Your views on this?

Ricky91t

"Look guys, what I'm saying is, If you don't use photoshop you won't make it as a photographer, I can guarantee that everyone else will be using it to make fantastically stunning, out of this world images, and bottom line is, they will sell better then your more natural photos. And if you're are planning not to use photoshop, then i suggest that you get a film camera because it handles colour better, its more vibrant and natural. So, if you just want to do photography as a hobby that's fine, but your work will never be as appreciated as much. If you just check out flickr's explore page you will see what I'm on about, every photo that's on there is photoshopped."
Iv just been told this by a person on bebo
What do you think
Is he right or wrong?

Paulw

Ignore him/her. I wouldn't bother to respond, since they know nothing about photography.

soccerc

IMHO, pure bull.

ThOnda

Mostly right. Nowadays, everybody do the DTP electronically, so using film is only another step inbetween capturing the picture and sending it to customer.
And basic knowledge of some post processing software is essential. Just for retouching, colour ballance, crop and signatures.

Paulw

Even with film the image has to be processed. Generally it's left to the photo lab though, rather than doing it yourself ... which is what using photoshop is. It's digital processing.

Thirdfox

Not necessarily right but pretty much so - like the people above said - photoshop is just digital processing... even taking the original photo with a digital camera is digital processing as the cameras process analog input into digital output.

If s/he meant photoshop is what most people use...well that's mostly right too - there are a few other programmes out there but Photoshop is king.

I just wouldn't say it in such an antagonistic way.

And "natural" photos definitely appeal to people too (though it must be said that the general public normally prefers the saturated explosive colours). In saying that photos have to be distorted beyond recognition s/he is definitely wrong... you could try saying to the person "have a look at photo-journalism" - only the most minor of tweaks (levels etc.) are allowed, even editorial cropping can be very much frowned upon.

CraggyIslander

Photoshop is for the manipulation of images, the cloning, burn/dodge, etc.

The digital equivalent of darkroom processing is lightroom, bibble, capture one, etc. (or Photoshops raw import)

Most of my shots dont even go anywhere near photoshop, capture one does all I need (unless its something very specific like Muineachs selective sharpening then I'd use photoshop, but I'd be manipulating a specific aspect of the image)

In short, he's wrong

Oriel

I agree with them.
I only presume most of the people on here haven't developed their own photographs.
Taking the photo is only part of the skill, albeit the largest. You'd be amazed what you can do in a darkroom. It so happens that the darkroom nowadays has moved to a computer.

I agree with him/her to an extent yes.

sheesh

Not necessarily but mostly I think. I have taken landscapes that did not need to be photo shopped after I fact one of them looked worse with everything I did to it. portraits of adults: will usually need some touching up.
portraits of kids: not really.
Macros: not really most of what you want to do can be done in camera with skill.

Flickr really is not the arbiter of what is right and wrong the popular pictures are all very pretty sometimes too pretty. there are no harrowing scenes, no pictures that tell stories theres alot that is not covered there.

most of the people on flickr are non professional as far a I can see

Having said that the few pros that I have met all use some sort of post production. I fact that is the main part of their work.

The only Exception I can see is Sports photographers where they might not have time to photoshop pictures you see them out with their laptops at half time sending off the pictures.

just my 2 cents probably (3 really at this stage).:)

FreeAnd..

forget about flickr explore, thats more of a photo pimping gallery than anything. You get some good shots but also some pretty lame ones. basically though photoshop or some processing tool is necessary. This has been dones to death but especially if you are shooting in Raw then all of the in camera manipulations (that are applied to jpeg images in camera on an slr or p&s) are switched off and all data is recorded. These manipulations i.e. contrast, sharpening, removing noise etc then need to be done manually. All stages of the digital process introduce some noise and reduce sharpness. This needs to be corrected and doesnt happen with film.

The great film photographers spent many a long hour in the darkroom getting the result they wanted...just give adams a shout. Photoshop is to a digital photographer what the darkroom is to a film photographer only things can be done alot quicker. The fact that photoshop can be used for digital design is what throws alot of people, just because you can use it to fake an image doesnt mean thats what has been done...you could add space ships to a film photo too but its not as easy as copy and paste...

so you're friend is right and wrong...you can still get great images if you never do any work in photo shop (as long as your photography skills are up to scratch) but once you apply even some basic measures in photoshop you will make those great images even better and make them jump...If you shoot in raw anyway there is no way that you can get away without processing as it would be like handing someone a negative as a final print...

unreggd

Yes photoshop is an advantage but not 100% necessary

and yer mate is a tool

kensutz

ricky91t wrote: »

Iv just been told this by a person on bebo

I think that's where the problem lies.

challengemaster

amcinroy

ricky91t wrote: »

"Look guys, what I'm saying is, If you don't use photoshop you won't make it as a photographer

Not true in my opinion. It is possible to make stunning photographs using only a RAW converter. I also believe that a photographer who knows what they are doing could "make it" by purely outputing in JPG. This would be analagous to shooting on film.

ricky91t wrote: »

I can guarantee that everyone else will be using it to make fantastically stunning, out of this world images

Yes, that's why they will all start to look the same and the market will be saturated. And "out of this world" is absolutely right.

ricky91t wrote: »

they will sell better then your more natural photos.

Disagree strongly. I have returned to a more natural style on digital since my days of velvia slide film and it's these more natural digital shots that sell faster.

ricky91t wrote: »

And if you're are planning not to use photoshop, then i suggest that you get a film camera because it handles colour better, its more vibrant and natural.

