How important is photoshop?

delanest

I have been looking at a lot of images recently that have probably been adapted. Do any serious/perfesional digital photographers not use photoshop and just present the natural images that they capture?

Could photoshop been seen as kind of cheating? I mean surley an expert in photshop could make any photo amazing, therfore creating great 'photos' from a not so great photragpher

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, just interested in peoples 2 cents.

Fajitas!

Well, photoshop and similar programmes are the digital darkrooms. A lot of what you see on them, would be done if it were on film. Photographers like Ansel Adams (Check him out) spent weeks in the dark room on a photo.

Along with this, digital SLRs are built for the photos to be post processed. Raw files for example. Smaller cameras are often built to do minor processes as soon as a picture is taken, but DSLRs, the user is left to do it.

EireRoadUser

I'm kind of in the same boat as yourself ,but

Photography even here on Boards is listed under ARTS ,only a good artist would produce something good in photoshop.
Photoshop goes hand in hand with digital photography as far as I can see ,it makes things more interesting for good artists.

I've an uncle who sold work he did solely on photoshop and he's not a photographer ,he only uses a canon point and shoot.

I'm not an artist and probably never will come close ,but I take photos of things as I see them .

Paddy@CIRL

I would be more into the automotive end of photography and I can assure you photoshop isued more than you could even imagine. I would never consider it as cheating, only one's who are ignorant to the fact that it is an amazing tool could call it that.

"I mean surley an expert in photshop could make any photo amazing, therfore crateing great 'photos' from a not so great photragpher"

You need a fantastic base before you can create an even better piece.

DotOrg

photography is cheating, catching a moment in time in a multi dimensional world on a flat piece of paper and interpreting the colour via various chemical processes. depth of field isn't reality, dodging a burning isn't reality, using a flast or lighting or reflectors isn't reality, everything about photography is cheating

wide angles or telephotos give effects that are different than the view the person had, black and white is cheating, adjusting the colour balance is cheating

unless you're talking about news reporting, photography is about creating images that the eye wants to look at

joolsveer

Is it possible to start with a mediocre photo and use PS or similar to turn it into a masterpiece? I read somewhere that many people try to emulate the work of Ansel Adams and cannot come up with the goods decades after he produced his work with relatively primitive equipment.

Fajitas!

A mediocre photo might become an alright photo if the photographer is good enough, a good photo might become a great one, but a bad photo's always a bad photo.

delanest

Fajitas! wrote:

Photographers like Ansel Adams (Check him out) spent weeks in the dark room on a photo.

Wow, I see this guy died in 1984. Really impressive, especially before the digital age.

Karoma

"garbage in - garbage out"

Post-processing has always been a key part of the creation of any photograph. Just because Photoshop,etc. are more accessible does not mean that it's any less 'worthy'. You'll have to be more specific about what you consider might be "cheating".

rabbitinlights

Its a tough question, I try to do as little as possible with my photos in PS, slight corrections (straighten/sharpen etc) are the norm, but I would like to get photos as good as I can get while my eye is pressed up against the camera.

I do think PS is very impressive and can make a good photo great, but if you can tell its been touched up, then you have gone too far.

Fajitas!

delanest wrote:

Wow, I see this guy died in 1984. Really impressive, especially before the digital age.

It was actually during his time the first debate of post processing first came about. That tells you how long this goes back!

delanest

I guess the touching up is part of the process, but what about taking a shot of a great foreground here in Ireland and then replacing the skyline with an amazing sunset from Spain. Is this still a great photograph or should their be a different label on this type of art, i.e. not photography.


What if I then put a couple of pink elephants playing poker in too ?

Fajitas!

I'd call those Digital images. And if you're gonna do it, make sure you let your audience know it's a digital image, not a photograph.

Well,that's my opinion anyways!

Flipflip

Fajitas! wrote:

I'd call those Digital images. And if you're gonna do it, make sure you let your audience know it's a digital image, not a photograph.

Well,that's my opinion anyways!

Id deffo agree with you there!

Shrimp

How important is photoshop?

I don't think important is the right word, necessary perhaps?

Photoshop is to digital photography, as the darkroom is to film photography.

True?

mloc

Gotta agree with shrimp there. Just like in a darkroom, while there are neccessary steps on every photo that must be done (Development/RAW conversion etc), in both scenarios additional changes can be made.

The lines between photography and digital art is a blurry one, and depends on you're own point of view. Or that of whatever competition you enter!

dalk

Shrimp & Fajitas etc are of course correct. Photoshop is the digital equivalent of the darkroom (the undo button being the single greatest addition to photographic post processing ).

