Great pictures or just good photoshopping

[Kaleo55]

Originally Posted by grimm

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

This true, and for the $199, I prefer to spend my money somewhere else. Photoshop allows you to do this with as much control if now more, but it may take a tad longer. Unless you're doing bulk loads of bokeh, it's hardly a essential tool. With that said, Alien skin makes and has other plug-ins that are wild.


MyCarIsFTL ; Sorry for trying to get involved in the conversation I'll let the pros do all the talking & I'll do all the observing

Don't feel that way, just trying to pass along some knowledge. I encourage you to push your own limits and explore the possibilities.

[Ender81]

Originally Posted by 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"

The HDR image as your avatar kinda let me know where you would stand before I read your post lol.

My point is if you ignore fundamentals and rely solely on the secondary tool, instead of the primary, can you consider yourself a professional? Because by the argument of some here my 9yr old niece could be a professional photographer if I show her how to photoshop her pictures.

If I were to jump into a plane and let a computer take off, fly, and land it would I be a pilot?

(I should say I didn't have time to read every post here so I will later to catch up on the conversations lol)

[cszakolczai]

Originally Posted by Ender81

The HDR image as your avatar kinda let me know where you would stand before I read your post lol.

My point is if you ignore fundamentals and rely solely on the secondary tool, instead of the primary, can you consider yourself a professional? Because by the argument of some here my 9yr old niece could be a professional photographer if I show her how to photoshop her pictures.

If I were to jump into a plane and let a computer take off, fly, and land it would I be a pilot?

(I should say I didn't have time to read every post here so I will later to catch up on the conversations lol)

To play devils advocate, we aren't using auto correct modes when editing. We are controlling the computer and manipulating it to achieve the desired effect.

[jspek]

i think everyone should just shoot and edit the way they want. the ones who know how to take a great photo will be around a lot longer than ones who dont.

[Kaleo55]

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.

Well not necessarily, but of course if an image/photograph is really bad to begin with, like terribly out of focus or, exposed way too over or under, or just a bad snap shot poorly composed, there's little Photo shop is going to do to fix it. However, there are instances where a terrible photograph because of it's condition can be saved or salvaged.

In the sample below, there's a old aging photo that has seen better days. It's tattered, faded and torn. But by the looks of it, it was probably shot by a professional studio back in the day, as the seamless background and neutral, balanced light indicate.



In the next sample I did some basic retoration, removing surface blemishes, spots and the rips and tears that penetrated the subject matter. Careful not to alter the physical characteristics of the antique photograph like the ragged edges and where some of the emulsion has been worn away.



The third example demonstrates a more dramatic restoration by retouching much of the background back into the shot to return it to more of a state might appear in had it not been worn and ripped. This not simply a despeckling as it requires the addition of missing information and to top it off the original photograph was printed on textured paper. This means using a brush would flatten and the background look artificial. The client would probably be pleased with this restoration and happy to return it to the family album or framed for the wall.



In the last example, I took license to change and alter the original by giving it greater tonal value, contrast and shapened and clean edges. This is somewhat dicy and I would not do this to the image if it were for a client without first consulting them as it changes the character of original print. This could have been done traditionally, with paint brush, airbrush on a new repro print, chemically treated to give it the sepia tone, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably be cost prohibitive.



So, I don't know if you could call this a beautiful phtograph, but it has great sentimental value to someone and restoring it makes worthy of admiration.
Photoshop can save it and give it dignity and do it relatively easily and affordably. So is it a "Great picture or just good photoshopping"?

[Ender81]

I have to point out,as someone before me, you're examples are really more graphic art as opposed to what we are discussing. I am talking about taking an average picture and making it look great in photoshop and then saying to everyone "Look at this picture I took".

For my thoughts preserving, restoring and the like of older pictures is a fantastic use of Photoshop. Manipulating a photo for advertising (as my girlfriend does on a daily basis) is also a great use of it. My issue is very specific to people who don't know how to take a good picture calling themselves photographers because they can fix their crappy image in Photoshop, and also the use of Photoshop in pictures provided in "News" sources.

[sisforsurfing]

Originally Posted by Ender81

My point is if you ignore fundamentals and rely solely on the secondary tool, instead of the primary, can you consider yourself a professional? Because by the argument of some here my 9yr old niece could be a professional photographer if I show her how to photoshop her pictures.

haha, of course. All professional means is that you make most of your money from it.

[jspek]

Originally Posted by Ender81

I have to point out,as someone before me, you're examples are really more graphic art as opposed to what we are discussing. I am talking about taking an average picture and making it look great in photoshop and then saying to everyone "Look at this picture I took".
.

examples man!!!

[Kaleo55]

Originally Posted by Ender81

My issue is very specific to people who don't know how to take a good picture calling themselves photographers because they can fix their crappy image in Photoshop, and also the use of Photoshop in pictures provided in "News" sources.

