Great pictures or just good photoshopping

[drkramm]

Originally Posted by Ender81

I've been noticing that most of the time when someone posts a picture in here people give advice on how to fix it in photoshop, instead of telling them how to take a better picture. So that leads me to wonder, how many people here know how to take a really nice picture, as opposed to just taking an ok picture and then photoshopping it to make it look right. Not saying there is a lot wrong with the digital fixing way of the world, I'm just more easily impressed by the people willing to take 50 pictures to get one right in the camera before it hits the computer.

i prolly take 100 pictures for every "good" one i get .... but i do edit color contrast .. but thats all

[ASIAN JUL]

I always take a whole bunch of pictures. And then I never like them. I don't have Photoshop anymore technically because it takes me 43957345 years to load it on my PC so I never use it but I wish I had it. I think it's great for people who need to do re-touching or little edits here and there but as far as people who rely 100% on Photoshop, boo. IMO if the shot wasn't meant to be, it wasn't meant to be. But I don't think Photoshop will completely make a photo better. Photoshop just adds an extra oomph

[grimm]

I find these topics funny.
A photographer would know that there is no difference between photoshop and a darkroom. All digital photography has done is open up this form of art to the masses, making it easier for the masses to take impressive photos. Digital photography and photoshop are just improvements upon a basic system, the improvements make it easier for the masses. because thats what every company wants, they want the masses to be able to use their products and achieve great results with them.

The black and white of this conversation really is, do improvements in technology take away from the art of photography? or do they propel the art form?

Then also think about where the line is drawn. At what point do we say well this is the raw basic form and everything else is wasted technology? do we go back to the pin hole cameras we all made in HS? since that is the one of the most basic forms? or is it the autofocus lens? lens filters?

To be a good photographer today, you need to know how to use a camera and how to use photoshop, or some other editing software. Thats just how it is, like it or not. To me, a successful photo doesn't need to be spawned in the camera alone. A successful photo is a result of using the photography tools that you have. whether your tool is only a camera or a camera and software who cares.

[Kaleo55]

Originally Posted by MyCarIsFTL

I always take a whole bunch of pictures. And then I never like them. I don't have Photoshop anymore technically because it takes me 43957345 years to load it on my PC so I never use it but I wish I had it. I think it's great for people who need to do re-touching or little edits here and there but as far as people who rely 100% on Photoshop, boo. IMO if the shot wasn't meant to be, it wasn't meant to be. But I don't think Photoshop will completely make a photo better. Photoshop just adds an extra oomph

I am sorry you don't have Photoshop, but the truth is, it way beyond simply an editing tool for minor retouching or "little edits". While its' also true Photoshop can't necessarily salvage a bad shot to begin with, fundamentally it's like the shot itself, if the photographer doesn't have good a eye and have a good understanding of light and how it affects a photographic image than, you're already at a disadvantage and photoshop is not going to help you.

I have been using Photoshop almost since the day Adobe released it and while I am not certified by Adobe, I consider myself a photoshop guru and understand how to harness it's powers, but even I don't know or completely utilize the full potential of Photoshop. Plus the rate at which they upgrade the software, it's nearly impossible to stay in front of it.

I can tell you that I've built Photoshop files that have tons of layers and channels that all contribute to the final look of an image and you'd never know it. You'd never know the subtle highlights or shadows I've added because they look completely natural, but that's a skill set I've learned and developed with years of experience, not only in photoshop, but also in the darkroom and with art of airbrushing and more.

Sorry I'm not trying to toot my own horn, I'm simply trying to convey to you all how important the tool Photoshop is to the art of Photography and image development and design. Don't deny it, embrace it and learn how make it work for you, not matter what your level of ability.

[ASIAN JUL]

I'm just saying Photoshop shouldn't "make" a shot. The shot should be already there and Photoshop should just be there to enhance it.

[Spocknasty]

MyCarFTL, ugh. If you don't like all your shots maybe you should take your own advice and make them right the first time. Or use Photoshop.

IMO if the shot wasn't meant to be, it wasn't meant to be.
More like you failed as a photographer to capture it and / or you are too inexperienced of an editor to fix the problem.


"Do improvements in technology take away from the art of photography? or do they propel the art form?" That's a great way of putting it!

Si I wouldn't consider lens, shutter speed, and aperture as altering in the sense I am talking about. Changes like that are still preserving the moment historically intact as it was for the most part.

[ASIAN JUL]

So you don't think there are certain components in a picture that shouldn't need to be modified in Photoshop but rather just done right the first time?

If I said somewhere in here that I'm an amazing photographer, I'd like to be shown where.

[Kaleo55]

Originally Posted by MyCarIsFTL

I'm just saying Photoshop shouldn't "make" a shot. The shot should be already there and Photoshop should just be there to enhance it.

I'm sorry I wasn't attacking you, and in most cases I agree with you. What I'm saying that it is NOT always the case, there will be times that you have an idea, and in order to successfully execute that idea, it becomes an ideal situation where Photoshop becomes a part of the image making process. This occurs more often in commercial work because usually there is a specific need and reason for a particular shot and it is calculated to have a certain effect. Just like in the movies where they have special effects. These effects are planned well in advance and is NOT necessarily composed in the camera.

I don't know about all the latest HDR cameras and what not, I'm sure they're capable of some amazing things. But let's say you wanted to do a double exposure of say your mother and a particular place she was fond of, in your mind eye, you might say or know I can vignette some areas of an image to make it work, and know confidently that you could easily accomplish in this photoshop (as well as in the darkroom by the way). So this is an example of how a photograph uses, by intent the uses of photoshop to create a image. It's just a matter of knowing how to use the tools that are available.

