|
Forums >
General Industry >
Purist photogs, perfect models, n photoshopgraphy
A model will tell me now and then that they worked with some photographers who are purists, who minimally uses photoshop. I find myself going in the opposite direction. For you photographers, what's your ratio of photoshop to shoot time? It used to be about 1:1, but it's easily 2:1 now. The better the shoot, the higher the ratio because I want to squeeze every drop of goodness out. For you models, have you ever objected to a good post processing job? I haven't encountered a model who objects, but there must be some for the purists. Sep 16 06 12:51 am Link I shoot a lot, discard a lot, Photoshop a lot. I have shot two customers who did not want moles, scars, etc touched up. They both felt like a retouched photo would not be a picture of them. Sep 16 06 12:53 am Link On headshots and images intended to be editorial or fashion I do very little PS work... maybe 2-3 minutes' worth. On glamour images a do a lot, sometimes as much as 45 minutes if I feel particularly exploratory and start playing with a filter I haven't used before... The monkey wrench is my backdrops being only 9 feet wide, sometimes I have to retouch the edges on my studio shoots to get rid of the clutter behind the backdrop. Sep 16 06 12:56 am Link Back in my college days, I would dodge and burn and focus in the dark room. Now I do it with the computer...but only without the fumes! lol Even the purist who does his own darkroom work will still do the basic manipulations of the image.. like sharpening and sepia tone and posterize and, blur, and.. and.. and get the point? Both are fine as long as they get to your goal.. Sep 16 06 12:59 am Link Don't get me wrong. I love PhotoShop. But if you're doing anything more than some color correction, minor exposure adjustments and sharpening everytime you shoot......you're doing something wrong! I shoot each and every single day. Unless I'm looking for some kind of special effect or the photo is being used graphically as part a bigger image my photoshopping is very minimal. PhotoShop does not take the place of good technique. You cannot make a weak photo great. About the only exception may be portraits where birthmarks, moles and blemishes are removed by request. Even then it shouldn't be overdone. Sep 16 06 01:05 am Link Listen, this topic is still just, but won't be in a couple years...I spend most time on photoshop, but miss the darkroom...and yes, the fumes!!! But c'mon guys, look at the work thats coming out. Stylized beyond belief! Lets face it. Things are changing. And I think it's for the best...Darkroom work will ALWAYS have it's place...IN FINE ART!!! _Matt Sep 16 06 01:09 am Link It's only overdone if the client thinks so. FKVPhotoGraphics wrote: Sep 16 06 01:10 am Link Glamour too... my avatar is case-in-point. There is no way to get that effect with lighting/exposure no matter how creative and experienced you are. Matt Morrissey wrote: Sep 16 06 01:12 am Link FKY... I agree...But Photoshop isn't the crutch. RAW is. Don't get me wrong I shoot in raw, just for insurance, but I know some people that don't even white balance because they shoot raw. Come on! We still have a craft to up hold! _Matt Sep 16 06 01:12 am Link I'm a minimalist and I work fast. I usually don't spend more than 10 minutes on an image. Sep 16 06 01:22 am Link If I was blind, I wouldn't either... it would be a waste of time!  BlindMike wrote: Sep 16 06 01:36 am Link Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote: I work by feel. Honk honk. Sep 16 06 01:40 am Link Matt Morrissey wrote: Next we're going to insist that we all go back to shooting film. Sep 16 06 01:41 am Link That explains why your images show a lot of feeling  BlindMike wrote: Sep 16 06 01:41 am Link Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote: Yup. I have magic fingers Sep 16 06 02:06 am Link PN Photo wrote: My only problem with PhotoShop is that I constantly hear "don't worry we'll fix it in PhotoShop".....well, it might have been better to fix it before you took the shot. Although I'm also a graphic designer I prefer to be a photographer. As a photographer that means knowing how to use your camera. Sep 16 06 08:17 am Link Sometimes telling a model you have photoshop is the only way to get her to stop trying to hide a 15 year old bike scar from gradeschool that you cant see for the life of you, and actually get some work done. Sep 16 06 08:21 am Link I live in a dusty old warehouse, so I spend time, whether in PS or on the print, spotting. Otherwise, I'll twiddle contrast and brightness, and crop. Same as I'd do in the darkroom. It does take some time to spot, so 15 minutes per image is probably the longest, for the dirtiest negative. -Don Sep 16 06 09:45 am Link Carlos Arturo Velarde wrote: you are completely incorrect. Sep 16 06 10:53 am Link If you're shooting for the sake of job or product (i.e. someone hired you to make an image).. I believe the correct path is the one that leads from start to finish in the least number of painful steps.. I don't care what the steps are. It's the ones that get you to your final solution with the least time wasted and heartache.. That's all.. On the other hand if you're in it to learn.. Then take as