Photoshop: Do Photographers Rely On It Too Much?

[MaxPower]

I was having a discussion in another thread about a comment I made regarding Photographers relying too much on Photoshop.

To bring you up to speed:

By Chunk:
I know this is kinda personal, but are you the same MaxPower who wrote "However I really like the fact that you didn't play around with the images in Photoshop. I'm a purist at heart, and I really don't believe in Photoshoping film. To me that means you can take a so so picture and make it good wit little or no effort" in stripesnspots "Which do you like better" thread?
http://forums.photographyreview.com...read.php?t=4491

What's up with that?

MaxPower;
The same one.

Regarding Photoshop, I just feel that using Photoshop with film, the photographer could come to rely on using that instead of really taking the time to compose the shot properly. That is using Photoshop to adjust levels, or to crop an image to make it better. Things the Photographer should be able to do without the aid of Photoshop. However, adding effects like the one I did below is something that cannot be accomplished with the camera.

Now don't get me wrong, I do use Photoshop, but I try not to rely on it to create good photos.

I realize I'm new here and I really hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way with my post.

C:
Thanks for answering. I see better what you mean.
You didn't rub me the wrong way, although I do feel differently than you about the subject. I guess seeing your view being described as one of purist implies mine is somewhat impure and I don't think it's any less valid than yours. Conversly, I don't think yours is any less valid than mine - just different and one of many things I will probably never understand.

Do you think it's ok to make those kind of decisions (using Photoshop to adjust levels, or to crop an image to make it better) in a processing lab or darkroom? For most people the descissions on levels, color balance, brightness, etc. are being made by people other than the photographer. I'm happy that PS and similar programs put the decissions back in my hands. I also don't think that whatever proportions that some camera designer picked for collecting the image in my camera is going to give the optimum composition for all subjects that I wish to shoot.

MP:
That's quite an interesting point. Perhaps we should start another thread dedicated to this topic rather than getting off course of the intended subject of "Takin a Break".

However, in the meantime I'm going to give your reply some thought.......


What are your thoughts regarding this topic?

[ChaosCubed]

For the most part, I see photoshop as a digital darkroom. Most of it's uses are duplicates of what you can do with film in a darkroom.

Photography is expanding with technology. It's a new frontier. And I, for one, am enjoying it. :lol

[pnd1]

There was a long and lively thread featuring how various members of this forum view Photoshop started by Kellybean on July17th. You can access it at:

Photography on steroids

[MaxPower]

There was a long and lively thread featuring how various members of this forum view Photoshop started by Kellybean on July17th. You can access it at:

Photography on steroids

Thanks for the heads up.

Obviously, I never read the original thread. I'll check you link now.

[berrywise]

How bout this scenario? You don't like (or are all that good at) photography so much but you really like using your computer and working in photoshop. Does that make the result you get any different than someone who likes it the exact opposite (getting it perfect in the camera)? I would think there are a lot of people out there that are better at photoshop than they are at photography and both can reach the same result in different manners.

Some things I don't think you can get just right in the camera but I think basically you should be able to look at a photograph and not have to wonder how it was created to determine if you think it is good or not. Now as far as ethical changes to photographs that's a whole nother thread that has been brought up numerous times.

[Chunk]

I was having a discussion in another thread about a comment I made regarding Photographers relying too much on Photoshop.

-SNIP-

What are your thoughts regarding this topic?

I was kinda uncomfortable having this discussion in someone else's critique thread as well.

This subject comes up periodically here and I always have to be very careful to not say something wrong since it seems to have deep seated religous overtones - like Mac vs. PC discussions. I don't know of particular threads to point you to - one was real recent - perhaps others will.

To me the crux of the matter is that people either choose their tools from among all that are available or limit them by choice to some predefined subset of tools available. To me both those choices are equally valid. I DON'T like that some folks say that the others choices make for a less valid product.

I think that when purpose is to produce a preconcieved image, the final image is what should be judged, not the process.

I do like it when the person with the idea for that image retains as much of the decision making that goes into production of the final image. While team work may produce a better image, especially when someone hires a better photographer or post camera processors, I enjoy images produced solely by the photographer who imagined the final result.
I enjoy the National Geographic magazine which is produced by one of these methods and I enjoy the photographer generated photos and dialog on this site. Both are valid productions but I enjoy this site immensely more.

