DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photography vs Photoshop
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/21/2005 10:29:59 AM · #1
It seems to me that too many people think that photoshop and photography are the same thing. I have been talking photos for almost 50 years now. I had to learn how to make a good photo in the camera. So I don't rely on photoshop to fix something. If the photo is bad, I make another. If you start with a well exposed image, then you can enhance it in photoshop. If you start with a poor image, you will still have a poor image. Learn your camera equipment, nail the exposure exactly, and your white balance and then play with photoshop. YOur results will be much better. I highly reccommend the PhotoVison "Digital Photo Solutions 2005" It is a free seminar and very eye opening. Digital is no where as forgiving on exposure as film is. Check out //www.digitalphotovideo.com for the next free seminar.
 03/21/2005 10:55:50 AM · #2
that link goes nowhere.
 03/21/2005 10:59:53 AM · #3
Originally posted by atsxus:
that link goes nowhere.


Opps. sorry, here is the correst one. //www.photovisionvideo.com/
 03/21/2005 11:00:57 AM · #4
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Digital is no where as forgiving on exposure as film is.

While I agree with the broad sentiment that it's better to take a decent picture than to fix a bad one later in photoshop, digital has a much bigger dynamic range than film. I can't dig up a link immediately but from memory print film gives you about 7 stops, slide a little less and a decent DSLR around 10.

So in that particular sense, digital IS more forgiving in exposure terms.
 03/21/2005 11:03:00 AM · #5
//www.digitalphotosolutions.net/

That one goes directly to the seiminar:

:)
 03/21/2005 11:10:54 AM · #6
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Digital is no where as forgiving on exposure as film is.

While I agree with the broad sentiment that it's better to take a decent picture than to fix a bad one later in photoshop, digital has a much bigger dynamic range than film. I can't dig up a link immediately but from memory print film gives you about 7 stops, slide a little less and a decent DSLR around 10.

So in that particular sense, digital IS more forgiving in exposure terms.

Ummmm... I don't think those numbers are correct. 10 stops of dynamic range would make the DLSR (nearly) as capable as the human eye..
03/21/2005 11:19:56 AM · #7
Are you saying we should be shooting more like we are using a view camera rather than firing off a barage of shots machine gun style at 9fps using auto/program mode to do our thinking?
 03/21/2005 11:22:52 AM · #8


It may have a wide dynamic range in high light to shadow, but not in exposure. In RAW editing, you have about 3 or 4 stops that you can use, but what that does is actually change the ISO. If the data was not properly recorded, the software has to take over and guess as to what is there. If you get the correct exposure, then all the info is there at the ISO you shot.

Message edited by author 2005-03-21 11:23:36.
 03/21/2005 11:33:03 AM · #9
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It seems to me that too many people think that photoshop and photography are the same thing. I have been talking photos for almost 50 years now. I had to learn how to make a good photo in the camera. So I don't rely on photoshop to fix something. If the photo is bad, I make another. If you start with a well exposed image, then you can enhance it in photoshop. If you start with a poor image, you will still have a poor image. Learn your camera equipment, nail the exposure exactly, and your white balance and then play with photoshop. YOur results will be much better. I highly reccommend the PhotoVison "Digital Photo Solutions 2005" It is a free seminar and very eye opening. Digital is no where as forgiving on exposure as film is. Check out //www.digitalphotovideo.com for the next free seminar.


I agree with what you are saying.

I want to emphasize the PS (or some other post processing software) is an essential ingredient to photography. As is true there is no way that a "bad" photograph can be saved with PS, just as true is there is no way the a "good" photograph cannot be improved with proper post processing.

Message edited by author 2005-03-21 11:33:19.
 03/21/2005 11:35:46 AM · #10
No matter the sensor being used (film, ccd, CMOS...) getting the exposure right will always optimize the results. If you're using digital, it's very important to get the exposure correct since that will reduce noise to the minimum. Getting the exposure correct may mean different things. With film, the target may be to get as close to what you'd like in the print, whereas with digital, you normally want to expose to use the entire dynamic range of the sensor, and decrease exposure in software later if desired. It's normally not a good idea to increae exposure in a RAW conversion by more than 0.5 stops, but again, there are exceptions.
 03/21/2005 12:19:11 PM · #11
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Ummmm... I don't think those numbers are correct. 10 stops of dynamic range would make the DLSR (nearly) as capable as the human eye..

