Is Photoshop Required To Win, Place or Show?
imax
Registered Users Posts: 691 Major grins
Good morning everyone, just sitting here at work watching someone do something they shouldn't be doing and thought I would post something which I'm sure has been beaten like a dead horse, and if I appear to look like
my aplogies.
In my opinion, the answer is NO!
I use to think that you needed to use photoshop to get better results wtih your photography, but I'm feeling much different. The old biweekly contests that use to be run here I use to enter without much success. Now each persons idea of success is different but I never could seem to place in the top 10 ever. I think over the period of time that I have been here I got into the top 10 once maybe twice. I spent hours and hours working on photographs, enhancing this, enhancing that. I felt like I lost my drive.
Then I decided to put photoshop on the side and use it very sparingly and a funny thing happened. I started taking better photographs. Or maybe they were good to begin with I just kept messing them up in photoshop. I started trying to figure out how to get the results that I wanted from the camera, and using lighting to my advantage. I was playing around with fresnels for a while but since I melted one of the kids I chose to go back to strobes. And I like it. I am far from where I want to be, but that's OK, I'm having fun again and like I had mentioned in an earlier post if I could get paid for doing this that would be icing on the cake.
So for those thinking that you have to master photoshop to win this contest, in my opinion you don't. But you do have to want to have fun and be creative. Get creative with your ideas, be willing to take chances, but most of all have fun, because that is the most important thing.
So what are your thoughts on the whole thing. Do you believe that Photoshop makes you a better photographer and do you think you need it to win this challenge?
Joe
my aplogies.
In my opinion, the answer is NO!
I use to think that you needed to use photoshop to get better results wtih your photography, but I'm feeling much different. The old biweekly contests that use to be run here I use to enter without much success. Now each persons idea of success is different but I never could seem to place in the top 10 ever. I think over the period of time that I have been here I got into the top 10 once maybe twice. I spent hours and hours working on photographs, enhancing this, enhancing that. I felt like I lost my drive.
Then I decided to put photoshop on the side and use it very sparingly and a funny thing happened. I started taking better photographs. Or maybe they were good to begin with I just kept messing them up in photoshop. I started trying to figure out how to get the results that I wanted from the camera, and using lighting to my advantage. I was playing around with fresnels for a while but since I melted one of the kids I chose to go back to strobes. And I like it. I am far from where I want to be, but that's OK, I'm having fun again and like I had mentioned in an earlier post if I could get paid for doing this that would be icing on the cake.
So for those thinking that you have to master photoshop to win this contest, in my opinion you don't. But you do have to want to have fun and be creative. Get creative with your ideas, be willing to take chances, but most of all have fun, because that is the most important thing.
So what are your thoughts on the whole thing. Do you believe that Photoshop makes you a better photographer and do you think you need it to win this challenge?
Joe
0
Comments
If I take a look only at my entries, which only started with round 6 here, I would deduce that, the less photoshop is used, the greater the chance of win/place/show, because the only one that did such for me was the one that used practically no photoshop at all. The one that took the most PS post processing to make it into what it wasn't didn't even get a single point!
And it would seem, at least recently, the the ones that have been multiple layered layered, to make an image that could not have been, are the ones that are getting selected.
I think another question to add to this is "Ought we be trying to win here?" I'd like to think that I'm approaching this 100% as a class, but that'd be lying to myself. I find that I'm most easily able to look at this objectively on the middle weekend of each cycle, after the schock of not having placed has worn off and before I place to much ego into the possible popular value of my upcoming entry. I know that my PS skills have improved in the past few months, but I can't say that my camera skill have. It's a matter of opinion which needed the most improvement to start with, but a matter of fact that my PS skill needed to improve... How do we all stack up from that angle?
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
I don't mean to belittle the question Imax because I understand where you are coming from and I am even more excited that you have made some great personal discoveries/improvements in your photography. I'm a little punchy because I guess I'm tiring of this debate.
Photoshop is a tool, a digital darkroom. The only difference between it and the regular darkrooms is that more people are able to access it seeing that all they need is a computer instead of dedicating a room in their house to equipment and chemicals. I would be willing to say that virtually everything that one can do in Photoshop, can be accomplished by a skilled processor in a brick and mortar darkroom. I remember when I was younger looking at some amazing gothic-style composites that actually used real nuts and bolts in the development process for some truly interesting effects. I also knew that I couldn't afford to setup a darkroom let alone experiment on expensive processing to eventually achieve those effects.
So the real question comes down to what it is that one wants to accomplish as a photographer? Personally, I want to set out to capture my vision in the image. When I look at a sunrise over the Chesapeake, I want to paint the multitude of hues as I see them, not necessarily how the camera recorded them. For my latest entry, I actually attempted to do it as a single image; however, a realistic set of angel wings cost $650. A well taken capture of a seagull in flight - free. The choice was obvious. When it was done, though, the image was what I saw when I initially, mentally framed it.