[opus]

Yeah, I'm the one who started the most recent thread about this. I'm happy to turn the baton over to you now. ;)

I have to say in this thread, though, that I've come to a personal comfort level with the marriage of the camera and Photoshop.

I don't think a truly bad picture can be salvaged in Photoshop. It will always show its origins. It can, however, join a new genre, and be made to look "unique". There's nothing wrong with that.

A truly great photograph can also be given new options in Photoshop. Nothing wrong with that, either. It too will always show its origins.

My goal is to try to learn how to make every picture the best it can be in the camera. It never hurts to start with the best raw material.

But even when I was a young whipper-snapper photographer, I always saw scenes through my viewfinder with a cropping tool in mind. I'm not going to skip a great "journalistic" style shot of a unique face turned towards me in a crowd, just because the fringes of the photograph has junk in it. The cropping tool has always been my friend. The right lens is the best option, but a cropping tool is second best, at least for me.

Having said that, many of my favorite shots, and many of the shots I've posted here, I have not cropped. I am most proud of the ones I don't have to crop.

A great photograph on film can be ruined by the scanner, though, so Photoshop might need to be implemented to correct errors caused by digitizing the print.

[another view]

You talk about "Photoshopping Film". Does this arguement have more or less significance than Photoshopping an image from a digital camera? I have a couple of thoughts on this, based on scanning film.

When I scan slides, I use Photoshop for three things:
1) To make the digital image look as close as I can get it to what the original slide looks like, which may require levels, color balance, contrast, etc.
2) Clone out that *!$% dust!
3) Re-size - which may include cropping - for printing.

Now, with neg film that's a different story. In a color wet-process darkroom, your prints are adjusted by the lab for color balance and lightness according to what they feel (or the machine feels) is correct. Now that most labs actually print your negatives from a quick digital scan, they're doing the same thing with different tools. This - to me - is basically the same thing as editing an image in Photoshop. Actually it's even better because *you* the photographer have more control over the process than you did before, unless you did your own darkroom work.

The whole thing about creating composites or special effects is something else, but it can be used simply as a digital darkroom. It's just a tool to use at the user's discretion. Of course, any image shown here has to be edited in some way just to get it displayed on the web...

[Sebastian]

If it's wrong to use Photoshop, then it's wrong to use a darkroom, rinse, lather, repeat...

[Chunk]

I was having a discussion in another thread about a comment I made regarding Photographers relying too much on Photoshop.

To bring you up to speed:

By Chunk:
I know this is kinda personal, but are you the same MaxPower who wrote "However I really like the fact that you didn't play around with the images in Photoshop. I'm a purist at heart, and I really don't believe in Photoshoping film. To me that means you can take a so so picture and make it good wit little or no effort" in stripesnspots "Which do you like better" thread?
http://forums.photographyreview.com...read.php?t=4491

What's up with that?

MaxPower;
The same one.

Regarding Photoshop, I just feel that using Photoshop with film, the photographer could come to rely on using that instead of really taking the time to compose the shot properly. That is using Photoshop to adjust levels, or to crop an image to make it better. Things the Photographer should be able to do without the aid of Photoshop. However, adding effects like the one I did below is something that cannot be accomplished with the camera.

Now don't get me wrong, I do use Photoshop, but I try not to rely on it to create good photos.

I realize I'm new here and I really hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way with my post.

C:
Thanks for answering. I see better what you mean.
You didn't rub me the wrong way, although I do feel differently than you about the subject. I guess seeing your view being described as one of purist implies mine is somewhat impure and I don't think it's any less valid than yours. Conversly, I don't think yours is any less valid than mine - just different and one of many things I will probably never understand.

Do you think it's ok to make those kind of decisions (using Photoshop to adjust levels, or to crop an image to make it better) in a processing lab or darkroom? For most people the descissions on levels, color balance, brightness, etc. are being made by people other than the photographer. I'm happy that PS and similar programs put the decissions back in my hands. I also don't think that whatever proportions that some camera designer picked for collecting the image in my camera is going to give the optimum composition for all subjects that I wish to shoot.

MP:
That's quite an interesting point. Perhaps we should start another thread dedicated to this topic rather than getting off course of the intended subject of "Takin a Break".

However, in the meantime I'm going to give your reply some thought.......


What are your thoughts regarding this topic?

