Photoshop

Chilli Pepper

Chilli Pepper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
132
Edit My Images
No
Hi! I take shots all the time, happy with some, less so with others. But I am recently getting more despondent that it seems unless photoshop is used, photos are dismissed. I know mine aren't the best technically but all magazines seems to just feature ones that have been enhanced by photoshop! Not exactly inspiring. Is there anything wrong with natural shots these days?!?!
 
Read different magazines?
 
It's probably fair to say there's no such thing as a natural shot. If using a digital camera the image is processed through default settings as input by the maker if you take the jpeg, or if you use camera raw then by whatever raw converter software you chose. If shooting film then you get the inherent pre-programmed responsiveness of the film plus whatever default settings are in the printer or scanner. Worth remembering that Ansel Adams or Man Ray would never have had their famous pictures printed at Boots. ;)

If you want an image fit for a magazine then it needs to be technically perfect for the image and inspiring to look at. Photoshop can take a great image and give it the final polish, but it can't make a lousy image great. Having said that, some images need to look lousy straight in order to work well after processing into a particular style, but often that's moving them outside the realms of conventional photography.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Hi! I take shots all the time, happy with some, less so with others. But I am recently getting more despondent that it seems unless photoshop is used, photos are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Dismissed by whom?



Chilli Pepper said:
I know mine aren't the best technically but all magazines seems to just feature ones that have been enhanced by photoshop! Not exactly inspiring. Is there anything wrong with natural shots these days?!?!
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with natural shots no.

Amateurs think it's all about processing. Back in the film days they thought it was all about cheesy filters over the lens.. nothing changes. Stop reading amateur photographer, or whatever you're reading.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Hi! I take shots all the time, happy with some, less so with others. But I am recently getting more despondent that it seems unless photoshop is used, photos are dismissed. I know mine aren't the best technically but all magazines seems to just feature ones that have been enhanced by photoshop! Not exactly inspiring. Is there anything wrong with natural shots these days?!?!
Click to expand...
You can use post process to sometimes enhance a good photograph, and improve it. You cannot use post process to make a bad photograph into a good photograph. One of the most common mistakes by newcomers today, is inappropriate post process editing in software.

I mainly use film cameras, and I try to make the image in the box. That is not to say that I don't digitalise and use pp software - I do! As does your Canon - internally, it takes information from the sensor, performs an optimisation process and saves the optimised image as a file. My digital film scanner performs the same sort of operation, and in addition, I'll usually open the files in Gimp (an Open Source PP Editor), and perform a few personal optimisations - I might play with levels, curves, even maybe a little unsharp mask. I may well use heal and clone to remove dust and hair. I'll also resize and compress if I'm going to upload to share on the Web.

I follow this process - home developed film > digitalisation > a little PP software enhancement, because 1) I like using film cameras, 2) it gives me the resulting images that I enjoy making - and sharing.

How you like to make your images is your business. Don't worry about others, and how they do it. If you submit your images onto a critique section though, then many people, following the default process as endorsed by magazines, will make suggestions based on their own use of software. Just put a disclaimer with your image, that you are not interested in post process software edits.
 
Thank you for your responses! Yes I do look in magazines and there never seems to be a photo that has not had pp from photoshop or similar programme.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Thank you for your responses! Yes I do look in magazines and there never seems to be a photo that has not had pp from photoshop or similar programme.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
And how much of the 'quality' of the image are you attributing to Photoshop?
 
Chilli Pepper said:
It usually says in the description using terminology like layering, HDR etc
Click to expand...
Without specific examples to see, my gut reaction is that if those images are what you like, then that's how you produce them. The images I like and aspire to use very simple PP.

