Beach Photography wrote:
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"

Perhaps the "no photoshop" purists are just the opposite side of the coin of the GWC's that make horrid mistakes and call it art..... "oh yeah I ment for that shadow to be over just half her face..... shit"

We all make excuses for our ignorance to some extent; but continuing in your ignorance for prides sake only is just pure foolishness.

RPSphotos wrote:
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.

This is absolute nonsense.

I've been shooting for 30 years.  The first tools available in Photoshop, such as retouching and airbrushing, have been available to photographers and art directors for decades.  I was dodging, burning, spotting, bleaching, toning, and cropping photos for decades before photoshop came out.

When it did, I was happy.  It was possible to scan in a photo, modify it once in Photoshop 1.0, and then print as I pleased.  When good digital backs came along, shear heaven.  This old photographer could box up the darkroom - and no longer polute the world with fixer.

Later additions such as anti-speckal, dusting, solarization, and all the other features added on created two groups of photographers:

1)  Those who use photoshop to acheive a desired effect, to overcome specific deficiencies at the site that could not be addressed within reason or budget (unwanted objects, etc), or to mask imperfections in the model or subject;

2)  Those who use photoshop to attempt to compensate for bad technique, or a simple lack of talent.

People who hate photoshop come in two basic groups:

1)  Those who can't use it through laziness, inability to keep up, or lack of talent with the digital age;

2)  Those who won't use it because they have a style, and they insist it is the only way to produce a photograph.

Photoshop is unacceptable in certain circumstances, such as legal photography; and it has limited use in journalism (dodging, burning, spotting and cropping.)  But even excessive use of these tools has come under fire from journalism groups.

In the end, it is the what, why, and how well the photo acheives the photographer's vision that is important.  Not the use of any given tool.

ravens laughter wrote:
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.

I disagree with your logic on this. The ax and the chainsaw both cut down the tree. That would be more of film vs. digital. Photoshop is an after the fact processing, so that would be more of film user asking the lab to print with no color or exposure correction.

I have leaned both ways on the PS issue. I agree that a temporary issue (acne, stray cigarette butt, etc but NOT tattoos) or some color correction is a good thing. But I've also seen a photog advertise model portfolios "all photoshopped and ready to show" to the agency where he would alter the appearance of the models. This isn't what I would want my name on if the model were showing it to an agent, since the viewer is likely to ask how current the images are and who took them.

Photoshop (and other image editing programs) are a great addition to graphic art, and I am quite addicted to using it vs PageMaker or CorelDraw for complete page creation, but I think that photos that have been altered beyond darkroom corrections are not the same. Yeah, they are both still images, but one's the true story, the other is the Hollywood version.

Marc
UCPhotog

Photos by Gary wrote:
I've noticed that there is a certain eletist attitude with some photographers. Recently I was at an art fair in pontiac and everyone of the photographers there had a litle card describing how they created the shot and everyone of them said "no photoshop used". The couple I talked to about it really looked down on the idea of using ps at all. 

I guess the question that really needs to be answered is which is more important,  the process to create the image or the image it self. For myself its and most commercial work its the image that matters most. But for some its the creation of the image that's more important. If the later better fits your prefferences then you probably don't like using ps because it does tend to automate the process and takes away allot of the hands on feel.  Plus there is an attitude
In the general public that anything created by hand is better, so anything created using ps is some how less creative than a image created using older methods.

My $.02

Now that is what i am talking about GOOD FORM............................. A true artist can create from his heart and soul and not depend on nothing else but his skill. And that is how it should be. How the F**K are you going to learn anything if all you are going to do is say well i don't like the way this came out. Ohh graphic designer please make me look like god..........

MMDesign wrote:
I never realized they spoke a different language in Hawaii.

Apparently so.....

RRCPhoto wrote:

Apparently so.....

So now the idiots are grammer majors wow nice glad to see we went to school to dis people your mom must be proud of you. All that schooling for nothing yay for you....

Axlf wrote:
Yea it's called pidgen not to shabby lol but seriously and here we go again. If you pick up a camera and push the button are you a photographer i really do not think so and nor dose the industry. So why do it it's an outright LIE.............. And then hand the work to a graphic artist to save you and make you look good. Gee the work is not yours at that point well in a matter of speaking so stop the LIES or grt out of shooting simple but don't lie to people WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

So you're stating as a fact that you don't use any digital manipulation or any creative manipulation in your photographs?

