Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
I love PhotoShop....
I also love when my image comes straight out of the camera perfectly.....
PhotoShop is just another filter in my bag....no more no less.
BTW...I'm also a graphic artist....and for that....nothing else will do....except maybe Illustrator....
Digital Artist
Koray
Posts: 6720
Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
So Shoot Me! wrote:
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 Actually, I brag about my little cameras. My little plastic and bakelite cameras. My current favorites are my Agfa Clack 6 x 9 [circa 1954] and my Spartus Full-Vue [circa 1949]. Of course when I want to go hi-tech, I break out my twin Canonet 28 rangefinders [circa 1960].
They're not big, but I do brag about them.
Uh, excuse me...what was the question?
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Actualy my senior project was to build a working camera from scratch. 
I built a Bender 8x10 and did a bunch of exposures using liquid light on mat board with a lens mounted on it that I cannibalized from an old overhead projector. The results were - unspeakably bad. But I wasn't being a proper purist - I built the camera from a kit, rather than growing and cutting my own cherry tree and making my own silk and slaughtering a lamb to make the bellows out of. I know I was cutting corners but, well, we can't all be perfect artists, can we?
mjr.
Photographer
gwphoto
Posts: 274
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
If you don't like Photoshop, fine; but don't criticise those who do. Has nothing to do with disliking photoshop or it's makers, nor any general re touching, what you will find most people disliking is....
People who use it as a crutch to fix images that will always be broken or crap....
People who as models only use full on retouched images and will not ever supply just plain straight shots that show skin and form as it is. Or those that think you should re touch everything.
I doubt many people really give that much energy worrying, I do not care generally, as long as people do not expect me to retouch everything cause they want to be lazy or no longer pay attention to any detail. As soon as a model says....do not worry, you can fix it in photoshop...I know they are lazy and have no regard for my time at all.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I built a Bender 8x10 and did a bunch of exposures using liquid light on mat board with a lens mounted on it that I cannibalized from an old overhead projector. The results were - unspeakably bad. But I wasn't being a proper purist - I built the camera from a kit, rather than growing and cutting my own cherry tree and making my own silk and slaughtering a lamb to make the bellows out of. I know I was cutting corners but, well, we can't all be perfect artists, can we?
mjr. Actually, my first pinhole camera was made out of a "G I Joe" lunchbox that I lightproofed. I still have it around here somewhere, though the cut film frame i soldered into it eventually broke off.
Photographer
Yerkes Photography
Posts: 459
Kingston, New York, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
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. 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. i'm not looking down on anyone ... like i said , art is art .... i would hang somthing completely photoshoped on my wall .... i have no problem with anyone using photoshop ... i have no problem with adobe making photoshop ....
there is a need for photoshop .... because you cant bring digital images into a dark room ... but if you exceed the work that can be done in a darkroom , and keep photoshoping ... youve exceed photograph , and went to digital art ...
my problem is the deception of an artist : #1 no knowing crap about a camera or how it works ... #2 showing a work that is 90% photoshoped and calling it a photograph ... and if 90% of thier portfolio contains these works , calling themselves photographers ...
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Actually, my first pinhole camera was made out of a "G I Joe" lunchbox that I lightproofed. Wimp. If you were a real photographer you'd have made your own lunchbox, too.
mjr.
Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
I started this post partly to explore that any photograph is unreal not just one that has been burned, dodged, airbrushed and photoshopped.
That is one reason I love them. I shoot about 100 to 1. I throw away most of what I shoot.
What I am trying to say is that most people don't like most photos of them. They say the bad, unflattering photos are not a true reflection. The good shot is the real one. The fact is that none of them is "real". A still photo can never really capture someone.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Wimp. If you were a real photographer you'd have made your own lunchbox, too.
mjr. Who said I was a photographer?
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Yerkes Photography wrote:
i'm not looking down on anyone ...