Dude I don't understand you, quite calling a kettle a pot. If a picture is crap, it's crap how can you fix it and make it better in Photoshop or anything else? Is there someone specific you are talking about or anyone whose pictures/photos you don't like because you think they photoshopped too much? Is it just because they told you they are photgraphers and you think they take lousy pictures?

What's the point of this discussion if it's just crappy photos or nothing?

I give up...

And by the way you make graphic design sound subservient to photography, you're on real shaky ground my friend...

[S4toSTI]

What's photoshop?

[OWENthatsmyname]

WTF is photography?

why is this thread STILL going. who here really cares? it has turned into some kindergarten playground argument over what way to build a sandcastle and why it is the ultimate and only way.

WHO CARES!?!? photography has evolved greatly, and as a result of that people have began to use it in many different ways, and photoshop just helps.

and i love how a lot of the people posting in here never post pictures.

I use photoshop, Its my picture, ill do what i want with it.

[grimm]

Originally Posted by Ender81

The HDR image as your avatar kinda let me know where you would stand before I read your post lol.

My point is if you ignore fundamentals and rely solely on the secondary tool, instead of the primary, can you consider yourself a professional? Because by the argument of some here my 9yr old niece could be a professional photographer if I show her how to photoshop her pictures.

If I were to jump into a plane and let a computer take off, fly, and land it would I be a pilot?

(I should say I didn't have time to read every post here so I will later to catch up on the conversations lol)

Whats with the "where i stand" comment? I think you need to re-think your discussion, I'm not the one making blind accusations and being ignorant.

Yes I have done some HDR photos, I'm sure most people on this board have, so how does that make me stand out?

is photoshop not a tool? Can this tool be abused? Yes. But just because some one can take a not so great photo and make it into something better by using photoshop doesn't mean they aren't a photographer. being "professional" has nothing to do with a set of tools. it has to do with getting paid...

you really need to think a bit broader. would you be just as upset if someone took a not so great photo and made it better in a darkroom? you'd probably applaud them for their skills and creativity. so why not give the same respect to someone using photoshop? because the masses have photoshop and every dick jane and harry have the software and can edit photos now? well thats a BS reason. Sounds like you are feeling pinched by newbie photogs abilities. Yes now most newbies can pick up a camera and take a picture and make it into a good photo? that just makes the"professionals" have to work harder and continue to push their skills and creativity.

again i ask, with your mind set, where do you draw the line between fundamentals and "extravagance".

(by the way most of the time the computer does take off and land the planes, and yes the humans that sit there are still called pilots)

[jspek]

its all about what makes the money and staying on top of your game.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

the man amazes me what he can do with a few images, lighting and photoshop. if it wasnt for photoshop, the industry would be a lot different and imo boring. you cant take a **** photograph and make it awesome, at least i havent seen that on here to say the least.

ok im done posting in this.

[Blue_gsx23]

Originally Posted by jspek

its all about what makes the money and staying on top of your game.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

the man amazes me what he can do with a few images, lighting and photoshop. if it wasnt for photoshop, the industry would be a lot different and imo boring. you cant take a **** photograph and make it awesome, at least i havent seen that on here to say the least.

ok im done posting in this.

Those pictures are amazing!!!! it's crazy how sharp they are.

[TROLL]

The 'industry' wouldn't be boring at all without photoshop or digital photography, but it would be a lot different. There are a lot of amazing images that were created before computers were involved, and a traditional darkroom can be amazing powerful even though most photographers these days couldn't tell you what fixer or stopbath is.
Its a completely different kind of skill these days, and instead of it being a manual one it is a digital one. Some people prefer it that way, others don't.

Photography has changed a lot in the past decade and has gone from working with your hands, being patient, and having a steep learning curve with little room for error but being rewarded for your efforts, and it has turned into instant gratification, accessible to everyone, sitting in front of a computer screen and clicking your way out of reality if you wish.

IMO photography has become trendy, and it has also 'lost its innocence' in a way, and there are lot of impurities in it now really bringing down the average. I can only imagine how all the new age photographers will respond to this but thats just how I see it and I only think a few in this discussion can reference both sides from experience.

All in all, there are a lot of different kinds of photography now, and everyone has their own opinion. Some people like one thing, others like another... thats fine... its art, thats how its supposed to be. So whatever... I'm not getting worked up over it, people can do what they want and I'll do what I want and nobody is really in a position to judge one way or another.

[Supersprynt]

It has become a little trendy. I love photography and it'd be a dream job for me but I look at Flickr and see so many ppl taking photos it's difficult to stand out from the crowd.

But photo manipulation isn't anything new, it was happening way before photoshop and IMO yes you can make something look better with PS but a garbage pic will be a photoshopped garbage pic in the end.

[oneslowxa]

trendy?

how many people you know DON'T have a DSLR... lol
and of those how many know how to use basic functions like iso or aperture or even know how to compose a decent pic?

There are also times when it's impossible to lug around stands, reflectors, lights and other equipment. Limitations on time and resources don't help shoots either.