It's not a case of it being impossible to produce 'great' images without techniques such as HDR, but it's certainly impossible to produce images which needed HDR without using that technique.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Hi! I take shots all the time, happy with some, less so with others. But I am recently getting more despondent that it seems unless photoshop is used, photos are dismissed. I know mine aren't the best technically but all magazines seems to just feature ones that have been enhanced by photoshop! Not exactly inspiring. Is there anything wrong with natural shots these days?!?!
Click to expand...
One of the problems is that everyone and the cat has a camera these days, so there are thousands upon thousands of images being generated every day. Most of these are quite mundane - not necessarily on technical ability, but usually because the composition is a little uninspiring or the shot was taken without much consideration to the light.. i.e. they're snaps. Pretty snaps but nothing that stands out from the rest. Magazine editors (and forum readers, Flickr users, etc.) are cherry-picking images to write about or comment on that stand out from the pack. Inevitably this will have bias towards those images where obvious post-processing has been carried - because it creates something to talk about.

It's very hard to come up with something worth saying about a rather middle-of-the-road image, or yet another little brown bird, macro of an hoverfly, dawn at Mam Tor/Corfe Castle. Particularly when it's presented with no introduction by the photographer - making an effort to describe why you took a shot a certain way and what you wanted to achieve, or why the image means something special to you will almost always generate a good number of replies.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Thank you for your responses! Yes I do look in magazines and there never seems to be a photo that has not had pp from photoshop or similar programme.
Click to expand...


Take all those magazines.... burn them... throw them away... wipe your bottom with them... whatever. They are platforms for people who pander to the lowest common denominator to show off their images to like minded people, and you as a beginner will be influenced by this, and feel that the only way to add any value to your images is by processing them and emulating what they do. This is not photography. Amateur Photographer, Practical Photography, Digital SLR magazine... et al.. all pathetic rags that are not really about photography any more. Just about making shiny things, and some technical stuff thrown in.

Stop doing what everyone else is doing. There's a wealth of great imagery out there that doesn't rely on processing. Stop looking crappy magazines, and get to some galleries and see what else is out there. Take your blinkers off.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/
https://www.lensculture.com/
http://www.prismphotomagazine.com/
http://cphmag.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/audioslideshows?page=2
http://www.pdnonline.com/index.shtml


There's an alternative reading list for you.

Some of that will turn you off... some will inspire you. Take from it what YOU want. Ask yourself if you really want to make all these processed images you see in magazines, or do you want to make them because you feel you have to in order to be treated as an equal? If the former... ignore everything I've just said, and subscribe to Practical Photography. If the latter.... spend some time with the links I've just posted.

Above all.. make up your own mind. If you decide that what you see in popular magazines is what you genuinely want, then fine... but at least you've now seen both sides before you've made that choice.
 
Last edited:
I edit. I shoot RAW for starters. I also like my images to have a certain 'look' but I still keep PP to as little as possible & I only really use Lightroom. I also have a basic selection of filters as that's all I need - Heck, I'm pretty similar when it comes to my gear too!! I don't get out as much as I used to so a lot of my photos now are for 'memories' - holidays, days out with the kids etc so I don't get too caught up on the technical side of things or the 'rules' anymore. When I do go out for landscape/coastal I like to use filters, take my time & get things as close as possible in camera. Yes I could add grads in LR or bracket & HDR but I prefer not to if I can help it.

As has been said, it's each to their own but the magazines [I haven't bought one for years & years] do put a lot of emphasis on editing & hence the people that read them think lots of editing is needed to make the 'good' images that are in them.

'Subtle' editing is what is needed ;)

Just do what you do. And enjoy it :)
 
A lot of the magazines seem to exist for sole purpose of pedalling gear anyway. Full of adverts and reviews that always seem to be positive rather than objective. One resource not mentioned above, is this very forum! There are some amazing images on here, and very talented, helpful photographers too.
 
I do admit to loathing the popular photography media - freakin' magazines that shamelessly punt their advertisers ware. I often survey them at the stands - and their headlines can be summed up as: Canon Nikon Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Digital DSLR Latest Model Upgrade Must have Get it now On offer RAW Benchmark Sharp Sharpness HDR Effects Edit Professional Review Release etc.

Shoit all to do with imagination, creativity, or photo-graphy.
 