(...)
my problem is the deception of an artist : #1 no knowing crap about a camera or how it works ... #2 showing a work that is 90% photoshoped and calling it a photograph ... and if 90% of thier portfolio contains these works , calling themselves photographers ... What about you trying to be the arbiter of what constitutes an artist "knowing crap" or being a photographer is not looking down on those who don't meet your criteria?
I ask this in all seriousness. Someone who doesn't meet your criteria might feel a little bit - just a tiny little bit - hurt by your feeling they don't know crap or shouldn't call themselves a photographer. No?
mjr.
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Who said I was a photographer? I did, of course. Don't you guys realize that when Talbott died I became the official arbiter of who is a 'real photographer' and who isn't? Did you miss the briefing?
mjr.
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
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. Me thinks someone has studied prior generations of photographers and their reactions to "progress"... ![https://bestsmileys.com/wink/2.gif]()
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
It's just a tool. Some folks like it more than others. Ultimately what is produced is their vision and their responsibility... just like film versus digital. Always a matter of choice.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
A still photo can never really capture someone. Speak for yourself. Both myself and my subjects invest ourselves fully in the work we do. While we use our collaborations to discuss certain specifics of their expreiences, what you see in the resulting images is authentic.
Photographer
Frank McAdam
Posts: 2222
New York, New York, US
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
Photography is finally growing up. That quote pretty much sums up the problem. The statement shows no appreciation of the history of photography and no knowledge of the medium. What this person is really trying to say is that PS allows those who know little or nothing about photography to take pictures on their digital cameras which they can then try to make look good (with mixed results) on their computers.
I have nothing against PS. I began using Photoshop about 12 years ago when the current version was still 3.0. (I now use CS and, incidentally, shoot digital on a Nikon D200). I think PS is a great software program and I'm glad to have it on my computer. It's a useful tool for a photographer, but it's not the only tool, nor is it the best tool to use in certain situations. The reason all the work on my MM port is traditional is not because I don't know how to use PS well; it's because I can get effects in the darkroom I cannot obtain on PS.
The simple truth is that those who rave loudest about PS are those who don't know anything about traditional photography. They couldn't take a pic without full automatic programing on their cameras (how many are even aware that there are manual overrides to those programs?) and couldn't develop a roll of film to save their lives.
Photographer
joe duerr
Posts: 4227
Santa Ana, California, US
I wonder if the same people that criticize those that use PS criticized photographers that touched up their negatives and or prints before digital???
Photographer
Royal Photography
Posts: 2011
Birmingham, Alabama, US
lets face it...in photography, just like in music and sports, there are purists who believe in the traditional funded capital of knowledge of the subject at hand. In photograhy this comes down to three things.....a photographer, a camera and a subject. What can the photographer do? What can the camera do? Put the two together and see what you can create.......With photo shop the thinking is...put the photographer and camera together and see what you can create...then correct later. Alot of us, myself included started in photography in a day and time when you had to shoot it right the first time because there was no photo shop.
I am not against photo shop at all. Use it some myself...but I never say.."Lets shoot it lazy and then correct it later. Which some obviously do.
The thing that gets under the skin of alot of folks it seems are those who use cameras to capture images but attempt to take those images and make great photos out of them with computer help. Those folks are not photographers...those are computer art designers.
My thinking is..shoot it right the first time as though you dont have photo shop to fall back on.......then IF NEEDED...touch it up with it later.
Just my 3 cents
Photographer
Vegas Alien
Posts: 1747
Armington, Illinois, US
I am both a photographer and digital artist. Many of my images in my portfolio are unretouched, as are those I am hired for commercially and all of those I have hanging for exhibition. I know composition, lighting and am well-versed in traditional methods. I use a digital camera now as the traditional process is not practical for me anymore.
While I am able to "get it right" on camera for certain types of work, there are times when it's simply not possible to achieve the images in my head at capture. PS is a tool to help get those visions, expressions of mood, intensity and emotions out of my head. If I chose to limit myself with film cameras, I'm sure I would find other ways to express myself, though I would not have as broad a palette to work with.
