Photoshop or not?
augustmelody
Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 74 Big grins
Photoshop: When, how often, and why do you use it?
This forum was my first introduction to "real world" photography. I remember my first days of browsing through the photos posted here in absolute awe of the talent and knowledge of photography that is present on this board. Many of the photos are nothing short of jaw-dropping.
One of the biggest surprises that I found was just how commonly photoshop is used to tweak color, remove a dust spot or glare, or completely alter the composition or subject of a photo. Every photography teacher or mentor I have had has been of the opinion that if the photo comes out of the camera with problems, then you need to learn how to take your photos better and fix it for the next shot. Of course, many of them seem to still be working in the world of 35mm SLRs and developing their own film, so that reasoning makes a bit of sense in their cases. I guess that idea has carried over into my own photography even though my old 35mm Minolta is collecting dust and I shoot 95% of my photos digitally now.
I have a very hard time looking at a photo and thinking, "Oh, it's a little bit blue-heavy, I'll adjust that in PS." I don't even have PS on this computer, and although I have access to the tech and printing labs at school, I would be at a loss for when and how to use the technology. I know my way around Photoshop well enough, but I would like to hear your thoughts on when and how it is appropriate to modify a photo. I would also love some opinions on just where the line is between "photography" and "graphic art".
Thanks everyone! :bow
This forum was my first introduction to "real world" photography. I remember my first days of browsing through the photos posted here in absolute awe of the talent and knowledge of photography that is present on this board. Many of the photos are nothing short of jaw-dropping.
One of the biggest surprises that I found was just how commonly photoshop is used to tweak color, remove a dust spot or glare, or completely alter the composition or subject of a photo. Every photography teacher or mentor I have had has been of the opinion that if the photo comes out of the camera with problems, then you need to learn how to take your photos better and fix it for the next shot. Of course, many of them seem to still be working in the world of 35mm SLRs and developing their own film, so that reasoning makes a bit of sense in their cases. I guess that idea has carried over into my own photography even though my old 35mm Minolta is collecting dust and I shoot 95% of my photos digitally now.
I have a very hard time looking at a photo and thinking, "Oh, it's a little bit blue-heavy, I'll adjust that in PS." I don't even have PS on this computer, and although I have access to the tech and printing labs at school, I would be at a loss for when and how to use the technology. I know my way around Photoshop well enough, but I would like to hear your thoughts on when and how it is appropriate to modify a photo. I would also love some opinions on just where the line is between "photography" and "graphic art".
Thanks everyone! :bow
0
Comments
For me, it's when reality is distorted to the point that it becomes fantasy.
I've seen gorgeous shots where after close inspection or self admission...the subject never existed in the environment that it is displayed in. The background may be a complete digital fabrication...on and on.
Guess only you can answer that question for yourself.
I use Photoshop for anything I would have done in the darkroom. And that's a very long list, from tone and color tweaks to spotting out dust and scratches. On the other hand, partly because I don't have all the time in the world, I don't really do anything that wouldn't be done in the darkroom by most people, like synthetic image combinations and wild alterations.
Your teachers are right that the best and fastest way to make good pictures is get it "right" in camera, but on the other hand if they know anything about Ansel Adams his negatives look NOTHING like the final prints. In the darkroom he chemically manipulated both negatives and prints in more ways than any of us can even think of even in Photoshop. So there's nothing immoral about manipulation, Photoshop or not (outside of photojournalism) unless you want to question the very nature of the working techniques of Ansel Adams and others.
Colourbox, your insight gives me yet another factor to ponder. I know very little about what goes on in the darkroom other than that the masters that you speak of are indeed able to do things far beyond the limits of photoshop in some cases. My question remains, however - Whether you are using photoshop or the darkroom, when and to what degree is editing or image modification appropriate and acceptable within the bounds of "photography"? Is that simply one of the final steps to producing a good photo or is it another art form completely?
