| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2005 06:18:04 PM · #1 |
| I’m curious how many DP members are good enough photographers that they do not need to rely on programs like Photoshop to make their photographs look good. I know that there are several of the “top” photographers on DP that routinely burn the sky and do a lot of post-shot editing. If the picture turns out better because of that, great…but could they still win without using Photoshop (or other programs)? I have a hard time taking a good picture without using Photoshop afterwards. 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. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:20:17 PM · #2 |
almost every photographer i know ups saturation a ton. Curves is pretty easy to use to make things jump out better. It's really hard to get something perfect in camera without perfect settings. The adjustment settings are there so you can use them.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:20:47 PM · #3 |
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. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:21:19 PM · #4 |
Photoshop or other editing programs are todays equivalent to film processing. Some processing has to be done to a picture no matter how good one may be.
I use processing to bring out what I see in the photograph that the camera and light can't see, Emotion. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:21:19 PM · #5 |
uhm...I think that only using the camera isn't really using digital photography to its fullest extent. Folks that shoot film even when they develop themselves, they may over-develop or under-develop or dodge and burn or what have you...
I don't think the top photog's necessarily need photoshop to make their photos look good, but I bet it sure as heck helps them to look better.
Like I said...the digital darkroom is part of photography.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:29:56 PM · #6 |
I stopped believing that the true form of photography is a photography with no post-processing.
It just doesn't make sense anymore, it just seems like copying nature. In my opinion real photography is what the photographer sees and thinks it's real photography.
I don't know if that makes sense :/
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:30:32 PM · #7 |
With digital, it's not always about "getting it perfect in-camera." Sure, for most shots, you're trying to get as close as possible with framing, and of course you always have to get the focus and DoF right in-camera or you're screwed. But with things like exposure, you may actually WANT to make the in-camera result deviate from your intended final result... Google "expose to the right" and do some reading.
Also, DSLRs are made to give images that benefit from some post-processing, particularly if you shoot RAW. You'll NEED to apply some sharpening, and possibly tweak white balance in the RAW conversion.
In general, any shot will typically benefit from gentle cropping, exposure tweaking, and other minor adjustments. These were a natural part of the film workflow too, they're just done differently in digital. There's nothing "wrong" inherently with post-processing, but I do agree that many folks do "overprocess" with respect to contrast and saturation... even so, would you stop a film photog from using Velvia?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:33:45 PM · #8 |
Make full use of what's available to you. This should be the policy of every artist. If two different printed pictures are equally pleasing to look at, does it really matter what method was used to produce them? |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:36:28 PM · #9 |
| 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? |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:40:14 PM · #10 |
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? |
He had a darkroom. Which is the equivalent of photoshop for film photographers.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:41:35 PM · #11 |
Ansel Adams did a lot of work in the dark room to get his images the way he wanted. Manipulating to some extent is an understatement.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:43:36 PM · #12 |
There are quite a few really good photographers here. They also have to be pretty good with editing to do well in this environment too, but mostly it's the camera and the vision.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 18:44:06.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:47:38 PM · #13 |
There are 3 "big" Ansel Adams books:
1 - The Camera
2 - The Negative
3 - The Print
Book #2 talks about exposure (zone system) and starts talking darkroom which continues in #3 (or so I assume, I've not actually read that one...)
But - like everybody is saying - post-processing is, has, and will be a major part of photography. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:51:20 PM · #14 |
| Here is an example of how Ansel Adams used the darkroom |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:51:44 PM · #15 |
The vision certainly, the camera not at all - but the knowledge of how to use a (digital) camera, certainly.
To my mind, what one is trying to do when shooting is to capture the most information possible - this is why one should always shoot with contrast set to its lowest possible setting (because if you increase the contrast, the camera brightens the highlights and darkens the shadows, meaning that more of the detail in those areas is reduced to white or black). It's a very very rare photograph indeed that requires no increase of contrast at printing/processing.
That's just in my world of course. Others probably disagree.
e |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:53:56 PM · #16 |
I'd say the top photographers here are tops because first and foremost they are good photographers and have artistic and creative minds. How you use your tools...whether it's the camera or the software...boils down to having a vision, and a gift for conveying that vision. That's what I think the top photographers have and that's why, as you said, the top ones are good using BOTH the camera and the software.
