|
Forums >
General Industry >
why do some photographers insist on no photoshop?
I have seen a few images on here that have pimples and red areas and scratches... and the photographer proudly announces "No Photoshop!" Why is this worn as a badge of honor? Is it that so many people think that if you use photoshop that you don't know how to shoot? And that if you post pictures with obvious flaws that could be simply corrected that that in and of itself means that you're a better photographer than those who use photoshop to correct those small flaws (or like me actually insert flaws)? Sep 23 06 09:57 am Link There are certain approaches to photography in which Photoshop is not a major factor. There are certain things that, realistically, one cannot do with Photoshop. If this sort of imagery is your goal, then being able to achieve it with little-to-no PS "help" is a valuable thing. It's a really crappy as a dogma, though. Sep 23 06 10:00 am Link some just dont know how to  Sep 23 06 10:04 am Link marko... the point of this is photographers who wont touch their images with photosop... even though they should for little blemishes and things... Even the masters would use photoshop now a days. Sep 23 06 10:05 am Link Good Photographers perfer NOT to use photoshop for2 main reasons.. 1) the photograph that they take is not classified as a photograph after it has been altered in photoshop, therefore making it an image of the actual photo. 2) if the photographer new his basics !! he or she would use professional make-up artists and proper lighting to correct or hide any flaws that would make the picture imperfect. "A photograph is just that not and computerized altered image of one's photo. Sep 23 06 10:05 am Link I think that the people that hate Photoshop often (not always) don't really understand it. Basically Photoshop is to digital photographers what the darkroom was to early photographers; a way to process images. Photoshop can be used to make artistic collages with multiple layes and effects, or it can be simply used to tweak the contrast of an image. I have heard many people that slight Photoshop users for "airbrushing". I HATE the fake look of poorly edited blemishes and acne as much as anyone, but don't accuse someone of "airbushing" just because their model does not have noticable skin problems. Honestly, I think that most photographers that would say "No Photoshop" don't want to take the time to edit photos that they give to models. I would guess that if that same photographer were working for a high-paying client and they asked them to remove a zit from a model's face they would do it without hesitation. Sep 23 06 10:06 am Link just because a photo has been retouched in photoshop does not turn it into something else. That's just a silly statement. That would be similar to state that any image that has been altered in a dark room is no longer a photo. There are things that a MUA does not always catch.... There are flaws that "proper lighting" does not hide. A photographer who does not utilize photoshop to correct tiny flaws, is like a lumberjack who insists on only using an axe.... because you can't be a lumberjack if you use a chain saw. RPSphotos wrote: Sep 23 06 10:11 am Link ravens laughter wrote: I've often wondered that myself. I've seen more of it announced 'proudly' over at OMP than I have here. But... Myself and another photographer were talking about it one night and come to the conclusion that it's their way of saying they don't know the first thing about using Photoshop and instead of admitting to it, they say, "No Photoshop..." in the way you described as if it's a good thing, a badge of honor. Sep 23 06 10:15 am Link RPSphotos wrote: does that mean I am not a Good photographer? Sep 23 06 10:21 am Link I like mostly black and white pictures.. for me it is honestly a little of both..(of why i don't use photoshop)..one the time to learn it..i use just a basic edit thingy. And two being i like to take pictures and capture what was in front of me at the time. I think a lot of people use photoshop to add something, and for me that is great and is making art like a drawing or something, but not so much capturing a picture or a moment in time. I think it is just another tool of the trade and you can choose to use it or not. Reminds me of music when bands proudly say they used a 12 trach studio instead of a 120 track studio..for some it is a way to say i am better with less and some need more to just be average. Sep 23 06 10:21 am Link Rossi Photography wrote: I'd have to agree on that...nothing wrong with airbrushing, but it's a skill that has to be developed so it doesn't look "fake". It's at times a time consuming process to do dependant upon the age of the model - and how young she wants to look at the end. I had one model that wanted to drop around 10 years off of her look just for her own use. That took some time. In the end, the images were great, and you couldn't tell they were brushed. However, most of the times I correct skin imperfections especially it's in the "first look" zone in which a viewer will be drawn to the blemish, etc - overdoing the brushing tends to give the skin a plastic feel, that's just way too much the other way and bad use of the photoshop plugins... Sep 23 06 10:22 am Link I had the pleasure of visiting a pro film processing lab when I was in school getting my degree in photography. This was back in the old days before digital; I learned obviously that a negative or print could be touched up, but when visiting the pro lab I saw people touching up the prints that were going out. That to me is no different than photoshop, as long as photoshop is used correctly and not overdone. I have seen models on MM that couldn't model in person, because they rely on photoshop to fix every blemish they have. photoshop is great, I personally don't like to rely on it for everythng. I agree that lighting and a good MUA are the start of a good image. Then if a little exposure change is needed (no different than a dark room) use photoshop. Pro labs have been ajusting and touching up prints and negatives for years for us, now we do it. Sep 23 06 10:22 am Link ravens