| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2005 09:15:12 PM · #76 |
This debate pops up about every three days or so on DPC, and it seems silly to me. Of course, any photo editing that's allowed can't be considered cheating, and any photo editing that's NOT allowed would be cheating.
I don't think anyone would argue against the need to learn proper use of the camera, but I also don't have any problem with using whatever tools are allowed to make the best of what I've captured. To suggest that Photoshop magic diminishes the need for good camera skills defies logic. There's only so much you can do to FIX a bad exposure, and the Photoshop user will quickly learn out of necessity to avoid blown highlights or soft focus in the original. The more you use Photoshop, the more you recognize the need for good source material to work with.
I have certainly used a digital camera long enough to know how to achieve a good exposure, but I have also accidentally left my ISO setting at 800 or rushed to capture a fast-moving bird that wouldn't pause for a light meter reading. Photoshop to the rescue! It's just a tool, and the fact that it's "outside" the camera doesn't make it any less valid to me than using a monolight or reflector to get a good exposure or selecting a nice frame to enhance a print. My camera can't take a black and white photo without manipulating the image in software.
Trying to draw a distinction between "real" photography and digital art seems pointless. Photography IS an art form, and filmless cameras make it digital art by default. Writing is an art, and just because you use software to affect the typography after you've written something doesn't diminish the value of the words- it only serves to enhance their presentation. Cooking is an art, and just because you know how to grill a steak to perfection doesn't mean you can't make it better with a little seasoning. The photographer's goal is to capture a great image... sometimes you can shoot this rare beast with a camera alone, but other times it must be coaxed out with whatever tools the hunter is allowed to use. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:20:44 PM · #77 |
| This is one redundant topic... Photo editing and Digital photography are linked and it becomes as important to master editing as it is shooting. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:40:02 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the way I feel. I know that some of the words I use may be perceived as prejudiced or derogatory. They are not intended to insult anyone's views or background. |
The title of this thread alone belies this philosophy.
Maybe we should all go back to pinhole cameras -- surely using a telephoto lens is not "capturing the scene as the eye sees it." |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:02:03 PM · #79 |
| THIS THREAD !! it's annoying me, why would it be cheating? These days Photoshop editing is photography, not according to my beleifs but thats how it is. I usually stick to basic editing with my shots, but I dont think it is cheating, what or who are you cheating? it's all about balance, you need to be balanced ..both a good photographer and editor. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:51:53 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Trying to draw a distinction between "real" photography and digital art seems pointless. Photography IS an art form, and filmless cameras make it digital art by default... |
In case this was directed towards my post...
I most definitely agree photography is art. I said that in my previous post - "It's all good. It's all art." Digital photography is art. When I refer to digital art, I mean (my personal definition is) images that are so manipulated, cut and pasted, etc. that you can't even make out what the original was anymore. If you are doing more work and/or creating more elements in PS than you are in the camera to create your final image, then to me it's more digital art than photography.
When I said, "I just prefer (for the most part) to stay on the photography side of things." I meant that I'm trying really hard to do as much right as possible in-camera. I'd rather not have to mess around in PS (other than the basic levels/contrast/color, dust removal tweaks) if I don't have to. It's too time consuming. It's easier for me to take a few minutes and think about my composition and exposure when taking the picture than to upload it, crop the hell out of it, and replace the sky with one from another image. See what I'm saying?
I have nothing against people using PS; I use it.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:29:01 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
In case this was directed towards my post... |
Nope. It was just the ravings of a lunatic, directed towards nobody in particular. Given the thread title, I think the question was about editing that still looks like a photo (hence the cheating part) rather than obvious manipulations or multi-image compositions.
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
...I'm trying really hard to do as much right as possible in-camera. |
Well of course. Why would anyone want to do MORE work after the fact? I just get annoyed by purists who think that the best image is the one that comes from the camera unaltered. No matter how skilled the photographer, the vast majority of images can be improved in some way with post-processing. That's just part of the process. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:47:26 PM · #82 |
| I believe that 75% is the photo itself, and 25% post process. for esample, take a foggy pond shot. a) wait for the right time for fog coverage and set you camera at the right setting needed, take a the shot. Maybe ajust the curves a bit. Great shot. b) Again, take a shot of the same pond without fog on a cloudy overcast morning, then apply a filter(s) as needed to produce and artifical fog. Not a real photo. Overall, I try to produce the best quality image straight from the camera. Nothing that can be done with chemicals in a darkrook and reall film.There were only a few times that I NEVER needed and post-editing, color wise. Of course, I'm not a Pro (yet)...:) |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:48:23 PM · #83 |
| A recent essay on the subject by Pete Myers, who considers himself a fine arts photographer (so you can probably guess his point of view): //www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml |
|
|
|
04/01/2005 12:31:31 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Well of course. Why would anyone want to do MORE work after the fact? I just get annoyed by purists who think that the best image is the one that comes from the camera unaltered. No matter how skilled the photographer, the vast majority of images can be improved in some way with post-processing. That's just part of the process. |
I agree. Digital images are typically flat in color. They all need some tweaking to make them pop like they should. I've had a few pics that haven't, imo, needed editing, but it's rare.