This is a no-win discussion; however, because it comes down to some very strong, personal opinions. I was nearly accosted at an event I was photographing last year by a friend's father because I was shooting digital. Turns out that he was a long time pro married to film. He gave up photography all together because it wasn't right to him that someone could go out and shoot 200 exposures to ensure a good capture. To him, true photography was a one shot deal with $50 sheet film. Nowadays we are just a bunch of hacks running around snapping the shutter. He was so disgusted that he flatout quit.
When digital first came out, I remember reading something in one of the photo mags regarding that digital cameras should not be constructed nor even look like traditional cameras. Interesting how it has evolved. This coming from one of the last converts to digital (I just bought my last film camera a few years ago).
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
I'm a little punchy because I guess I'm tiring of this debate.
I wasn't looking to start another one of those threads, what I was attempting to convey to those who are not skilled in Photoshop, is that you can win this contest without it. The debate itself over what's a photograph and what's digital art will go on for years to come and I'll leave it to those that want to debate it, I could care less about that. Art to me is art.
What we have here is a contest. Take an idea and capture it, however you see fit. It's about creating and learning, it's about getting better at something you love doing. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only limit to what can be accomplished with this is the limits that you set on yourself.
Oh and just so we are clear, I am here to win.
Joe
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
I thought this professor answered it quite well....
Regards,
Donna
Joe, I commend you for being HONEST...cuz I am really tired of hearing ..."I'm not here to win, I just enter to improve my skills and learn something..." Hello...this is a competion, and you enter a competition cuz you feel you can win or at least think you have a good shot at it. I'm not happy when I loose (Trust Me On That One, who wants to be a looser, lol),
If you enter JUST to "Learn"...well IMO there are other threads here that help you in that area, there are classes, etc.
I myself, DO NOT enter any competition with thoughts of Loosing...I also want to win. Cuz let me tell ya, I am a POOR woman and I could use that money towards the Nikon Camera that I want...LMAO LMAO
Oh and btw, I love that shot you posted here..
Well JT, sometimes it is true..."You Can't Teach an Old Dog NEW Tricks"
A few weeks ago, I tried to get us on a positive track by asking us to talk about specific things we might have learned, instead of focusing on complaning about all of these things.... The thread got 14 postes, three of them my own. It's out there at the moment on the bottom of page 4, maybe on page 5 by the time I submit this post. Maybe someone will have something postitive to say and bring it back up to page 1. Who knows?
Yes, I'm here to try to win. That's what drives me, but I'm here to learn as well, even if I still need to figure out how to keep my mouth shut or my fingers off the keyboard!
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Besides, if people such as yourself, justiciero, travis, imax, bisti, and a few others stopped writing and contributing....Then what would be banter about?, and how would we venture on and learn more?
Even if we don't like what we read, we can discuss, compromise, and perhaps learn more which is what makes this forum so much more enjoyable..!!
I happen to enjoy the intellectual differences expressed in this forum, it stimulates the mind, remember most of the time my nose is stuck in "manuals" as of late.....(where it should be right now)
...Talk Latah Dudes and Dudettes...lol !!
As someone who stumbled upon dgrin and the LPS let me give you a lurkers view point….
I am not sure I remember how I found this site but I did. I took a look around and found the competitions area. I noticed the LPS posts and thought…wow…this is intriguing. Of course I found it somewhere around round 10. So I read the rules. I have to say my first thought was “Now here is something that will get me out of my comfort level as a photographer and get me trying different things.” So I took a look at all the entry treads, and the threads asking for advice, and of course the results threads….and my first thought then was “I definitely don’t have the Photoshop skills to compete at this level.” It seems most, and I say MOST of the photos getting the excellent feedback are the ones that are multi layer shots done in Photoshop. I have to admit they are the ones that catch my eye as well.
So, as a lurker who as actually thought of several photo ops for the last couple rounds, and who has yet to enter a single entry, is a little (ie. A LOT) intimidated about competing with just great Photoshop artist. It is just a simple fact, I am. However…I think LPS 13 will be my first attempt, and surely not my last, at seeing how I stack up with you guys.
Just my opinion of course.
Are you being snarky? Sounds like it. Or maybe I just don't get the joke?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
There have been a couple of posts on this thread and these forums lately about this contest and learning vs. winning.
I believe it when people say they are here to learn. I view this particular contest as more of a fun and practice your skills event rather than one that attracts only serious, professional photographers. Some reasons why I believe this:
1. Very few entrants - usually 100 at the most, 10 of which will be selected. You immediately have a 10% chance, usually better, to win. Not bad odds that make hobbists like myself feel like they have a chance.
