Photoshop...controversial question from a newbie...

[Hard-Drive]

Some of you may have seen previous posts...I'm very new to this DSLR thing and having lots of fun taking lots of crap pictures at the moment! However, there's something I need to get my head round...Photoshop.

Without sounding too controversial, I just need to understand if people see it as "cheating", or really being able to get a picture 110%. My reason for buying a DSLR was that it gives me much more flexibility to take the shots I want (light trails, blurry waterfalls being the obvious ones for example), because of the controls over the camera, lenses, filters etc that you can't put on a compact. Also, bear in mind that when I was last "into" photography, I (and most other people) had a 35mm and editing software did not really exist for the home market.

I guess I'm just trying to get my head round what constitutes a "good" photo...is it one where you've just been creative and shot it using the camera modes, or one when you have then spent a lot of time editing it in PS. I guess my analogy would be two people setting identical lap times, one in a 2wd 911 with no traction control, one in a Skyline with the computers running at full chat, in my mind the 911 driver is better.

Or am I missing the point, and it's all about the end image, and if technology (be it on the camera or the PC) is there to help us then so much the better.

As you can probably guess I have never even seen Photoshop being used, but I was amazed what people had done to my A3 pictures in a few minutes on another thread. I thought it was all abut cropping, and getting rid of an annoying traffic cone in a shot, yet I have seen people even getting rid of creases on a bed in another thread.

And finally, if it's a must have (and I'm certainly not against the idea at all) where's the best place to buy it?

Sorry if the question is controversial, it's just as someone just starting out, I often hear "pah, it's probably been photoshopped" and it's always said in a negative way as if it's detracting from the authenticity of the image in some way. I guess it's right up there with "that DJ is mixing on CDs, not vinyl" yet in the last couple of years almost all DJs have gone to CD because of what can be done with them.

Thanks!!

[Scho]

this might be of interest to you....where is dcw@pr?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[robbieduncan]

Using Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop to "enhance" or clean-up an image is no different to photographers using various techniques in the darkroom in the past. Dodging, burning, different development solutions etc. This is just the digital equivalent (and yes, it's more powerful but that's progress for you).

[hawkaye]

I think all pro's use photoshop in one way or another (except for dcw@pr). I suppose it's all down to the individual shot and what you want to achieve from it. You can do some great stuff with photoshop and I think as long as the end shot does not look over the top then it's all good.

[Colin RedGriff]

I think it comes down to a bit of both and also what you want to spend your time doing. Taking photographs or editing them on a computer?

If you don't get the image right in the camera to start with no amount of photoshop skills will help. A good image to can be enhanced in photoshop to make it great. Personally I think getting the composition, exposure, focus and timing right in camera means you don't have to spend hours trying to fix it. Photoshop should be there as an extension to the image taking process to achieve things that are not possible in camera.

(when I say photoshop I'm referrimng to whatever you preferred phot editing software is)

[andy_quantum]

I'm also relatively new to photography, and from past experience I know I tend to find some toy and go on with it forever. When I learned to play guitar it was the wah-wah pedal, everything was Wah'd.

Now it's contrast and filters in Paintshop. I'll probably look back in a few years and think it's shite, but thats half the process of learning really.

I'm currently of the opinion that finding and taking the shot is only half the fun. (edit) Also, I'm using a camera more for my own amusement than professionally, so I'm not too bothered whether someone thinks the fact I've chopped it is a good or bad thing. If you like the end result then it's worth it

Before:



After:



One day I'll learn how to take a straight shot

Edited by andy_quantum on Wednesday 6th February 12:57

Edited by andy_quantum on Wednesday 6th February 13:04

[hawkaye]

meant to say, take a look at Miss Aniela's or Quizz's's photos to see what could be done with photoshop, but not with a camera alone.

[Simpo Two]

To my mind, PS (or similar) is pretty much a must-have if you use a DSLR.

However it depends on whether you want to use it to bring an image up to 'perfection' (ie as good as it can be given the starting position), or slap on effects in varying degrees of cheesiness. By that I mean an effect which takes precedence over the image.

I suppose the equivalent in film days were Cokin filters. When I got a tobacco filter and a star 4, I'd look at my prints and say 'ah yes, tobacco and star 4'. And that made whatever image was underneath take second place.

So in my book effects/filters are OK as long as they enhance the image. Think sauce on food. If you can't taste the food through the sauce, you may as well just eat sauce!

