Photo Girl Raquel wrote:
Isn't it true that PS and computer manipulation is where things ae headed more and more?

Yes.

Photo Girl Raquel wrote:
There is a photographer I know that swears the only way anyone is ever taken seriously in the high fashion world is if you pretty much use only unsharp mask and something called curve in PS. Other than that thats all one should ever use...Are there any published photogs out there who could tell me if this is true or not. I can understand that if your original image is crap, and you have to manipulate it to get it to look like something then you probably need to practice more, but really, Isn't it true that PS and computer manipulation is where things ae headed more and more?

I use photoshop extensively, but only to do things which enhance an image in natural ways which could be done with film image editing anyway (it would just take much longer and not look quite as good). I try not to do anything other than RAW file processing, levels adjustments, curves adjestments, some contrast adjustment, occasional dodging and burning, and minimal blemish/spot retouching, then of course resizing and unsharp mask for printing. I do this on every image I use, but it doesn't drastically change the image. So called "creative filters" and "artistic uses" of photoshop are fine as applied to graphic arts, graphic design, etc. but they have nopart in true photography in my opinion.

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Brian Diaz wrote:
And real photographers only ever use f/5.6.

Say it ain't so.....

Photo Girl Raquel wrote:
Photoshop or not to Photoshop that is the question

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of the outrageous healing brush?

Brian Diaz wrote:
And real photographers only ever use f/5.6.

Dang I wish I had known that it would have saved me tons of money on fast glass... lol.

I guess I better stop down more often ;^)

Jeff Marsh wrote:
Frankly, what I see in the top women's fashion magazines CANT be created through the click of the shutter. It simply CANT. One of the fastest growing industries in the past few years is in the area of retouching. Many magazines have their own retouchers on staff........
Photoshop has replaced the darkroom, those who had exceptional darkroom skills did well, those who have exceptional retouching skills will most likely be more successful than those who don't.
Know what you want as the final outcome, THEN shoot to that end.

I agree completely. Magazines have retouchers as well ad agencies and design houses. Personally, I don't shoot for the best image out of camera I shoot for the best image going into photoshop.

Koray wrote:
there are young ones out there about to graduate and they all know the basics of traditional photography, plus photoshop plus all other illustration and editing softwares plus 3D & design.

if you are not old and ready to retire you all have to improve every friggin day else the young open minded talents will run all over you.

Spot on!

Still unknown was the point the photographer who said what he did to the OP was trying to make.

Seems like just some chest-pounding bravado: real photographers don't use Photoshop - We don't need no stinkin Photoshop! - well, maybe just a little curve adjustment, and a little sharpening here and there......

Yeah, right!

-Glenn

Brian Diaz wrote:
And real photographers only ever use f/5.6.

So much for F/4 I'm never gonna remember all these rules!

photographybyfrank wrote:
Do not worry about P.S. in the near future there is  going to be computer generated models no more live woman. All is needed is a good person at the newest computer generated image soft wear and poof theres a model; doing anything he or she wants her to to by the click of a key, the movies are doing it mags are soon to be on that band wagon too.no need for photographers or models.
Its the digital age,you like digital so much and glad you no longer have to use film, heres the joke digital is going to over take real peopl ,so no longer is picture taking nessesary , enjoy your digital cameras, soon they will be a thing used for hobbies n vacation photos.

Does this mean there won't be any more "Nude but don't do nude" threads?

Photo Girl Raquel wrote:
There is a photographer I know that swears the only way anyone is ever taken seriously in the high fashion world is if you pretty much use only unsharp mask and something called curve in PS. Other than that thats all one should ever use...Are there any published photogs out there who could tell me if this is true or not. I can understand that if your original image is crap, and you have to manipulate it to get it to look like something then you probably need to practice more, but really, Isn't it true that PS and computer manipulation is where things ae headed more and more?

Photoshop is just a tool. It is not a shortcut any more than dodging & burning and traditional darkroom techniques were cheating. Yes, for image manipulation, PS is the present and future whether ones future includes film or digital.

But it's not about using PS because you need further practice taking photos or getting the shot. It's a means to an end. I'm a photographer and also work in advertising and all images in ads, whether it be product shots or models are enhanced (notice I didn't say manipulated lol) in many ways. A photog can take the best photo in the world but the client can decide they want the product or model shot with a beach background. Then change their mind and decide it should be a warehouse look (extreme example). That requires many levels of enhancement to the image that had nothing to do with the quality of the original shot.