Photographer
Malameel
Posts: 1087
Dallas, Texas, US
This arguement is another aspect of stupidity.
I draw, and I have a degree in drawing and painting, and while taking classes I was told I had to use charcoal because it was better. "If it was good enough for Michangelo, then it should be good enough for you." As if he was alive today he would use old technology. (Its like trying to pass off the Mac as a modern computer, J/K!)
The art doesn't change, just the path to get there. Either you can produce the final mage or you can't. Photoshop or the dark room is irrelevent.
M
P.S. For me, I do think I get a better picture because I do more in camera stuff, but that is for my style, and I may not like your style, but I only judge the final image.
Photographer
MegaHertz Studios
Posts: 252
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
As if he was alive today he would use old technology. (Its like trying to pass off the Mac as a modern computer, J/K!)
I am not sure what you mean about the Mac.
Photographer
Daniel Norton
Posts: 1745
New York, 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. you have obviously never used a Leica 
Model
Wellman
Posts: 29
Columbus, Ohio, US
The thing many of my photog friends have complained about Photoshop is they see the photo of the said model and when she/he shows up for their booking they look nothing like the photos. Maybe models that can look great with great photography [without] having to be photo shopped are better for booking. I certainly do not spend hours on a photograph. I sculpt the image when I take it. It is cropped as I take it. Maybe I just spend more time creating my photograph than snapping 10 frames of the same shot with a digital cam and pick the best of the group... Photoshop is a phenomenal program and can create or fix a lot of things, but between today's digital media and Photoshop, it has created many, [many] lazy photographers. I shoot film, I'm proud to shoot film, I don't completely make over my photographs with Photoshop, I'm proud to say it, but on the same hand I don't outwardly disgust those that do.
Photographer
former_mm_user
Posts: 5521
New York, New York, US
Valeri daiquiri wrote:
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell untrue.
paris hilton looks like hell anyway 
Photographer
former_mm_user
Posts: 5521
New York, New York, US
the criticism comes in when people OVERuse photoshop. i mean, come on...is some tasteful restraint too much to ask?
Photographer
Maynard Southern
Posts: 921
Knoxville, Tennessee, US
Photoshop AND photography are fer untalented slackers. I create all my images on the walls of my cave with the soot from a burning branch. I am HARDCORE, bitches!
Photographer
Daniel Norton
Posts: 1745
New York, New York, US
Valeri daiquiri wrote:
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell and Paris Hilton would be ripped into pieces in the magazine. ummm, having met a couple of big models in my day I have to say they are all without exception absolutely stunning to behold, but keep kidding yourself.. Paris Hilton is not one of them I might add.
BTW pick up the kate moss book and you will see tons of Polaroids and snapshots and she is gorgeous in every one, no photoshop required.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
So virtually all of Ansel Adams work is the result of VERY complex manipulation in the darkroom. By your definition, he is not a photographer, right? Yerkes Photography wrote:
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 ....
Photographer
Jimmy Mayfield
Posts: 315
Wake Forest, North Carolina, US
Why do I hate Photoshop? Because she's a cruel mistress ... keeps me chained to my computer for long gruelling hours of editing sessions .... prodding my insatiable quest for perfection .... I can't get ANY sleep!
Kinda like MM!
Photographer
_________________
Posts: 16
Fresno, California, US
I have a love hate relationship with photoshop. I love the endless possibilities you have with photoshop but hate the man hours you spend on a picture. But photoshop is not of the devil.
Photographer
Yuriy
Posts: 1000
Gillette, New Jersey, US
You people are taking this a little too seriously. Photoshop is not evil, it is not salvation, it is not the better way, or the worse way. It is a means to get to an end.
It is a tool used for minor tweaking, correction, and on occasion a method of recreating a lighting effect that would have put you over budget or taken too much time to get in camera.
The wise photographer uses whatever is faster and easier to achieve the desired result. Experienced photographers know how to get just about anything in camera but sometimes opt to do it otherwise. Some people prefer to throw a diffusion filter on the lens while some want to do it in Photoshop and keep a sharp original. Neither is wrong, it just comes down to personal preference.