That's nonsense. The camera doesn't handle colour, the film does. And each film only handles colour in one specific way. It's signature you could say. Digital allows you to take control over how colour is handled.

ricky91t wrote: »

Iv just been told this by a person on bebo
What do you think

Bebo you say? I stand corrected.

Andy

stcstc

andy


one small thing, i dont belive using JPG you can produce the best you can etc,

the dynamic range of a jpg is much lower than the raw file and so you an not producing as good as it should be


I do agree that photoshop is not always needed, but i think a photographer who disgaurds it as being not as important as the camera and lenses they use is being a little short sited

Paulw

The difference between shooting jpg and shooting raw and then processing the files yourself is that with jpg you're letting some technician/programmer in Japan make the decision as to what settings to use for your image. Nothing more than that.

You are giving away control of your image to an automatic processing of the image.

stcstc

It is more than that

A JPG is always only 8 Bpc, a RAW on some of the newest cameras is 14 Bpc which is a massive amount more dynamic range


when you allow the programmer in japan to process your image in your camera he or she throughs away a huge chunk of dynamic range.

amcinroy

The question was about whether photoshop is needed to "make you a photographer".

I would argue that a competent photographer can create stunning and highly saleable work with jpg using no computer manipulation at all. If the exposure and white balance are correct then the in camera contrast, saturation and sharpening controls would be all you would need to create a natural result akin to film shooting.

I personally like a bit more control than that, which is why I only shoot RAW. But I'm just demonstrating that computer manipulation is not a prerequisite for good photography, even today.

Paul, you could say the same about film. By shooting on film you're giving away control of your image as the look of the photograph will controlled by fixed film characteristics. Users shooting on Velvia for instance have given away some of the control of their images to Fuji engineers who have chosen the film characteristics.

Also, Steve, you mention dynamic range. Velvia only has a latitude of 4-5 stops yet plenty of pros have made their living from it.

Whether, you shoot JPG or film, you still have complete control of the most important parts of photography, namely composition and exposure. And that's what photography is really about, not computer manipulation.

Here's an example of a shot of mine that did not require computer manipulation other than the default RAW conversion.


Andy

Paulw

amcinroy wrote: »

The question was about whether photoshop is needed to "make you a photographer".

Paul, you could say the same about film. By shooting on film you're giving away control of your image as the look of the photograph will controlled by fixed film characteristics. Users shooting on Velvia for instance have given away some of the control of their images to Fuji engineers who have chosen the film characteristics.

Yes, that's exactly what I said above.

To be a photographer, all you need to do is capture light through any camera.

From Wikipedia - A photographer is a person who takes a photograph using a camera.

You don't have to shoot jpg, don't have to shoot raw, don't have to use film ... it doesn't matter. You don't even have to produce prints. All a photographer has to do is capture an image on a camera.

On those lines, no, you don't need photoshop to be a photographer, nor do you need to use film.

Calina

Paulw wrote: »

The difference between shooting jpg and shooting raw and then processing the files yourself is that with jpg you're letting some technician/programmer in Japan make the decision as to what settings to use for your image. Nothing more than that.

You are giving away control of your image to an automatic processing of the image.

Paul, sorry, I can't go with this; you're not 100% right here. Photographers retain control over the key elements of the photograph which are a) composition b) exposure unless of course they use an automatic or semiautomatic setting for taking the picture (translation, I use fully manual and am proud of it).

I get weary of the RAW is better argument. It is not always better for various reasons and ultimately a jpg can be opened in Photoshop and manipulated to your heart's content afterwards. You might claim that you can do more with a RAW file but you're more limited by what you as the photographer can see than by what the software can do with a jpeg over a RAW. You only have to look at the digital photo challenges to see that.

Ricky: your friend is wrong on several grounds. S/he's wrong because they don't understand the nature of the photographry business and technique, and they have no understanding of "what makes a photographer". The method by which you identify someone as having made it is too fluid for my liking.

How do you identify a photographer who has "made it" as a photographer anyway?

amcinroy

Totally agree, nicely put (Paul's last post)

But I do agree with Calina above, it's composition and exposure that are most important.

Andy

m_stan

FreeAnd.. wrote: »

forget about flickr explore, thats more of a photo pimping gallery than anything. You get some good shots but also some pretty lame ones.

X2. flickr explore is fundamentally flawed. even as biased as I am, I have some shots way better than some of the horse sh1t that I see on explore. explore is worked out on 'interestingness' which is based on some stupid factors like #views, #comments etc - all of which can be based on how much you've pimped your shots, how many 'hit/miss/maybe' votes you get etc etc. granted, there is some great stuff on there, but also some tripe.

back on topic, that comment above is a polarised answer to a question that has no one answer. photoshop/lightroom/whatever can be necessary to improve some shots, and in most cases does with digital photos. in other cases it's not needed. of course, a top quality shot deserves all the more credit if it isnt processed as it shows skill/luck on the part of the photographer. in the same way, really well done processing is an art in itself. amazing work can be achieved with and without processing.

the above comment is made by someone who doesn't understand either the art of photography, or the flaws in flickr.

there. I said it !

Rob_T

x3 I agree with all the above, Post processing in Photoshop or whatever is not the final determination of whether a shot is good or not.

The amount of variables that actually go into making good shot are enormous some of which are where you are, what you are pointing your camera at, the quality of the light, how good you are at using your camera.

Post processing can help overcome some of the proceeding variables but if you are lucky/skilled enough to them right you won't need to open PS.