the purist end:

I find it laughable that I can be presented with a photograph with orange mountains when in reality they are grey.

There's nothing wrong with purism at all, it's an approach and a highly respectable/admirable one at that.
The only element I dislike with purism is the sanctimonious and derogatory attitude that can often accompany it.

It's also a very apparent trait with generations that were in their prime during the days of film technology, in particular their animosity toward the generations who learn the ropes with current technology.

I'd just like to add, I shoot product on digital for money.

Sometimes I have to do shed loads of manipulation, I don't consider a lot of this work to be photographic at the end, but it doesn't matter what I think, the guy with the cheque decides what it is and what he wants, I couldn't care less and neither could he as long as he gets his image in the catalogue.
This is a manufactured environment, with external pressures, anything goes in the pursuit of the pound note.
On personal projects, I couldn't do anything like that if I planned on presenting them as photographs.

Shooting products is a category that I've always found extremely challenging, manipulation and compositing are more or less unavoidable when producing catalogues and brochures.
The planning and prep is extremely important and the pressure involved can be too much for me a times. Being honest, I'm not too good at it at all.

I do however, consider the lot = photographic, it's product photography and the processes, pre and post are all part of it's mechanics.

 

[PerfectSpeed]

Knowing my PP skills and shooting Raw allows me get shots that I would otherwise not bother with if shot in jpeg.

Knowing what my limit is with PP'ing a shot determines the outcome.

 

[joxby]

it.

It's also a very apparent trait with generations that were in their prime during the days of film technology, in particular their animosity toward the generations who learn the ropes with current technology.

I'm 36, I have worked a bit in the arts, I didn't pick up a camera till I was 26, and when I did it was digital.
I didn't use a film camera till 2006 and I haven't shot digital for fun since.
So you see there is no 40 years of film/darkroom/enlargers/chemicals, there is no shoulder chip this is how it was in the old days and how it should stay, there is no animosity towards current technology or people who have learnt using it instead of traditional methods, digital is my technology, I am of the digital age.

Film or digital, it changes nothing, its about what a photograph is.
I believe a photograph is special, it has a credibility, an integrity, some measure of truth, besides artistic merit.
If you take that element away it has no more content than a painting or a drawing.
I make no apology for valuing the art of photography more than that of painting, but that is all they are, paintings/drawings of things that may or may not exist in some form of who knows what.
The view that anything goes is ok, just further undermines that specific quality that is really only found in photography.
Like it or not, people expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were grey and not orange, they feel cheated/conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.
I think Eastway struggled to grasp that in Kelbys blogg, or at least he thought they weren't aware that this level of manipulation was acceptable and the norm.
Well it isn't for a photograph, call it digital fantasy image and nobody will give a fart, no questions are asked, manipulation is no longer an issue at all, but it doesn't carry the weight of a photograph, its not as credible, is it ?
Maybe ethics have been blurred, I dunno...

 

[TriggerHappy]

I'm 36, I have worked a bit in the arts, I didn't pick up a camera till I was 26, and when I did it was digital.
I didn't use a film camera till 2006 and I haven't shot digital for fun since.
So you see there is no 40 years of film/darkroom/enlargers/chemicals, there is no shoulder chip this is how it was in the old days and how it should stay, there is no animosity towards current technology or people who have learnt using it instead of traditional methods, digital is my technology, I am of the digital age.

Film or digital, it changes nothing, its about what a photograph is.
I believe a photograph is special, it has a credibility, an integrity, some measure of truth, besides artistic merit.
If you take that element away it has no more content than a painting or a drawing.
I make no apology for valuing the art of photography more than that of painting, but that is all they are, paintings/drawings of things that may or may not exist in some form of who knows what.
The view that anything goes is ok, just further undermines that specific quality that is really only found in photography.
Like it or not, people expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were grey and not orange, they feel cheated/conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.
I think Eastway struggled to grasp that in Kelbys blogg, or at least he thought they weren't aware that this level of manipulation was acceptable and the norm.
Well it isn't for a photograph, call it digital fantasy image and nobody will give a fart, no questions are asked, manipulation is no longer an issue at all, but it doesn't carry the weight of a photograph, its not as credible, is it ?
Maybe ethics have been blurred, I dunno...

You've said almost exactly what I wanted to say, and done so far more aptly than I could have hoped to.