(continuing off-topic...)
It always suprises me to see images that I think would like fine as-is with normal coloring all whacked out (not in a good way) with heavy color saturation and stuff. Ah well... These topics could go on forever. :-)
Nite,
Jen
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 01:48:00 AM · #85 |
Photo editing software is just another tool in the toolbox.
You can pound in a nail with a screwdriver, but it works a lot better with screws.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 03:28:54 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Photo editing software is just another tool in the toolbox.
You can pound in a nail with a screwdriver, but it works a lot better with screws. |
Or a hammer.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 07:15:47 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by broly:
use the camera for art not photoshop |
We live in in a time of technology. Even if you like it or not i think it´s important to follow it because in 5 years it´s even gonna be more than now. Just see the the last years when digital photography started.
If I would like to become a photographer for proffesion i think I have to follow those revolutions because if i wont, i wont stand a change in the future.
Just look littel bit out of the box.
What technology already did in the last 100 years... Not just with photograhy but in all fields.
Peopel had to step aside for newer discoverys. and those peopel got ofcourse pissed because there job got threaten.
I´ve heard from a old school photographers that any idiot can make a good photo today because he has photoshop... I totally disagree!
Now you need to be skilled on more fields and PS is only a extention to the camera.. I mean... Have you even thought about what kind of digital camera you could get in the next 10 years? I can´t!!!
Photoshop is the modern darkroom. Nothing else!
Go with the flow :)
Don´t be to conservative!
|
|
|
|
04/01/2005 09:18:55 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Physics_Guru:
... Do you think photo editing is 'cheating'? ... |
The mistaken belief of the "photo editing is 'cheating'" crowd is the erroneous assumption that as soon as the shutter is clicked that the image is captured and you are done.
That was NEVER true and still isn't today.
In traditional film photography there were two chemical processes to get from shutter click to print, one for the film and one for the print. The number and type of chemicals used, the amount of time they are applied, the type of paper used, the type and quality of the enlarger and the amount of time the paper is exposed under the enlarger all 'modify' the image between shutter click and final print. And that is not counting any specialized techniques applied by the photographer to modify the final print.
So where is the 'purity' in that? What the digital camera captures is essentially the equivalent of an unprocessed roll of film.
To get the final digital image we still must apply the electronic equivalents of chemical baths.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2005 09:00:34 AM · #89 |
| DPC feels a lot like a soap opera...I haven't been here in about 6months and it seems I did not miss one episode...." I hope Ridge regains is memory.....or less Morgane might finaly get what she wants" |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 06:53:14 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by magicshutter:
coolhar,
Have you any idea what happens when you drop film off at the print place? Sounds to me like you don't. They develop the negative using chemicals and treatments (digital equivelent: exposure). If you think the print they give you is exactly the same as it was taken you're mistaken, badly mistaken.
I do though somewhat agree with you. I work in a portrait studio, that uses a lab that charges for corrective anything. Which means, if we as the photographers can't take pictures that don't need editing, we are of no use to them and will be fired. That said, the camera itself does the developing, sharpening, saturating etc. into the final 'developed' image that you get stored on your memory card. But if you want to talk about cheating, I think correcting your exposure is more cheating. Simply because you should have the knowledge it takes to correctly expose your source be it film or digital. Now to cropping, with the exception of aspect ratio, you should be able to compose within the view finder (at least by what you're suggesting).
Dodging and burning.. Anyone who develops their own B&W photos knows that this is done to film too. It simply enhances certain things that the camera simply cannot. I can't remember who brought it to my attention but it was ansel who said "I was an ok photographer, but an outstanding developer" sorry if it's not word for word quote. Do you really believe ansel got those effects from that bulky camera?
As stated before, using photoshop to create a great photo when there was a crappy one to begin with is greatly cheating, but mostly to yourself in saying your a photographer and not a graphic artist. But to say using it as a developing tool for the digital film we're using is insane.
Joe
edit: for clarification purposes unedited does mean this: hair over eyes, exposure, expression, spots on backgrounds, drool stains on clothes. These are but a few of the things that will keep you a starving artist when it comes down to money and people paying for your 'talent'. |
Thank you for addressing the points I am trying to make. You are correct about my knowledge of film developing. My film experience is 25-30 years in the past. I'm sure developing techniques have changed considerably.
I don't think there is anyway I can say what I am feeling without offending some of you, so I'm just going to try to say it plainly and let the chips fall where they may.