laughter wrote: Raven just fire up PS and do something man...you can type till your fingers bleed (see a nice concept to go for) but they wont understand Sep 23 06 10:24 am Link But to finish here, if a photographer doesn't want to touch up anything, that is their business, in my opinion. I will touch up what needs to be touched up, depending on the project. Yes, to each his own is what makes all this such a great medium, they don't stamp out photographers from a cookie cutter mold. Sep 23 06 10:25 am Link Let's make a distinction between digital art and photography (which in the end, doesn't matter for the most part, anymore than making a distinction between photography and painting... but photography and painting are NOT the same thing, not only in technique, but in intention and expression, they come from two different parts of the brain). Oh, and honestly, I don't dig LaChapelle's work the least little bit. Sep 23 06 10:26 am Link Ahh, the old photshop debate; Photographer or graphic artist... Whatever; both are artist. If you shoot digital... photoshop has to be used because of the incredible, unforgiving nature of the medium; to say "no photoshop used" on an image that is ladened with flecks and flaws is silly... For god's sake, take out the bloody pimples... It's just like "spotting" in the days of old only... much easier and faster. Now... For the "cazrtoon looking" heavy photoshop users (and it's multiple plug ins) .... Not really my cup of tea but, It's an artistic choice on the part of the photograper to use the PS tool in this manner(and sometimes, it looks incredible). Bottom line: I'm a zit removing, colour correcting, contrast adjusting kind of guy but... Perhaps one day, I'll want to put an image of the baby Jesus floating on top of one of my models... Probably not but, If the urge strikes me, I will not hesitate to use photoshop to do it and, will be thankful that I will not have to contact heaven and book Jesus for the actual shoot...... He's very busy you know. Sep 23 06 10:30 am Link Finally, one more thing. Anything that has been through the photoshop process has passed through the filter of video (as has anything that's been shot digitally, in which case its very capture is videographic). Most current uses for photography pass through this filter at some point. Some of us think it's crappy and prefer photographic processes, when possible/practical. Sep 23 06 10:31 am Link RRCPhoto wrote: That's what I say... "Why not?". Why not take advantage of it? Lol... Sep 23 06 10:34 am Link A little photoshopping on an image is fine (correcting acne, lighting, a touch of blurriness). But now a days, there are so many images that rely strictly on photoshop, it's at times getting outrageous. As an example, there have been photographers on Rueters that the images were pulled, and they were fired because they did photoshopping on the images "that could not have been done in a darkroom" to make the image more dramatic (darkening and or adding more smoke to war images). What annoys me though, is when the model (I don't do commercial work) see's the image and then asks for me to use photoshop to change the shape of her nose, or to make her leg look thinner. I'm not a plastic surgeon! Sep 23 06 10:34 am Link ravens laughter wrote: Sep 23 06 10:35 am Link I think the comment was even more extreme than that. Not just saying that anyone that uses PS is not a GOOD photographer but that anyone that uses PS is NOT a photographer at all. Ridiculous. Photoshop is a tool just like the darkroom. These people that refuse to use it because of ethics are simply martyrs or unable to use it. I wonder how these people handle being hired for a shoot and turning the "perfect" photo over to an Art Director who then "alters" the image to fit their needs? Thumb through Communication Arts magazine and note all the individuals that are involved with a photo - Photographer, Art Director/Creative Director, Design Director, Senior Picture Editor, Client, etc. They all have input into the final product. The same elitist mentality arose when digital first came out. No "real" photographer would use anything but film. Absurd. Sep 23 06 10:36 am Link Ken Long wrote: I just had a fabulous model ask me to maker her boobs smaller.... Sep 23 06 10:38 am Link ravens laughter wrote: No it only means that you are dedicated and that you are willing to put effort and time into your work Sep 23 06 10:39 am Link Ken Long wrote: Any gratuitous editorialization, regardless of the technique used, is unethical for photojournalistic purposes (as would be the case of, say, asking a bunch of kids to pose smiling over the body of a dead soldier, or what-have-you). The danger of course in such instances is that with this sort of technology, it's much easier for someone involved in the process (photographer, editor, etc) to significantly editorialize in a believable manner, and who would know? It's not the technology's fault. It just provides temptation to abuse. Sep 23 06 10:39 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Agreed. I should have specified Commercial photography in my comments. Photojournalism is a reporting of the scene as it exists and PS should not be employed for ethical purposes. However, I think the initial comment was referring to photographers on MM, most likely photographing models and/or more commercial purposes. I personally like to add smoke and carnage to all my model portfolio work Sep 23 06 10:43 am Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: And I was one of those stubborn ones. I said it (I know, I know... Smack me! Lol...). I wouldn't/didn't give up film for digital until I was forced to. I ask myself now, why the hell I waited so long. Lol... Sep 23 06 10:44 am Link yeah rossi I was the same way.... in the old days i would find the most out of date film I could, and use the campus darkroom to distress and do all sorts of collage and double triple exposure thingies. Most of my work back then looked similar in scope to what I do now. It's true that a photographer has the right to edit his/her work when they see fit; however I don't enjoy the suggestion made from others that people who