Photography is fundamentally different to other artistic mediums in that it records a real scene. People understand how a photography is formed and they instinctively believe in the integrity of that image as a consequence. It is that integrity and honesty of what a picture shows that I find so endearing. It's a shared intimacy that goes unmatched in almost all other media. A manipulated image passed off as something genuine leaves me feeling lied to and cheated.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying to take it that I oppose all use of photoshop. I don't. It serves an important role in enhancing images by means of sharpening, contrast, saturation etc. and it can also serve to create something with more artistic licence but I want to be able to trust what I see and sadly seeing isn't believing anymore. That deception has been made far simpler with the advent of digital technology and photoshop though I know it was also possible in the analogue days.

Maybe I'm dreaming for an honesty that just doesn't exist.

 

[EOS_JD]

I'm 36, I have worked a bit in the arts, I didn't pick up a camera till I was 26, and when I did it was digital.
I didn't use a film camera till 2006 and I haven't shot digital for fun since.
So you see there is no 40 years of film/darkroom/enlargers/chemicals, there is no shoulder chip this is how it was in the old days and how it should stay, there is no animosity towards current technology or people who have learnt using it instead of traditional methods, digital is my technology, I am of the digital age.

Film or digital, it changes nothing, its about what a photograph is.
I believe a photograph is special, it has a credibility, an integrity, some measure of truth, besides artistic merit.
If you take that element away it has no more content than a painting or a drawing.
I make no apology for valuing the art of photography more than that of painting, but that is all they are, paintings/drawings of things that may or may not exist in some form of who knows what.
The view that anything goes is ok, just further undermines that specific quality that is really only found in photography.
Like it or not, people expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were grey and not orange, they feel cheated/conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.
I think Eastway struggled to grasp that in Kelbys blogg, or at least he thought they weren't aware that this level of manipulation was acceptable and the norm.
Well it isn't for a photograph, call it digital fantasy image and nobody will give a fart, no questions are asked, manipulation is no longer an issue at all, but it doesn't carry the weight of a photograph, its not as credible, is it ?
Maybe ethics have been blurred, I dunno...

Images have been changed in the darkroom for years! Not to quite the same level but colour changes have been done on images for years! I don't see your point.

We all have different views on what is/is not accceptable. Photography is an art and all good artists have their own unique vision whatever that may be. If it looks good (IMO) then I don't care what's been done.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

So you see there is no 40 years of film/darkroom/enlargers/chemicals, there is no shoulder chip this is how it was in the old days and how it should stay, there is no animosity towards current technology or people who have learnt using it instead of traditional methods, digital is my technology, I am of the digital age.

Point acknowledged and totally respected. The similarities in the text you have quoted concerning old/current tech, were general observations and not directed at you though.
My point was that the animosity I witness from time to time seems to exist in those particular circumstances more frequently than others.

In other words, I did not expect you to be a film buff.

What I find particularly interesting is that your product photography work involves a certain level of post production tech and yet your personal preferences suggest that you (maybe, I dunno for sure) wouldn't combine this with your personal ventures?

Do you ever or have you created any photo's/images for your own enjoyment, using the same techniques that you use at work for product photography?

....Well it isn't for a photograph, call it digital fantasy image and nobody will give a fart, no questions are asked, manipulation is no longer an issue at all, but it doesn't carry the weight of a photograph, its not as credible, is it ?
Maybe ethics have been blurred, I dunno...

It seemed that the more sensitive issue before hand was misrepresentation, meaning intentionally passing off the image as 'true'. As long as this is not the case and no misrepresentation has occurred, then any ethical fibres remain utterly intact and the credibility of the author unsoiled.

The results are largely considered as photographs and the creators are called photographers.
Eastway is a photographer, not a drawer, painter or digital artist, he takes photo's and then 'fiddles' with them.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying to take it that I oppose all use of photoshop. I don't. It serves an important role in enhancing images by means of sharpening, contrast, saturation etc. and it can also serve to create something with more artistic licence but I want to be able to trust what I see and sadly seeing isn't believing anymore. That deception has been made far simpler with the advent of digital technology and photoshop though I know it was also possible in the analogue days.

Maybe I'm dreaming for an honesty that just doesn't exist.

'Dreaming for an honesty that doesn't exist....'

Put very simply. It does.

Sports, Documentary, Journalism, Nature, Landscapes, Portraits, Macro etc, all genres have exactly what your looking for, to suggest that today's world of photography is missing honesty or truth is staggering.

There are billions of images that will meet your preferred requirement, your desired format of photography.

They are not under any threat, they'll be as real now as they were when the very first first photograph was made.

However, to expect that this honesty, which should be more accurately described as; representing truth, should be inherent in all photography is extremely 'fundamentalist' IMO.