I am not a film photographer. When I used to do film, long ago, I didn't like it enough to stick with it. I am trying to be a digital photographer. I think it is a whole new ballgame. It appeals to a much wider audience. I resent the way many people here that have extensive backgrounds in film seem to think all the rest of us should adopt their values about photography. The new digital photographers were not attracted to the hobby by the things you have learned over the years. Obviously these former practitioners of film have switched to digital to some extent, or else they wouldn't be here. But many seem to have their thoughts on photography mired in film and can't break away. I say "CUT THE CORDS". Embrace the new medium and leave the old one behind.
I especially detest the way some old film photogs seem to want to push their way of thinking on the new-to-photography generation that has come here to learn about digital in the 21st century, not about a dying technology. The young people today are exposed to high tech and computers from a very early age, and they are sharper at it than us oldies. It would seem easy for them to fall into the trap of using software to fix up everything and never learn proper camera techniques. That's why I find it so refreshing when someone like broly seems to appreciate the difference and goes for the real.
And I am sick and tired of hearing about Ansel Adams. I don't want the style I am trying to develope with my digital camera (my own personal style) to be influenced by a dinosaur, or by his followers. And, by extension, I hate to see others so influenced.
I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the way I feel. I know that some of the words I use may be perceived as prejudiced or derogatory. They are not intended to insult anyone's views or background. I don't like to see posts in the threads where people try to foist their views on the community as better than other peoples views or positions, and I often speak out when I see that. That does not mean that I don't respect you as a person, or that I say your views are wrong and that you should change them. I ask that I, and others who think as I do, be given the same respect. |
Coolhar,
No hard feelings on my end friend. I did sort of assume you were bashing those using the available tools. I was also trying to point out that nothing is how you see it when you take it. There is always a developing process, be it in photoshop or from a developed negative. While I strive to be as accurate with the camera as I can, I also strive to realize it's a two part process. As far as Ansel goes, get over it. Ansel is great influence to alot of people, and when I quote things like I did previously it's because it helped me make sense of what was 'enhancement' or 'creation in photoshop' because they are two different things. I also think DPC has great tabs on what should be 'illegal' (I.E. moving major elements or multiple shot compositions etc.) Anything this site will let you do (I believe, could be wrong) is based on an 'use to enhance the photo, not create the photo within'. While I respect your will to avoid photoshop, it's not always that cut and dry. If you can find a way to make the camera develop your shots the way you want then you're alot further than I. On that note, I'm not as proficient in photoshop as some DPC'ers and that's probably why I don't score as high. In that sense you are correct in impying that people judge 'corrected' photos higher than those who use their technical skill and little else. Case and point.. I honestly don't think alot of people would do as well score wise if they were not alowed to dodge and burn the hell out of everything, but it's really no different than old film dudes (I realize you're not into and have never been into film). Point is (I think) that it's not exactly black and white.. There are often shades of gray when photoshop comes into question. I mean, some people only use it to crop, but it's still 'using photoshop instead of composing with the camera' but you can't always compose the exact shot from the camera, hense aspect ratios.
Again, no hard feelings.
Joe
Keep shooting regardless if you offend people or not, because who really cares if someone else is offended by your principles.
Edit: The only real thing that bothers me about this situation, is the fact that you asked the question and then became upset, or whatever you want to call it, when you recieved the answer and explanations on why people felt that way. If you don't want people to disagree with you, and to let you know why they disagree with you, then you should probably stop asking in public forums.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 19:18:14. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 07:29:15 PM · #91 |
No,I don't believe its cheating anyone but yourself. I see an awful lot of photos that wouldn't have needed more than basic editing if the photographer had really LOOKED at the composition and figured exposure correctly. Granted, sometimes you don't have the time or means to shoot it optimally the first time.......for these PS is a blessing. I'd have saved hundreds of hours and alot of money had I not felt the need to re-shoot photos in my old film and darkroom days. I'd be willing to wager the top photgraphers in DPC are old (or still are) film photgraphers that strive to get the best photo the first time around.
David
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:37:47 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by dewed:
No,I don't believe its cheating anyone but yourself. I see an awful lot of photos that wouldn't have needed more than basic editing if the photographer had really LOOKED at the composition and figured exposure correctly. Granted, sometimes you don't have the time or means to shoot it optimally the first time.......for these PS is a blessing. I'd have saved hundreds of hours and alot of money had I not felt the need to re-shoot photos in my old film and darkroom days. I'd be willing to wager the top photgraphers in DPC are old (or still are) film photgraphers that strive to get the best photo the first time around.
David |
You've got it, David. I frequently reshoot despite the tools available in Photoshop. Back in the old days (1960s-1980s) my primary photographic functions were documenting events and processes, almost no room for creativity. Even then, post processing was essential for much of my work, whether to highlight some aspect of the scene or dredge something out of the shadows. I am retired now, and striving to make the transition to artistic photography. I love the immediacy of digital cameras and the ease of editing in Photoshop. But I am still enamored of the pure artistry that can be achieved by an accomplished photographer.
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 11:04:27 AM EDT.
