| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2008 08:08:13 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Blah blah blah... I think this discussion is as valid as the Canon vs. Nikon or Coke vs. Pepsi. Why to people care what other people believe to be correct? If someone doesn´t want to use photoshop and think the only "pure" photographs are straight out of their camera then why should I care.
Likewise, if I want to selectively darken or lighten parts of my photos, remove skin blemishes, change colors and stuff like that, why should anybody care? I work in the advertisement buisness now and trust me, there are no editing rules in the real world, you just do what you have to, wich is usually as little as needs to be done.
I do however get the feeling that people who start arguments that photoshop is not photography have ever stepped into a darkroom, you people who bash photoshop so much, have you actually done that, developed film and then used enlargers to put those pictures yourselves on paper? Pretty much everything that is possible in photoshop has been possible in the darkroom for many many decades, the only difference to me is that my hands don´t smell from the fixer fluids and I now have an "undo" button. |
I have to agree, I am no great photographer and not great in an actual darkroom but have used one off and on since the late 70's (more off than on, lol) Photoshop is nothing more than a computerized darkroom that dosen't cost an arm and a leg in chem's and paper, factor in the trial and error process of learning to print and develop in an actual darkroom and it's a huge bargin!! Nothing more... |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 11:49:28 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Blah blah blah... I think this discussion is as valid as the Canon vs. Nikon or Coke vs. Pepsi. Why to people care what other people believe to be correct? If someone doesn´t want to use photoshop and think the only "pure" photographs are straight out of their camera then why should I care. |
I think people got up in arm's over the OP because she was basically invalidating the work of people on here who do use Photoshop (or other image editing programs) and trying to toot her own horn that she is the purest photographer because she doesn't use them. I disagree with her, especially because a lot of us mainly only use Photoshop to fix the shortcomings of the camera (color, sharpness, noise reduction, etc.) so we're not really changing nature as she said.
Originally posted by jackal9:
I have to agree, I am no great photographer and not great in an actual darkroom but have used one off and on since the late 70's (more off than on, lol) Photoshop is nothing more than a computerized darkroom that dosen't cost an arm and a leg in chem's and paper, factor in the trial and error process of learning to print and develop in an actual darkroom and it's a huge bargin!! Nothing more... |
Yes and no ... there are definitely things you can do in Photoshop that you could never achieve in the film darkroom, short of painting on or altering the negatives themselves. |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 11:55:22 AM · #153 |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 12:13:59 PM · #154 |
It's ART. I can make it anyway I want. It's MY art. You may not like it, that's fine, then don't look at it. But please don't tell me how or how not to make art. It's MY art. I'm not telling you how to make your art, setting rules, guidelines, etc.
DPC is a competition, a game. And games have rules, and they have winners. Winners get ribbons here.
In the larger world cash is the prize, and there is a lot of it spent on photoshopped images, just as there is on truly photographic images.
I've seen a lot of things called 'art' that I might have issue with. Just because I don't think a stack of brillo boxes is art doesn't mean it isn't, or that it's wrong or no one should be useing brillo boxes to make their art.
I choose to use a camera as a starting point to make my art. I don't put restrictions on what I do or don't do in PS. I do what I like, and in a lot of cases do what I think a client might want.
Is that pandering to the taste of masses make it lesser art? Michaleangelo and many others painted what the client wanted, and we'd all agree it's art.
Message edited by author 2008-01-11 12:15:36.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2008 12:17:07 PM · #155 |
| In a way I totally agree with the original poster. If I could afford to shoot 10,000 or so chromes a year I'd never pick up a digital camera again. |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 12:21:41 PM · #156 |
my statement (yes I think not enough people have contributed yet, and my opnion is so important)
photography is nothing without photoshop and the likes.
ever since photography has been created, people have been playing with all sorts of tools (filters, weird lenses, very different film and bodies, not to mention all the darkroom editing). That is fully part of photography.
The fact that you can do that through photoshop now is just the continuation of it, in the digital age. You're free to use or not the various tools at your disposal, but you have no chance to draw a line. And if the above was not convincing enough, just look at the regular heated debates on the site re. the various rulesets (that precisely try to draw lines). Both the picture taking of your camera and the editing are fully intricated.
