Am I missing something?

Does everybody but me alter,enhance and change their images in photoshop and the like?

Personally I only crop my images. The need for anything else on most of my shots means I didn't get it right in the first place.

I use Photoshop elements to convert my RAW photos, to crop, to occasionally adjust levels (less and less with the K20D) and for black and white conversion. I will occasionally use the dodge and burn tool, frequently use the clone tool (again less and less with the K20D) for dust and the odd annoying element in a photo.
Sometimes I'll play more with a photo just to see what I can do with it, but I can't take a duff photo and make it into a good one - if it was duff in the first place it will at best be acceptable after a play with it.
I don't have a problem with people manipulating their photos, whether it be in Photoshop or in the Dark Room. If it was good enough for Ansel Adams it's good enough for me.

It's admirable and wonderful to get it right in the first place, but it is just not necessary with digital photography.

I tweak my images with Sikypix to try and get the best out of them. As well as someimes correcting my mistakes, there are things it can do that I can't with the camera at the time of shooting. I generally like to keep things looking natural, though.

Most raw shot images will benefit from some degree of sharpening PP.

You're a man after my own heart.

However, in my view it is often necessary to do a bit more than cropping - cameras are not perfect, and some adjustment to sharpening, contrast and colour are usually required to get the image as close as possible to WHAT YOU SAW.

Making the picture into something other than what you saw is no longer photography but graphic art. And I aspire to being a photographer, not a graphic artist.

G

Digital cameras do produce images that are rather soft, so some degree of post processing is usually needed.

IMO it's no worse or better than choosing a grade of paper or a developer type in the darkroom to make an image into a great image.

sadly, I have some presets, in aperture that automattically apply a set of adjustments on import.
I hear what you guys are saying and shall endeaver to remove the word(s) photograph(y/er) from all future marketing materials.

Ok so this is a bad photo



But in the wet conditions wearing my glasses it's what I saw.

Should I scrap it or be proud?

Or should I change that memory into something false? :

It's only a bad photo in a rather limited and unhelpful sense.

Sorry if it seems unhelpful, what I'm trying to show is a memory.

No doubt by tweaking and fiddling in PS or the like it could be turned into something respectfull.

But that wouldn't be a true memory!

Or would it?

I honestly think it's missing the point. You can't make a great photo out of a poor one with Photoshop. What you can do is present your image in a personalised way, making the best of the raw material. Just as you would when making a darkroom print.

In the darkroom we would use different grades of paper, shading, burning in and various other techniques to produce the print. In the words of Ansel Adams the negative is the score and the print is the performance. Does anyone doubt that AA was a photographer?

In the digital darkroom we do exactly the same, but in a different way. It's no better and no worse, it's just what we make of it.

Now whether the content of the image is of good or bad quality is something else, but it's also certain that a momentous recording of something unique will be more important than its technical quality.

Generally though we do have to consider technical quality and manipulation of the image has always been a part of the process of making a truly great photograph.

I think the term "Photoshopping" means much more than just getting the best out of your negative (in traditional terms).

It suggests significantly changing (rather than simply optimising) the image.

It's because Photoshop is capable of doing so much more than was possible in a darkroom that the term "Photoshopping" has become pejorative.

G

You're a pro. Different rules apply.

G

Much of what I personally do in Photoshop I used to do in the darkroom, or sometimes even with a pair of scissors. Combining images, making fake reflections,putting in dramatic skies and so on.

However, I'm not much of a fan of flying pigs and other OTT images that are really PS created. Nor am I a fan of platicised skin - I prefer my models to look like real people.

Still, each to his/her own.

I don't think you'll ever get a concensus on this one as photography means different things to different people.

For some people photography is all about the capture; they are often at least part-way obsessed with the equipment they use and the manner in which they use it to get the decisive moment on record. As a general rule they spend comparatively little time enjoying the fruits of their labours as they're too busy lining up the next shot. In the caveman days they'd be the hunters.

Others enjoy the art of manipulating photos and tend to shoot pictures as a means of providing raw material to be endlessly tweaked post-capture. As long as the camera they use provides acceptable results then they're far less concerned with the intracacies of the capture process, preferring instead to create their own visions at their own leisure. Again, these people tend to spend little time admiring their results as the next project is always just on the horizon. These would be the tribal cooks.

Finally you have those who really don't care for the technicalities as long as the end result looks good. These people may not own anything more than a camera-phone but for them the enjoyable part of the hobby is endlessly reviewing the photos they (or someone else) have taken in order to invoke (normally happy) memories. These are the tribal diners.

I'd imagine most people on this forum fit in either the hunter or the cook categories (although even hunters and cooks have to eat sometimes so we all have a little diner inside us). Some of us split our time between categories, for instance I'm a hunter as a hobby but do quite a bit of cooking (photographically speaking) for work.

The point I'm trying to make (underneath all the tortured metaphors) is that photography needs all of these types of people. If you're one of the lucky ones who fits equally into all three categories then all you've done is broaden the scope of your hobby - would that be such a bad thing?