Folks use photoshop and other programs partly because a human being with some practice can do this better than software making educated guesses. You can also do more creative things, just like in a darkroom, like cropping, dodging and burning, color enhancements, and lots more.
Of course, you can also really change what's in the image. If a power line is spoiling an otherwise great landscape, you can grab your handy clone tool and take it out. For a photojournalist this is an ethical no-no. For the rest of us, I see no problem unless it's done with an intent actualy to deceive someone. After all, if an artist painted the same landscape you wouldn't be shocked if he decided not to include the power line.
Of course, there are issues people have different opinions about. On a portrait, I would remove a pimple, but I would certainly not try to remove freckles. One was temporary; the other is part of the subject's appearance. (Not a good example maybe -- I think most people would agree with that distinction.)
It really comes down to how much time and money you are willing to spend to create better pictures. In the film days, some people invested time and money in acquiring, mastering and using darkroom equipment. Most folks were quite happy taking their film to Walgreens. It's the same with digital - just substitute post-processing on a computer for the darkroom.
--Jay
With film you ahve various grades of printing: the el cheapo very minimal tweak consumer grade...aka Walgreens or Wal Mart......then you have the Professional Labs that also have various grades.....such as candid, Pro and then the top Master grade.....
What each of these grades do is a different amount of tweaking to the negative or slide in the printing process....with the lowest grades itis pretty much slide the carrier in and hit a button to expose the paper.....then you have the top grade "Master"....with a lot of labs this will not only include color adjustments, burning and dodging, dust spotting but also it may include a certain amount of touch up by the labs professional touch up artist.....
Photoshop for me is just that my darkroom and I do no more in Pshotoshop than I would in my darkroom, except that now I do not have to breathe all those chemicals nor worry about what to do with the waste chemicals and in reality it really is a money saver as there will undoubtedly be new versions...but that doesn't mean that your copy wil expire in 6months or even 5 years.....I am still using Photoshop 7....it was great and I was stupid with my money, in that I started buying up every plug in I had the money for....so I cannot afford to ever uninstall PS7 and throw away over 1500 different plugins.....nor can I afford to upgrade all of those to work with current versions of PS......
It is simply a tool......if Andy Warhol were alive now he would be turnig out some really outrageous Art...even more outrageous than he did......
I take some of my stuff to some really extreme extremes just to see if I can keep it together, when I know that my vision and what I can create in the camera are 2 very different things.....both the camera and Photoshop are just tools and vehicles to get to the end point of your vision.
I'm also interested in the Liquify tool, but I just haven't had the time to learn it yet (look it up on youtube for some amazing work.)
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros."
~Herbert Keppler
Like the others have said, people who get up-in-arms about using Photoshop to correct a photo or make it more dramatic should look into what some artistic photographers have done in a darkroom.
Gallery of mine...caution, it's under CONSTANT construction! | Photo Journal
In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary. ~Aaron Rose
Yes
Sam
Other than a photojournalist purporting to document an event or a place, I do not understand all the sturn et drang about using any tool that creates your artistic vision. To paraphrase a paradigm of life, if it looks good, do it. And, in my view, Photoshop, HDR plug-ins, and ancillary tools should be freely used, without any overlays of guilt. The only test should be whether the result produces an etherial "ah ..." Otherwise the challenge of producing great art is reduced to see who can do what with a soup-can pinhole camera.
Ralph Adam Fine
By the way, I just chose at random Jen's post as the vehicle to say what I wanted to say. Her phtographs are beautiful, though, and I do not care how she created them. :>)
www.win-your-trial.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30252942@N02/
I'm not sure I agree with this. Suppose you take a shot where there's no detail in the shadows, which is also where the interesting stuff is (a drug deal going down, a politician being handed an envelope, whatever). Suppose you run PP Shadow/Highlight (or do some other thing in PP) to bring this out. Why would this be wrong, ethically? You're just making what was there more obvious.