I knew I'd end up googling this one... ;-)

The clearest figures I dug out just now come from the nice table I found here; which gives figures of 7 stops for negatives, 5 stops on slide (although it's not quite as simple as that) and 8-9 stops on "prosumer" digital. And just for reference, 11 stops for the human eye.

Obviously there are about a million other websites all of which have slightly varying figures depending on what point they're trying to make.

My only real issue was the statement that film was more forgiving on exposure than digital; I wouldn't quite agree with that - film is more forgiving on highlights but digital can dig up more in the shadows.
 03/21/2005 02:03:46 PM · #12
For me I can't really get into Digital Photography (even though I own my DSLR) because it seems nowawdays you are a Profesional at photoshop not at photography. Not saying I am a pro in any means since I am only 18 and have only been shooting 2 years. I dunno... that is my take on it... I will take my SLR over my DSLR ANY day

-Ryan-
 03/21/2005 02:16:12 PM · #13
Originally posted by gwphoto:
As is true there is no way that a "bad" photograph can be saved with PS, just as true is there is no way the a "good" photograph cannot be improved with proper post processing.


You would have to define "saved". I've been designing and "fixing" bad photography and video for 16 years - my clients think I've "saved" their bad shots in Photoshop. Since the client is always right, I think I "saved" them too.

So what is your definition of "saved" that cannot be achieved in Photoshop? My experience is if it's within -2 to +.5 stops, and focused, it can be saved to a clients satisfaction.
 03/21/2005 02:35:35 PM · #14
I wish someone would really explain to me what the hell is the difference between a dark room and Photoshop. I've used both, and they are BOTH tools. No one in their right mind takes a raw negative and doesn't manipulate it in some way in the darkroom, whether it be upping the contrast, dodging and burning, pushing the negative developer solution, cropping, etc etc etc. To me this argument is pointless. Photoshop is simply a darkroom in a CPU. Granted, it can be taken to far, but so can 'cross-processing'. That got old REAL fast and it has nothing to do with Photoshop. They probably had this same discussion when things went from giant glass plates to 120 film. It's all tools. All that matters is the end result. There's the potential for good and bad in any tool.
 03/21/2005 02:38:12 PM · #15
Originally posted by spicynuts:
I wish someone would really explain to me what the hell is the difference between a dark room and Photoshop. I've used both, and they are BOTH tools. No one in their right mind takes a raw negative and doesn't manipulate it in some way in the darkroom, whether it be upping the contrast, dodging and burning, pushing the negative developer solution, cropping, etc etc etc. To me this argument is pointless. Photoshop is simply a darkroom in a CPU. Granted, it can be taken to far, but so can 'cross-processing'. That got old REAL fast and it has nothing to do with Photoshop. They probably had this same discussion when things went from giant glass plates to 120 film. It's all tools. All that matters is the end result. There's the potential for good and bad in any tool.


People like to argue and take positions. It's meaningless. We all do what we gotta do. Whatever floats your boat, is my attitude.

Robt.
 03/21/2005 02:41:22 PM · #16
Originally posted by digitalknight:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
As is true there is no way that a "bad" photograph can be saved with PS, just as true is there is no way the a "good" photograph cannot be improved with proper post processing.


You would have to define "saved". I've been designing and "fixing" bad photography and video for 16 years - my clients think I've "saved" their bad shots in Photoshop. Since the client is always right, I think I "saved" them too.

So what is your definition of "saved" that cannot be achieved in Photoshop? My experience is if it's within -2 to +.5 stops, and focused, it can be saved to a clients satisfaction.


I think he means you can't "save" bad composition and indifferent seeing. Crappy DOF. Totally blown highlights. Stuff like that. And it's basically true.

Robt.
 03/21/2005 02:59:48 PM · #17
Originally posted by spicynuts:
I wish someone would really explain to me what the hell is the difference between a dark room and Photoshop. I've used both, and they are BOTH tools. No one in their right mind takes a raw negative and doesn't manipulate it in some way in the darkroom, whether it be upping the contrast, dodging and burning, pushing the negative developer solution, cropping, etc etc etc. To me this argument is pointless. Photoshop is simply a darkroom in a CPU. Granted, it can be taken to far, but so can 'cross-processing'. That got old REAL fast and it has nothing to do with Photoshop. They probably had this same discussion when things went from giant glass plates to 120 film. It's all tools. All that matters is the end result. There's the potential for good and bad in any tool.