But of course there is the airbrushing we all know of. Have you seen Jessica Simpson without it lol?

re- photography wrote:
So called "creative filters" and "artistic uses" of photoshop are fine as applied to graphic arts, graphic design, etc. but they have nopart in true photography in my opinion.

That's when they are no longer a photograph and are now a picture.  There are no rules for a picture as they are limited only by one's imagination/skill.

Koray wrote:
there are young ones out there about to graduate and they all know the basics of traditional photography, plus photoshop plus all other illustration and editing softwares plus 3D & design.

if you are not old and ready to retire you all have to improve every friggin day else the young open minded talents will run all over you.

Koray,

Koray,

Just because someone has been to school & knows software tools means very little to nothing. If someone has vision & knows how to produce it into a visual then they have what it takes, if not they can know every camera, lens, software, computer and every location and any person with vision can out shoot this person every time. The tools are only as good as the person using them.

Art schools have been grinding out “Photographers” for years now; most of them will never make it. Some of them will do well & yet others will excel and would have even if they never stepped into school.

Also it has been my experience that most students getting out of school do not know jack about production, lighting, model direction, vision or business. The school gives them just enough information to maybe help them decide what they want to shoot.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com/

Photo Girl Raquel wrote:
There is a photographer I know that swears the only way anyone is ever taken seriously in the high fashion world is if you pretty much use only unsharp mask and something called curve in PS. Other than that thats all one should ever use...Are there any published photogs out there who could tell me if this is true or not. I can understand that if your original image is crap, and you have to manipulate it to get it to look like something then you probably need to practice more, but really, Isn't it true that PS and computer manipulation is where things ae headed more and more?

I'm not buying this for a moment. Since I have learned PS, I have not shot an image that I did not do something to it in PS.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com/
.

Steve Thornton wrote:
I'm not buying this for a moment. Since I have learned PS, I have not shot an image that I did not do something to it in PS.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com/
.

I know photographers who have day rates over 3g and hand over Raws and never touch the files again.

re- photography wrote:

I use photoshop extensively, but only to do things which enhance an image in natural ways which could be done with film image editing anyway (it would just take much longer and not look quite as good). I try not to do anything other than RAW file processing, levels adjustments, curves adjestments, some contrast adjustment, occasional dodging and burning, and minimal blemish/spot retouching, then of course resizing and unsharp mask for printing. I do this on every image I use, but it doesn't drastically change the image. So called "creative filters" and "artistic uses" of photoshop are fine as applied to graphic arts, graphic design, etc. but they have nopart in true photography in my opinion.

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Can you spell Scitex Retouching Stations?

There was a huge spread about digital retouching of photographs in the fashion industry in New York, Paris, Milan and London etc in the New York Times Magazine about 6 years ago. Models with poor complexions are made to look like they have the skin of a 12 year old.

Retouching is extensive in prepress for magazines even if you don't do much because you have standards and artistic and personal ethics.  Look closely at glamour photos from the 1930s and '40s, and Playboy starting 50 years ago. Lots and lots of Spot Tone Dyene on those 8X10 negatives and airbrushing on the prints that went for color separation negatives.

Glenn Francis wrote:
Photoshop is a MASSIVE program that is infinite in its capabilities.  It, and its add-ons, gives the digital artist an immeasurable amount of ways to achieve what they want to achieve, and there are many ways to accomplish the same result. 

I'm not sure what point your photographer friend was trying to make.  My guess is what he was trying to say was that the original photography should be as close to perfect as possible, and that photos *should not* need to rely on extensive Photoshopping to be presentable.  If that was his point, however crudely or oversimplified it was stated, there is validity to that argument - and something every photographer should strive for.

For most images, the objective is make the photo look like nothing has been “fixed” on it.  No one should be able to ‘see’ or ‘tell’ that it’s been Photoshopped. And “that” takes a lot of skill. What tools or methods a skilled artist uses to achieve that result is largely irrelevant.

But even the most "perfect" photo can usually be made "more" perfect in Photoshop.  The camera is "limited" in what it can do, and professional cameras have special settings that record additional information for further enhancement or "completion" in Photoshop.  Photoshopping can also be considered the "polishing" of and already well taken photo, or a life saver for photos that have problems.

-Glenn

Steve Thornton wrote:

I'm not buying this for a moment. Since I have learned PS, I have not shot an image that I did not do something to it in PS.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com/
.

Me too, I just think not using it is BOGUS! I know I need to learn to take a better foundational image, but Cmon!