Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
Photography is finally growing up. Photoshop is a phenomenal tool that is re-defining the art. I think I understand why some criticise its use, but using photoshop does not reduce the value of the image.
I think that some people think that photos are real. They are not. We choose a location, point of view, a moment in time; Then we crop, dodge, burn and airbrush. The model only looks that skinny and beautiful at that moment. A photograph is no more or less "real" than a Salvador Dali painting
If you don't like Photoshop, fine; but don't criticise those who do.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
Photography is finally growing up. Photoshop is a phenomenal tool that is re-defining the art. I think I understand why some criticise its use, but using photoshop does not reduce the value of the image.
I think that some people think that photos are real. They are not. We choose a location, point of view, a moment in time; Then we crop, dodge, burn and airbrush. The model only looks that skinny and beautiful at that moment. A photograph is no more or less "real" than a Salvador Dali painting
If you don't like Photoshop, fine; but don't criticise those who do. Leftovers? Again?
Photographer
Craig Seay
Posts: 8606
Nashville, Tennessee, US
I know, I keep reading "straight out of the camera, no photoshop here" like that makes it a better image or something. I PS the hell out of everything I do and I haven't heard the first complaint. How many people can say they hate the work of Michael Rosen of Chicago or MAX V, just to name a few~? Photoshop is a Godsend to all the artists who know that the camera is strictly a recording device and does not have a soul.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Craig Seay Artistry wrote:
the camera is strictly a recording device and does not have a soul. Ah! So the computer has the soul! Captain Kirk was wrong all this time! Who knew?
Photographer
Visions Of Paradise
Posts: 379
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
It's not that we do not like it, Hell i have it on my macbook pro. But we as photographers the real ones don't like to rely on it to save us from mistakes that should not have been done in the first place. What i mean is too many people out there just push a button and say i am a pro photographer all the while someone else fixes thier image through photoshop so that they look like gods behind the camera. And do not tell anyone that they had to have thier work fixed. That is what people do not like not the program just the way it is misused......
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
I think the difference for some people , is the fact that in some images you can tell, when you're not supposed to be able to tell ... some people "over photoshop"... some people dont know how to use it ... or drop in backgrounds with shadows running in all directions and try pass it off as a photo...
If the technique and overall final image is bad ... it makes photoshop the easy thing to point the finger at ...
I do have a passion for prints from film, I dont even know why they just feel different, but digital and ps has it's place too.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Craig Seay Artistry wrote:
How many people can say they hate the work of Michael Rosen of Chicago I wouldn't say I hate it, since it is nicely crafted for what it is. But I do not believe it appropriate for many uses, and to my taste the Photoshop work is considerably overdone on many of his pictures.
That's not to say there isn't a place for it - many people just love that kind of thing.
Model
Valerie daiquiri
Posts: 6
Milan, Georgia, US
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell and Paris Hilton would be ripped into pieces in the magazine.
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
Valeri daiquiri wrote:
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell and Paris Hilton would be ripped into pieces in the magazine. Paris hilton is used to getting ripped to peices ....its her gimmick.
Photographer
Gary Blanchette
Posts: 5137
Irvine, California, US
To each his own... I personally love Photoshop.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Valeri daiquiri wrote:
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell and Paris Hilton would be ripped into pieces in the magazine. Not if I photographed them. I can work with anybody. All they have to do is show up and I'll take care of the rest.
The idea that extensive retouching/photoshopping is needed to make someone look good is a myth perpetuated by people who can't get it in the camera. I have nothing against photoshop, but I do take pride in being able to take or leave it as i see fit.
Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
Photoshop is definitely overdone. Many photographs created in the darkroom are crap. Most movies, books, music are crap.
The problem is, the more you learn and experience in photography the higher your standards are. I find myself searching for really good images.
Maybe its why i search portfolios on ModelMayhem - to find one more really great photo. But I don't really care if it is traditional or digital image. Photography has evolved beyound its adolescense of being a purely documentary art form.
Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
CareLyn Anita wrote:
I think the difference for some people , is the fact that in some images you can tell, when you're not supposed to be able to tell ... some people "over photoshop"... some people dont know how to use it ... or drop in backgrounds with shadows running in all directions and try pass it off as a photo...
If the technique and overall final image is bad ... it makes photoshop the easy thing to point the finger at ...
I do have a passion for prints from film, I dont even know why they just feel different, but digital and ps has it's place too. But to criticise Photoshop for bad photographs is like criticising the hammer for a ugly house.