Photography was quite "plastic" before photoshop, and it is now, too. In the photoshop darkroom, we don't need smelly chemicals, though.
 03/21/2005 03:11:39 PM · #18
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Photography was quite "plastic" before photoshop, and it is now, too. In the photoshop darkroom, we don't need smelly chemicals, though.

The people who make the chips and disks and other parts have to deal with them though ... gallium arsenide is not something I'd want to play with myself just to make a picture.
 03/21/2005 03:30:55 PM · #19
I attended the March 13th Seminar in Seattle. It had some valuable points, especially if you wanted to start out professionally and to learn how to work more efficiently. During the break at the Seminar, you had a chance to buy some of their products at a reduced price, if you wanted to buy afterwards, they had already packed their gear!

Message edited by author 2005-03-21 15:32:30.
 03/21/2005 03:34:34 PM · #20
Originally posted by spicynuts:
I wish someone would really explain to me what the hell is the difference between a dark room and Photoshop. I've used both, and they are BOTH tools. No one in their right mind takes a raw negative and doesn't manipulate it in some way in the darkroom, whether it be upping the contrast, dodging and burning, pushing the negative developer solution, cropping, etc etc etc. To me this argument is pointless. Photoshop is simply a darkroom in a CPU. Granted, it can be taken to far, but so can 'cross-processing'. That got old REAL fast and it has nothing to do with Photoshop. They probably had this same discussion when things went from giant glass plates to 120 film. It's all tools. All that matters is the end result. There's the potential for good and bad in any tool.


The difference between photoshop and the darkroom is that only a small fraction of photographers were ever able to achieve great results in the darkroom and charge a lot of money for their spectacular looking prints.

Photoshop alarms the purists because any good photographer with basic photoshop skills can now create the same effects. The "mystery" is gone.
 03/21/2005 04:10:15 PM · #21
Originally posted by heatherd:
I attended the March 13th Seminar in Seattle. It had some valuable points, especially if you wanted to start out professionally and to learn how to work more efficiently. During the break at the Seminar, you had a chance to buy some of their products at a reduced price, if you wanted to buy afterwards, they had already packed their gear!

What are their products? Just photo-editing software, right?
 03/21/2005 04:28:22 PM · #22
Originally posted by gwphoto:
If you start with a well exposed image, then you can enhance it in photoshop. If you start with a poor image, you will still have a poor image.
But you can slick it up in photoshop, make it into "eye candy" and it'll score high in a challenge. Or you can convert it to B&W and say you did it for artistic purposes so it doesn't need to look right.

Greg, I take it you have been to the seminar. If I go to the one in my town, Baltimore, what should I take with me? They don't expect you to bring a camera do they? How about some images, or a formal portfolio?
 03/21/2005 04:33:05 PM · #23
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Originally posted by spicynuts:
I wish someone would really explain to me what the hell is the difference between a dark room and Photoshop. I've used both, and they are BOTH tools. No one in their right mind takes a raw negative and doesn't manipulate it in some way in the darkroom, whether it be upping the contrast, dodging and burning, pushing the negative developer solution, cropping, etc etc etc. To me this argument is pointless. Photoshop is simply a darkroom in a CPU. Granted, it can be taken to far, but so can 'cross-processing'. That got old REAL fast and it has nothing to do with Photoshop. They probably had this same discussion when things went from giant glass plates to 120 film. It's all tools. All that matters is the end result. There's the potential for good and bad in any tool.


Photography was quite "plastic" before photoshop, and it is now, too. In the photoshop darkroom, we don't need smelly chemicals, though.


Neither do we need the dark, David; which is something of a shame.

e
 03/21/2005 04:36:36 PM · #24
Originally posted by bear_music:
I think he means you can't "save" bad composition and indifferent seeing. Crappy DOF. Totally blown highlights. Stuff like that. And it's basically true.

Robt.


Except Robert, that if you screwed up on the above, re-shooting isn't the solution.

e
 03/21/2005 06:03:07 PM · #25
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I think he means you can't "save" bad composition and indifferent seeing. Crappy DOF. Totally blown highlights. Stuff like that. And it's basically true.

Robt.


Except Robert, that if you screwed up on the above, re-shooting isn't the solution.

e


Not sure I understand...

Robt.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 08:57:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 08:57:25 AM EDT.