Photoshop or not...Discussion

[Jusselin]

so here are a few thought of other i am interested in you guys thoughts, my reply is PS is part of the PP i am just interested in your thoughts

Originally Posted by Fordtrucktexan

My opinion is that you stop being a photographer the moment you need photoshop to add an effect you couldn't do with the body or lens. Granted, you do need PS or LR to correct the natural flaws in digital photography (haze, noise, wb).

Originally Posted by _Brad

the deal is in the real world of photography photoshoppers are highly looked down on. mainly because the premeditation of the peice is not waiting for a certain day of a certain season at a certain time of day for a certain lighting etc. its lets find the closest shot right this second that i can manipulate later to be what i want.

nothing imo is wrong with photoshop, i practically have a degree in it, BUT the point im making is those who rely on it are simply showing their ability to press the right buttons vs having skill with the lens. sad part is tho most of the pics we see on the internet that come out "badass" like the rolling shots in magazines and what not are all photoshopped to some degree. these are the "paid photographers" whose job is to make pictures that look good. how that ends meet is met is irrelevant to the client.

anyways, nothing personal to anyone that uses or relies on photoshop, just dont let it be the thing that makes or breaks your photos

Originally Posted by Fordtrucktexan

Agreed 110% Brad, there's photographers and photoshoppers, which would you like to be...

discuss

[zebulus]

Personally I think its up to each person to decided how they want their art to look. Personally, I dont like to over-edit my images. I just dont do it. But im no photoshop master either. I mainly do corrections in photoshop.

To each his own. I dont think it makes you any less of a photographer if you photoshop your stuff a ton, neither does it make you less of an artist if you dont.

[CaptainTom]

The "classic" icons of photography might spend hours in a darkroom manipulating their images to come out the way they wanted.
My darkroom is Photoshop. I know the limitations of my equipment and know that no matter what I do, the camera will not give me exactly what I 'saw' in the scene. Until the camera has a brain as highly functional as a humans I see post processing as a way of life in photography.

[Jusselin]

very well said i agree with you both.....

[aerosolcheese]

I like to forgo the title of "photographer" for that of "imagemaker"

[Jusselin]

Originally Posted by aerosolcheese

I like to forgo the title of "photographer" for that of "imagemaker"

nice i see what you did there

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by aerosolcheese

I like to forgo the title of "photographer" for that of "imagemaker"

Imagemaker sounds like the subtitle to Donald Trumps public relations chief.

Like referring to the early photographers as 'image chemists' I suppose.

[celticmama36]

My thoughts on it...so long as the end product makes you happy, or your client happy, the path that you took to get there doesn't matter. Do you feel good with what you have produced?

It is kind of like a discussion that I had years ago with my granny. Both of us are quilters (she way more prolific than me with it!). She hand cuts every piece and sews them together and quilts it all by hand. I use a rotary cutter, and the strip method and sew by machine. In her eyes, mine are not quilts, but fakes...hers are the real 'quilts'. Gotta love her :) Anyway, in the end, both methods yield a covering to keep a person warm. Both are beautiful....How either of us got there doesn't matter when it keeps a baby from shivering in the cold, does it?

The same with photography and editing. That's how I see it, anyway.

That being said, my goal is to do it perfectly in the camera, not the computer. One of these days!

[Coelus]

Isn't knowing how and which lens to use, proper exposure, etc the same thing as "the ability to press the right buttons"? It's a technical skill. It has set and measurable limits, values and outcomes.

[Bruce M. Morris]

Originally Posted by aerosolcheese

I like to forgo the title of "photographer" for that of "imagemaker"

Actually "Imagemaker" refers to a Kreonite film processing machine that was used regularly on many Navy ships. It was probably also copyrighted at the time... FYI..

[kenw]

If you artificially limit yourself in any way in the matter of which tools you use, you are simply a technician. Nothing wrong with being a technician, they did carve Michangelo's David afterall.

The artist is after the end results, regardless of the tools he uses to get that image.

The camera, the film, the darkroom, the camera's computer, the photoshop, a hired stonecutter...all are mere tools to create the artist's vision.

[Coelus]

Originally Posted by kenw

If you artificially limit yourself in any way in the matter of which tools you use, you are simply a technician. Nothing wrong with being a technician, they did carve Michangelo's David afterall.

The artist is after the end results, regardless of the tools he uses to get that image.

The camera, the film, the darkroom, the camera's computer, the photoshop, a hired stonecutter...all are mere tools to create the artist's vision.

Yep. I think one of the measures of proficiency is how well you can convey your imagination to a visible form. The camera is one step in that. If you only need one step to show what you want the world to see; cool. If you another step or twenty; cool.

[ptrd]

I've seen people "paint" in photoshop, I find that just as artistic as a real painter.

In the end, art is subjective and if it gives you emotion, it has succeded one way or the other.

[Jusselin]

Originally Posted by kenw

If you artificially limit yourself in any way in the matter of which tools you use, you are simply a technician. Nothing wrong with being a technician, they did carve Michangelo's David afterall.

The artist is after the end results, regardless of the tools he uses to get that image.

The camera, the film, the darkroom, the camera's computer, the photoshop, a hired stonecutter...all are mere tools to create the artist's vision.

wow very well said

[toverman]

There are some things you just can't do without a program like Photoshop. Can it be overused? Yes. Is it a necessary evil in the digital age? Yes. Even purists know that a digital file, especially when purists shoot nothing but RAW, needs at least a bit of tweaking to live up to its full potential. And those are the purists who've compromised enough to pick up an SLR.