2. The prizes, while great and much appreciated since this is a free contest, can't be won without participation in three rounds over a period of months. That's probably too much time and effort for people just purely interested in prizes.
For these reasons I believe that right now on average the contest is probably more interesting to hobbyists and newbies than prize seekers and well established professionals (just my uneducated opinion, not trying to insult any well establish professionals who do participate here) and thus, people really are here to learn and practice.
As to why people who mainly want to learn and improve would be drawn to this contest rather than a class or instructional forum is because, well it's a contest! It's much more exciting than just practicing. In addition to the practice and inspiration this contest provides, your work gets exposed to other people to be judged and you experience the thrill of victory or defeat and the constructive criticism that comes with it.
I want to win the rounds I participate in, but it's because I want to become a better photographer. And one would think that if you do win or at least get picked by several people on the unofficial forums, that you are on the right path.
That's a good thing, IMO.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Pat, I couldn't agree with you more! Of course I want to win! I want the acknowledgement of peers that I have done great work. However, I'm also a realist. My work just may not appeal to the judges. That's okay with me, as disappointed as I feel when my shots don't even make it in the top 20. My focus is on becoming a better photographer. Competition is spurring me on to push myself and learn.
As to the original question Imax asked, yes! It is possible to win or place in the top 10 without a lot of photoshop work. Look at the shots that have made it into the top 10 over the past 3 months. The VAST majority of them were not heavily manipulated in Photoshop. I think we're getting a little confused with the facts when we begin to think that you have to have vast PS experience to win or place in the top 10. Yes, some amazing PS-ed works have won, but they're not the majority. I think our perceptions are a bit skewed because we've seen those amazing PS-ed photos get so much attention (well deserved, I might add). I love being surprised by creativity. When an artist can complete their vision through the PhotoShop tool, more power to them! It doesn't always mean those photos will win the competition.
www.feliciabphotography.com
Agree Agree Agree...I agree
It is possible to do both, but you have to know how, and be good behind the lens as well as in post-processing.
To me, it is part of the art.
Knowing post-processing will not instantly make you a better photographer, but it will instantly make your images better, and can help you get a better handle on what you need to do to shoot better photos.
BTW Hi Felicia, Pat and Others...and
I look forward to seeing your entry H.Pug...Don't be Askeered...what is the worst that can happen, you don't place? SO WHAT...Take A Risk...Go For The Gusto...just for the THRILL of it...., you will never be the same again....just remember those that enter LPS..."Resistance is Futile You Will Be Assimlilated"......:D
And guess what, there was minimal PP, something which can be done in any freeware tool(B&W conversion).
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
Yes, yes, yes! Good etries start with a good capture and are made better in photoshop. Beyond that, the aesthetic of this competition is very heavily biased toward images which look like photographs no matter how they were created. So while you can do a lot of work in Photoshop, you will likely have to have maintain a strong photographic vision to create a winning entry.
I am definitely being snarky. Or at the very least, kidding on the square.
For myself, I think the "created image" vs. "photographic image" problem is spurious. I like good images, and I judge something that is "PJ" or "realistic" (I'm in the middle of Sontag's "on photography", so I am wondering now how artificial all that 'natural' photography is) differently than I would judge something that is a created digital image. Kind of like choosing a painting vs. a photo to hang on my wall. I have both.
They really are different disciplines with different standards. As different, in a sense, from "straight" photography as painting is.
That being said, I do appreciate a shot that is really well done under difficult conditions, and straight photography leaves less room for error, and thus, in a sense, requires a grreater discipline and knowledge about the part of the craft that relates to the camera itself. I appreciate good craftsmanship- but craftsmanship also applies to digital imaging as well; it is just that the pallate of tools is different.
The honest answer to the original question is, if I were a judge, you wouldn't need photoshop in order to win. Nor would using it hurt you. But I am not a judge, and never will be. So, if you look at the brass tacks of what wins, it seems that "Straight" photography is favored more.
Thanks for clarifying. Your complete answer was much more informative and helpful than the snarky one.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I guess I'm a "traditionalist", in that I see photography (whether digital or film) as one specific medium that requires one specific set of skills, and digital imaging as another with its own unique skill set. One needn't be a photographer to be a skilled image creator with a tool like Photoshop, and, conversely, a good photographer doesn't need a high level of Photoshop skills.
That said, it is my opinion that a photography contest ought to consist of photographs. Certainly even film requires post-processing so a tool like Photoshop must have a hand in the final result in order for it to be seen by others. But images that are created by layering multiple images and objects, grossly recolored, excessively cloned, etc. fall, with very few exceptions (like shooting a moon shot twice to capture moon and surrounding exposures properly), into the camp of Art and as such ought to be judged not only differently, but separately.
