Koray wrote:
hahaha...one free drink for Maynard

Woo-hoo...I get to skip the coffee and go straight to the good stuff.

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.

The irony is, many vendors (eg. Canon Digital Photo Guidebook for Professionals) actually recommend various PP enhancements to their camera's output.  What's that tell those PP haters? 

Axlf wrote:
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......

UM, do I understand you correctly?? Because I use PS I AM NOT A REAL PHOTOG??? That is funny as I have been working professionally since the early 70s and an avid amateur long before that. Never did realize I was not a REAL photographer.
Wonder if you have ever done any Darkroom work, where you can also manipulate images or used an airbrush???
I will agress that some rely on PS to make up for their lack of understanding of what a properly exposed image is. Should not take them toooo long to figure out that you cannot SAVE a poorly exposed image!!!

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

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.

I imagine you have not had the opportunity to use an airbrush in retouching a REAL photograph. Darkroom manipulation and airbrushing have been around for quite some time!!!! If you dont get the composition and the mood right in the camera, I will agree that PS wont save your ass!!!

Split Images Studio wrote:
I will agress that some rely on PS to make up for their lack of understanding of what a properly exposed image is.

The same can be said for all the folks who don't understand exposure and use a "smart" camera that has fancy built-in metering that does everything automatically.
I know one photographer who still doesn't understand exposure; he's had such good luck with the software in his Nikon F5 that photography, for him, is all about loading film, composing the image and mashing the button. He's won some prizes, so "what the heck?" I like his results enough that it's only a curiousity to me how he gets them.

I think what's going on here is that some people who consider themselves to be more expert are sneering at people who they consider to be less expert. The fact that photoshop is involved is purely secondary; it's basic dick-measuring.

mjr.

Valeri daiquiri wrote:
Without photoshop, Kate moss would look like hell and Paris Hilton would be ripped into pieces in the magazine.

Patrick Lebeda wrote:
On some level you are right, but when I hear that so often, I don't consider it as somethin' they see wrong, but pure jealousy. But... they use it also and when I WOULD say somethin', wow... hell is loose :-)

OK...I checked your portfolio, and I have to say...you're probably right: jealosy.

OTOH, I hear the same thing frequently from others ('people say my work is overprocessed') where the processing is very visible and isn't intended to be so--but I also deal with people with a wide range of retouching and finishing skills.

Patrick Lebeda wrote:
Btw, use it, miss use it, but be happy :-)

Sounds good to me...

MRockStyle wrote:

yikes!  much much much better before than after.

MRockStyle wrote:

Without photoshop half the 'models' on this site wouldn't be here.

Xenia wrote:
Anyone brave enough in here to showcase us good photoshopping skills, back to back with the original 'raw' image? That should put the haters' argument to rest.

"Good"? I don't know, but I do have a page of before and after samples online. I'm sure some will be called bad, or overprocessed, or 'digital art' or whatever, but it's what I've got for public consumption.

MRockStyle wrote:

The first shot is much nicer IMHO

Jay Bowman wrote:
I don't hate Photoshop. 

I just hate the people in front of their computers who think that Photoshop is the bun, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, mayo, swiss, pickles etc that they will place on their shit patties to make everyone think it'll taste okay...

one of the best quotes of this whole forum ....

thank you ..

Christopher Bush wrote:

yikes!  much much much better before than after.

Chris is so right it hurts. You want to see a clear cut example of why editing this way is bullshit? Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, 3. It's not photoshop but the principals are the same as well as the reasons for it's applcation and use. Take a long hard look at A New Hope, circa 1977 untouched, unfucked, all in it's original glory. Photoshop users are taking freclkes off of Kate Moss' face, and CG animators are putting them on virtually people. This is not a tool that has any purpose other than glorifying artificiality. If that's the point then fine, but I think most photoshop users would argue that they use it to enhance the images. I cry bullshit on that.

MRockStyle wrote:

this is not even a drastic fix .... photographers have been airbrushing skin for decades ...
this is not as bad as some of the digital plastic surgery ive seen ....