You may consider this a very bold statement but consider this:
If you want to see a true moment, a truth that is unquestionable, 1000% honest then you can turn to the journalistic and documentary, this can cover a huge range of photography, from landscape to portraiture and it will all be 'real', strictly following the fundamental approach that altering, manipulating or adapting the image past the basic level of post production is morally and ethically wrong.

I expect that most decent photographers do not create art to actively trick or con an audience and most decent photographers are not guilty of misrepresentation either.

Personally, I earn an honest living, I have no interest in deception.

I guess the issue I take, is that folk who have these preferences can't admit that they only enjoy/admire/appreciate photo's that contain journalistic nature or the fundamentals of documentation, they have to dismiss the photographic elements altogether.

It's a not a drawing, nor a painting, it's a photograph, a manipulated photograph.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Photoshop has allowed many people with no real ability to take photograph produce decent images and claim to be photographers. The good thing about that is it has allowed more people to make a living out of image making with much less training with a camera; which in the days of photography needed years of learing and experience.

As a tool to polish turd, its one of the best out there. And the trouble is, unless one has full access to the original image, or extensive experience in polishing turds, its pretty difficult to say what is a polished turd and what isnt ,with a digital image.

The comparison with darkroom techniques is spurious at best.

From where its today to having the capabilty of creating an image completely on the computer without going thorugh the camera is but a small step.

And that certainly isn't photography.

In my opinion, offcourse

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Photoshop has allowed many people with no real ability to take photograph produce decent images and claim to be photographers.

Hi, Can you provide some examples?

 

[Rob_W]

When i first joined a camera club pre digital era, the competitions were dominated
by 'darkroom techniques', at the time it didnt seem to be about the photograph but about
how good someone was in the dark room. If you didnt have one you were screwed.

Now its my turn, sure i try my best to get it right in the camera but it isnt always
possible. Sometimes i can see an image that i could never get straight out of the camera.
So if Photoshop helps me get what i want, wheres the problem?. I agree there's a
great satisfaction from getting what you want without any PP but its also cool to
take a bland image and turn it into a winning shot...

I've generally found that the ones who whinge about the use of Photoshop the most are
usually the ones who cant or dont want to work it. A Camera and Photoshop are just tools
to get the finished image we want and this kind of debate will continue on until something
else comes along to replace them..




.

 

[PerfectSpeed]

In my opinion, of course <---

Well of course, it's your opinion, sorry but I've just polished with my computer

 

[Denyerec]

Hi, Can you provide some examples?

http://www.flickr.com/denyerec

 

[kalibre]

Looking at it from a different angle perhaps.

I'm a competitive and thorough type of person and I always want to be the 'the best' at something whilst acknowledging someone else's achievements. Photoshop actually makes that goal harder because to strive to be the best in the industry I need to master both camera and PS operations. Now take PS away and that doesn't change, I now need to master both camera and darkroom operations.

I admire the purist approach and it is an achievment to produce professional results that way. I compare it to climbing everest without oxygen; it's not totally necessary but bravo to those that wish to.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Hi, Can you provide some examples?

Sure; many, but chances are you won't know them.

I am assuming you will not know the 'photographer' who sells her skills in our local shopping mall with a digicam, 2 studio light and a computer.

A good example can also be found on this forum. See

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=195147

Ujjwal

P.S : Don't get me wrong. What I said is not a criticism of the digital image making craft; its a valid craftsmanship on its own right. Only that, in my opinion, its not photography

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Looking at it from a different angle perhaps.



I admire the purist approach and it is an achievment to produce professional results that way. I compare it to climbing everest without oxygen; it's not totally necessary but bravo to those that wish to.

Funny, I was thinking of climbing everest just now. To take yor analogy further, reaching the everest summit by a airplane achieves the same result as climbing; and is a valid method to reach the mountain top; but certainly one will not call it mountaineering.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

http://www.flickr.com/denyerec

What's your point? There's some really nice stuff there, I think rather than a case of post production polishing anything of a soft and nutty nature, there's a little confidence and self esteem issue.

I can't relate anything I'm seeing with the post made by ujjwaldey8165.

Added and still looking

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

I can't relate anything I'm seeing with the post made by ujjwaldey8165.

Added and still looking

Indeed; to each our own

 

[mant01]

I really happy to see other peoples views on this subject. The reason I started it was because if I showed my pics to people one of the first questions I got asked was did I photoshop it. If I said no then they would say 'wow thats really good' but if I said yes Ive done abit to it then the reaction just wasnt the same. Like the fact it had been changed regardless how little took away from it.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Sure; many, but chances are you won't know them.

That doesn't matter mate, I'd still like to see some examples if you can post some links. It helps to understand

I am assuming you will not know the 'photographer' who sells her skills in our local shopping mall with a digicam, 2 studio light and a computer.

