| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2007 12:04:15 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by nadiaC:
...
in a far less philosophical way i'm more likely to believe that the young lady is pissed that lots of people (DPC voters) PREFER to look at digitally corrected photos instead of unedited works.
it's not so much about the photographers and photoshopographers. . .but about someone's picture being ignored in favor of a digitally corrected one.
and, among people who use photoshop regularly, there still plenty of jealousy over who's digitally corrected images get more face-time than others!
... |
Not to pick on you, in particular, but I don't think the OP is necessarily "pissed." In her only other thread here she was looking for a photography related topic for her oral speaking course. It looks to me like she posted a debate-club style postulate and let the arguments run their course. If so, clever way to research the topic. :)
Having done darkroom work back in the day, I tend to fall to the more liberal side of post-processing. None of the rules here, in fact, are as liberal as they are at my camera club where almost anything goes. What I think is, perhaps, a more interesting question is why is this topic such a button-pusher. It never seems to fail to bring emotions over the craft soaring....
|
it wasn't that long ago that i was 19 and felt like it was "cheating" to use photoshop. . . and *I* was pissed that more people didn't appreciate unadorned digital photography.
now i think i was pretty stupid about the whole thing and i was just jealous that i didn't have the same skill set as ribbon winners.
but, you're right.
i guess i spent as much time considering her viewpoint as she did everyone else's.
:o) |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:08:08 PM · #77 |
Wow, this whole discussion is bring up some other issues for me. First does DPC improve your photography or your Photoshop skills or both? Second does it actually improve your skills or just make you conform to the likes of the DPC voters? Food for thought.
I actualy agree with the original poster, however, I use Photoshop just as I would my enlarger in my film days. There are also special issues that only concern the digital era that must also be addressed by a photo imaging programs.
There are photographers and there Printers, There are Photographers and there are Photoshop Gurus. Do you really think that the Photographers who are shooting for the top fashion magazines are also the same people who are photoshoping the images? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:18:36 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
There are photographers and there Printers, There are Photographers and there are Photoshop Gurus. Do you really think that the Photographers who are shooting for the top fashion magazines are also the same people who are photoshoping the images? I doubt it. |
I will be agree with this statement. As a photographer, I honestly hate the time spent doing post processing work in photoshop. So I try to get it right from the camera. Most of the time, if it doenst look right from the camera, I don't bother with it in photoshop. I know if I cropped it, cloned some stuff out and did some fancy editing, it would look very nice. I just dont like spending alot of time on that because I rather be spending the time shooting. Thats my thought.
However I do think that some basic editing is needed to give it a better look appeal. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:31:45 PM · #79 |
Hey all,
First, thanks to everyone who has kept this on topic. I know this is a topic that many of us feel has been hashed to death, so I do appreciate everyone's effort to keep it on-topic. There have been some great insights and real-world examples posted here. Threads like this are what DPC is all about.
I think an important point to take away from this discussion is that while many of us agree that post-processing is an integral part of photography, there is value in focusing on getting as much right in-camera as possible. No matter your level of skill in Photoshop, you can use your skill to maximum advantage, and achieve the best result when the initial capture was made with the end result in mind. This is not much different than when a band records an album, and decides to blow off doing another take, opting instead to "fix it in the mix." With skillful mixing and adequate source recordings, it can be done, but the result is almost always inferior to skillful mixing and high-quality source recordings. It's really no different than photography.
Even if you disagree with the original premise of the thread, perhaps there's that important hidden message to take away from it.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:41:01 PM · #80 |
There have always been at least two parts to photography, camera work and processing. Both are photography.
Here's a quote from "Photography Art and Technique" (Alfred A. Blaker, 1980):
The use of black-and-white film requires previsualizing the range of contrast in the final print, which can be a problem, because there is a great concentration of it between how the eye registers the scene in nature and how the print records it: the human eye can encompass a far greater range of contrast than can a negative; in turn, a negative can encompass much more than a print.
To summarize, any really strong tonal contrasts in a scene will be so concentrated in the photographic process that it will be difficult or impossible to record and print the full range. If highlights or other light tones are to be retained, deep shadows or other exceptionally dark tones will print as black, unless special efforts are made to avoid this...
Once the photographer has learned to look for contrasts and to analyze them in terms of the photographic process, they can be controlled in the following ways:
1. Choosing a film of appropriate inherent contrast.
2. Exposing and developing to control negative contrast (i.e., using the Zone System of exposure control).
3. using a contrast grade of printing paper appropriate to the qualities of the negative.
4. using differential exposure (dodging and burning-in) methods during printing, to lessen the apparent overall picture contrast.
Each of these controls have their equivalents in the digital photographic process. Even starting with the "film choice" of Black and White means, for me and my camera, choosing that in post-processing. At camera club you'll hear the old-timers sing the praises of "Velvia" a slide film known for it's supersaturated colors. As mentioned before, the only real difference is the digital nature of the process.