I still call my father a hack (sometimes a fool) because heâll take a photograph and spend 1-2 weeks working on it in Photoshop with his whole assortment of NIK filters and other stuff when I can get almost the same photograph by slapping 2-3 filter on before the capture and maybe 10-15 min in Photoshop tweaking curves to ensure proper colors.
But, if he wants to waste his time who am I to stop him?
Photographer
glamourandlight
Posts: 199
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
MegaHertz Studios wrote:
Photography has evolved beyound its adolescense of being a purely documentary art form. Quick! Someone tell Stieglitz!
Photographer
Morbid Rockwell
Posts: 593
Fresno, California, 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. Once they stopped producing photos from glass negatives, I figgered it it was time to move onward and upward.
Huh, Pops?
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
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. Well, said. I wonder how many people will get the point.
It's amazing to hear all these people talking about the horrors of Photoshop. There are good photographers and bad photographers. There are photographers who process their own stuff and photographers who rely to varying degrees on others to handle the processing. Those who manipulate the controls on their cameras to make the resulting image come out a particular way are no different than those who manipulate the controls on Photoshop to make the resulting image come out a particular way.
Just as there are people who do bad burn-and-dodge jobs, or time the chemicals wrongly, or scratch their emulsion and then try to fix it with a poor touch-up job on the finished print, so are there also Photoshop users who feed the program bad data and then don't know how to properly use the various tools in Photoshop.
Personally, I hated working with chemicals. I hated the stink that never seemed to leave my hands and clothing. I hated developing my own film. I hated trying to imagine what my final print would look like based on where I was moving my dodge tool and how long I was keeping it there. And don't get me started on trying to create compelling composites! (Even the best I've seen from the past don't usually compare with what can be done in Photoshop.)
But I like learning how to do all those same things in Photoshop -- and more.
Those who make good photographs didn't suddenly drop out of the sky, no matter how wonderful some of you might believe you are. Your earlier efforts -- unless you've stopped learning and having ideas -- didn't look so hot compared to your current efforts. But I bet that didn't stop you from showing them to people.
Photoshop is just another tool to manipulate images. It allows more people to do what has always been done before. And it allows many people to do more.
Some of you folks remind me of the lady with the IBM Selectric typewriter who "don't need no newfangled comPOOter" to do her work and happily goes about the business of retyping even the most basic letters from scratch when a few typos are found in the original.
Many of the rest of you just sound like Luddites.
Your mileage may vary. Implied insults void where prohibited. Consult your local photographer for replacement derogatories as necessary.
-- rick
Photographer
Yerkes Photography
Posts: 459
Kingston, New York, US
bang bang photo wrote:
So virtually all of Ansel Adams work is the result of VERY complex manipulation in the darkroom. By your definition, he is not a photographer, right?
no .... ansel knew how to use a camera , film , and processing to create a photograph ....
he didnt rely on auto ... levels , clone brush , unsharp mask , 10pt. brush , and so on ... and im sure he never used the undo button
he didnt need to shoot in RAW , so that he could fix it later ...
and when he worked in a dark room , he knew what he was doing .... he didnt have Mr. Adobe doing it for him ....
anyway , im not talking about editing ... editing is a part of print making ....
im talking about going past editing to fabrication ...
id love to see ansel add an extra rock .... or take out a tree that didnt look so good .... or use clone to make a trees bark more even .... or move a bird one inch to the left to adhere to the rule of thirds ...
Makeup Artist
Rayrayrose
Posts: 3510
Los Angeles, California, US
I think photoshop/rethouching is just part of the package. It is kind of understood that most pictures you see will go through it.
But I have to admit, if I saw an absolutely knockout picture: beautiful shot, beautiful model, beautiful make-up, hair and styling. And the photographer told me (and was being hoenst) that there was absolutely no retouching, whatsoever, I would be very impressed.
