A question for the pro's.

[Ryan Smith]

A lot of the pro's on this forum have been shooting for years. Way before the digital camera boom. I'm wondering if it gets to the real pro's that have skills when people post up these images that have been photoshopped to heck. Now the poster doesn't mention that they've added motion blur, color enhancements etc, or even used HDR techniques.

Are these type of photos looked down upon, or is that just the name of the game. I'm just curious what your thoughts are.

[Todd Corzett]

Well... I started with the digital boom, but I always say that you can tweak an image in Photoshop, but crap in... crap out. There will always be some underlying factor of the original image(s). Adding motion to an image is one of the things that not many people can do right using purely Photoshop (I've yet to see even a good attempt). Many of the things that are being done in Photoshop are no different than what was done in the darkroom. HDR is just an elaborate dodge/burn/mask... yes, it may take less time but it's the same principle, IMO. It would be also be no different than shooting with a complex graduated ND filters... just something you can do after the shot. AA shot knowing that he could do the whole zone thing when printing... I see no difference in shooting bracketed shots and doing HDR (or similar blended exposure techniques)

As for if it's looked down upon... it's just another tool in the bag, but you shouldn't pass something off as something that it isn't. You may not need to say that you did certain things in post, but if asked... IMO, one shouldn't lie about it. You don't have to tell anyone how you did it either, just don't lie and say it's something that it's not.

What I really start to question are the photo/3D rendered composites... I think they are great, just don't call them a photograph when they are really an illustration.

-Todd...

:eek: I hope I didn't just start the photo/illustration debate - I'm so sorry

[John Thawley]

First question is what is the purpose of the image.

Is it photojournalism? Advertising? Poster? Fine art?

If you need to define "photograph" to sleep at night... have at it. To me, it's an image.

Make the best image you can for the project or purpose at hand and use ALL the tools at your disposal.

The lines have been blurred. Thre is no reason to condem or poo-hoo a techniqe that arrives at the goal.

That said, if you're reporting an event... a newsworthy happening... ie; reporting, there is an ethical standard to maintain. You don't change the photo to sell the story. If I'm providing an image to accompany the all new super duper Euro trash autobahn slayer... the art director is going to have at it and make it leap of the page... whatever, it isn't a crime.

If I'm doing a static beauty shot that's going on a wall, I'm going to nudge and tweak that sucker to near perfection.

And... this didn't start with digital.

Please don't slip on the worms...

And PLEASE don't let this thread geet stupid. It's all good.

JT

[Jeff Wilson]

I've seen this question pop up many times before and usually with the same results. One faction thinks Photoshop is evil, while the opposite polar faction thinks it's a perfectly valid tool to use. There are people in the middle, but utually there are two strong opinions about it.

I think I can sum it up thus: Would you ever (using film) go shoot a job and then leave your film undeveloped in the can? Not using Photoshop, - to one degree or another - is like not processing your film.

Like all tools it can be misused, and it's no different from the tools and techniques used in the darkroom. I started in the darkroom shooting 35mm and 4x5 what seems like a lifetime ago. The techniques I used in the darkroom are all emulated in the work I do now in Photoshop. From simple color and contrast adjustments, do radical burning, dodging, masking, cross processing, pushing, and even some image composites. Anything I do in PS I can do with an enlarger and get the same results. It just takes longer. ;)

I also think that many people that look down upon photoshop don't recognize that to use PS effectively still takes quite a bit of skill. A different skill, sure, but it still isn't something that everyone will be good at.

Ultimately, I agree with Todd that garbage in equals garbage out. I can work on an image all day in photoshop, but if the composition is bad, or the dynamic range doesn't exist due to over/underexposure or some other problem, well it's still going to be a lousy image at the end of the day.

A camera, filters, or an enlarger can all be misused to produce a lousy image just the same as any software tool can be misused. It doesn't make any of them a bad tool. A phrase that comes to mind and has served me well is "It's a poor workman that blames his tools". Food for thought.

To see a good what a good photographer can do with good post production skills, look here: http://altpick.com/spot/fiscus/index.php or here: http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/

[John Thawley]

And... if you want to see what can be done with film... and without Photoshop:

Check out Misha Gordin (http://www.bsimple.com/).

[Thomas Maranda]

And... if you want to see what can be done with film... and without Photoshop:

Check out Misha Gordin (http://www.bsimple.com/).


<speechless>

[Steve Demmitt]

The neverending debate
A good photographer is not necessarily a good photoshop artist
and a good photoshop artist isn't necessarily a good photographer

These things should be seperated in totally different categories

I consider myself ample in both.
When I approach a shoot or shot, I always consider the shot from both perspectives
First I try and take the shot in camera the best possible way I can with what I have
I get the car where I want it, I clean up the trash, move away unwanted objects, get the proper angle and composition etc.

Then I focus on lighting the scene
If I have limited lights and need to light up multiple points of the picture
Then I have to take multiple shots knowing that I will have to combine these shots later

After I've done the best possible job with what I had, then its time to develop the image in photoshop.

I feel this process is the best way to do it.

When you rely on photoshop as a crutch to make your images, then you are really only learning how to become a better photoshop artist and not a better photographer.

I think from a photographer's view it can be frustrating because often these categories are combined. Depending on who you talk to, you often have to be great at both.

From a photoshop artist's perspective you can certainly get your fair share of praise because often the post work is paid more attention to than what made the picture good/bad in the first place.

Alot of these reasons are why many people are so heavily one sided regarding photoshop and photography.

I do believe however that as long as we make it a point to seperate these two things in our critiques, people from both sides of the camp will realize the importance one has on the other.

[Kenneth May]

Dont get John started on this one....as many a drinks have been spilled on this topic....I made the grave mistake at Sebring this year to discuss this very topic....the welts are still healing! :eek:

[John Thawley]

Dont get John started on this one....as many a drinks have been spilled on this topic....I made the grave mistake at Sebring this year to discuss this very topic....the welts are still healing! :eek:

Oh yeah.... as you were wimpering... "don't stop.... please don't stop!!"

And one for the ages....


http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//501/18921enzo_hornet_rev_sm.jpg

[Jim Sykes]

I should probably just leave my comments as just represent the image for what it is.

If you drop in a different background or use multiple images to produce one, just do not try to represent it as a photograph that you took, because you didnt, you created something that never existed to begin with. If I put you in a position and say please take that shot again, you wont be able to do it. Just let it be what it is, a great image that was created from photography, such as Gordin above, but what is there on paper is not a photograph.

I'm sure some dont agree with that so I'll leave it there, but that is the only problem I have with it, when someone passes it off as something its not. If you honest, do whatever you want.

[Steve Demmitt]

honesty is the best policy =)

[John Thawley]

I should probably just leave my comments as just represent the image for what it is.

If you drop in a different background or use multiple images to produce one, just do not try to represent it as a photograph that you took, because you didnt, you created something that never existed to begin with. If I put you in a position and say please take that shot again, you wont be able to do it. Just let it be what it is, a great image that was created from photography, such as Gordin above, but what is there on paper is not a photograph.

I'm sure some dont agree with that so I'll leave it there, but that is the only problem I have with it, when someone passes it off as something its not. If you honest, do whatever you want.


Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

JT