Sorry for this afterthought, but it should also be mentioned that my original query was reguarding a reply you made in which you were recommending a very noticable photoshop change to a photo. I couldn't reconcile that with your statement.
Now back to your regular programming....

[Speed]

This is liking starting a Canon Vs. Nikon debate.

I don't claim to be a purist, but my photoshop skills are VERY limited. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like you, I strive to get it right in the camera.

Is Photoshop used too much? I think so.
I have seen where some mediocre photog's with great computer skills have made a comfortable living for themselves. More power to them. That doesn't mean that Photoshop is a bad thing though.



Personally, I want to learn how to get my scanned images to look like my prints. I'm not there yet. And I envy those who have the skill to do that. I'm not trying to improve or correct my images, just get them to look like the print does. And most of us resize our images to get them to fit on PR. But I'm still trying to be the best photographer I can.

Live and let live.

[Asylum Steve]

...to rely on Photoshop too much, that is.

Boy, this is fun. Yep, seems like we just got through having this discussion, but what the heck, I could argue, er I mean discuss this topic anytime anywhere, again and again, seeing how it's at the core of my life and career as an artist...

If you're talking about photography as art (and if you don't consider it an art form, I guess you either shoot passport or police mug shots for a living), there is no inherent merit to keeping an image "clean" or "pure" by NOT using post production editing such as photoshop.

If you feel an image is more legitimate or the shooter more skilled simply because of a lack of "post shutter trip" editing, you have a right to that opinion, but in truth those are self-imposed restricitions on the creative process, and IMO no one has the right to transfer those restrictions onto someone else.

The method of producing an image, of course should be important to the creator, and obviously can be a great source of satisfaction and enjoyment in itself.

Still, all photography consists of three steps: pre-visualization, production (the camera stuff), and post production. The importance one places on any of these three is up to the photographer, but emphasizing one or more or disregarding one or more does not make a photographer's work any better or worse than anyone else's.

Now don't get me wrong, when I refer to "digital darkroom" post camera processing, I'm not saying it has to be something that is obvious in the final image to the viewer. Far from it.

I can take an image from a camera, work on it in photoshop for hours, print it out, and you would never know it was edited at all. And yet to get the final image I want, those steps might well be neccessary. Similarly, I can play with a shot for two minutes in photoshop and make it totally indistinguishable from the original. My choice...

Doing nothing to a pic, editing heavily but not noticably, and editing noticably are all ways to create memorable images that viewers can enjoy. I don't think you can say one method is more or less legitimate than the others, or the photographer using one more or less skilled than the others.

Cropping only in the camera shows more skill? To me that's laughable. If that's what floats your boat, so be it, but I intentionally try to get as many "cropping options" as possible in much of my work, knowing I'll want to evaluate and spend some time looking at it later before I decide on the best composition for the final image.

As I've said many times, the only photography that has a responsibility to remain "true" to what it depicts is photojournalism and crime scene photography.

Oh, and yes, of course, passport and police mug shots...

[ThoughtfulPirate]

I don't think its wrong but I don't like it and I don't use it often. It doesn't interest me very much. 99% of what I post here is straight from the camera, just resized. Occasionally I will crop if there is something holding back a REALLY good shot that is not really reshootable, but pretty much I don't use it. What I don't like is when someone posts a shot that is incredible, then they post the original and I don't like it at all. Then again without your own creative vision you have nothing, so really its always your shot.

[MaxPower]

Reading these posts has given me new insights how Photographers use Photoshop. I may have had a slight change of heart.

I can (and I do) use Photoshop to correct imperfections (see the following link)

Meet your Grandpa

In that photo the Negative was scratched and there was dust that was scanned in. I used Photoshop to correct those imperfections. Adjusting contrast/brightness, saturation, levels etc. are examples of "non-extreme" ways of using Photoshop.

On the other hand, If there is a tree branch in the shot, magically getting rid of it in Photoshop, is something I wouldn't personally do. Perhaps the Photographer could have moved to a different position, crouched or done something where that branch wasn't in the shot.

At what point does using Photoshop turn a photograph into photo art? Maybe we should save that for another thread....

[ChaosCubed]

[QUOTE=Asylum Steve
If you're talking about photography as art (and if you don't consider it an art form, I guess you either shoot passport or police mug shots for a living), there is no inherent merit to keeping an image "clean" or "pure" by NOT using post production editing such as photoshop.