Photographer
Marty Lowman
Posts: 61
Windsor, California, US
As long as there have been photographers, photographers have manipulated the images they produced. Ansel Adams compared making a prints to performing a piece of music - the negative was the score the print the peformace.
After spending years in a darkroom manipulating prints through dodging, burning, adjusting contrast, and making color corrections, I really appreciate the ease with which I can achieve the same result, or better with photoshop. It's all about the final image. Some images need more photoshop than others to achieve the desired end result.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
Photography has evolved beyound its adolescense of being a purely documentary art form. You're absolutely right, but this event took place a long time before there was Photoshop.
Photographer
David Zanes
Posts: 4
New York, New York, US
I for one am proud of what I do with the camera. I use older teck ideas like double exposure and time exposure and such. I do use photoshop to clean up images and spot bnut thats about it.
I agree, there is nothing worse than a person who calls themselves a Photographer when there images are nothing but photoshop.
Image makers? Yes
Photographers, No
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
A little truth...
not far from my house id a giant billboard, the ad is for a major radio station ,
2 dj's with the worst facial expressions , a really crappy drop in of the sky line , and really horrible fonts all over ... the city looks almost pixelated ... the guys wereshot horribly and retouched even worse...
some one made money on that ... and that is a crime.
I do feel that alot of people let things slide or get lazy due to photoshop though...
I know I occasionally have.
Photographer
Craig Seay
Posts: 8606
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Ah! So the computer has the soul! Captain Kirk was wrong all this time! Who knew? The pen and pencil, brush, paint and canvas are all soul-less too but like the camera and Photoshop they are tools of the creative artist who has a soul, duh... 
I agree that photoshop looks no better if it's misused than some of the paintings I've seen hanging on the wall at the local gallery but I won't fault the paint and canvas for that.
Photographer
Hadyn Lassiter
Posts: 2898
New Haven, Connecticut, US
It' a tool and like any other if used incorrectly it can create a problem. I also like a print from a well exposed/developed neg printed on Fibre paper over a digital print. They just seem to have depth to them that I have not seen in digital prints.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
But to criticise Photoshop for bad photographs is like criticising the hammer for a ugly house. Whenever I see an over-shopped image, I make sure to blame the inept boob who mishandled the job.
I'm getting the feeling that someone has been personally knocking your PS skills...Is that what brought this on?
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
David Zanes wrote:
I agree, there is nothing worse than a person who calls themselves a Photographer when there images are nothing but photoshop. I can't stand the so-called "photographers" who don't even know how to coat their own platinum emulsions, and who use machine-made film instead of sensitizing their own glass plates. I don't see how they can claim they control their process, since they just use whatever chemistry Kodak is smearing on a piece of acetate.
And all these sissy cameras with autofocus! How can someone call themselves a "photographer" if they let a computer focus for them!? It's shameful. Real photographers can compute exposure times simply by eyeballing the lighting ratios in a scene, but I've seen kids these days use these cameras with built-in exposure meters. If that's not "cheating" I don't know what is!
Don't even get me started on roll film! What an abomination! How can you possibly roll up film and then ever think it's flat afterward!
mjr.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Don't even get me started on roll film! What an abomination! How can you possibly roll up film and then ever think it's flat afterward!
mjr. Why do you think I use all those plastic cameras? When it's you and a Diana, either you can shoot it or you can't.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
I basically agree -- there are many different styles and approaches to photography, we all have our preferences, just as some of us like some kinds of music, others can't stand it. Photoshop, badly used, produces crappy pictures. Pictures straight out of the camera, if shot by a poor photographer, can be crappy too. There are lots of ways to get to the final product -- in the end, the only thing that counts is the picture, not how you got there. Regards, Paul MegaHertz Studios wrote:
Photography is finally growing up. Photoshop is a phenomenal tool that is re-defining the art. I think I understand why some criticise its use, but using photoshop does not reduce the value of the image.
I think that some people think that photos are real. They are not. We choose a location, point of view, a moment in time; Then we crop, dodge, burn and airbrush. The model only looks that skinny and beautiful at that moment. A photograph is no more or less "real" than a Salvador Dali painting
If you don't like Photoshop, fine; but don't criticise those who do.
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
It' a tool and like any other if used incorrectly it can create a problem. I also like a print from a well exposed/developed neg printed on Fibre paper over a digital print. They just seem to have depth to them that I have not seen in digital prints. Yes Hadyn I agree .