Last edited:
XA2inmypocket said:
and their headlines can be summed up as: Canon Nikon Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Digital DSLR Latest Model Upgrade Must have Get it now On offer Benchmark Sharp Sharpness HDR Effects Edit Professional Review Release etc.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Gear porn and processing skills. That's what photography has been reduced to, and the newcomers lap it up. I remember when Amateur Photography back in the 80s had articles on creating narrative, and interviews with Photography critics etc. I remember articles on getting an agent, and understanding advertising etc. Now it's all tutorials to add effects to otherwise boring images, gear reviews, and endless submissions of over processed garbage that all looks the same. There are now articles on "how to develop your style" by showing people what they should be shooting instead of giving advice on actually how to develop a style.. LOL

Dumbed down magazines for the Flickr generation who no longer care about hard work and study. They want shiny things, and they want them now! Amateur photography is eating itself.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Exactly.
Dumbed down magazines for the Flickr generation who no longer care about hard work and study. They want shiny things, and they want them now! Amateur photography is eating itself.
Click to expand...

Hey don't get all down on the Flickr Generation - it includes a significant element of genuinely creative for-the-love-of photographers. I Absolutely love browsing through the daily uploads of so many talented young things - many, but not all, capturing on film or Polaroid. Flickr may belong to the Yahoo Empire, but it has brought so much young talent to us. Not all Flickrites are Canikon swinging Photoshoppers.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
Hey don't get all down on the Flickr Generation - it includes a significant element of genuinely creative for-the-love-of photographers. I Absolutely love browsing through the daily uploads of so many talented young things - many, but not all, capturing on film or Polaroid. Flickr may belong to the Yahoo Empire, but it has brought so much young talent to us. Not all Flickrites are Canikon swinging Photoshoppers.
Click to expand...


it's as good a name as any other I can think of. There's definitely been a huge shift in attitude in photography since Flickr (other image hosting sites are available :)) has been on the scene. Media convergents? Generation Y? Christ.. call 'em what you will... doesn't change a thing.
 
I suppose photographers of my generation who were brought up developing and printing their own work.
find it quite natural to process from raw, and dodge and burn and crop as necessary.
of course even we are seduced by adjust layers and the like.
however a straight shot can be stunning without any thing at all.
but it is not some thing I am in anyway bothered about.

Little judicial photoshop work seems perfectly natural.
 
Pookeyhead said:
it's as good a name as any other I can think of. There's definitely been a huge shift in attitude in photography since Flickr (other image hosting sites are available :)) has been on the scene. Media convergents? Generation Y? Christ.. call 'em what you will... doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...
The Internet Political Phenomena. On the one hand, it was the super information highway, the voice of humanity that was going to bring down despotic states, the tool of flashgang anarchists and protesters.

On the other hand, the greatest tool ever of the NSA, Big Brother's wet dream, and of global Capital.

I'm saying that just as there are two sides to the Internet, as there are to sites such as Flickr. I like the alternative side.
 
I threw out a massive pile of popular market photography magazines the other day. I don't know why I'd been holding onto them. I even had them filed by date. I'd been buying them out of habit for about five years until around 18 months ago. Latterly, they'd go from my shopping bag to the coffee table to the shelf without me even looking at them.

Same basic information and the same articles regurgitated with slightly different window dressing. You read two or three of them and you've read them all. Almost all the photos they publish are shallow, office-wall eye candy. Very little in the way of challenging material or perspective. It's like the airport bestselling novels shelf of photography.

They might offer some utility for the outright beginner, but you're probably better off with a decent "Photography for Beginners" book.
 
Last edited:
On top of pokeyheads list, you could also add the bjp magazine, some is available online.
I'd also add http://500photographers.blogspot.co.uk as an interesting collection of photographers.
Then of course there are further suggestions, but it depends on what you like, what interests you. I tend to find as you read or research a photographer, you'll follow links to others. I tend to end up buying books and returning to them.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
The Internet Political Phenomena. On the one hand, it was the super information highway, the voice of humanity that was going to bring down despotic states, the tool of flashgang anarchists and protesters.