Personally, I find that I take pictures differently now that I have some editing control. I usually don't crop quite as tightly in-camera as I did with my film camera. I usually work on the side of slight underexposure on some things vs. in film, getting all the light even if it means a few blown out areas. I also, of course, take many MORE photos. :) |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 06:54:07 PM · #17 |
This question is like asking a artist to create art without using all the tools available to him/her.
Today, creating beautiful photography requires the mastery of Post work... which it always did, ask anyone who's had extensive experience in the dark room.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 18:55:16. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 07:02:01 PM · #18 |
This bears repeating:
Originally posted by Ennil:
I stopped believing that the true form of photography is a photography with no post-processing.
It just doesn't make sense anymore, it just seems like copying nature. In my opinion real photography is what the photographer sees and thinks it's real photography.
...:/ |
In other words, "STOP believing that photography is limited to images captured through a lens to a recording medium and nothing else."
Otherwise, the 4th graders who take photo-sensitive paper and place twigs and flowers on them, expose to sun and wash in chemicals are among the only "true" photographers. =O
This is an art form that like all the others allows for expression to the max--the max lens, the max recording medium, the max post-processing...
We will all draw the line where we think photography ends and "digital art" or hand manipulation begins. But unless you're talking about photo-journalism and the limits of court-of-law acceptable evidence, I'm going to both believe that I'm "pro" enough to record AND process my image.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 19:02:31.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 07:04:48 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by chafer:
I’m curious how many DP members are good enough photographers that they do not need to rely on programs like Photoshop to make their photographs look good. I know that there are several of the “top” photographers on DP that routinely burn the sky and do a lot of post-shot editing. If the picture turns out better because of that, great…but could they still win without using Photoshop (or other programs)? I have a hard time taking a good picture without using Photoshop afterwards. 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. |
Post processing has nothing to do with how good a photographer you are. That would be the same as saying who here is so good at shooting film they dont have to use an enlarger to make a print. Without post processing, photography (as an art) does not exist. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 07:05:36 PM · #20 |
Anyway...back to the original question...
Yes, I am the best on DPC, and yes, I do use photoshop. Thanks for your concern.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 07:07:18 PM · #21 |
here is something that I have on a wall in my studio:
--the difference between a photographer and a person who takes pictures is that when the photographer looks thru the viewfinder, he/she sees the end result--
That also implies post work.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 19:08:29. |
|
|
|
08/11/2005 07:22:06 PM · #22 |
i very rarely do any extensive work to my photos, i'll upload to flickr straight out of the camera, not even rotated.
perhaps because i work in photoshop all day long processing photos, I don't really want to touch mine. The ones i like the most are untouched...and when i get a photo to work on at Work, that doesn't need Any adjustments, it seriously makes me smile, and then i check the file info to see what kind of camera, exposure, etc...
the over-processed pics that come in are a never-ending blur of too much sharpening, too much lightening, and much too much cloning that could have been done better with silly putty and a newspaper print.
Message edited by author 2005-08-11 19:23:49.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 09:40:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by chafer:
... 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). ... |
As you can see from the responses so far, post processing is the dominant religion here at dpc. Not many subscribe to the "purist" vision of doing photography with a camera and using editing software to make up for it's/your shortcomings. In fact, many people seem to feel compelled to devalue that approach. Personally, I would be flattered if people thought my shots were good copies of nature.
I think that the dpc'ers that can consistently turn in top 10 or top 20 shots are very good with the camera, very good with editing AND have found the magic formula to capture the hearts of the dpc voters with shots that have imapct and make a good first impression. The last part is something that seems elusive to most but seems to come naturally to others, even to the extent that they are unaware of that talent in themselves. Some other people seem able to comprehend what will tickle the fickle fancy of voters but choose not to shoot that type of picture. I am still struggling to master the first, am slightly beyond beginner with the second, and haven't given much effort to developing the third yet.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 09:44:37 PM · #24 |
in film you must master the darkroom and with digital you must master photoshop LOL
|
|
|
|
08/11/2005 10:11:46 PM · #25 |
I was an assitant to an old industrial photographer that always told me "You can't take a picture that doesn't need a little burning or dodging somewhere".
I've always remembered that statement, whether I was printing in a darkroom or editing images with photoshop.
Even though they used a different medium, film photographers used plenty of darkroom techniques that we can now use on our computers.
spenlee
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 11:14:19 PM EDT.
