Photoshop

[richardlw]

Does anyone share my view that the best pictures are the ones that don't need any image manipulation? An old fashioned view maybe, but unless a special effect is required which cannot be done any other way, surely good composition and spot on exposure is all you need?

Taking it a stage further, I would include in this the use of fnacy filters and the like.

I just get a great buzz out of a shot that is just right.

[davidd]

You can compose a perfect image, then what about the printing?

I would arge that you can have a perfect image, but that image could be 'shopped into another equally perfect yet maybe very different image.

I guess the trick is knowing when to make changes and then where to stop. I'm sure everyone on here has (in the days before digital) taken pictures which for whatever reason have not come out as they had hoped, with tools like photoshop sometimes these pictures can be rescued.

Just my view (and I'm rubbish at the composition bit and so need all the help I can get)


D

[rustybin]

The Mona Lisa is brilliant as a life like portrayal. Salvador Dali's work is brilliant because it isn't. I reckon e-trickery has to be either so subtle you cannot tell it is there or so vivid that it is what makes the picture. Half-way houses work least well to my mind. I do agree though with the principle of getting it right (or as right as possible) in the camera first.

[_dobbo_]

richardlw said:

An old fashioned view maybe, but unless a special effect is required which cannot be done any other way, surely good composition and spot on exposure is all you need?

I'm not so sure. What if you have different film in the camera? The same shot in the same camera with Velvia or another film would produce a totally different result. So which one is right?

I think there is a difference between image optimisation and image manipulation, but ultimately I'm not above either!

[GetCarter]

I've visited this subject a few times and:

I spent years in darkrooms deciding how long to leave the paper in the soup, how to crop, how to frame etc

... and I see no difference to tweaking in PS or the like. Of course if you start putting hippos heads on humans, it becomes something different, but 'post production' was just as important to me with film as it is with digital.

In short, I have no problem using software to help a photo relay the atmosphere that I'm trying to share - my time is spent trying to get back to what it felt like, not change it.

>> Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 6th September 18:34

[V6GTO]

It's my experience that every image that comes out of a digital camera can be improved in one way or another. Wether it's to make it slightly sharper, to add a little contrast or to enhance the colour saturation, I've yet to see an image that couldn't be improved in some way. I even threw down the challenge once, "Show me the image, straight from the camera, that I can't improve and I'll give you my Noble" A bit hasty, yes, but I've still got the car!

Martin.

[richardlw]

Interesting point raised about printing as I haven't yet done so with any digital photos - just viewed them. And the point about the film too but I would think you know where you are going with image style or quality when you make that selection.

I used to be a pro in another life - in a very specialised and not arty way - and I had access to a massive darkroom so I could spend hours getting the perfect print on a 20" x 24". I guess its not so different to digital image manipulation after all.

I certainly have played with photoshop and got some interesting results so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but I'm thinking silk purses and sow's ears for many of my own shots.....

[ehasler]

I remember reading a reader's letter in one of the photography mags a while back, where a reader was commenting on how he was never a fan of Photoshop until a friend used it to edit one of his phoots. He sent in the original and edited versions, and was overjoyed at how the miricales of modern technology had turned what he admitted was a poor photograph into something great.

Unfortunately, both were st - the Photoshop'd one no better than the first, and the editor's reply pointed this out which I found quite amusing.

Generally speaking, while photos can be improved with a bit (or lot) of work using a package like Photoshop (and indeed, digital images will always need some work, even if it's just a tweak to the contrast and a bit of sharpening), 99 times out of 100, I believe you need to start with something decent in the first place. PS isn't a magic cure to turn rubbish pictures into works of art, and I believe it is still just as important to get the photo right at the point you press the shutter.

I also think it's important to decide whether you want to record a scene, or create artwork - one obviously involves more manipulation than the other, but both are perfectly acceptable.

>> Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 7th September 08:41