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
The Corey wrote:
The thing many of my photog friends have complained about Photoshop is they see the photo of the said model and when she/he shows up for their booking they look nothing like the photos. Then they mustn't be very skilled photographers. Any photographer with any skill is going to realize that the camera lies and won't base their expectations on a photograph.
Photographs of a model show what the model can potentially look like - not what the model actually looks like. After all, models aren't 2-dimensional and 6 inches high and 1 inch wide like they look on your monitor, are they?
mjr.
Photographer
Morbid Rockwell
Posts: 593
Fresno, California, US
Yerkes Photography wrote:
my problem is the deception of an artist : #1 no knowing crap about a camera or how it works ... #2 showing a work that is 90% photoshoped and calling it a photograph ... and if 90% of thier portfolio contains these works , calling themselves photographers ... MM doesn't have a digital artist, or just plain artist (Painter, Pencil drawins, what-have-you). Most of them use cameras to capture images from which to create whatever they deem art. Some of us could be better with cameras, and some of us are working to get better as photographers, and, well, all around at whatever.
If you use a tool you should know how to use it. This is true. We don't all start out as Pros. Look at you.
My God, Man. Look at your use of the keyboard. Should we ban you from using it until you learn to use it properly.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Well, to some extent, I think you're setting up a straw man. Ansel undoubtedly knew his way around his camera and exposure meter, but he sure knew his way around the darkroom too. If you have any knowledge of his process and techniques, and I assume you do, I would say that in his time, he was one of the most manipulative photographers out there -- his darkroom work, went far, far, beyond what most of us consider straight printing. I don't think heavy usage of photoshop automatically implies a lack of skill with the camera. And truthfully, if you think about Adobe Photoshop -- it does darn little for you automatically. Have you taught many people how to use it? You load up the image -- now what? Yeah, there are a few auto functions, but for the most part, they suck. If you're using Photoshop extensively, chances are you've studied hard. I guess what you are actually talking about is less the concept of using Photoshop as your darkroom, and more about the idea of "saving" pictures with it. You and I probably agree 100% on that. I have colleagues who think it's perfectly OK to save a picture where somebody blinked by cloning in another set of eyes. I HATE that shit! That being said, I have to admit I do similar things -- I'll take people out of the background of a wedding shot, remove dirt from a wall. So who am I to point fingers? It's a question of taste I guess -- how much retouching is too much? And THAT question is as old as photography itself! Regards, Paul Yerkes Photography wrote:
no .... ansel knew how to use a camera , film , and processing to create a photograph ....
he didnt rely on auto ... levels , clone brush , unsharp mask , 10pt. brush , and so on ... and im sure he never used the undo button
he didnt need to shoot in RAW , so that he could fix it later ...
and when he worked in a dark room , he knew what he was doing .... he didnt have Mr. Adobe doing it for him ....
anyway , im not talking about editing ... editing is a part of print making ....
im talking about going past editing to fabrication ...
id love to see ansel add an extra rock .... or take out a tree that didnt look so good .... or use clone to make a trees bark more even .... or move a bird one inch to the left to adhere to the rule of thirds ...
Photographer
RickHorowitzPhotography
Posts: 513
Fresno, California, US
Tracy L Province wrote:
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. Another good post!
And what do we call the people who were fond of taking photos of folks on Polaroids, and then prodding and poking the emulsion with sticks? Weren't they photographers? Or were they not photographers, because the end result was not achieved "right out of the camera"?
Frankly, I laugh to myself when I read a post with people talking about their "art". When I ask myself why, I realize it doesn't make sense (for me to laugh), even though calling it "art" sounds to me pretentious (which is what makes me laugh in the first place).
When "ordinary" people enjoy the images we show them, they don't usually say, "wow! that's a nice photo! was it processed in a real darkroom with an enlarger? did it come out of the camera like that? did you manipulate it at all? with dodging tools? photoshop? ink and a brush?"
Somehow, they enjoy the image without knowing all those things.
-- rick
|