To blanket say "anyone who uses photoshop to extensively to make their photographs work isn't good photography" is just garbage and narrow minded. However if you have to rely on photoshop to salvage all your images, then you are doing something wrong or looking at it in a different light. You either have to study your manual better or learn how to use your equipment. Hell, I still make so many mistakes with my digital camera, mostly cause I am rushing and, I haven't learned everything there is know about the camera and what it's capable of.

Of course nowadays making some of these mistakes is a little easier to fix and catch than in the old days when you had to wait to see the film before you realy realized you screwed up. Then it could be too late.

[Spocknasty]

The conversation is moving into a gray area because what we consider right is obviously very different.

[Kevin]

Digital cameras killed photography lol

[Spocknasty]

Digital cameras took photography to a whole new level not even your giant penis can comprehend.

Edit: no homo

[ASIAN JUL]

Originally Posted by Kaleo55

I'm sorry I wasn't attacking you, and in most cases I agree with you. What I'm saying that it is NOT always the case, there will be times that you have an idea, and in order to successfully execute that idea, it becomes an ideal situation where Photoshop becomes a part of the image making process. This occurs more often in commercial work because usually there is a specific need and reason for a particular shot and it is calculated to have a certain effect. Just like in the movies where they have special effects. These effects are planned well in advance and is NOT necessarily composed in the camera.

I don't know about all the latest HDR cameras and what not, I'm sure they're capable of some amazing things. But let's say you wanted to do a double exposure of say your mother and a particular place she was fond of, in your mind eye, you might say or know I can vignette some areas of an image to make it work, and know confidently that you could easily accomplish in this photoshop (as well as in the darkroom by the way). So this is an example of how a photograph uses, by intent the uses of photoshop to create a image. It's just a matter of knowing how to use the tools that are available.

To blanket say "anyone who uses photoshop to extensively to make their photographs work isn't good photography" is just garbage and narrow minded. However if you have to rely on photoshop to salvage all your images, then you are doing something wrong or looking at it in a different light. You either have to study your manual better or learn how to use your equipment. Hell, I still make so many mistakes with my digital camera, mostly cause I am rushing and, I haven't learned everything there is know about the camera and what it's capable of.

Of course nowadays making some of these mistakes is a little easier to fix and catch than in the old days when you had to wait to see the film before you realy realized you screwed up. Then it could be too late.

Ugh maybe I fail more in wording.
I didn't mean it the way it came out I guess?
I meant Photoshop shouldn't be used to make an absolutely terrible shot amazing. I'm not talking about your everyday edit, I'm talking about completely revamping a picture that it's not even remotely close to what you started with. Wish I had an example but, I don't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CRXed

Digital cameras took photography to a whole new level not even your giant penis can comprehend.

Edit: no homo

hahhahahaha

[grimm]

Photoshop is meant to be used for whatever you can create with it. IT'S A TOOL!!!! and quite frankly....you don't have to use it if you don't want to, or if you are "above" it, Digital photography isn't forcing you too?

i use lightroom for photo editing since i don't need all the capabilities of photoshop.

remember...
"there is a proper tool for ever job"

[drkramm]

Originally Posted by grimm

I find these topics funny.
A photographer would know that there is no difference between photoshop and a darkroom. All digital photography has done is open up this form of art to the masses, making it easier for the masses to take impressive photos. Digital photography and photoshop are just improvements upon a basic system, the improvements make it easier for the masses. because thats what every company wants, they want the masses to be able to use their products and achieve great results with them.

The black and white of this conversation really is, do improvements in technology take away from the art of photography? or do they propel the art form?

Then also think about where the line is drawn. At what point do we say well this is the raw basic form and everything else is wasted technology? do we go back to the pin hole cameras we all made in HS? since that is the one of the most basic forms? or is it the autofocus lens? lens filters?

To be a good photographer today, you need to know how to use a camera and how to use photoshop, or some other editing software. Thats just how it is, like it or not. To me, a successful photo doesn't need to be spawned in the camera alone. A successful photo is a result of using the photography tools that you have. whether your tool is only a camera or a camera and software who cares.

what used to take me a couple hours in a dark room now takes me a couple minutes in photoshop

[ASIAN JUL]

Sorry for trying to get involved in the conversation

I'll let the pros do all the talking & I'll do all the observing

[drkramm]

Originally Posted by MyCarIsFTL

Ugh maybe I fail more in wording.
I didn't mean it the way it came out I guess?
I meant Photoshop shouldn't be used to make an absolutely terrible shot amazing. I'm not talking about your everyday edit, I'm talking about completely revamping a picture that it's not even remotely close to what you started with. Wish I had an example but, I don't.

when i took this shot (i screwed up and metered off the sun rook mistake i know) the bottom was all black couldn't see a thing .. a whole lotta tweaking and work with the dodging tool got me a photo which i personally like ( i know i'll get **** for it but oh well you wanted an example




and something that would have taken a stupid amount of time in a dark room

[cszakolczai]

To continue the discussion, whats everyone's opinion about this? Digital photography stepping in the right direction or going to far?

http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx

[grimm]

Originally Posted by cszakolczai

To continue the discussion, whats everyone's opinion about this? Digital photography stepping in the right direction or going to far?

http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx

photoshop has a lens blur tool, it's very similar.

[cszakolczai]

I know they have "blurs" but even photoshop wasn't Ballsy enough to call it "Bokeh" I like to leave that upto my lenses. Thats why I paid all that money.