A good example can also be found on this forum. See

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=195147

Ujjwal

P.S : Don't get me wrong. What I said is not a criticism of the digital image making craft; its a valid craftsmanship on its own right. Only that, in my opinion, its not photography

No problem Ujjwal, no offence taken at all.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Indeed; to each our own

Please elaborate, it seems like your not quite sure of the applications of post production and it's limits.

Are you suggesting that Denyerec flickr gallery is an example of poor photography that has been transformed into great photography via photoshop?

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Please elaborate, it seems like your not quite sure of the applications of post production and it's limits.

Are you suggesting that Denyerec flickr gallery is an example of poor photography that has been transformed into great photography via photoshop?

Sorry, I didn't look into the flickr gallery; and my comments were not related to that.

I have a view - my view- on post production. I am aware that I am in the minority, and not for the first time either. But that is not a good enough reason for me to change my view.

The key issue for me is digital manipulation of image. I do think you can, as someone eloquently said, 'polish the turd' with digital manipulation.

I cant post other's images; since I have no permission to do so; but I have posted a link of what I have achieved in the first 10 minutes of ever using a free photo editing software. I think it shows what polishing is possible if I were to learn it for a few months, not to metion years.

 

[petersmart]

Of course you can improve composition with post processing!
You've been able to do this for years, way before photoshop came on the scene.... You can crop it and blur the background in no time at all.

Well I remember way back in the '60s and '70s many newspapers would make a subject stand out by lightening or darkening the background to isolate the subject.

 

[Denyerec]

That's exactly what I was suggesting, albeit *slightly* tongue in cheek because some of the photos on there haven't been mauled by The Evil Beast From Adobe.

An example is here:
http://sozutux.dyndns.org/DSCF4488_p-2.jpg

Staff Edit : Image(s) removed. (Link(s) left in place). Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text

I will gladly post before-and-after shots of any image other if people are curious, given the time to dig one out of course.

Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago I was with Kev (From here on TP) developing a print in his darkroom as a gift. Look ma, no photoshop! Just a red and yellow filter over the enlarging lens to boost contrast, 3 stages in the print exposure involving some cardboard to brighten the foreground rocks, a cookie (om nom nom COOKIE!) on a stick to brighten a leading part of the waterfall, and a hole punched in a piece of card to bring the main waterfall in the shot back to life with some detail as compared to the surroundings it was rather blown out...

One thing I think fuels the Photoshop/Photography debate is that these days when comparing with professional work, you're almost guaranteed that someone (Not necessarily the photographer (see footnote)) has manipulated at the very least the colours in the image, if not the content itself. For someone who is either 1) Struggling or 2) Unwilling or 3) Unable to learn and master those skills it can breed a lot of frustration and sometimes resentment because such people find their output can never match that which has been professionally treated straight out of the camera, and their work never receives the same kind of adulation thrown at the pro's.

The majority of the correction I apply is just colour adjustment, the example I post above had no retouching on the model, just the backdrop because space did not permit me to fully white it out. The low contrast in the shot, well that's my failure as a photographer to acknowledge that my 35-70/2.8 flares like a Very pistol when shot at a far-more-than-1.5-stops-over white BG (Again another failure).

Thanks to photoshop and the fact my camera is a Fuji S5 (And thus holds on to highlights harder than a fat kid to a candy bar) I was able to produce something, hopefully, better than mediocre.

One thing I aspire to do is reduce the amount of post work required, however, I'm painfully aware that the post production will never, ever go away, just as the requirement for a dark room did not with film.


Footnote: Many professional photographers employ people to do their retouching and colour correction for them. They do not necessarily have to become Jacks of All Trades like us hobbyists. It pays to remember that when reviewing professional work, as it is often the result of a collaboration of masters in many fields, not always simply the output of one single person.

Also, in closure, some photography DOES go out "raw" but I'll guarantee that even war photos and gritty 'street' stuff still gets hit with a colour hammer at some point in the press process.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

That's exactly what I was suggesting, albeit *slightly* tongue in cheek because some of the photos on there haven't been mauled by The Evil Beast From Adobe.

An example is here:
http://sozutux.dyndns.org/DSCF4488_p-2.jpg

Great example and raises a very good point too.

Now, the most prominent alterations that have been made are to substitute the background, which seems too short/small to allow coverage of the entire frame and of course the absence of any white material on the floor.

A longer focal length would have been the simplest alternative if there was enough space behind you and assuming you have a longer focal length in the first place.

Does this make you a poor photographer or does it illustrate that you have made a compromise with the circumstance?

