PS as a medium

[[dasha+matsuura]]

i use PS to process. film has darkroom, digital has PS. i can't help but realize that a lot of photographers aren't really photographers anymore, but rather post artists. i am in no way knocking it, but it seems as though they aren't necessarily photographers when they "shoot for post." screw taking a great photograph straight out of the camera, i can fix everything in post. maybe it is just the new age purist mentality, but shouldn't you take a photograph and highlight and perfect it in post rather than taking a mediocre photo and simulating good fundamental photography after the fact?


maybe it's just me.
thoughts?

[Snarfy]

From a photography purist standpoint, I suppose. Be that the case, I'd suggest you only shoot in film format. I look at photoshop as a useful tool which allows for various forms of expression, including improvements to the fundamental design of the photograph. As a direct result, you might see a decrease in photographic ability; but if the end result are original, expressive, and satisfying images, then what does it matter?

my $0.02

[chrisfotos]

well computers and photoshop are all tools readily available, and so people are bound to use them. even the camera features (i.e. picture styles) and software that comes with the camera when you first open the box are there for anyone to "shoot for post". the first thing i learned was how to use Canon's DPP software way before adjusting shutter/aperture.

imo, these post-processing tools are an addition to photography tools/gear. i would not depend on them completely, but they are definately good to have.

[Spartacus989]

Personally, I tend to strive for the best possible picture I can capture before I move to PS. I started photography using my grandad's old Olympus OM-1 (for which he had an insane amount of accessories), so I can totally see where you're coming from when you say PS can replace talent/skill.

On the flip side, now that I've started shooting with a digital SLR and learned some PS, I'll never go back. The freedom afforded to the digital photographer is amazing compared to the one-dimensional film photographer. I cannot only improve the shortcomings of whatever picture I am editing, but I can utilize that single image in a wealth of applications beyond what I originally intended.

All that being said, there's no substitute for a good photographer's eye, something that I'm always trying to perfect. If the picture isn't interesting, no amount of post-processing will save it.

[Snarfy]

Originally Posted by Spartacus989

All that being said, there's no substitute for a good photographer's eye, something that I'm always trying to perfect. If the picture isn't interesting, no amount of post-processing will save it.

except for lens flare filters. dozens and dozens of lens flares.

and plastic wrap filter. <3 wrapping photos in digital condoms.

[Spartacus989]

Originally Posted by Snarfy

except for lens flare filters. dozens and dozens of lens flares.

Freakin' lens flares. The bane of my existence...in the sun...facing it.

[Snarfy]

hilarious, and related.

[Spartacus989]

Aww, and he's holding a Mac, isn't he? I love how the computer geek immediately earns the wrath of the artists. So true!

[[dasha+matsuura]]

i don't want it to seem as though i dislike PS as a tool. i just like starting little debates such as this.

[Snarfy]

i enjoy participating and derailing said debates =)

[icxmanny]

i still like using my canon ae-1, but i'm poor, so i don't like developing. digital is dope, plus it can help with composition, and minor mistakes.

[MetalCowboy]

I like photoshop for what it can do for me, mainly cropping and helping me save what would otherwise be hopelessly dark pictures. However, as I get better, I'm finding more and more that I can capture an image the way I saw it without need for adjustment.

I'm not sure I agree that photographers are becoming post-artists. If you can't take a decent shot to start with all the post in the world will not help you (I have experience with this.) Anyway, is photoshop really that different than the sort of work photographers used to do in the darkroom? Is the issue now only that digital photography and photoshop has made the post-processing widely available? (I really don't know, I'm one of those Johnny-come-lately's who has only shot digital.)

[chicochaz]

This brings up what I consider to be an issue not being openly discussed. The difference between a "photograph" and a "photo impressionistic image." A photograph is a recording of the moment without modification other than what traditionally has been done in a darkroom. Dodging, burning, contolling tonal range, etc.

A photo impressionistic image is a photograph that has been modified in such a way that it isn't a faithful representation of the original scene, even if it may seem so. Creative juices have flowed and made it more "impressionistic" than the real scene. In my view, both approaches are totally valid. The real issue is that of the originator revealing that a given image is one way or the other. I do both. I us PS in the same way I used to work in a darkroom in order to get a quality photograph. But then when I'm working on a new print for my photo art, I impose no limits on what I might use PS for. But then I don't call these photographs, I refer to them as photo art or photo impressionism. I guess the keyword here is disclosure.

Here are two examples, one of each approach. Now there are some additional considerations and that is how far can you go "fixing" a photo before it ceases to be a "honest" photograph. This is an issue being discussed on the news as recently as yesterday due to the revealing of doctored photos from some major newspaper where the photos were nominated for, or actually awarded a Pulitizer Prize. The photographer had been doing serious modifications for years before his deceptions where discovered! Some manipulations are hard to detect. Mine are obvious.

[Spartacus989]

Originally Posted by Snarfy

i enjoy participating and derailing said debates =)

Derail? Hardly. We are the steam for the engine that motivates the debate.

[[dasha+matsuura]]

oh what have i begun...


soooo what do you think about religion?
i kid i kid