many extra steps as you can think up.. Then go back to the beginning and start over taking a completely different path.. Sep 16 06 10:58 am Link I used to strive to be a purist but I've come to realize that PS is as important to me as the darkroom was to film. That makes PS an equal partner to the camera, maybe the dominant partner. The camera provides the raw material, but PS provides refinement for the photos that have the most potential. Between my minimalist studio which doesn't have enough gear to produce all the lighting effects, and outdoor shots where there's only limited control over the composition and lighting, I'm finding PS indispensable. Just as painters make mistakes constantly and draw over their work to correct and enhance, PS is a way for me to fix mistakes and enhance the image. My eye isn't better than those artists, I don't think faster than they do, I have less control over the environment, and my tools are relatively worse. Given the limitations, it seems likely that I'll be spending more time with PS as I try to create more ambitious photographs. Sep 16 06 11:05 am Link BlindMike wrote: I'd pay good money to watch Mike shooting by feel. Sep 16 06 11:14 am Link Rue 99 wrote: Question: how could they tell, if it were a good post-processing job? Most "good post processing" results in images that don't look like they've been processed. Sep 16 06 01:22 pm Link My shooting time is probably 98% compared to about 2% photoshop. I think photoshop is a wonderful and powerful tool, and I just wish I had more time to use it. In order for me to spend more time with photoshop, I would have to start cancelling shoots with models. But since I prefer working with models more than I like working with computers, I don't think I will do that. So out of necessity, I manage my workflow to provide me with the most amount of time to spend creating images with the camera. I do know that just about every image that comes out of the camera can benefit from a little tweaking with photoshop, that's why I do a small amount to images I choose to show. Fortunately, I never have to do any photoshop for commercial work as someone else specializing in graphic design always does the post production work. I should emphasize that I have nothing against very well executed and highly stylized graphic works of art using photography as a source material. In fact, I really admire a lot of the work from the many people who choose to concentrate their efforts in the graphic design area to produce photo illustration art. For me it is just not where my interest lies so I concentrate on the shooting end of things. Sep 16 06 02:37 pm Link I use photoshop almost exclusively for minor corrections - brightness, contract, minor color corrections. Essentially as I use the darkroom. I do believe many photographers and models tend to rely on on photoshop these days and tend to get a little careless on a shoot (I am not saying all photographers and models, so please don't jump all over me!) I have had many models say "you can fix this in photoshop" so many times. I actually had one model shoot in sheer lingerie (her choice) and then after the fact ask me to photoshop her nipples out "Other photographers have done that for me!" I am not that talented at photoshop - I admit it. But I am not interested in massively changing my images either. I have seen so many photos of models that were so shopped they tend to look like manequins. I am not going to get into film versus digital. They both great advantages. But I do believe the darkroom is a photo art, and photoshop is a computer art - both difficult to master. Sep 16 06 03:04 pm Link I'll stop using it when models stop needing it lol! Now repeat after me.....there are no perfect people....there are no perfect people. Sep 16 06 06:23 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: Blemishes, wrinkles, tattoos, moles, gone are fairly obvious to the model. I've even obliged a couple hang reduction requests. Sep 16 06 09:03 pm Link I said lighting/exposure. High key color images require darkroom work to look like that one, so I am no incorrect in my statement. As a side-note, that took me about 20 seconds to get that effect on PS... James Jackson wrote: Sep 18 06 02:59 am Link I am a purist- black and white: no photoshop. ever. I learned how to use photoshop even got pretty good at doing it/still could do it. I have a lot of respect for those who do it but I think it's really its own art form that is not the same as photography. Sep 18 06 03:10 am Link Depends on the subject and what I am after. Sometimes I take pictures with a specific bit of photoshopery in mind, the post process being in my mind as I shoot. Sometimes I think I should call myself a digital imagist or something because to me Photoshop is a continuation of my process. Not an additional "extra" step. Sep 18 06 09:10 am Link StevesPhotography wrote: Exactly the case with me. The model has the perfect pose at a certain angle with a certain expression. If I ask her to move, I'll lose it and there's no guarantee I'll get it again but there lighting or backdrop is a bit off. Or there's a distracting object behind her, but a slight adjustment will easily allow the object to be erased. Sep 18 06 11:27 pm Link |