CICADA MOTION PICTURES wrote:

Chris is so right it hurts. You want to see a clear cut example of why editing this way is bullshit? Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, 3. It's not photoshop but the principals are the same as well as the reasons for it's applcation and use. Take a long hard look at A New Hope, circa 1977 untouched, unfucked, all in it's original glory. Photoshop users are taking freclkes off of Kate Moss' face, and CG animators are putting them on virtually people. This is not a tool that has any purpose other than glorifying artificiality. If that's the point then fine, but I think most photoshop users would argue that they use it to enhance the images. I cry bullshit on that.

i concur

Kevin Connery wrote:

"Good"? I don't know, but I do have a page of before and after samples online. I'm sure some will be called bad, or overprocessed, or 'digital art' or whatever, but it's what I've got for public consumption.

Interesting...did you attach a whole new head in 20050220_ba01? 

I like the way you used PS to bring some of the color schemes closer together. 

-- rick

Daniel Norton wrote:

The first shot is much nicer IMHO

Most people would probably disagree with you.  The first shot looks actually like the face of a "below average" woman when it comes to the fashion photography I've seen.  Was she even wearing make-up? 

-- rick

Patrick Lebeda wrote:

Hmm... maybe you change your opinion when you have that big shoot and your face isn't what it should be that moment.

Just my 2 cents :-)

P...

No...I had many big shoots before...and after photoshop ever existed
I hate photoshop..In fact I look better without it....as so do a lot of people

David Zanes wrote:
Image makers? Yes
Photographers, No

What's the difference?

Why does it matter what tools were used so long as the end result is great?  A photographer is an image maker.  A painter is an image maker. An illustrator is an image maker.  That's all any 2d media is.  The only differentiation is the media used to create the image.  A camera was still the primary medium in a photo that undergoes extensive photoshop, therefore, it's still a photograph and the creator is a photographer.  Many illustrators now are doing outlines on paper, then scanning in their drawings to color, texture and shade them in photoshop.  I'd still call them illustrators rather than digital artists.  Something isn't digital art to me until it was created 100% in the computer a la cg artists.  Perhaps this differentiation of yours has significance if an image has 50% or more of it generated by the computer, as is the case with one of my favorite Dutch artists' hybrid work, but that's only because at that point the computer becomes the primary medium rather than the camera.

Photographers used to hand paint their photos to make them color.  Since there was so much post production, are they no longer photographs?  Does it really matter?

Maybe we should just do away with all media oriented titles and call anyone who draws, paints, photographs, screws around on their computer, or whatever "image makers."  At least that would end this silly, meaningless debate.

Yerkes Photography wrote:

this is not even a drastic fix .... photographers have been airbrushing skin for decades ...
this is not as bad as some of the digital plastic surgery ive seen ....

Why are you guys even using Kate Moss as an example...
She was a superstar before Photoshop was even though of..

Kevin Connery wrote:

"Good"? I don't know, but I do have a page of before and after samples online. I'm sure some will be called bad, or overprocessed, or 'digital art' or whatever, but it's what I've got for public consumption.

no , actually ... i wouldnt call any of those images over-edited ....

altough , im not a purist ... i use digital , and edit on a pc ....

Yerkes Photography wrote:

this is not even a drastic fix .... photographers have been airbrushing skin for decades ...
this is not as bad as some of the digital plastic surgery ive seen ....

it is drastic.  here's a haiku:

her entire face
has been totally erased
really not good taste

Yerkes Photography wrote:
this is not even a drastic fix .... photographers have been airbrushing skin for decades ...
this is not as bad as some of the digital plastic surgery ive seen ....

gsvb wrote:
Why are you guys even using Kate Moss as an example...
She was a superstar before Photoshop was even though of..

Daniel Norton wrote:
The first shot is much nicer IMHO

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Most people would probably disagree with you.  The first shot looks actually like the face of a "below average" woman when it comes to the fashion photography I've seen.  Was she even wearing make-up? 

-- rick

i think the "most people" part should read "most internet photographers".  the average person on the street probably wouldn't recognize the second photo as an actual human.

and the second photo would never in a million years make it into even a nominally repectable fashion magazine.

Christopher Bush wrote:

it is drastic.  here's a haiku:

her entire face
has been totally erased
really not good taste

im just saying this is not the over-editing that im referring to ...

Yerkes Photography wrote:

im just saying this is not the over-editing that im referring to ...

i just wanted to write a haiku

Jay Bowman wrote:
I don't hate Photoshop. 