Saying photoshop is not photgraphy is like saying digital photography is not photograhy.
ok back to photoshop now...
Message edited by author 2008-01-11 12:23:06. |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 03:57:46 PM · #157 |
Iâve seen this argument on Photoshop many times. To say Photoshop isnât photography is like saying icing doesnât make a cake. While the icing alone isnât a cake by itself itâs an important factor in the end result.
I started in photography in 1974. I landed my first full-time gig at a studio/lab in 1979. Back then we used to shoot families and the like in our studio and then process our own prints in the lab. I can remember spending hours cutting mask, dodging paddles and vignettes. Along with exposure in the dark room we spent a lot of time making tools to make the print better than what the camera could produce on itâs own. We also had a lady that did the final touch-up with an airbrush. She would spend an hour or so doing blemish, eyeglass glare and stray hair removal followed by skin softening with paint.
We also used the equivalent of âGreen Screenâ back then to add 100âs of different backgrounds. (They looked really fake back then too) ( I was not a fan)
The point Iâm trying to make is this. We as photographers are still doing the things weâve done for many years. The only difference is the method and the tools weâre now using. Secondly, the tools of today such as Photoshop are available to the masses. Heck, back in the 70âs we could rent our small darkroom for $50.00 an hour to local photographers. Every Saturday was booked all day as well as most evenings. Most folks back then didnât have the money or room for a lab like we had. Nowadays anyone can have a full-blown photo lab right on his or her computer.
Darkroom still has its place, but programs like Photoshop have broadened the art of photography for many who otherwise couldnât do their own post processing work.
We used to have a saying in the lab. âCrop and Paint makes a photographer what he ainâtâ That saying still applies today.
Personally, I would be up a creek without my digital tools. So to those of you doing photography with a digital camera and opposed to Photoshopâ¦â¦What would you suggest? They go hand in hand if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2008 04:10:52 PM · #158 |
Why is this thread still alive.
The OP has posted exactly 5 times in two threads, both of which they created. They have not posted in at least 2 months.
Let the poor dead horse rot in peace. You're scaring away the buzzards. They're hungry.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2008 04:29:15 PM · #159 |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 05:08:14 PM · #160 |
We're bored.
entertain us.
Please!
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 12:17:27 PM · #161 |
I am going to jump on this dead horse and flog it a little then let it die in peace.
I guess I am one of those 'purists' that do not believe in PS. I like to set up the picture, then take the very very best picture I can without PS'ing it in any way afterwards.
Now that being said, I do believe that some photographers, do just take any picture and then PS the hell out of it until it is hardly the same one as before. Examples would be celebrity photographs, you see that all the time digitally remodeled, 70 year old women looking 30. Where as in reality they look 70.
I personally believe in setting up the shot and thinking about it. If there is a huge zit the size of a mountain, then rearrange the model or lighting to get rid of it, or at least make it look like a mole hill. Softer focus, less lighting. Harsh point of view, more lighting etc etc etc.
We all use some sort of program with our digital camera's or film cameras, we all have to crop or resize. Especially here, to enter anything.
I think that PS is an art form unto itself, some of the work coming out of PS is amazing.
I was looking at Kiwiness's portfolio and was blown away at how amazing his PS work was done. I wish I knew how to do any of that, but I do not . ((( It took me half a bottle of gin just to get through the tutorial of how to resize and submit a photo to enter into a challenge on here)) So I am going to start with a class.
There are some shots in Kiwiness portfolio in PS that I would like to try without the PS. So his work in PS has inspired me.
Everyone is different in their beliefs on what and how to achieve a fabulous photograph. If each photographer is honest (saying they have not used PS when they have and vice versa) and happy with what they have achieved, then they have achieved what they set out to do.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 12:35:58 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I guess I am one of those 'purists' that do not believe in PS. I like to set up the picture, then take the very very best picture I can without PS'ing it in any way afterwards.