It's almost more sacred as well in several manners.
I miss proof sheets and trading for prints. Real prints on paper , even if they were from digital at this point i would be happy.
One day it will all be holographic and people will miss digital images as well ...
Can you imagine?
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
A photograph is no more or less "real" than a Salvador Dali painting Yeah, really. Last time I looked at a model I noticed that she was 3-dimensional and sort of pinkish colored. But my photographs are black-and-white and in 2 dimensions. So there's some pretty serious post-processing going on somewhere in there; I just havent figured out what "filter" my camera uses to make her all flat and grey like that. Must be my camera has an embedded copy of photoshop in it?
mjr.
Photographer
Yerkes Photography
Posts: 459
Kingston, New York, US
Craig Seay Artistry wrote:
Photoshop is a Godsend to all the artists who know that the camera is strictly a recording device and does not have a soul. do you call yourself a photographer , or an artist ?
the problem is , because of photoshop , you can no longer tell where the artisits skills are ..... in the camera , or on the computer .... if your skills are in the computer , you are an artist .... if your skills are with the camera , you are a photographer ....
its all in the terms you use ....
i have no problem with art at alll , no matter how it was created .... i have a problem with someone who doesnt know how to manualy use a camera , but is a photoshop master .... and they bill themselves as a photographer ....
example ... if i go out a take a picture of your dog fido .... go back to my studio and paint that photo on to a 20X30 canvas ... changing and manipulating to my eye .... and come back to you and sell it to you , tell you its a photograph ... you will laugh at me ... right?
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Yerkes Photography wrote:
if your skills are with the camera , you are a photographer .... Bah, you're not a real photographer unless you've built your own camera and ground your own optics. Otherwise you're leaving the "interpretation" of the image up to the guys at Zeiss or whoever you bought the lens from.
Listen up, being a purist in a creative field is silly. Someone can always be more "hardcore" than you and crap down upon your head for cutting corners. Thus it's not a good idea to rain crap down upon other people's heads, yourself.
I've gotta run; I've got a batch of ferrous oxide and sulfuric acid on the stove downstairs that I need to stir. Store-bought fixer "mix" is for wimps! 
mjr.
Photographer
David Birdsong
Posts: 1789
Pontiac, Michigan, US
Photoshop is to most of us what the darkroom was to Ansel Adams..
If you were to give his negative to most people the print would look like a snapshot, but in the hands of the master, art was created...
Photographer
4C 41 42
Posts: 11093
Nashville, Tennessee, US
I just wish it didn't use up so much memory. When I bought my computer I thought 2gig RAM would be enough, but get an image with 9 or 10 layers going, and it starts thrashing the HD. Dammit.
Photographer
digital Artform
Posts: 49326
Los Angeles, California, US
They hate it for its Freedom
Digital Artist
Koray
Posts: 6720
Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Whenever I see an over-shopped image, I make sure to blame the inept boob who mishandled the job.
I'm getting the feeling that someone has been personally knocking your PS skills...Is that what brought this on? No, No, no ... well maybe a little. Someone said one of my faces was too smooth. Oh well, I got over it.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Bah, you're not a real photographer unless you've built your own camera and ground your own optics. Actualy my senior project was to build a working camera from scratch. It didn't have an actual lens, but I made several brass pinhole plates for various film speeds both indoor and outdoor. I took one of my more popular images with it:
[not a work-safe link]
http://www.erocrush.com/nude_update_5-06/muscles.jpg
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
No, No, no ... well maybe a little. Someone said one of my faces was too smooth. Oh well, I got over it. see that's the difference... not that its bad , you can just tell... kinda like teling a fake flower from a real one .... isn't that poetic.
Model
Mz Machina
Posts: 1754
Chicago, Illinois, US
Yerkes Photography wrote:
do you call yourself a photographer , or an artist ?
the problem is , because of photoshop , you can no longer tell where the artisits skills are ..... in the camera , or on the computer .... if your skills are in the computer , you are an artist .... if your skills are with the camera , you are a photographer ....
its all in the terms you use ....
i have no problem with art at alll , no matter how it was created .... i have a problem with someone who doesnt know how to manualy use a camera , but is a photoshop master .... and they bill themselves as a photographer ....
example ... if i go out a take a picture of your dog fido .... go back to my studio and paint that photo on to a 20X30 canvas ... changing and manipulating to my eye .... and come back to you and sell it to you , tell you its a photograph ... you will laugh at me ... right? Yes i would , I would say you mean it is from a photograph....