I just hate the people in front of their computers who think that Photoshop is the bun, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, mayo, swiss, pickles etc that they will place on their shit patties to make everyone think it'll taste okay...

Yerkes Photography wrote:
one of the best quotes of this whole forum ....

thank you ..

Heh.  I do what I can...

Christopher Bush wrote:
i think the "most people" part should read "most internet photographers".  the average person on the street probably wouldn't recognize the second photo as an actual human.

and the second photo would never in a million years make it into even a nominally repectable fashion magazine.

Then explain all the hyper-airbrushed photos in Vanity Fair and similar mags. 

And why does Kodak sell a plug-in that will do the same thing as what happened to appear in that photo.

Man...to listen to some of you, you'd think Playboy, Vanity Fair, FHM, Maxim and Victoria's Secret (to name a few places I've seen hyper-airbrushed work and women who no longer look like they did the day of the shoot or any other day of their real lives) never retouch anything!

-- rick

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Interesting...did you attach a whole new head in 20050220_ba01?

Yes. I'd shot 6-8 frames from the same angle/same lighting, and the best expression and best body position weren't in the same frame. So...I cheated.   (It's a very common technique when shooting large groups--head swaps to get rid of blinks, and movie poster take it much further, using a head from here, an arm from there, a hand from some other model...)

Yerkes Photography wrote:

no , actually ... i wouldnt call any of those images over-edited ....

altough , im not a purist ... i use digital , and edit on a pc ....

Yet the first one is made up of 3 images, covering up the sky, adding more trees, covering up a fence, a flag, and a hose on the ground. Another one added more hair, and a third gave the model longer legs... (Except for the pond and fish, you could have been describing just these samples. )

Yerkes Photography wrote:
it goes past editing when the final doesnt look like the origional ...   more hair , longer legs ... digital plastic surgery  ....   different sky ... more trees ... smaller pond ... cloned fish ... 16 photos merged to make 1 final ....

Christopher Bush wrote:
and the second photo would never in a million years make it into even a nominally repectable fashion magazine.

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Man...to listen to some of you, you'd think Playboy, Vanity Fair, FHM, Maxim and Victoria's Secret (to name a few places I've seen hyper-airbrushed work and women who no longer look like they did the day of the shoot or any other day of their real lives) never retouch anything!

-- rick

I wouldn't consider Playboy, FHM, Maxim or Victoria's Secret catalog fashion magazines...

Kevin Connery wrote:

Yerkes Photography wrote:
no , actually ... i wouldnt call any of those images over-edited ....

altough , im not a purist ... i use digital , and edit on a pc ....

Yet the first one is made up of 3 images, covering up the sky, adding more trees, covering up a fence, a flag, and a hose on the ground. Another one added more hair, and a third gave the model longer legs... (Except for the pond and fish, you could have been describing just these samples. )

one of two i didnt look at large ... that one , in my opinion , is over-edited ... there are a couple others on there that are on the line , but nothing else i would call blatently overdone ...

Jay Bowman wrote:
I wouldn't consider Playboy, FHM, Maxim or Victoria's Secret catalog fashion magazines...

Right.  Just magazines with female models meant to be attractive which have been airbrushed or otherwise modified all to pieces.  I think that was the point. 

And exactly what differentiates the ads in Vanity Fair from the women in a Victoria's Secret catalog? 

Point is, I was referring to the idea that only "most internet photographers" would think the unmodified Kate Moss photo is better than the modified version.  Personally, I like freckles and wouldn't want to see them airbrushed away.  But the women in the ads in Vanity Fair, the catalogs (like Victoria's Secret) and the women in the men's magazines don't look like the first photo -- they look more like the second photo. 

-- rick

Jay Bowman wrote:
I wouldn't consider Playboy, FHM, Maxim or Victoria's Secret catalog fashion magazines...

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Right.  Just magazines with female models meant to be attractive which have been airbrushed or otherwise modified all to pieces.  I think that was the point.

I gathered as much.

Okay, I'll repeat: I have nothing against Photoshop.  And while it may have been your point that models are airbrushed to pieces in those publications, it was said that an image like the one of Kate Moss wouldn't end up in a fashion magazine.  Then you countered the statement with examples that were not fashion magazines (by your own admission).


I was merely pointing it out...