I think a lot of the comments about photoshop stem from the widely held (and incorrect) notion that the "camera never lies".

The only type of photography that i can think of that has an absolute minimum of post processing is Polaroid Photography. You take the pic you get the finished print a few mins later. Judging by the criteria that some people have for what is a "real" photograph that isn't "cheating" every other type of photography is "cheating". Even your digital cameras starts "cheating" with the pic as soon as it has exposed the sensor to some extent (sharpening, colour balance, noise reduction etc)...

Also some people have an unrealistic idea of what photoshop can do. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Composite images are a different matter and are more akin to a collage.

Oriel

Shrimp wrote:

Photoshop is to digital photography, as the darkroom is to film photography.

I don't agree. The digital age has removed the need for a darkroom. You can do a hell of a lot more with photoshop, much, much faster and cheaper than you could ever have done with a dark room.

You cannot compare the two.

S.

melekalikimaka

sinecurea wrote:

I don't agree. The digital age has removed the need for a darkroom. You can do a hell of a lot more with photoshop, much, much faster and cheaper than you could ever have done with a dark room.

You cannot compare the two.

S.

the operative word is can, most people don't, they do the minimum
, no more than can be done in a darkroom, the fact you can do it quicker is irrelevent.

Fajitas!

sinecurea wrote:

I don't agree. The digital age has removed the need for a darkroom. You can do a hell of a lot more with photoshop, much, much faster and cheaper than you could ever have done with a dark room.

You cannot compare the two.

S.

Hmmm, but I suppose you could say the same about film processing through the years, even developments in negatives and paper. Digital is the next progression. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with a darkroom. Up until a few months ago when there was a light leak, I was a the darkroom every week.

dalk

sinecurea wrote:

I don't agree. The digital age has removed the need for a darkroom. You can do a hell of a lot more with photoshop, much, much faster and cheaper than you could ever have done with a dark room.

You cannot compare the two.

The statement "Photoshop is to digital photography, as the darkroom is to film photography" is an analogy, not a comparison. Its not a comment on capabilities, but on usage. The darkroom and Photoshop can both be used to manipulate images. Obviously, Photoshop's abilities and convenience outstrip the darkroom. But, I would go as far to say that most peoples use of Photoshop mirrors what was most commonly done in the darkroom: cropping, dodging, burning, selective contrast, colour correction, etc.

Zillah

delanest wrote:

Do any serious/perfesional digital photographers not use photoshop and just present the natural images that they capture?

Theres no such thing as "natural images". Everything uses a process to create an image. Digital cameras all have some degree of "photoshop" within them that is applied automatically. The only question is how much you alter them. The same applies to regular photography, its just easier to understand for non-computery people.

Fajitas!

Delanest, There's a well known Irish photographer, I can't remember her name for the life of me. She still uses a TLR, and no photoshopping. Many wedding photographers, and some gig photographers still use film with no darkroom tricks, along with specialist photographers, such as those working in infrared film and what not, though photoshop is getting quite accurate IR effects now.

zokrez

I have never used Photoshop full edition only Photoshop Album Starter Edition. Is there any trial downloads and where is the best place / cheapest place to obtain Photoshop. ? I presume any old editions would do the job for a beginner to start.

Also on a scale of 1-10 how does Picassa compare to Photoshop ?

Dimy

Zakrze wrote:

I have never used Photoshop full edition only Photoshop Album Starter Edition. Is there any trial downloads and where is the best place / cheapest place to obtain Photoshop. ? I presume any old editions would do the job for a beginner to start.

Also on a scale of 1-10 how does Picassa compare to Photoshop ?

Photoshop CS2 is very expensive... a couple of hundred euro's... However, Photoshop Elements is affordable and good enough for the normal end-user. I think it sells for about 60-70 euro, but I'm not sure. As for trial versions... if you can download them at all, you'd probably find them on the Adobe website.

zokrez

Dimy wrote:

Photoshop CS2 is very expensive... a couple of hundred euro's... However, Photoshop Elements is affordable and good enough for the normal end-user. I think it sells for about 60-70 euro, but I'm not sure. As for trial versions... if you can download them at all, you'd probably find them on the Adobe website.

Ok found it on their site.

I take it that most of you that are using photoshop are using CS2 then ?

So my amended question would be :

Photoshop Elements V Picasa on scale of 1-10. Would i be better sticking with Picasa than going down the Elements route as i wouldnt be able afford or warrant paying that type of money for CS2 for fooling around with a couple of photos. (I'm still thinking about the digital SLR as opposed to saving for one !)

Do you use CS2 dimy & sceptre ?

Fajitas!