Also , i think Ansel was a fantastic photographer with a very strong grasp on his visions and how to make them happen in a dark room ... he knew the limitations of reality and how to manipulte that reality technically.... it takes a little bit of fore thought to do that....it also is an art.
Photographer
Yerkes Photography
Posts: 459
Kingston, New York, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Bah, you're not a real photographer unless you've built your own camera and ground your own optics. Otherwise you're leaving the "interpretation" of the image up to the guys at Zeiss or whoever you bought the lens from.
Listen up, being a purist in a creative field is silly. Someone can always be more "hardcore" than you and crap down upon your head for cutting corners. Thus it's not a good idea to rain crap down upon other people's heads, yourself.
I've gotta run; I've got a batch of ferrous oxide and sulfuric acid on the stove downstairs that I need to stir. Store-bought fixer "mix" is for wimps!
mjr. youre just being silly now ....
Photographer
RED Photographic
Posts: 1458
Most of my stuff gets worked on in some way. I tend to regard my work as art, and refer to the images as pictures rather than photographs, because there is so little of the original photograph remaining and so much that I have altered in some way.
Photographer
Tracy L Province
Posts: 57
Omaha, Arkansas, US
I have very mixed feelings on the whole Photoshop or no Photoshop thing. I have tried very hard to get away from using it as much as I used to, and have been very pleased with the results. However, because I shoot with a Nikon...of course I have to do my black and white conversion in Photoshop. Can't avoid it there. I suppose you could say, "why don't you shoot film?" I used to shoot all my black and whites in film, but that was just way to expensive for my budget (what with supporting 3 stepkids and a husband still in college.) I've had many a comment on my music photography saying I photoshop everything, and how wrong they are...I have learned how to manipulate my camera to make the image what it is in the end. A good friend of mine pointed out (and I think I mentioned this in another thread) that if you capture the image with a digital medium, why would you not process it in a digital darkroom? She has a very good point. I am neither "for" photoshop or "against" it. I think every photographer is an artist, and seeing how art is a very subjective thing, what tools they choose to use is really up to them. We should neither praise them or criticize them for producing work that makes them happy.
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Craig Seay Artistry wrote:
I know, I keep reading "straight out of the camera, no photoshop here" like that makes it a better image or something. I PS the hell out of everything I do and I haven't heard the first complaint. How many people can say they hate the work of Michael Rosen of Chicago or MAX V, just to name a few~? Photoshop is a Godsend to all the artists who know that the camera is strictly a recording device and does not have a soul. When I hear people say that, I figure they drive F250s or Hummers or something else that shows how big their...camera is.
What they're trying to say is that their only understanding of Photoshop is that it is used to correct bad images and they are such phenomenal photographers that they get it right without that.
Truth is, all shots are processed one way or another. Photoshop just changes how the processing is done and how long one might spend on it. Even running film and then prints through chemicals obviously impacts how the final image appears. Digital cameras, whatever program you use to print and the printer to which you print all alter the bits of data, as well. Photoshop just allows you to have more input into that process.
Ansel Adams, Annie Liebowitz, Avedon and various other photographers didn't become famous by taking whatever they got "straight from the camera." Most of them -- Adams, in particular, from what I know -- had quite a bit of skill and knowledge about how to process what was "in the camera."
So all the folks bragging about their big...cameras...are really just bragging about their lack of input into the process. I could never take pride, as they appear to, in accidentally getting a good image through lack of controlling the processing.
-- rick
EDIT: And, by the way, most of those phenomenal photographers also "process" their work to get those stupendous photos "straight from the camera" by taking hundreds of others that they then throw away so no one can see them.
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Yerkes Photography wrote:
youre just being silly now .... No, I'm making fun of you. It's a whole different vibe. I'm trying to illustrate how ridiculous what you're saying really is.
It's nothing personal, by the way. It's not as if you're the first or the last person to hold these views. But that makes them no less ridiculous.
I see lots of people try to define "photography" as real photographers and digital artists or whatever - but fundamentally it just boils down to nothing more than "real photography is what I do" and everyone else just doesn't get it. The truth is that if you want to look down on someone else for not doing things the way you do, there's always a higher mountain that looks down upon yours, as well.
mjr.
|
