| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2005 10:19:45 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Photoshop and other editing programs are integral parts of the photography process. I think there is nothing wrong with adjusting, tweaking, and bringing out the best in an image. Most of the top photographers you are referring to take great images and then make them even better with PS. It's important to recognize though that if you start with a bad image, PS can't do a lot for it. You can't polish a turd. ;) |
ROFL!! well said! lol...
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:45:38 PM · #27 |
It's funny that when you show off a photo to someone they often say, "Wow, you must have a great camera!" Imagine complimenting a chef with the words, "Wow, you must have a great oven!" A photo is just like a cake... the concept is your recipe, the camera is your kitchen, and it's seldom finished right out of the oven. This is especially true of DSLRs. They're designed to capture maximum data, not final images, and the default contrast, sharpness and saturation settings often yield images inferior to what you'd get on Auto with a good point and shoot. Only Polaroid cameras are designed to spit out the final product (yuck). Sure, you can sometimes use Photoshop on your digital creation to fix flaws or accidents, but no amount of icing will cover a bad concept or blown execution. Consistent success requires skill before, during, and after the shot.
Some people prefer plain pound cake to the grandest torte, but in the end we're all here to eat cake, and the richest experience will usually get the best reviews. Season to taste. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 22:47:12. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 11:33:51 PM · #28 |
Very well stated! I love the "great oven" analogy!
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's funny that when you show off a photo to someone they often say, "Wow, you must have a great camera!" Imagine complimenting a chef with the words, "Wow, you must have a great oven!" A photo is just like a cake... the concept is your recipe, the camera is your kitchen, and it's seldom finished right out of the oven. This is especially true of DSLRs. They're designed to capture maximum data, not final images, and the default contrast, sharpness and saturation settings often yield images inferior to what you'd get on Auto with a good point and shoot. Only Polaroid cameras are designed to spit out the final product (yuck). Sure, you can sometimes use Photoshop on your digital creation to fix flaws or accidents, but no amount of icing will cover a bad concept or blown execution. Consistent success requires skill before, during, and after the shot.
Some people prefer plain pound cake to the grandest torte, but in the end we're all here to eat cake, and the richest experience will usually get the best reviews. Season to taste. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 12:21:00 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
... You can't polish a turd. ;) |
Darn it, time to put this cliche to rest ... yes, you can. |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 12:31:05 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Wow, you must have a great camera!" |
you don't know how many people have said that to me in the past yr LOL.. I will now use the oven anology every time :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 12:38:15 AM · #31 |
Just to be a bit of a devil's advocate re: Scalvert's oven analogy..
I can guarantee you're going to get better food out of a large commercial range than you would out of an easy bake oven. (have you ever tasted those things.. bleeech). However, a great chef might be able to coax a little more out of the easy bake than your average joe, but he certainly wouldn't be able to make a world-class baked alaska!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 12:42:28 AM · #32 |
| Rule of thumb: the more famous you get in photography; the more editing you do. |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 12:45:27 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Rule of thumb: the more famous you get in photography; the more editing you do. |
There were some purists who didn't do anything to photos. I heard of one guy who never even cropped an image. Some of his stuff sold for $10k or more. I didn't like his work however as it looked pretty average :-/
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 01:20:58 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by chafer:
I think people are taking my question/inquiry the wrong way. I realize that Photoshop is an integral part of photography these days. I also realize that you "can't polish a turd" (as quoted from laurielblack). I guess what I'm getting at is are the top DP photographers "great" because they are great photographers (i.e. truly amazing photographers) or are they experts with programs like Photoshop? I realize there is overlap there (you can't have one without the other). You look at guys like Ansel Adams...he didn't have Photoshop, but his pictures were incredible (I'm sure he had his darkroom and could manipulate things to some extent...but I know his capabilities were limited compared to what you can do with Photoshop). He was a flat-out great photographer. How many "Ansel Adams-ish" photographers do we really have? |
Others have touched on this, but let me hammer the point home; Ansel Adams is a terrible example of what you're promoting. The man was all about previsualization and post-procsessing. I taught with him, I printed for him near the end of his life. You have NO IDEA how radically altered an Ansel Adams image usually was. You can get a fair idea by using google images to search, say, ansel adams glacier point (or half dome, or el capitan) and then googling the same location without his name appended. You're unlikely to come even CLOSE to finding more than 1 or 2 images that even look like they're shot of the same scene, and people have TRIED. Oh, how they try! I know, because I tried. Repeatedly. He was a magician.
If Ansel were alive and working actively now, he'd be in love with photoshop. Guaranteed.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 01:50:16 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
You can't polish a turd. ;) |
I'm really tempted to take this literally and do a "special" photo shoot...
hmm!
what a challenge topic that would make! |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 02:31:58 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
You can't polish a turd. ;) |
I'm really tempted to take this literally and do a "special" photo shoot...
hmm!
what a challenge topic that would make! |
See the link I posed earlier if you want to make your job easier ... |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 02:39:11 AM · #37 |
I don't know about polishing a turd, but I know you can rake them up!!!
heeheehee
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 02:40:39 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
If Ansel were alive and working actively now, he'd be in love with photoshop. Guaranteed.
R. |
I've had another of Mr. Adams' assistants tell me the same thing during a tour of his house/studio in Carmel (or is it over the border in Pacific Grove?). |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 07:23:23 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by chafer:
My exposure is usually off and I end up doing a lot of contrast adjustments, etc. Does everyone have a problem with that…even the top photographers? Just curious what’s going on behind the scene. |
The higher end the camera gets, the more processing you need to do, generally. Certainly for contrast. With my 300D half the time I can sell or submit to magazines images straight out of camera. With my 1D I will use auto-contrast because the pics are a lot flatter. (That said, I do use a custom curve in camera.)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 07:26:18 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
in film you must master the darkroom and with digital you must master photoshop LOL |
Smartest comment so far... Photography wether it's film or digital is a lot more then just... Click! Here you go!
How many pros use Polaroids as their main camera? |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 08:03:40 AM · #41 |
I do believe that a vast majority of the top photographers here and elsewhere are not top BECAUSE of post processing.
First you have to have the vision to see something in real life that is interesting. How many times have you walked by an area day after day and not photographed it cause it wasn't interesting to you or maybe you didn't know how to capture it in an interesting manner? I do it almost every time I'm at the botanical gardens-aww that flowers not interesting enough (it should be though, it's one of God's miracles how much more interesting could it be, but I still walk by it).
Then you need the skills to capture that vision into the camera with the right or close to right DOF, lighting, framing etc. Then you need to know post processing be it negative or PS to help bring your vision to life and replace what the camera couldn't get.
I believe photography starts with the photographer, then his equipment and do believe great photographers are great because they have the ability to see what most can't.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 08:06:25 AM · #42 |
| I feel that good photos really don't need a lot of work. Unfortunately, some of the medium format and large format cameras do take really great pictures from a professional standpoint, but they are really expensive. Anyway, even the black and white artists who did their own developing would tweek focus, increase contrast. amd evem tone or colorize. Post-processing is truly an integral part. I even find myself scanning my film pictures and using post processing, because most labs around here really do a bad job of developing, especially the one hour ones. |
|
|
|
08/12/2005 08:08:35 AM · #43 |
i'm no 'master' but i've been trying to do as little post-processing as possible, for 2 reasons.. 1, i'm not all that good with photoshop, 2, i really want to be able to guage my shooting. i like basic editing challenges because it puts us non-photoshop gurus on a more level playing field.
|
|
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: 06/07/2025 06:40:07 PM EDT.