I don't expect to see negatives on display when I go to a photography show and I don't expect to learn to read binary (if I could, even) to view digital photos. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:45:13 PM · #81 |
I used to think that PS was used over the top on this site but only because I didnt know how to use it myself. Now I want to be able to do what they do.
DPC has definitely improved my skills as a photographer and in using PS. Mainly I have the DPL team to thank for that. I shoot and edit for myself, not the likes of DPC. And for your last question...during my photo shoot for a magazine, the photographer did not edit the photos he took of me. The people at the magazine did. I think it was the Art director or one of her sidekicks. I can't remember what her title was but it was not the photographer.
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
First does DPC improve your photography or your Photoshop skills or both? Second does it actually improve your skills or just make you conform to the likes of the DPC voters? Food for thought.
Do you really think that the Photographers who are shooting for the top fashion magazines are also the same people who are photoshoping the images? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:49:38 PM · #82 |
The other book I'm reading is "The Darkroom Handbook" (Knopf, 1981). Why? I don't have a darkroom. I'm reading it because I'm interested in the film and paper techniques and their relationship to PhotoShop processes.
Some of the topics covered under "advanced manipulations":
Photograms
Shape changes and image distortion
Diffusers and texture screens
Bas-relief
highlight masking
Shadow masking
Multiple printing
Sandwich printing
Solarization
Posterization
Pointillism effects
Under "workroom techniques":
Toning
Hand coloring
Airbrushing
Montage
...any of that sound familiar? |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:08:30 PM · #83 |
And I guess that a novel written in Microsoft Word is not real litterature? Would you also say that a picture taken under controlled lighting is not real photography beacause it's not "natural"?
Photoshop is just a tool, a tool that can help you get exactly the picture you wanted in the first place.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 03:58:51 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
And I guess that a novel written in Microsoft Word is not real litterature? |
Mac people will probably say it is not :)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:18:34 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by merchillio:
And I guess that a novel written in Microsoft Word is not real litterature? |
Mac people will probably say it is not :) |
If it's written on a Mac, it's not a novel, it's an iMadeitup
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:32:51 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by merchillio:
And I guess that a novel written in Microsoft Word is not real litterature? |
Mac people will probably say it is not :) |
If it's written on a Mac, it's not a novel, it's an iMadeitup |
This was written on a Mac. And this. And this. And this. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 06:26:25 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by merchillio:
And I guess that a novel written in Microsoft Word is not real litterature? |
Mac people will probably say it is not :) |
Uh, the Mac version(s) of Microsoft Word have pretty consistently been rated as better than the contemporary Windows version(s) ... |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 08:36:38 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Hey all,
First, thanks to everyone who has kept this on topic. I know this is a topic that many of us feel has been hashed to death, so I do appreciate everyone's effort to keep it on-topic. There have been some great insights and real-world examples posted here. Threads like this are what DPC is all about.
I think an important point to take away from this discussion is that while many of us agree that post-processing is an integral part of photography, there is value in focusing on getting as much right in-camera as possible. No matter your level of skill in Photoshop, you can use your skill to maximum advantage, and achieve the best result when the initial capture was made with the end result in mind. This is not much different than when a band records an album, and decides to blow off doing another take, opting instead to "fix it in the mix." With skillful mixing and adequate source recordings, it can be done, but the result is almost always inferior to skillful mixing and high-quality source recordings. It's really no different than photography.
Even if you disagree with the original premise of the thread, perhaps there's that important hidden message to take away from it.
~Terry |
I think it goes without saying that you want to produce the best possible image straight out of the camera. I don't know of anybody who doesn't try to do that. The thing is not everyone is working with professional equipment nor are they Mr/Mrs DIY who can whip together a ring flash light out of a paper clip and some gaffer tape so they make do with what they can and go from there.
Btw, isn't your post off topic? :P
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 08:49:28 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Uh, the Mac version(s) of Microsoft Word have pretty consistently been rated as better than the contemporary Windows version(s) ... |
of course it has....i also heard it said that the Mac draws cleaner electricity from the wall
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:25:40 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
Wow, this whole discussion is bring up some other issues for me. First does DPC improve your photography or your Photoshop skills or both? |
Yes!.....8>)
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
I actualy agree with the original poster, however, I use Photoshop just as I would my enlarger in my film days. There are also special issues that only concern the digital era that must also be addressed by a photo imaging programs. |
True, but here agin, the better the image, the less work it needs. I just like it so much that I can do it myself for virtually nothing and not have to pay someone and wait.
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
There are photographers and there Printers, |
I'm not sure what you mean, but I print an awful lot of my work, so I have to deal with the vagaries of difference between what I submit and the way it looks and trying to get a hi-res 8½X11 print that looks as good.