If you're shooting film, then what I include in this is any manipulation that occurs by double exposure (which for digital must occur in PS), nor any darkroom manipulation.

Mark Heaps wrote:
in most of my experiences, teaching photoshop, it's because people want to be proud of their images and in many cases photographers see Photoshop as a band aid, or an accessorizing tool.

it's sort of lame really, but it depends if you're one of those guys who is a purist or not.  Da Vinci and many great artists quested for new techniques and tools to grow their abilities and then applied them tastefully to any media they worked in.  Being an artist is a mindset, and position of character, with a certain approach to execution or delivery from thought in my eyes.

If Photoshop helps you deliver it, than great, if you know a way to do it with 40 lights, an old hasselblad, a big warehouse and a crew of 10, than great.  Either way, realize your vision and don't judge those who do it in a way you're not comfortable with...that's my 2¢.

Good two cents.

Photoshop and related software is a tool of the digital photographer, just as having your own darkroom was a tool for Ansel Adams.  According to some in here, he was nothing but a hack.

Axlf wrote:
WHY tou ask well it's simple if you are a real photographer you do not need to use it. If you are a monkey you do simple..........

I know this has to be a joke.

Axlf wrote:

So now the idiots are grammer majors wow nice glad to see we went to school to dis people your mom must be proud of you. All that schooling for nothing yay for you....

I'm interested in why you're so confrontational from the start. And also, if you plan on making arguments, they'll be taken more seriously if they can be understood.

Axlf wrote:

Now that is what i am talking about GOOD FORM............................. A true artist can create from his heart and soul and not depend on nothing else but his skill. And that is how it should be. How the F**K are you going to learn anything if all you are going to do is say well i don't like the way this came out. Ohh graphic designer please make me look like god..........

I think there's a whole industry out there that would resent your implication that photoshop isn't a skill.  I've spent almost as many years learning and perfecting my craft in digital imaging and production arts as I have in photography.  To imply that it's not a skill is just ignorant to what it takes to hold that skill.  I generally find that people who are so aggressively against something have never truly endured the efforts to learn in themselves.  The people I respect the most are the ones who you can see know how to use a tool, but it's never obvious they do.

In this same topic or breath of this topic...it's very, very, similar to the film vs. digital debate...if you knew how to use your camera, than why would you want to look at picture right after you took it? 

Maybe time, money, efficieny...just a few of the logical reasons.

Koray wrote:
some just dont know how to

I'm one of them and learning ;-)

Axlf wrote:
And the double exposure image on my port is from a mamiya RB67 not PS so do not take that tone with me monkey ill outshoot you any day of the week......

In the digital world, since apparently you don't understand this concept nor the english language - there is no such thing as a double exposure.  So the only way to effect that look is via digital layering of the two images, exactly what occurs on film So thus, you did nothing but prove our point.  To duplicate some effects that you can do on film, you must use digital post processing.

Axlf wrote:
like is said if published then fine but more and more so called photographers just push the button and then hand it off to the next person like a line. no body learns nothing from this LAZY and basic color and contrast dose not constitue anything. But to have 20%and up of your work changed is stupid why take the shot at all if you have no idea of what you are doing. Learn how to  get the end result yourself or don't do it at all idiots thats how i had to learn. I do not use nobody on my shoots nor do i give my work to a graphic designer. And the double exposure image on my port is from a mamiya RB67 not PS so do not take that tone with me monkey ill outshoot you any day of the week......

I agree with elements of your debate...although your tone and hostility is a little detouring.  I'll push through though...

I agree some people rely on the program, and hopefully with maturity and experience they'll grow to know how to shoot better because repairing at the computer can be monotonous and time consuming and I'd much rather set it up correctly out on site or in the studio because that's more interactive and enjoyable.

But I continue the diversion...I have shot many events...one recently with one of hte biggest pro's in our area.  Now then, at the end of the night...5 hours,...he said..."how many shots did you get?"  My response...around 400, and after downloading them roughly 80% are really good useable shots.  I returned the question.."how many...?"  he said...."4000!"

