Discussion in 'Photo Sharing' started by TimSummers, Jan 9, 2012.
Waaaaaaaaaay too heavy with the PP there Twist
Sorry mate, I know you preferred the Hoff edit.
I have said before and I will say it again, anyone that thinks that the art of editing a negative only started in 1990 is a little niave.
The discussion isn't about when pp started.
I was clearly being way to criptic
Photoshop was first launched in 1990 and now pretty much it matters not what software anyone uses, it's called photoshopping.
However before digital editing, In days days of film it was called developing, yet still many of the best photos of history did not get developed in one go direct from negtive to print.
So as I said photoshop is nothing new, it's juts today we can keep the lights on
I've to agree with Twist.
I don't mind a bit of touch up here and there, but some of PP completely changes a picture to the point of it being something that isn't actually never existed.
Every digital photo is processed. be it in camera defaults or days in photoshop with 200 layers.
Where to stop? Where you want to stop. Sometimes it takes only a little edditing sometimes a bit more.
very relevant. Not seen that video before but was aware of the nutter post production he created for his prints. Thanks for posting
You should look at what Ansel Adams did in the darkroom to his photos. Often what he did was see the potential, get a photo, and then make it wonderful in the darkroom. It is easier today on the computer but no different to what could be done with chemicals in the past.
hey wongatta: that has previously been mentioned in this thread and was even what the video someone linked to...and i commented on, was about.
Every Photographer starts off at the bottom and has to work their way up as they progress in skill level using the talent they have. We were all noobs at one point. I'm fairly sure the top notch Landscape Photographers spend as much time in the field as they do working on images in Photoshop or Lightroom. Photographers have been manipulating images since the very start of the technology. Photoshop/Lightroom is merely the digital version of the Film Dark Room.
The great thing about Photography is that anyone can have a go at it.
I have little time for people who get elitist about it. It sucks the joy out of it for me.
The way I see it you do the PP that an image requires or if you have a particular vision in mind that can only be achieved using something like Photoshop. The same applies to film. You can alter a film image quite dramatically if you have the dark room skills (it's an art form in itself).
Having done Wedding Photography, there is no way you can't not use something like Photoshop and Lightroom to get the very best out of the photographs you take. Use the right tool for the job is what I'm basically trying to say. Personally I like to use natural light as much as possible, but even I know that the use of a flashgun is required at certain times.
The only thing that makes me a bit angry when it comes to photoshop is the way it's been used to create the ideal body shape for women that is not possible outside of plastic surgery or an airbrush in photoshop. Right time to hop off my hobby horse
if you shoot jpeg your photos have already been post processed by your camera you just had little say in the matter.
If you shoot raw then pretty much every photo benefits from some PP, even if it's just a a bit of contrast and a sharpen since your camera would have done this anyway if you'd shot jpeg.
It's not like our cameras are really produceing what we see anyway they just arn't capable of the dynamic range and low light performance of our eyes.
IMO call it what you like.
I'll produce an image any way I please.
If I like it, great. If you like it, fantastic.
I love purists and "rules." They give me new ideas
Rules are meant to be broken. Whichever way you look it at -digital vs film you are manipulating light and capturing it on light sensitive material. Then you stick it in a dark room or Lightroom and fiddle with it further.
No the camera cannot alway produce what the eye see,but the eyes cannot change things,if it a cloudly day,they cannot just make the sun appear,or make things disapeance
Not always,the thing is you can do theses thing,but if your happy with the photo,why mess with it,also if a photo is bad no amount darkroom/lightroom is going to make it great
The camera certainly can though, with long exposures, very fast exposures or high apatures the camera can produce something very different to what we see. Those who have a problem with PP seem to concider it dishonesty as you arn't showing what was actually there, my point is that is often already the case before you fire up photoshop/lightroom anyway. In fact the PP often can help you overcome camera limitations to allow you to produce what you actually saw or to recreate the mood of the location.
Were talking heavy edits after camera output. Like I said previously I dont mind slight tweaks and thats my preference. If people want to heavily PP their images thats up to them.
I responded to your comment about getting a kick out of taking a photo that needed no PP at all. My point was if it's a jpeg it's already had PP, if it's raw however nice it looks it probably would benefit from some PP.
I shoot in RAW, I find my lenses sharp and they have enough contrast. Sometimes I may need to do a slight tweak as said but do enjoy when a photo comes out of camera according to my taste.
And were talking heavy edits after the shots been taken as per title not the slight tweaks the jpeg settings make.
In answer the original question, yes of course it is and its time that this argument was put to bed.
So what if a shot is edited into an unrecognizable state, as long it reflects what the photographer wanted then I see no issue.
There are so many examples of similar things in all walks of art from film to painting where what the original piece of work is totally changed when the final product is put out.
Photography has moved on since the days of a photo simply reflecting what was exposed onto film and it should be embraced.
This is actually pretty much pointless as some people will agree with heavy PP, others wont. Some will say "embrace" it, others will say its "cheating". There is no definition of to much PP.
Photography may have moved on but it still takes skill/talent to take a decent photo/exposure and many will appreciate that, others will PP the hell out of a bad photo to recover it which pretty much most people can do. If the viewer/tog is happy with the end result so be it.
I like to nail as much in camera as I can, but I tend to fiddle with the white balance in Lightroom to try and get close to the light quality. My misty rowing shots are an example of that, AWB or Daylight just didn't bring out the golden colours I saw, so I had to fiddle with the cloudy WB to get it to look just right. I do use the Content aware tool in photoshop elements to remove things that annoy me (minor things really), but not very often.
No amount of PP can fix fundamental problems to do with the exposure triangle or composition. That's what you have to nail in camera.
Yep,but their still a place for reflecting what you see,i:e photojournalist
Or course, there is a place for every type of photography.
As I've said above as long as the author is happy with the final product then whether its been heavily edited or not touched it matters very little.
In terms of technical skill PP can be every bit as difficult if not far more so than taking a technically good photograph. learning about iso, apature and shutter speed and how they relate to one another is very simple compared to learning to use photoshop well.
In terms of artistic flair and skill both of them you can learn for a lifetime
It depends what you want to achieve wether its difficult or not. Why spend ages fixing an image when you couldve taken it properly in the first place and any other subsequent photos.
Noggin, some people relate to some things easier, software comes naturally to some, photography comes naturally to others. Moving a few sliders is far easier than perfecting exposure in camera.
Totally agree with your last point.
Yep the thrill for me in photography,is being out and about with my camera,like today, chasing the light.
I dout any of the photos I took today,will get touch by pp
For sure, PP with lightroom/apature/camera raw where you are just tweaking a few settings is easy to learn. +0.3 exposure, +30 contrast, sharpening to 50 (With 80 masking) takes seconds and makes your photos have a bit more pop, anyone can learn that and yes I absolutly agree that's easier than becomeing adept with exposure.
learning to use photoshop well though is far more technically difficult than learning to use your camera well whatever comes naturally to you. It's one seriously complicated piece of software.
I don't even use a camera (because im disabled and can't lift it) yet I know how to use it easily and understand all of the settings and fully understand the exposure triangle. Yet despite spending most my time on the computer I still wouldn't even describe myself as at all capable in photoshop.
I absolutely agree you should be trying to get it right in the camera, though even when you get it right (in raw) I feel almost everyshot will benefit from a little tweak.
Separate names with a comma.