I personally believe in setting up the shot and thinking about it. If there is a huge zit the size of a mountain, then rearrange the model or lighting to get rid of it, or at least make it look like a mole hill. Softer focus, less lighting. Harsh point of view, more lighting etc etc etc.
|
Sooooo....being new here why don't you just prove your point in imagery. After all, talk is cheap. Show us. Make your point with a portfolio. Why should I just listen when I could easily see? I'm not going to give up my PS as a tool until I am convinced. Convince me.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 12:48:41 PM · #163 |
Took me 4 shoots to get the camera settings (not exposure) exactly how I wanted them. I had to tweak the contrast, sharpness, B&W toning...
Would have taken me about 2 minutes in Photoshop. So forgive me when I say, "purism" is for those that are too stubborn to learn to use an important digital photography tool. And if we weren't digital, well, let's just say, I'd be working in the darkroom, since film cameras don't allow for adjusting saturation, contrasts, sharpness...
Luckily, I shot in RAW+JPEG so I do have a digital negative of that image, along with the "digital slide" that I entered. I'm not locked out of my darkroom.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 12:58:52.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 01:45:42 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I guess I am one of those 'purists' that do not believe in PS. I like to set up the picture, then take the very very best picture I can without PS'ing it in any way afterwards.
I personally believe in setting up the shot and thinking about it. If there is a huge zit the size of a mountain, then rearrange the model or lighting to get rid of it, or at least make it look like a mole hill. Softer focus, less lighting. Harsh point of view, more lighting etc etc etc.
|
Sooooo....being new here why don't you just prove your point in imagery. After all, talk is cheap. Show us. Make your point with a portfolio. Why should I just listen when I could easily see? I'm not going to give up my PS as a tool until I am convinced. Convince me. |
You can browse thru the photos in any of the "Minimal Editing" challenges.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 01:58:25 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
After all, talk is cheap. Show us. Make your point with a portfolio. Why should I just listen when I could easily see? I'm not going to give up my PS as a tool until I am convinced. Convince me. |
Well said that man and seconded over here (also this from a recently 'ex purist').
In other parts of the superfabInterwebthing they like to shout 'proof or STFU', which although harsh does add an element of evidence to claims. Even better this site provides quantification of Art, with all the inherent flaws - so you get to measure your purism versus other DPC entrants.
At the end of the day Photography is about capturing life in stills. Whether you choose to do post production or not is your shout, but don't expect the rest of the world (or history) to change...it's called progress and it isn't a bad thing...it's only a bad thing when it's applied inappropriately or without taste (and *that's* what it's all about...finding that point...imho).
Enjoy your own photography and do what you do - let others do it their way, but don't close your own options and learning off just to be traditional or conservative. I'm just starting to do that myself and I already feel better.
N |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 02:16:42 PM · #166 |
| Face it, you will never be a money making professional without knowledge of Photoshop! Actually, I don't see what the problem is. For all the challenges, enter your "non Photoshop" photos. The rest of us will continue to vote on the "with" and "without" entries. I wonder who will get our votes and win all the ribbons. When you finally see the light, go to one of our excellent DPC'ers and have them Photoshop your photo before you present them to a client. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 02:51:11 PM · #167 |
I got about half-way and couldn't bring myself to read anymore. My apologies to all of you who wrote dissertations.
I just want to say that if I didn't have Photoshop and the special "Protoplasm Plug-in" I would have never been able to capture this spirit laving the poor little fellow when he passed away..
Not to mention this capture of the "other-world" swirling in to take him away:
Clearly Photoshop holds the secrets of life.
__________ |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 03:00:22 PM · #168 |
Why all the hubub, bub?
As a long-time bw film photographer (view camera, own darkroom), anyone who ever made their own prints knows that, as has been said, the negative is the sheet music, the print is the performance. A good set up at the time of exposure provides a good negative from which to produce a good print--seldom, though, does a "straight" print cut it. Plus, there are LOTS of post exposure ways to work a print, not just darkroom techniques like dodging burning: toning, choice of paper, multgrade contrast techniques, paper flashing.
So the "purist" approach described by some here does not even apply to "old school" film cameras/prints (unless one drops film off at the drugstore and accepts whatever comes back).
