|
Forums >
General Industry >
Why do they hate photoshop?
Valeri daiquiri wrote: When it comes to models and magazines, there is NOT a single photograph that gets beyond the cutting board without post edits. Oct 05 06 06:41 pm Link Split Images Studio wrote: If you have the image you want, what's there to airbrush? Oct 05 06 06:43 pm Link Yerkes Photography wrote: If the photographer had lit her properly there would have been no need for retouching. That's what getting it in the camera is all about. Basically what we have is a badly lit image with PS used to cover the inept photography...Which is fine if that's what you're after. Oct 05 06 06:46 pm Link Thomas B wrote: Absolutely. And besides their dark. Oct 05 06 06:51 pm Link Thomas B wrote: ? Please amplify........ Oct 05 06 07:01 pm Link So Shoot Me! wrote: I guess you haven't seen much fashion photography. Oct 05 06 07:08 pm Link its over used by people that think its the answer, then again there are some amazing photoshop masters out there Oct 05 06 07:08 pm Link So Shoot Me! wrote: With the exception of Victoria's Secret (which is a catalog) none of the above examples are fashion. Oct 05 06 07:11 pm Link Michael Rosen's photos look more like oil paintings than photographs. Over photoshopped. Oct 05 06 07:15 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: the image has part of the soul. Oct 05 06 07:15 pm Link I always find this debate amusing as well as interesting. What I find most interesting is that I think it really breaks down to style and type of shooter. I have no interest in capturing reality and do not consider myself an "artist". I have captured reality. I've done it in urban centers, in third world countries and in one war zone. To me that is capturing reality. EVERYTHING else (for me) is product work. I have seen a liquor company spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to have their product photographed, days spent lighting the bottle just right, and then in the end the label on the bottle (which looked, great btw) replaced with an illustrator file, enhanced in PS, which looked flawless (and that caused them a few grand more). And yes, there is a difference between glamour, fashion and beauty. The are lit differently, shot differently and processed differently. But they are all lit, they are all shot and they are ALL processed. You don't like glamour? Cool. But it has a certain commercial look, which changes over time, but certain aspects of it remain consistent. Playboy, Maxim, FHM, Stuff, Arena, they all sell millions of copies and they want a certain look - and that look is NOT reality. That is not what they are selling. The are selling a fantasy. It's product photography, plain and simple, except instead of a bottle of Bombay Sapphire you're shooting a girl. No more, no less. Actually they're not even really the product. The product is the fantasy, the model is merely a self-positioning prop on which to place it [the fantasy]. This may sound harsh, but it is the reality of that type of modeling/photography. Fashion is currently different, although you have been seeing a weird cross-blending of styles between fashion and glamour in some publications. You also see more traditional fashion which I love. I picked up French Vogue yesterday and I can't put it down, I love the shots, but for the most part dislike the models. That's probably why I shoot glam and commercial.... My goal, to combine the two more. Will it sell? No... But it will be MY "art" LOL!!!! Then you have the real art photographers, their standards are different. Oh and what about beauty shots? I have a stack of beauty and fashion magazines I picked up yesterday as high as my ass, and EVERY beauty shot contained in them is fantasy. It is not real, it has been retouched. I have spoken with people who do the retouching, they spend days, if not weeks, on each ad to make the model look flawless. The change skin using skin maps (or texture maps) they edit eyes to make them symmetrical and more clear and vibrant, etc... The difference is only HOW it's been retouched. Oct 05 06 07:20 pm Link Some of us started in the business when it was all film and there were no digital cameras or Photoshop. When shooting chromes for a magazine we had to process the film and send the slides to the publisher and in most cases there was no touchup or airbrushing involved. The pictures were published as shot. Along came digital cameras and photo editing software and people were able to make "cool" pictures with the help of an editor but in a lot of cases would be embarassed to show you what the original picture looked like out of their camera. Should someone get the same kudos for an edited image as one taken directly from the camera? I know some "photographers" that couldn't shoot their way out of a web paper bag but are awesome with Photoshop. I am proud of my pictures as the come out of the camera and I suck at Photoshop so I have to do it "right" in the first place. The other thing we learned when shooting chromes was exposure, using light meters, etc. Chromes have no latitude for screwing up exposure like shooting RAW with a digital camera or even when shooting negatives that you can clip strip and adjust in processing. I think a distinction should be made for the difference between a photographer and a Photoshopper. Yes, the two skills can be combined, but if it wasn't for PS saving some people's bacon they wouldn't have anything to show. I have had to learn some PS techniques, not so much to save pictures, but to compete with people who are using PS to get the "wow" factor that appeals to a lot of people. I know in the past photo competitions would distinguish between film and digital images but I haven't been to a photo competition in awhile so I don't know if they have categories for "as shot" vs. "as fixed" or not? Lew Oct 05 06 07:27 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: Possibly not. The only fashion photography I look at is in magazines like GQ and Vanity Fair. And I'm pretty sure that I see more photos looking like the second shot than the first. Near as I can tell, there aren't any photos in those magazines going "straight from the camera" to the page, without modifications in Photoshop or something equivalent (whether computerized or done "the old-fashioned way" by hand). Oct 05 06 07:27 pm Link Shit it's all good, do what you gotta do to get the image you saw. It doesn't matter on bit how you got there as long as you arrived. In camera out the computer through the looking glass whatever. The only thing that matters is the final image and the name on the check. Oct 05 06 07:40 pm Link So Shoot Me! wrote: it's not that they don't retouch - it's that they don't retouch BADLY (like the example). Oct 05 06 07:46 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: Okay. Got it. Apparently I misunderstood. I thought someone was trying to tell me they don't retouch. But my understanding has always been that there are virtually no images that get into those magazines unretouched. Oct 05 06 07:52 pm Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: You know nobody would blame you for that. Melvin Moten Jr wrote: Any comments on George Hurrell, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Ruth Harriet Louise, etc., all of whom did some little bit of retouching. Lit improperly? Oct 05 06 10:32 pm Link So Shoot Me! wrote: Only on the surface, and I suspect that may be what bothers some people. Oct 05 06 10:40 pm Link MRockStyle wrote: great example Oct 05 06 10:44 pm Link all of my images are NOT photoshopped! I use my fingernails to sharpen. I also have a huge studio with various W.A.S.P lights and have a camera as big as an old Toyota engine...my dark room is as big as a stadium and 15 ogres including Shrek is working there...and I pay them 25/hr plus lifetime medicare and health insurance. any other questions? Oct 05 06 10:52 pm Link MalameelPhotography wrote: of what? seriously, if anyone here thinks that this is a good retouch job, then you need to just scrap whatever it is you think you know and start the fuck over from scratch. this is pure garbage. Oct 05 06 11:54 pm Link |