To me, photography is "all about the light" and most of the time there is only one moment containing only one opportunity to get it right. Digital imaging is all about the elements with a hefty dose of "what could be" overlayed with imagination. That is why I have separate galleries to distinguish between my photographs and my digital images.
Your mileage may vary....
PJ.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
I doubt most Photoshop owners spend a year modifying an image. However, I suspect many spend days or weeks on an image until they are satisfied. It begs the question, are they manipulating an image to offset poor technique? Or are they manipulating to add a creative element? I will admit that most of my post-processing is to correct a flaw in my technique. I'll tweak exposure, contrast, or sometimes even saturation. After I'm happy with the "look" of the image, I ask myself "Is that how it looked when I took the photograph?" "Did I introduce something that was not there before?".
At this point in my photography hobby, I want to re-create the image I captured on film correctly. I want to minimize how much I post process anything. For many other photographers, they have a creative element in them that allows them to create some amazing images using Photoshop or other PP tools. I dont think I'll ever be that creative.
Can you win without Photoshop, sure. But the competition has a competive edge with so many tools and options that can manipulate a scene or image that no camera will ever be able to do.
Dale
This grey area in between photography and graphic images is confusing to me, to be honest. I look at the composite images and feel a true photograph doesn't stand a chance, yet they win in this competition and others that I have been a part of in reality land. There is an alternative portrait contest over here (which I also enter without thoughts of winning) that I adore and the image that won this year was totally photography. It was a headshot of a child. Simple title, but the story of it was full of religious fanatism, the message was undeniable. Previous years winners have been a mixture of pure photography and graphics composition.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you use - the image MUST have a special quality to draw you in - so it doesn't matter what your weapon of choice is.
Personally, I like to master lighting and do my best to take a good photograph (emphasis on my best). Since most of my work is converted, I use lightroom and know enough PS to get me through. I am not one of these people that has huge ideas that I want to create and if I was, then learning PS would interest me more. I am fascinated by the people who have these ideas and put so much work into them. It's great!!!!! I am fascinated by lighting and even still work the way I used to with film. If I see something, I will go back time and time again until the lighting is right OR something will only form when the lighting is there. I guess the light provides the ideas whereas other people tick the other way. People who master the light make me drool!!!!!
I don't see any problem with having both in competition. It is all about the story and the composition in reality, the end impact on the viewer, so it doesn't really matter. To me at any rate!
It brings all sorts, from the well-known to the newb. Some I have to stare at for ages and still don't get, but some are amazing
Personally, I think that camera, light, and post are all important skills for a well rounded photographer and every photographer needs to find for him or herself a balance between those skills which fits well into his or her personal style.
ShutterGlass.com
OnlyBegotten.com
in the way back time machine......
1983 - I discovered that if I held a little button on the bottom of my x700, I could record an image over an existing image - not really a composite per se but the double image made for some cool ghost effects
1984 - Wait, if I do the button thing and cover half the lens, I can get 2 images collaged together.
1984 1/2 - With some creative blocking of the bezel, I can actually merge different images together in the darkroon. I can also enhance contrast. Give me a brush and ink and I can selectively color. Hold on, whats that smell? Ohhhhh, darkroom chemicals - party on
1985 - 1991: drunk high school/college student that could really care less about photography other than yearbooks and the occassional co-e...well, um, hmmmmm
1991 - Realized that if I shot to 2 exposures of the same composition, one in sharp focus and one really out of focus, using Ektachrome, I could then put the 2 positives into a single slide holder and get some really cool soft-focus halo effects.
1992 - While at Party City, I pick up a mylar serving tray and sonn find out that if you photograph the reflection of flowers off of the tray, they look like they are distorted. "Melting Flowers" - my first art show presented in Morehead City.
Post 1992 till present - got distracted
If you missed the point of this little history lesson, photographers have been finding creative ways to manipulate photos since the beginning of photography. Heck, photography in and of itself is the manipulation of light. I'm in awe of those times that an image comes straight out of the camera the way it is invisioned but few do. so it is up to us to use the avaialble tools to mold the image or images into our vision of the scene. I would agree that if the whole image is painted in Illustrator, then it is not a photograph but if the basis of the image is one or more photographs, then it is nothing more than using darkroom tools creatively.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Great History Lesson...I believe Ansel used to do some of these also....If I remember reading correctly..sometimes he took as many as 8 exposures to get 1 GREAT photo after putting them together in the darkroom....
Although, I would love to learn Darkroom technique and play with all those chemicals and such, I am but a poor woman, and I am happy for Digital and Photoshop, plus all the other numerous Digi Darkroom Editing programs that have come out. For many of us that are struggling, but still want to work on their passions...Digital/Photoshop has done that for us, and left something in our pockets (although at times only mere pennies)..
Heh. I was playing those same games (along with some others... uh, nevermind) in the college darkroom around 1986 or so.