Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, get as far away from the idea that a photograph represents any form of "reality" as you can. At best it is just a mere slice of time, and even then that slice is not even close to reality. Second is get over the idea that a photograph is only "manipulated" after the shutter is released, because focus, aperture, focal length, framing etc etc are all manipulations, and just like post processing they are done for one of two purposes. One purpose is to produce what the photographer has pre-visualized, the other purpose is to surprise the photographer with what was not pre-visualized! Neither of those have anything to do with "reality" though!
Most "snapshots" are a surprise. Most experienced photographers would prefer to see something close to what they imagined it would be before they clicked the shutter. But every photographer probably does both to some degree at some point.
Ansel Adams did photography for several years before, in 1929, he started specifically trying to capture on film not just a photograph, but instead an intermediate thing that he could then use to produce via various darkroom techniques the photograph that he had pre-visualized before exposing the film. The purpose of his camera configuration was not to produce a final product, but to provide the material from which a final product could be made using the rest of the technology and the tool set he had available.
Adams would have loved the digital systems that we use today. And rather than claiming that PhotoShop is for "manipulation", or that anyone should ever strive to "get it right in the camera", Ansel Adams would not have changed one iota of the advice he was giving decades ago: the negative (raw camera data) is the score, and the print (the JPEG image from PhotoShop) is the performance. One score, but every musician plays the music slightly different!
Sometimes when you set your camera for the "correct" exposure, as an example... what you want is raw data that captures the maximum possible dynamic range of the light from the scene being photographed. And that might just be a scene with no white at all, but the raw data captured would make the brightest part of the scene white anyway. Absolutely not a "get it right in the camera" in that the final product requires post processing to set the brightness of the print correctly. But the final product is visibly a better product than can possibly be done without post-processing.
Think about 1) pre-visualizing what the print is supposed to be, 2) adjusting the camera configuration to allow post processing to generate the best possible product, and realize what Ansel Adams meant when he said that photographs are not taken, they are made!
I think of photos as a form of art, and photoshop and its kind let you tweak as you see fit. I don't see it as cheating. If anything, you could always put a disclaimer that it has had post processing if it really bothers you.
I am a photographer and I edit! One of my bestest friends is an international wedding photog and she edits. I don't think my customers care if I edit, they just want the best darn picture they paid for!!
In my opinion, Photoshop is a tool like a calculator. A person can do with or without. Such tools can help accomplish similar goals, and with convenience. What they can’t deliver is a personal sense of accomplishment, if that is a part the process. After all, there is a reason we look for cameras with manual controls. Might as well ask for advanced point and shoot and then work on a computer to publish photographs as we desire, with software fixes to contrasts, color rendering and bokeh.
Such tools have a place, but there is often a thin line between their use and abuse. Lately, I have developed a love for no nonsense old lenses. So when I come across one, I get curious about sample photographs only to be disappointed most of the time with over-saturated, over-sharpened and, simply, overdone Photoshopped pictures. I can see a point to addressing white balance or even CA, kind of things a photographer may not have much control on.
I've never even seen the program. I'm sure it does the trick and I don't judge anyone for using it. Most of the time someone who's been into photography for a while can point out when a picture has been photochopped anyways so I don't see the need for a disclaimer.
That said, I've seen some photogs ruin pictures with PS. Some of them get all hipster with it and try way too hard and a lot of the time it really shows.
With my little Kodak EasyShare 3.1MP P&S (circa '03) I just take 10 pictures of the same thing and pray one comes out worthy of printing or posting.
What I'm trying to say is that when I use photoshop, the feeling of "Oh...I-didn't-take-that-shot-correctly-and-now-I'm-going-to-fix-it" guilt comes over me and I don't know whether doing so is acceptable, especially when you're sharing your work with the community.
Obviously, it's ideal to try to get the shot as correct as possible in camera. But we're not always in ideal situations and additionally, no photographer is perfect. You shouldn't beat yourself up over that.
Also, post processing is not necessarily a matter of "fixing" what is "wrong", it's about enhancing your photo to look it's best and every great photographer did so, even long before Photoshop was even a concept. How much of that to apply is often down to personal preference.
Quote:
I'm aware that minor adjustments like white balance, levels, etc. are usually acceptable but how do you guys go your way? Do you try to nail the shot or just snap snap only to edit it later?
I do my best to get the best shot in-camera and then I do whatever needs to be done to make the image look it's best in post processing. Sometimes that's minor, sometimes it major. Sometimes it's to correct errors, sometimes it's just artistic licence.
Also, post processing is not necessarily a matter of "fixing" what is "wrong", it's about enhancing your photo to look it's best and every great photographer did so, even long before Photoshop was even a concept. How much of that to apply is often down to personal preference.
As I said, there is a thin line between use and abuse. Why a photographer does that he/she does depends on the purpose. Take magazine cover shots for example. Most of them are so heavily processed that a good photoshopper could make a bad photographer look exceptionally good. If one cared only for results, then the issue is moot. But then, I appreciate a less than perfect photograph with minimal to no post processing over an impressive one with plenty of lipstick applied to it. The problem is, Photoshop advances are making the latter more of a norm.
For me it all really depends on how Photoshop is used. I use it very conservatively. Cloning out poles and other such objects, fixing blemishes and whatnot are usually the most extreme steps I take. I'll often make minor adjustments to the colors (levels, contrast, saturation, etc.) just to get that little extra "pop" from some shots, but those adjustments are usually very minor.
Every once in a blue moon I'll go a bit farther and do more "special effects" type shots and play around with some HDR or combining a couple of shots together. Of the many, many, many thousands of pictures I have taken, though, I only have maybe 20-30 that I've taken that far.
There are some photographers out there that I do feel rely too much on editing software to finish their images. It can look cool sometimes, but it's often so over-processed that it makes me completely lose interest in the image at all.
In my opinion, Photoshop is a tool like a calculator. A person can do with or without. Such tools can help accomplish similar goals, and with convenience. What they can’t deliver is a personal sense of accomplishment, if that is a part the process. After all, there is a reason we look for cameras with manual controls. Might as well ask for advanced point and shoot and then work on a computer to publish photographs as we desire, with software fixes to contrasts, color rendering and bokeh.
Such tools have a place, but there is often a thin line between their use and abuse. Lately, I have developed a love for no nonsense old lenses. So when I come across one, I get curious about sample photographs only to be disappointed most of the time with over-saturated, over-sharpened and, simply, overdone Photoshopped pictures. I can see a point to addressing white balance or even CA, kind of things a photographer may not have much control on.
I'm a little surprised by the bolded part of your statement, and I'm leaning towards an assumption that you might not have used Photoshop very much?
I certainly feel like I accomplished something when i finish the post processing in Photoshop and have the finished result, I shoot exclusively in RAW now, so post processing is a given, but I find the "puritan" opinion of some (mainly amateur/hobby, like me) that Photoshop is an evil.
It certainly has made post processing easier, but it's not like they didn't touch up magazine covers before Photoshop, it was just done manually.
Photoshop is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a lightroom, it might have some more or some more convenient features, but so does our cameras, that's all in the technological evolution.
Last edited by TheViking85; 09-09-2011 at 12:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