use photoshop (or other editing programs) only do so to cover mistakes that they have made. As if my use of photoshop is my confession that i don't know how to light, or crop, or compose... Sep 23 06 10:51 am Link Nothing wrong with Photoshop, what is wrong is when it's abused. If you can't take a great pic w/o photoshop what makes you think Photoshop will help you do so? Sep 23 06 11:00 am Link I don't need no stinkin photoshop. My kodak disc camera does it all. Sep 23 06 11:03 am Link I prefer disposable cameras. My 30D has too much dust in it from taking it to beaches on the mississippi. Sep 23 06 11:12 am Link among the many requests i get that ask me to delete all my images i will find the occasional request to remove hair from someone's face, or otherwise alter an image.. sometimes these requests are okay and i try them (actually only when ched or someone with his eye or better has said try it).. hair in face is wind, if it's a shoot at the beach, then there's a breeze, then wind blows hair, i don't go for the sanitized look.. the model poses, the photographer takes a picture, the wind blows, the model and the photographer did a good job not being distracted by the elements, and leaving the windblown hair means you were doing a good job.. if it's the coolest picture in my mind, then wtf, taking 75 pictures of one pose til the wind stops is bs if you are sending your portfolio around and all they see is airbrushed stuff, then they don't know if you are a good photographer or a good model photographers have to be concerned with all the equipment, for a model her equipment is her face, and her care for the equipment should be a rudimentary knowlegde of make-up go online, read about make-up (ie what more do you have to do to regular make-up to make it work for a photographer), learn to do your own... have a make-up kit with you at all times just like photographers have back-up cameras so if there is no mua you aren't screwed, also you want to be in control of how you look and if you are relying on a photographers photoshop skills to make you look better you might wind up looking like raggedy ann doing a lap dance.. you should be able to cover a pimple, the attitude that photographers can go into photoshop and remove blemishes and bra straps is a little selfish, as a matter of fact, be prepared to do what the photographer says, if he says "i dont want to see underwear", then you have to dress acordingly, you can't show up dressed the way you want and expect the photographer to edit out what he already asked to to not do.. i guess that i am a photo-journalist at heart, i like the moment, and whatever is given to me to be the moment that i am recording i have to do right by that moment, doing a lot of photoshop don't seem right in fact, look at the photoshop by mm artists thread some time, people play with different effects, make pictures 'artistic', that's more what photoshop is for, not making crappy pictures look good if you need better pictures use the browse function to find a photographer near you, and ask for a tfcd shoot, then get ready for it, get your make-up and wardrobe together, tell him what you want, ask him what he wants, maybe 1 hour him, 1 hour you, back and forth for 4 hours.. tfcd is practice for the real thing, not just pouting so you can put something on a myspace page..  jees louise i'm full of crap this morning Sep 23 06 11:19 am Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: you have to really hate it when the chipper jams.... Sep 23 06 11:29 am Link RRCPhoto wrote: Actually there is some cases you must use photoshop. for instance double exposures. Sep 23 06 11:33 am Link Koray wrote: Two great minds with but a single thought! Sep 23 06 11:34 am Link One thing I wonder is just how many images on this site and OMP would be significantly improved if PS no longer had the "gaussian blur" function. God, how many terrible-looking images overplay that filter! Sep 23 06 11:42 am Link I'm all for anybody doing whatever they want to their images. Saying that a photograph is no longer a photograph when its gone through photoshop is naive at best and ludicrous at worst. There's also the fact that a lot of photographers use photoshop to differentiate their work. By developing a unique style based on toning, etc., they are able to compete in the market more ably then if their work looked like everybody else's. It would get pretty boring if everybody were to shoot and print the same. And as others have said before, there most likely hasn't been an image printed in the last 50 years that hasn't been retouched in one way or another. Sep 23 06 11:44 am Link I usually use photoshop the same way I used film color machines, adjustment layers, levels, color correction and b&w conversion filters. If I have to fix more than a few blemishes and my model starts looking like clone person, it makes me very unhappy. However I do a lot of time exposure and light painting, and those NEED to be shot in RAW. Sep 23 06 11:46 am Link i kinda think its about people who oppose change because they're comfortable with what they know. Sep 23 06 11:47 am Link Ravens I'm with you totally. To put an image out there that's not the best it could be, purely for "purity"'s sake, makes no sense to me. I've responded before to the people proudly saying "no Photoshop!" with, "well, you should have". I "rescue" a ton of my images in Photshop. It's just a fact of life for me. But, at the end of the day, if my stuff looks better than someone who indignantly refuses to edit, then isn't that a good thing? I don't think anyone's ever seen a client look at a photo and say, "sure, it looks like shit, but at least they didn't use photoshop" Sep 23 06 11:52 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Are you being facetious here? Because I would like to say that it's refreshing to hear that there's someone else who isn't some acolyte in his flock. While I'll admit he's talented at what he does, his style doesn't even remotely influence what I do. Honestly, when I first heard his name here I thought "Isn't that the I'm-Rick-James-bitch guy?" but that's neither here nor there... Sep 23 06 12:01 pm Link |