Sometimes we are faced with these situations, we work toward budgets, our backdrops may not be big enough, the area in which we have to shoot may not be big enough or the most complimentary, we may not own every piece of gear that makes the job easier/better but we roll with the punches and make the best we can.

The example is no reflection of poor photography but it does reflect the restrictions of budget and area availability.

Does the viewer feel conned after seeing the original? Did they believe she was truly floating in white space before seeing the original?

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I cant post other's images; since I have no permission to do so; but I have posted a link of what I have achieved in the first 10 minutes of ever using a free photo editing software. I think it shows what polishing is possible if I were to learn it for a few months, not to metion years.

I'm the total opposite, turds cannot be polished and still to this day I have not seen a piece of photography that started out as turd being saved by PP.

Good photographers use PP as merely a finesse, no matter how simplistic or extravagant.

The examples you have drawn attention to, very sorry to say and I intend no offence at all here, but they emphasise that there is a misconception at work here. There's nothing modern in the result and neither does the attempt at PP successfully salvage anything IMO.

Personally, I feel it's more a naive optimism that PP can save anything, it really can't and anyone with experience knows this.

To take the analogy further, reaching the everest summit by a airplane achieves the same result as climbing; and is a valid method to reach the mountain top; but certainly one will not call it mountaineering.

No but they are both forms of travel and that would be the more pertinent analogy.

Taking it even further, take two photographers. One flies to the top of Everest and the other mountaineers. Both may have the same images from the summit but the other has images from the journey.

Let's say the photographer who flew, follows the more purist approach and applies no post to any of his images at all and the tog who took the long journey applies all manner of post to his images.

Does it matter? Each an every one of us will have a preference to how the mechanics of the above example pan out.

What matters to me, is the effort, vision, soul that's put into the creation, both pre and post, and of course, the quality of the result.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

You ask Thomas -'Does it matter' ( I am not posting the whole quote for ease of read). And to you, it does not.

And thats where we differ : to me it does. The final product is not enough in itself, how one reaches there is important. Because to me - all of these, painting, photographing, film making - are a combination of both art and the craft. And both are important.

A oil paining will never the same as a water colour, even though they may be depicting the same 'image', if only because of the different craftsmanship. Not that one is better or worse than the other; they are different.

Similarly, 2 images - one a photograph and another a digital image - will never be the same to me, in the very least because of the different craftsmanship involved. All I am saying we do is draw that distinction.

As a personal opinion, I like a photograph, and not a digital image ( just as you may like oil painting over water colour). My reasons are what you will call elitism, and I make no apology for it ( and incidentally I am a crap photographer as well)

Ujjwal

Sorry if there is any typo in my post; I am sure my friend Perfectspeed will be along soon to polish it up

 

[Tyke Tiler]

You ask Thomas -'Does it matter' ( I am not posting the whole quote for ease of read). And to you, it does not.

My apologies but you clearly don't understand my points and I guess we'll have to leave it at that mate

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Sure Thomas; and BTW, if you are ever in London, I'll love to meet up and carry on this discussion in a pub. The beer will be on me

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Sure Thomas; and BTW, if you are ever in London, I'll love to meet up and carry on this discussion in a pub. The beer will be on me

That's a very kind offer mate Very appreciated indeed. Beer and discussions on photography are more than welcomed.

Likewise if your in Helsinki too I'm English but migrated here just over 3 years ago.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Helsinki.....not out of the realms of possibility. I might have to go to Provoo one of these days to meet a customer.

 

[Denyerec]

The example is no reflection of poor photography but it does reflect the restrictions of budget and area availability.

Thankyou However one is forced to admit that the first image, even had the white background been complete and in place, would not have looked as polished as the "After" shot, due to the colour and contrast processing applied to the model.

Imagine the model from the left shot, but on the backdrop from the right (Which needs to be redone, as the reflection is too indistinct, but I digress...) The image would certainly look worse. Could I obtain an image such as the one on the right straight OOC? Perhaps, but probably not. That then leads in to the point of people looking at professional or photoshopped output and feeling perhaps frustrated that due to a lack of ability or tooling they can not achieve the same result.

I guess it comes down to whether one views photography as the absolute and final process of capturing whatever is in front of you and trying to recreate it in output as faithfully as possible, or whether you view photography and the camera system as just another tool in the artistic process.

Doubtful that these kinds of arguments will ever go away, as they cannot really be answered.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Helsinki.....not out of the realms of possibility. I might have to go to Provoo one of these days to meet a customer.

Porvoo! Now that's a beautiful sea side town, if you can influence that trip I heartily recommend it, bit cold this time of year can be -20°C and colder, but still beautiful none the less