Do You Photoshop?

[kat]

I think it is a very important topic, why I bring it up. We just need to be careful not lose focus on what are the fundamentals of photography and that is taking a good photo right out of the camera. I understood when I finally went digital I was no longer the purest I once was either. PS'ing is going to happen, I just think it is at forums like this that you can give the new photographers some perspective, that not getting perfect shots and living with it is not a bad way to do photography. I strive to get home and pull the photos off the camera and have to nothing at all, I am like everyone else I am not always successful. I just try much harder the next time. Most bands I shoot I will get one shot at them and thats it, so when I take those photos I better know what I am doing behind my camera because PS can not fix everything and once the chance passes you might not get second chance, so learn to take a good photo then if you decide you like the PS side of it great, just learn to take a photograph first.

Agreed. Fundementals should be there and are quickly being lost. I think that what you said defines what photography is to me and why i love it. The thrill to get it right.

[Greg_Nuspel]

I think if one really wants to see the limit of Photoshop manipulation you have to look at the work of Bert Monroy. He is an absolute master of what you can do with PS, it is hard to believe he starts with a blank screen.

[Marko]

I strive to get home and pull the photos off the camera and have to nothing at all, I am like everyone else I am not always successful.

I think A.L. makes an excellent point, and that point impacts the way some photographers will learn.

In general, you want the camera to be your canvas, not photoshop.

Get out there and take your best shot IN CAMERA. Frame the sucker properly, expose for it properly and then use P.S. just to slightly enhance or for basic corrections.

Try to see the final image in your head - damn hard to do, I know...but better learning happens that way. If all we do is open up images in P.S. and play with them until they look vastly different from the original...this impedes learning.

[Ben H]

So, I have a song in which the lead vocal performance is emotive, dramatic and moving.

Does it matter if it was sung in one take, or if the vocal was comped together from different takes? If a few notes were slightly pulled in tune? If EQ and compression are making it sit within the track nicely, and reverb is giving some thickening and ambience?

Surely what really matters is the emotional response to the person listening?
It's the end result that matters in my view - the only person to whom the steps and workflow really matter is the artist producing the work.

If one of the mandates of the artist for a given work is self-imposed restrictions or constraints, for whatever reason - be it to shape the work, to learn different techniques, to break habits - these are all valid. If the artist has a self-imposed constraint that they apply as a general rule - "Sharpening, contrast and colour balances are fine to alter in Photoshop, but nothing else", or "I'm only going to use film" or "All my photos must be taken with my eyes closed and out of sheer luck I want to come up with something interesting I'd never have shot otherwise" - these are all fine. More power to you - whatever inspires and motivates.

I don't subscribe to the "technology is evil" attitude, or "it's too easy nowadays" or "In my day we had to XXXX and that's the only proper way" and so on.

After all, the fact that we all have different opinions and weightings on these things helps to produce art that varies significantly in tone and style and content, making our culture all the richer for it.

Now, I'm off to sing this chorus again, for the 87th time... ( ! )

[BlueX]

Photgraphy has many stages before an image is created, these are the basics:

Pre production- pre-vis, set-up, location scouting, research of subject, etc...
Capture- camera and equipment deployment to capture the image
Post production- corrections, touch-ups, enhancements, etc...
Print/display- on the web, in a book, in a poster, etc...

One should hope to strive to master all aspects and not just one. This being a photography forum, I can understand why the emphasis is on in camera capture. The reason why I come to this place is to better myself in that regard. But I also am open to, and do not shy away from, any other aspect of the craft.

[BlueX]

I think if one really wants to see the limit of Photoshop manipulation you have to look at the work of Bert Monroy. He is an absolute master of what you can do with PS, it is hard to believe he starts with a blank screen.

Also at http://revision3.com/pixelperfect/ for tutorial podcast.

[Marko]

Surely what really matters is the emotional response to the person listening?
It's the end result that matters in my view - the only person to whom the steps and workflow really matter is the artist producing the work.

lol - that's a good point BEN. Although some people on the street looking at an overly photoshopped image might suggest it's not 'real'; I think the people that fuss about this the most are old skool photogs like myself and art critics.

In 5 years time or less, we won't be having this discussion, as no one will really care. The change will be more embedded and nobody will ask how much photoshopping was done to an image.

[AcadieLibre]

"And in recent years, the mainstream press has embraced this orthodox view. The principle is straightforward. Zero tolerance. Allow no digital manipulation. No posing. If a photographer uses any one of a variety of Photoshop tools, fire him."

Photography as a Weapon

from the an article I read today funny enough. The article as a whole is a lot more ambiguous then the single statement but that line struck me. What I try to portray with imagery is the truth, capture the event as it happens. I am not a zero tolerance person but I try to be in my own work, a personal choice. I do what I believe was possible in a dark room but unless you worked in one, been exposed, etc. how would you know? My personal bias so we can twist and confabulate anything to justify the ends, but we need "clean" photography from some for I hope historic, newsworthy and just to feed our memories and the meaning of those images to our children. We are a visual species and once we make everything a PS we have blurred one of the few things that lets us see what the photographer tried to. I just think it will be unfortunate if people all see PS as a need rather than a choice. Image manipulation does have its place, but you need some who find it almost vile, or how would we be able to trust news, historic or even family photos?

[JAS_Photo]

The thing is photographers can and do photograph their subjects in such a way as to evoke a response from the viewer. You do not need photoshop or fancy trickery for that. Newspapers do it all the time in the language they choose to use and not just in editorials. For instance a recent headline I read in the Sun had a police officer 'gunning down' a criminal. Now that term evokes a whole lot of emotions that may or may not be true but you can bet that the Sun carefully chose that phrase.

But when you talk about photography, there are so many facets to consider. It is as deverse as the written word and maybe more effective in evoking a response from the viewer. But I agree a photo by news journalists should tell the truth as much as truth can be perceived by the viewer.