Photoshop and other such tools are just that: tools, just like the camera, lens, tripod, flash, computer, printer. The art comes from the photographer, the creativity comes from the photographer, the intent comes from the photographer.
There are enough kinds of photography, and enough tools and techniques, so we all can do what we want without trashing the methods and techniques chosen by others. And sometimes, trying an entirely new technique or toolset re-energizes the creative spirit, brings some excitement, wakes one up, and gets one out of a repetitive rut (it sure has done that for me!). For example, when shooting 4x5 sheet film, the image visualization process before exposure involves metering, planning, and even thinking ahead of time about how this will need to be handled in the darkroom--so at the time of exposure, some choices and limits are imposed by what is possible downstream in the process. New tools and techniques add choices, remove some limits, open some new doors.
Peace. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 04:36:19 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Now that being said, I do believe that some photographers, do just take any picture and then PS the hell out of it until it is hardly the same one as before. Examples would be celebrity photographs, you see that all the time digitally remodeled, 70 year old women looking 30. Where as in reality they look 70.
|
They've been doing that to celebrity photos since there were cameras to take celebrity photos. Using Photoshop® to do it is just the latest way to get it done.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 05:38:29 PM · #170 |
Geesh, I was NOT bashing PS or anyone that uses it. In fact I praised it, I think that it is an awesome tool that should be used by whomever wants too.
Okay, Man called horse, you look at my portfolio, all but about 4 shots are completely unedited by PS, you can tell the ones that I have tried to use PS on cos they look like crap.
You may or may not like them, that is up to you. But I like them, the clients like them, I am happy with the end product.
Please do not make it out as though I was bashing anyone, whereas I was not and as stated, I am going to take a class on PS. So please.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 05:41:28 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
|
Sooooo....being new here why don't you just prove your point in imagery. After all, talk is cheap. Show us. Make your point with a portfolio. Why should I just listen when I could easily see? I'm not going to give up my PS as a tool until I am convinced. Convince me. [/quote]
I am not saying give up any PS or anyother program, you have taken what I said out of context, or did not read what I said further on.
I have a port up, so you can look at it
Df, that was just rude.
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 17:55:49.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 06:55:24 PM · #172 |
Back to the OP ... "I don't care how much I get bashed on here, but photoshop is not real photography."
This is SUCH a "water color painters are not real painters, only oil painters are real painters" or "Photography is never art ... only paintings can be art." discussion.
Whether you cut paper dolls beautifully and collage them on blood that was tinted blue or carve amazing images out of pumpkins ... or shave ice into huge representations of the comic hero "The Hulk" ... it is all art and live and let live ...
There is no question that old silver oxide photography is different from digital photography and everything in between ...
Point being ... digital photography is not the same as film photography and requires photoshop used lightly to make the photo approach the look of film photography. This is a Digital Photography site. The fact that some OVERUSE Photoshop or other tools to enhance their digital photography to make it not only more like film photography but something unique and different is not the issue here methinks. There will always be those that overuse tools ... expecially those that are not experienced with them. Then there are others that really get into the surreal capabilities of these tools
What is "real photography" is very very very very subjective.
Let each pursue their own way to express themselves ...
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 19:04:53.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:36:56 PM · #173 |
Now on sale in the foyer - the must have sticker for 08 (and indeed eternity):
.jpg)
:)
N
this week I have been mostly floggin' dead 'orses
Message edited by author 2008-01-19 20:37:59. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 10:17:44 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Now that being said, I do believe that some photographers, do just take any picture and then PS the hell out of it until it is hardly the same one as before. |
This one particular thing irritates me a lot. This is why I dislike few photographers here. But still photoshop is needed and is a very useful tool.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 11:01:12 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I do believe that some photographers, do just take any picture and then PS the hell out of it until it is hardly the same one as before. |
So what?
I have stuff I've photoshopped the hell out of and stuff I've done virtually as shot.
It's called being versatile and experienced.
 ******
Guess which one is which, which one scored better, and just for a giggle.....which one do you like better?
|
|
.jpg)