I was using elements up until Sunday, it's a grand program. Much better than Picasso, and you can let yourself get as advanced in it as you want to! However I er...bought... CS2 so I'm trying to get used to that now!

FreeAnd..

bought? yes me too, i just bought CS2. Havent got to use it yet to notice much difference froom v6 or v7

Dimy

Fajitas! wrote:

I was using elements up until Sunday, it's a grand program. Much better than Picasso, and you can let yourself get as advanced in it as you want to! However I er...bought... CS2 so I'm trying to get used to that now!

Yeah I er... bought... CS2 too

FreeAnd..

looks like software licence compliance is at an all time high..:D

melekalikimaka

its a grand ol peice of software....worth EVERY penny I PAID

Fajitas!

FreeAnd.. wrote:

looks like software licence compliance is at an all time high..:D

But of course. One would not dare pirate software these days. The risks simply are not worth it. Anyone who pirates this software, deserves to be smited.

And that is how important Photoshop is...Why else would we all shell out a couple of hundred for it...



...



...

FreeAnd..

How very true, to be honest it is probably one of the only pieces of software that is actually worth the money i 'paid' for it. As for pirating.....I left my sea faring behind me long ago.....

delanest

Fajitas! wrote:

Why else would we all shell out a couple of hundred for it...

I've no doubt about the importance .... I guess the points about the same thing being done in the darkroom makes it more makes it more appealing

Fajitas!

Lol, sorry, that post was me being sarcastic about the price

It it more appealing. Girls aren't fond of the smell of ID11. Neither are your blood vessels. And your eyes don't like the darkness too much! Not that they like computer screens either! It's a lot more practical.

But I guess, there's something great about taking your freshly developed film out and seeing 36 (37 if you're good ) shots on it, then printing them, and seeing them all appear on paper under the red light!

elven

Someone once told me about an uncle who said that he could do stuff in the darkroom much easier than he could ever do it with photoshop. The key here is relativity. To someone who doesn't work with chemicals, a darkroom is an intimidating place. To someone who doesn't work with computers, photoshop is scary as hell. Take a squint at some old photography magazines and you'll see the articles on how to create composite images by layering slides, to mention just one example.

It only appears to be 'easier' to the general bloke on the street because they already have a computer at home, and are likely to have mucked about with their holiday snaps for a bit of fun. What they haven't thought about it the whole 'silk purse/sows ear' phenomenon and also the fact that it's one thing to make a few clicks and brighten/sharpen an image and quite another to selectively dodge and burn and do all the other gubbins to produce the really amazing effects that are possible in ps.

As people have already said in this thread, it's only 'cheating' when you try to pass a picture off as something it's not.

"Honestly, that spaceship was sitting on the Ha'penny Bridge! The camera never lies, you know!"

AlisonB

This is an interesting topic. I'm only a novice but i have a question. With film, how do they handle "bracketing", is there a method of taking multiple exposures to cater for both the highlights and the shadows and combining them with film. Maybe someone can help me out on that question. I know with photoshop it's a pretty straight forward thing to do.

elven

Well, it's as simple as taking three pictures, scanning them and stitching them together

It was always the great dificulty with film, only having a limited tonal range and sometimes you had to sacrifice your highlights or your shadows. I'm almost sad that the fun has been taken out of it with the ability to bracket in digital and merge exposures...

dalk

AlisonB wrote:

With film, how do they handle "bracketing", is there a method of taking multiple exposures to cater for both the highlights and the shadows and combining them with film. Maybe someone can help me out on that question.

The only way is to use Graduated Filters. You can reduce the brightness from the horizon up for example.

AlisonB

Thanks guys, was just reading up on grad filters earlier this morning. I definitely think i'd prefer to go with a filter than merge exposures and have to play around with photoshop or filter software.

Zillah

Dimy wrote:

Yeah I er... bought... CS2 too

I also..paid money for my photoshop...

nitrogen

delanest wrote:

Do any serious/perfesional digital photographers not use photoshop and just present the natural images that they capture?

Yes, me (http://www.bhalpin.com). Two things you need to create an image, Aperture and Shutter Speed. It doesn't matter if you're using a manual SLR with B&W film or a DSLR, deciding what amount of light hits the film and for how long is what it all boils down to.

My only use of PS is things like Bleach-bypassing and Digital Cross-Processing. Everything else is just resizing.

nitrogen

Also, a lot of pro photographers (Especially Travel) only shoot with Slide, books and magazines will only take slide. There is no darkroom stage here. The photographer is in total control on how he/she wants to create the image.

PS can help but in my opinion, you're better off not using it to try and improve your photography.