Total quantity shooter...push trigger and basically video the event at x fps.  This is another example of people not necessarily using the craft appropriately.  But I think no less of him, he has a very succesfull studio that has succeeded the area for 17 years...has huge clients and is very well respected.  He just found what works..."for him".  And he doesn't even post process...he does indeed hand it off...doesn't make him a bad guy or any less of an artist in my eyes.  I call him a gallery shooter...instead of seeing what he likes first...he captures large amounts of a moment, than wanders teh gallery and picks his favorite and most artistically applicable piece.  Very wrong in some people's eyes...but hey, he drives a nice car and is very well published and purchased...most importantly he's the happiest guy I've ever met.

FitDistMedia wrote:

I'm one of them and learning ;-)

and at least your willing to...guaranteed you'll go through the same phases as everyone...it's a learning curve...but enjoy the "fun-ness" of it all.

RRCPhoto wrote:

Actually there is some cases you must use photoshop.  for instance double exposures.

you dont like double exposures the old fashioned way??.. shoot the roll you want as the back ground, reshoot over it, use a manual camera and hold the pin while rewinding..

those are fun

Webspinner wrote:
Two of the most successful commercial photographers I know, you know, they shoot with Hassy's, digital backs and leaf capture, they both say it is all in the post production. You can have all the elements of goodness in a raw photo, but if you don't know how to control it, you have shit. tell me ansel adams did not spend tons of time doing post production in the darkroom. Digital artists just do the same in photoshop. And like anything else, it is a tool that can be massively misused.

Agreed!

There's the misconception of:

1) photographers that use photoshop to mask issues with their technique. 

..or...

2) photographers that use photoshop to enhance the artistic nature of their work as the masters of the film era enhanced their negatives in the darkroom.

Just because you use photoshop does not mean that you fall into the first category.

Axlf wrote:

So now the idiots are grammer majors wow nice glad to see we went to school to dis people your mom must be proud of you. All that schooling for nothing yay for you....

"Grammar" is 'AR', not 'ER'.

RPSphotos wrote:
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.

We mock that which we do not understand.  Daguerreotypes, collodion, gelatine, film, and now Digital are all evolutions of the photographic process.  Photoshop is one tool that enables current photographers to effectively bridge problems of the previous format.  A purist mentality adherence to the neveaux makes about as much sense as any of the transional periods of methodology remaining stuck in the style and technique of that time.  At one time all math was done on fingers, then paper, then calculators, and finally computers.  I dont see very many scientist counting on their fingers today to remain loyal to a generation that simply is archaic and inefficient.  What is the difference if the time spent moving a table from the original image had been done pre-shoot versus post shoot?  In the end the people looking at the images dont know or care about the process.  They just know what they see and like.  BTW I have some great 8 tracks for sale for some of the old school guys!  LOL!
G

Patrick Alt wrote:
Well, apparently everyone here is in the Photoshop fan club and has little room for anyone who chooses to think otherwise. The incredibly insulting and patronizing tone against those of us who choose not to use this program hardly bears any response. There are many of us who know Photoshop, are aware if its infinite possibilities, but choose to create images in a more traditional manner. There is also the reality that those who work in a traditional manner have usually mastered the craft of the fine art print to such a degree that no further corrections are required. It is possible to do this, I do it every time I work as do most of my colleagues. For us to sit in front of a computer to "fix" what should have been done with a more careful command of craft is ridiculous. Garbage in, garbage out.

*yawn* so you can manipulate the negative in the darkroom.  You take a 35mm roll to get developed they automatically correct correct and enhance.  What's the difference?  You're arguing points you haven't really thought out here.

Patrick Alt wrote:
If your definition of photography is the making of images to sell a product, then Photoshop is surely justified and is indeed necessary. But great images have been and will continue to be made with traditional methods without any pixels involved.

I don't recall this being a film versus digital discussion - did I miss the OP'ers first post?

Patrick Alt wrote:
Lastly, the argument that Photoshop is just a tool. Wrong. Photoshop is a technology. It has been the history of art that each new technology means the further death of craft. I plan to keep my 19th century commitment to craft as long as I live. And I will still put my prints up against anything done with Photoshop. I may be a dinosaur, but at least I'm a T. Rex. :-).

Again, you're not really stating a really good point here, with the exception of your dislike for digital versus film.