If you feel an image is more legitimate or the shooter more skilled simply because of a lack of "post shutter trip" editing, you have a right to that opinion, but in truth those are self-imposed restricitions on the creative process, and IMO no one has the right to transfer those restrictions onto someone else.

[/QUOTE]

Nicley said, Steve. My thoughts EXACTLY!!!

[darkman]

obvious thing that we've been overlooking is what I did with film. I chose a film based on the shooting at hand. Velvia was my general choice for landscapes and Portra was my general choice for portraits. In other words, I chose a film with characteristics to help meet my goals.

In digital terms, I like to shoot in raw and adobe rgb. Then, I can use PS to accomplish the results I want. Philisophically, no different than changing films.

The same holds true with filters. Instead of using them on the camera, I "add" them in PS.

In terms of art, I have my preferences, others have theirs. I don't believe one is right or wrong. Just because I enjoy Van Gogh over Rembrandt, doesn't make Van Gogh better. It's just different.

[adina]

I'm all for photoshop!

Remember when the arguement was whether or not photography was art?

In any other medium, the artist will use what is available to them to get the result that they could see in their mind. Photography is no different.

adina

[Asylum Steve]

Andrew, I think it's fine that you like to work this way.

I also think most all photographers at some point have gotten a lot of satisfaction from "getting it right" in the camera, IOW creating an original neg or slide or digital file with strong composition and good lighting and exposure without the need for post processing.

Obviously, that should be one of the main goals of learning photography, to strive to get better at the craft of taking a picture, but that workflow in itself is only one of many methods of creating photos, none more legitimate than the others.

I strive to get the best "raw material" I can (yep, pun partially intended) EVERY time I shoot. The better a shot is to start with, the better it will be in the end. Photoshop is simply a way to fine tune and improve the image to bring it more in line with what I had visualized or what I think will make the best final print.

I think the problem a lot of "purists" have is that editing programs like photoshop get abused no end. Many users are hacks that think they can apply one or a bunch of filters to "fix" a bad pic and make it brilliant simply because it now looks weird or different.

This really is an entirely different topic to discuss, becasue it's not the fact that they used photoshop that's the problem...

I think Sebastian summed the whole thing up best when he compared a digital darkroom to a wet darkroom with film photography; it's not the process that's the problem, but rather when people do not know how to use the processes correctly, or better yet do not know how to combine shooting craftsmanship with good editing skills...

[megan]

I'm all for photoshop!
Remember when the arguement was whether or not photography was art?

There are many out there that still do not consider photographs art.
There are many juried shows that I'm all revved up to enter, or galleries that sound likme they would accept my type of work, then read "No photography please."



"No Irish need apply!"



Megan

[Spike]

...(and if you don't consider it an art form, I guess you either shoot passport or police mug shots for a living

passport mug shot photographer, I am highly offended!

;)

Spike

[Hodgy]

I like biting on these threads.

I use photoshop everyday. Sometimes just as simple as adjusting levels (which is correction density that your 1hr lab does), adjusting colorbalance (which is correcting color that your 1hr lab does), cropping (which your 1hr lab does without you knowing it as all 8x10's are cropped from a full frame 8x12). Does this make it wrong? No, HELL NO. Now when I go the extra step, and add some burning, dodging, whatever, am I now crossing the line? No, my 1hr lab doesn't do that, but my custom lab does. When I would have a 30 inch family portrait done, my lab would custom crop, burn and dodge areas, and retouch all the faces on all the subjects. This would take weeks. Now I do it myself in minutes. I would also add vignetted, nuetral density filters, softars, star burst filters and everything else. I still do that, although I do it after the fact, not before. SAME THING!.

When I take an image, Im still exposing correctly, I still watch my composition, all the things I did when I shot film (and I did shoot film, everything from 35mm to 220).

This debate about digital darkroom and if it's cheating is pure bullsh*t! Years ago when I went to the National print competitions and looked at all the amazing images, I was blown away. They where outstanding. Do you think they looked like that out of the camera? Hell NO! Each of them took hrs of darkroom work.

Some people are just better at PS than others, so they can take their images to the max.

Don't call me a photographer anymore, I'm a digital Artist!

[Asylum Steve]

Spike, I'm sure your passpost pics are some of the most "artistic" ones out there!

I was reffering to those OTHER guys...