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
There are Photographers and there are Photoshop Gurus. |
I find that the better my skills are at both, the easier it is to obtain the image I saw in my mind's eye when I pushed the shutter button.
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
Do you really think that the Photographers who are shooting for the top fashion magazines are also the same people who are photoshoping the images? I doubt it. |
I think you got a little bit off here......there's a lot less photoshop work done than you might think in fashion photography simply because of the tightly controlled environment. It's a little different than trying to get that perfect landscape shot and having to deal with the road, the fence post, the mailbox, that tin shed that's falling down, the four crows on the phone wire.......
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:57:45 AM · #91 |
I guess i'll add to the pile of dead horse carcasses with my own 2 cents.
There certainly is a point where it crosses from being photography to being digital art, but that is why we have clear editing rules in place for the challenges, to ensure it remains a photograph. If you are doing it for some other purpose, then I don't see that it really matters. It's done all the time and most folks just don't realize it. I tend to often back off on the enhancements when it quits looking real, but I have sometimes experimented to see what I can get.
This recent image posted by  awpollard is an excellent example:
[thumb]609471[/thumb]
Is this a photograph or digital art? It's really on the line, but what counts is that I like the way it looks.
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 09:00:01. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:04:48 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I guess i'll add to the pile of dead horse carcasses with my own 2 cents.
There certainly is a point where it crosses from being photography to being digital art, but that is why we have clear editing rules in place for the challenges, to ensure it remains a photograph. If you are doing it for some other purpose, then I don't see that it really matters. It's done all the time and most folks just don't realize it. I tend to often back off on the enhancements when it quits looking real, but I have sometimes experimented to see what I can get.
This recent image posted by awpollard is an excellent example:
[thumb]609471[/thumb]
Is this a photograph or digital art? It's really on the line, but what counts is that I like the way it looks. |
Okay remember the good old days when there were people who specialised in "painting" black and white photos? I have a wonderful one of my father done in this way, so again this photo just looks to me like it has been sepia toned (darkroom technique), and then colored by hand.
Another 2 cents from me LOL
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:10:10 AM · #93 |
| I wish the person who posted this would reply to some of these comments. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:22:45 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I wish the person who posted this would reply to some of these comments. |
I was just thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:26:26 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by bennettjamie:
Originally posted by Tez:
I wish the person who posted this would reply to some of these comments. |
I was just thinking the same thing. |
Hit and run seems to be the OP's style. Perhaps she just lost interest?
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:30:18 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Uh, the Mac version(s) of Microsoft Word have pretty consistently been rated as better than the contemporary Windows version(s) ... |
of course it has....i also heard it said that the Mac draws cleaner electricity from the wall |
No, it just makes better use of what it does draw. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 08:17:26 PM · #97 |
i can't believe this thread is still going on.
and yes, i did lose interest in this thread. i actually forgot it was even going on.
sorry i dont spend every second of my life on this website.
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 20:19:50. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 08:29:27 PM · #98 |
The discussion about photoshopping and photography is very old. We have been debating this for ages I guess. My person view (feel free to ignore it though) is that photoshop is a tool that helps in photography.
Photography is all about capturing a moment. Knowing which is the right moment to capture is most difficult thing to master. A great photographer knows what to capture and how to capture it. Photoshop is a tool to help this capture to be seen in the world as the photographer want it to be seen.
One can learn photoshop by shear will and spending time with it. What he can not learn by working like a mule is the ability to identify which moment to capture. No matter how big stud you are with photoshop, if you do not have ability to pick right moment, in my opinion you are not good photographer.
So first thing is to have a substance in what you shoot. Then enhance with photoshop. These two things are the qualities those make great photographer. Having only photoshop knowledge makes you a great photoshoper but not great photographer.
There are many very good photographers on this site, they may not be great photoshoppers but they know what to capture with their cameras.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 09:33:17 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Ktizzle8807:
i can't believe this thread is still going on.
and yes, i did lose interest in this thread. i actually forgot it was even going on.
sorry i dont spend every second of my life on this website. |
Wow!
Touchy?
Instead of just blasting away and then not following up on what was a pretty well-worn and inflammatory topic, why don't you stick around, swallow a little of the attitude, and try and learn something.
That'd be the decent and civil thing to do and who knows? Maybe you'd enjoy this some and your perspective on life might be a little rosier.
A whole lot of good people have given some honest effort on a dead horse subject with the best of intent and you've pretty much kicked sand in their faces.
There's even been a helpful post after your little blast......although from the post time, he was probably working on it while you were strafing us.
Lighten up.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 09:45:41 PM · #100 |
I would have to Agree 100% with the title of this thread.
Photoshop is not Photography
Simply put, Photoshop is a Tool, to Alter, Change, Create, Enhance, Manipulate, or otherwise use your digital images.
So, Photoshop may not be Photography, but it is a widely used TOOL for many photographers, both digital and film.
|
|