[Hard-Drive]

Great, I think I get it. Looking at the RAW thread (quite jargon-tastic though!) linked earlier in this thread, I can see why a client etc might want an image just so. My own employer, a multinational telecoms/software vendor, have guidelines about this kind of thing...using different colour palattes on powerpoint depending on the vertical market of my customer, and also using approved corporate images which must show people being "blurred", so it looks like they are busy!

I was thinking more from the amateur point of view, but that water shot is a great example of how it's been improved.

Thanks for clearing that up...so basically it's use all technology at my disposal to get a result that I'm happy with, but never forget you can't polish a turd!

[Scho]

Hard-Drive said:

quite jargon-tastic

welcome to digital photography

[stigmundfreud]

the same people that call it cheating are the same type that say "digitial isnt real photography". What these morons forget is that in "real photography" you spent ages in the lab doing exactly the same stuff as you do in photoshop.

The only thing controversial about the "phtotoshop is cheating" is that idiots beleive it.

[Simpo Two]

Hard-Drive said:

using approved corporate images which must show people being "blurred", so it looks like they are busy!

It's much more convincing if done with a tripod and slow shutter speed if possible.

Hard-Drive said:

but never forget you can't polish a turd!

True, but they might work in black and white

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 6th February 14:36

[jamieboy]

stigmundfreud said:

The only thing controversial about the "phtotoshop is cheating" is that idiots beleive it.

...but where do you draw the line? Our local council produces a calendar each year, and there's a competition for people to send in their photos.

This year, one chap decided that his photo of Aberlady Bay was 'unbalanced' and would be better if he added three trees to it, and won first prize.

[Scho]

Simpo Two said:

True, but they might work in black and white

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 6th February 14:36

[stigmundfreud]

jamieboy said:

stigmundfreud said:

The only thing controversial about the "phtotoshop is cheating" is that idiots beleive it.

...but where do you draw the line? Our local council produces a calendar each year, and there's a competition for people to send in their photos.

This year, one chap decided that his photo of Aberlady Bay was 'unbalanced' and would be better if he added three trees to it, and won first prize.

Sour grapes it sounds like from the other competitor. The people running such cops should have been specific about the rules if they didn't want it. I have to say if I had lost in the same circumstances I too would have been upset if my image was as seen (just tweaked).

What he did wasn't cheating, my view on phtosop is this:

1.) Use it to alter levels etc then its just the same as traditional stuff
2.) Use it to alter the image beyond the scene as it was it becomes more photographic art than photo (photoraphy can be art or a simple picture).

If you enter a comp that is specifically for photography then you tt around in PS then I consider that cheating. If you used PS just to alter levels/contrast etc then thats fair game.

That isnt the question here, or my interpretation of it. I see it as a lot of snobbery in some people by saying "photoshop is cheating as it isnt getting your hands dirty the traditional way".

[GetCarter]

I 'added the sky' here. Should I not have done?



(edit to add... I very rarely do this sort of thing, but can say that there is never a photo I sell that hasn't had some work done on it... and funnily enough the same was true when I was using film and a darkroom. Should darkroom techniques be banned?)

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 6th February 15:31

[Scho]

un-manipulated jpegs-the path of the rightchous man.

[stigmundfreud]

Scho said:

un-manipulated jpegs-the path of the rightchous man.

Ken Rockwell, 2005.

[jamieboy]

GetCarter said:

I 'added the sky' here. Should I not have done?

I don't know, and I guess that's where I was heading when I asked 'where do you draw the line'.

For yours, if "adding the sky" means using a different piece of sky that looked more interesting but was still plausible then that's one thing but if "adding the sky" means "blocking out the power station" then that's something else.

Whether "blocking out the power station" is OK depends on context - if you were making a picture to sell, anything goes. If you were entering it in a competition for photos of the local landscape, maybe anything doesn't go.

But I suppose that's at the extreme end of a sliding scale where cloning out a Coke can or a poly bag or a telegraph pole (maybe) is fine, because they're temporary things that wouldn't always be there.

Somehow I think adding stuff in is different. It's possible that at some future point trees like the ones the calendar chap added will grow there, but I think by adding things that aren't part of the current landscape and entering the picture in a local landscape calendar competition, he overstepped the mark.

So for me, I guess it comes down to degree, context/intent, and common sense.

[TheCaseAce]

Photoshop is the nuts. i can't imagine NOT editing images in some way!

Check this american photographer out

www.clorimages.com

Some of his photos are so heavily edited they look like CGI, to be honest... but he's pretty amazing at it. Might not be to everyone's taste but he does a lot of commercial work.




I pretty much guarantee he is not actually stood on that street.