On the other hand, the greatest tool ever of the NSA, Big Brother's wet dream, and of global Capital.

I'm saying that just as there are two sides to the Internet, as there are to sites such as Flickr. I like the alternative side.
Click to expand...
 
XA2inmypocket said:
The Internet Political Phenomena. On the one hand, it was the super information highway, the voice of humanity that was going to bring down despotic states, the tool of flashgang anarchists and protesters.

On the other hand, the greatest tool ever of the NSA, Big Brother's wet dream, and of global Capital.

I'm saying that just as there are two sides to the Internet, as there are to sites such as Flickr. I like the alternative side.
Click to expand...


...and on the other hand... porn, amusing animals and people falling off things.

Yes, of course there's good stuff on Flickr. There's good stuff everywhere. it's not necessarily what's on Flickr that's the problem, it's what dictates what's on there: (although 90% of it is just people copying off each other) It's the way it makes photography into this competitive sport where how many likes you have is all that matters... where the fastest way to get those likes is to make "wow" imagery and out "wow" the next person... and the fastest way to do that is just do what's already popular. So you get the same things over and over again... indoor clouds, people floating, people falling, people looking angst ridden in forests, faded RA4 type processing, loads of contre jour, fashion with floaty dresses... in forests, heavily processed landscapes, Lego.. for the love of all that's holy, what the **** is all THAT about?? etc etc...
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
One of the problems is that everyone and the cat has a camera these days, so there are thousands upon thousands of images being generated every day.
Click to expand...
Most of them of cats!

GeeJay57 said:
A lot of the magazines seem to exist for sole purpose of pedalling gear anyway. Full of adverts and reviews that always seem to be positive rather than objective.
Click to expand...

Stop spending money of magazines and spend it on old photography boks in charity shops.[/QUOTE]


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Stop spending money of magazines and spend it on old photography books in charity shops.
Steve.
Click to expand...

I haven't regularly bought a photography magazine for years, but have picked up the odd one or two where they had a particular item of interest in them. I was given a year's subscription for one about four years ago and it had some interesting articles, but the gear reviews were IMHO very biased towards one of the major brands, that coincidently always had a full page ad on the back cover.

As for books, I bought a number of new photography books 40-years ago and have a few more recent ones to cover digital and digital editing/processing, so don't find myself browsing for more in charity shops, but thanks for the tip!
 
GeeJay57 said:
As for books, I bought a number of new photography books 40-years ago and have a few more recent ones to cover digital and digital editing/processing, so don't find myself browsing for more in charity shops, but thanks for the tip!
Click to expand...

Although I quoted your post to lead into it, my suggestion wasn't exlusively for you!!

However, it's what I started doing a few years ago. I decided that my money was much better spent buying books from charity shops than it was on buying a magazine full of adverts for things I didn't want.

You can get a whole book for less than the extortionate sum they want for a magazine now.


Steve.
 
I'm a heavy user of photoshop and other processing software. It's a necessary part of what I do. It's just another tool though, another skill to learn and, personally I think I get a better result by using it.

It doesn't mean I don't try to get everything right in camera, but I'll often take an image and expose to the right or purposefully shoot with flat lighting knowing it will provide a better base to work with in photoshop. I think there is a very wide gradient between photography and digital "art" (for want of a better term, lets not go there again), and people have innumerable ways of interpreting it.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Just a wild, crazy guess, but Photoshop perhaps? ;)
Click to expand...
Oh dear.

I do hope not. The OPs had some useful advice on this thread, it'd be a shame if he becomes one of the herd that believe they can shoot any old crap and then make it 'totes amazeballs' in Photoshop.
 
Chilli Pepper said:
Very funny guys! No the basics of photography. Realised I need more technological prowess!
Click to expand...

WOW
And your next three hour course will cover Brain surgery or cosmology.

A three hour course can at most point out what you need to start learning.
The rest of your life might then cover most of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top