This is a very controversial topic in medical journals. I've read (can't cite the reference, sorry) that it's now forbidden to do anything except increase the overall contrast of an image submitted to a journal. Increasing the contrast of a part of the image is right out. I can't say I get this (maybe it's doctors trying to be PP experts, don't know).
There certainly is a line somewhere (talking about photojournalism here, not photographic art). At some point, you change what was there into something else. IMO, it's really hard to specify where that line is. It can't be no changes whatsoever.
Ric.....didn't mean that I ONLY had PS7.....I also have CS and 2....but did not load as upgrades.....I have full blown versions side by side....well of PS7 and CS2....not going to do CS4 until I get a new box....this old box just doesn't have the steam to run cs4....new box is going to be a core 2 quad with 4-8gb ram....already made up my mind......but I will migrate PS7 (and all those plug ins) over to it....
I had some really badly exposed shots of some very famous nashville residents and as far as I could tell they just needed to be trashed.....but I got to looking at them and there was enough detail that an artist friend co-worker took a stab at doing a pencil drawing and it looked great....he asked me if I had any version of PS and all I had at the time was LE (LE was similar to elements now)....it was a tweener from PS4 - 5 and was dubbed PS5LE....any way in the filters area was the link named LINE DRAWING.......it worked magic on a ton of my bad photos....especially since I cannot draw at all.....and the Nashville residents loved the shots as did one now deceased Floridian rock and roller........but when I uploaded ps7 and uninstalled LE I lost the line drawing in the filters and what they now offer is no where close.....and unfortunately I sold LE before realizing Adobe had taken it out of the sketch filters........
But for photo journalism at least for news papers in this area....it an absolute death sentence if you PS a file for print.....it is to be printed as shot.....for mags.....I have no clue, due to the fact that the only types of mags I read are either photo related, spiritual energy healing, Buddhist, or hunting and fishing mags....and all of those can be PS'ed somewhat....the hunting mags do not really want to see a Caribou rack on the largest mid western Whitetail or Muley......unless it for a paradoxial / satirical story.
You would be surprised at what can be done in the darkroom. For instance, green screen style compositing started as an photo darkroom process by creating the masks with filters and high contrast film followed by mutiple exposures on a copy stand. Photography as always been as much about darkroom craft as it has been about camera craft and personally I don't think that has changed with digital. I find it a little odd to be told that techniques I used to reguarly use in the darkroom are somehow no longer photography now that I am doing the same thing in Photoshop.
Personally, I consider the dividing line between photography and graphic arts to be similar to the dividing line between live action and animation in the movies. It stops being a photography when the central components of an image are drawn by hand (or 3d rendered) instead of captured with a camera.
I freely admit to tweaking my photos to make them look better. No way I've mastered my camera technique but my ultimate goal is to take photos that require little in the way of computer enhancement. It's a rare shot that comes out of the camera "finished." The urge to "fix and improve" is usually irresistible so I do my share of experimentation in the computer since the other goal is to make images that people enjoy viewing.
I seem to recall that one of the great photographers of the last century didn't believe in a lot of darkroom manipulation and even went so far as to burn his negatives before he died so others could not print what he did not intend to be printed. I don't remember who it was. Anyone?
Doug
My B&W Photos
Motorcycles in B&W
In your example, the "event" is the transfer of the envelope -- not the upkeep of the wall (which may be dark) or the quality of the lighting. Thus, in my view, there would be no problem with, for example, using s-h to bring out the details ... it would be wrong, though (and this is obvious), to put in an envelope merely because before the photographer was ready he or she saw a transfer made (or was told by someone else that that person had seen transfers of envelopes). Ralph
www.win-your-trial.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30252942@N02/
This is a nonsensical statement.
Without PP there is no image to be seen. Once you press the shutter button, and capture the data, ether on film, or with an electronic sensor, you must take some further action )work, processing, etc.) in order to see the image on a computer screen, or in print. DUH!
The question should really be setting standards, and limits on what PP is deemed acceptable for various uses.
Sam