Fed up!!


George Lazarette

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 01:20
Photoshop has become the enemy of good photography.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

noddywithoutbigears

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 07:54
George Lazarette wrote:
Photoshop has become the enemy of good photography.

G

I'd have to agree, someone with a particular flair for photoshop can mask the little flair they have for photography. I tend you use photoshop less and less and use the inbuilt editor in Vista, if the image is crap it gets binned, I don't spend hours trying to manipulate it into something it's not.
A poor life this, if full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare. W.H Davies

Hardgravity

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 08:03
The difference between your first image, the rose, and a heavily tweaked photo Stefan is that the rose is an image. It's what you saw hidden in the original that you wanted to produce and display.

It's not trying to hide bad technique or poor lens/camera quality, which the other is.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K5+Tammy 18-250, a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

mikew

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 08:03
George Lazarette wrote:
Photoshop has become the enemy of good photography.

I remember thinking the same thing about enlargers when I migrated from 10x8 plate glass and contact prints. All that dodge and burn, cropping, correction of converging verticals. Seriously now
---------------------------------------------------

You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.

edumad

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 10:28
Lets be honest.
Photography is not painting. It is a visual art and can be an expression of creativity, but it was created as a tool to record reality with the greatest fidelity possible.
Most photography asks that you take care to represent reality with clear colours and sharp images.
That said, one can obviously let the imagination run free and create abstract images and distort reality to convey an expression of the imagination.
Blurred images, oversaturation, HDR, long exposures, fast exposures, distorted colours, distorted figures...
All can be done with a camera, lenses, a dark room or photoshop.

Saying that Photoshop kills good photography is saying that good art can only be done with certain tools. So much for creativity and free spirit...
Photoshop makes people lazier. Like painters now not having to make their own paints.

I value a good image whatever the process to make it.
Lots of factors can kill a good image from lack of sharpness to a boring subject.
I don't think its good to concentrate on only one factor though.

I like this because it is a nice image, it is visual attractive, it feels nice to look at (to me).
Originally this was not the image desired, but a mistake revealed something interesting and I exaggerated the mistake.


I like it despite being of focus, despite the flare or the inaccurate exposure.
TWAPSI Blog

Anvh

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 12:07
Hardgravity wrote:
The difference between your first image, the rose, and a heavily tweaked photo Stefan is that the rose is an image. It's what you saw hidden in the original that you wanted to produce and display.

It's not trying to hide bad technique or poor lens/camera quality, which the other is.

Yes that's it

edumad wrote:
Saying that Photoshop kills good photography is saying that good art can only be done with certain tools. So much for creativity and free spirit...
Photoshop makes people lazier. Like painters now not having to make their own paints.

Isn't this contradicting each other?
Also developing of the photo has always been the part of photography just as much as taking the actual good photo, only because you've greater control and more tools with digital medium all of an sudden people using them are lazy?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

bonnipics

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 12:35
Hey guys I do love the site best one around, and I also enjoyed your comments regards Ron
Quote:

i-Berg

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 12:38
While analogies and metaphor are limited in their application and eventually break down, I wonder if this is a bit like saying that 'autopilots are the enemy of aviation'? Ironic, as they are affectionately known in the industry as 'G' - for George...

The point is though surely, that it's not the application itself, rather it is how one uses the application? Yes, it may have the potential to be 'mis-used'. Then, so have many other things. Does that make them inherently 'bad'?

What, then, is misuse? What is appropriate use? And - who defines those things? And why?
http://www.pbase.com/iberg

fatspider

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 13:57
I touched on a similar subject some time ago after a member had posted a manipulated image which looked to me like an attempt to put right something that clearly wasn't, I am very pleased to say that a recent look through thier portfolio revealed much better images, so hopefully it struck a nerve

I suppose the best person to comment on this debate would be someone like Technoidiot, after spending time on a photographic course with others maybe she can tell us the attitude of newcomers towards photoshop as a magic wand.

Perhaps photo editing software should come with a government warning explaining the GIGO principal.

For newbies thats Garbage In Garbage Out
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Anvh

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 14:07
But I-berg is the wanting of the sharpest lens or the best camera not as much a crime as photoshop?
It does not have much to do with making artistic photos, although a certain lens or indeed photoshop can help you get the result you envisioned like HG said so well and I think there is the line of the misuse.

We don't have any right to complain about the lens quality or that of the cameras, when we look back a century ago and what kind of photos they make it becomes only more clear that the photographer (model) is the key in making a good photo.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

edumad

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 16:45
edumad wrote:
Saying that Photoshop kills good photography is saying that good art can only be done with certain tools. So much for creativity and free spirit...
Photoshop makes people lazier. Like painters now not having to make their own paints.

Isn't this contradicting each other?
Also developing of the photo has always been the part of photography just as much as taking the actual good photo, only because you've greater control and more tools with digital medium all of an sudden people using them are lazy?[/quote]

No they aren't contradictory. I should elaborate and restrict my statement:
Photoshop makes *some* people lazier

Photoshop allows you to do things after the shot. Marvellous things you can't do in camera. But it also allows you to correct things that are done in camera. For this reason many stop taking the effort of thinking while taking the photo and leave much to PP. Much can be done in PP, but I cannot abandon the idea that thinking while the shot is taken is a good exercise, which helps get better photos from the start.
This is not to say the photos are better either which way, neither does this giving rise to any questions (to me at least) about whether it is "true photography or not.

There are no standards I-berg, only personal opinions.

Godness me Anvh, if the discussions and endless reading of reviews and the LBA had anything to do with better photography we'd have fantastic portfolios.
With the amount of time I spend every day on photography related websites, I'd have much better material than the sorry lot I churn out from time to time.
No... pure self indulging geekness.
Useful in some part, I'd be lying if Id said it didn't help me explore different aspects of photography and produce better images.
TWAPSI Blog

Anvh

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 17:01
Edumad I can't agree fully with you.
Some here including me shoot in raw and try to make a shot with the best possible exposure instead of having the best possible image straight out of the camera.
In my opinion both are equally skilled but one group take PP as serious step into their photography while others try to reduce the amount of PP and the only difference between the two is the way they expose a photo.

I can even say that people who try to have the best photo straight out of their camera are the lazy ones because they don't go through the effort of maxing out the possibilities of their digital camera

We are going quite of topic about this matter because I don't believe this has anything to do with being artistic, that's purely an aspect of the photographer and we shouldn't blame our tools for not being able to be creative/artistic
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

fatspider

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 17:06
Quote:
But I-berg is the wanting of the sharpest lens or the best camera not as much a crime as photoshop

Not if ones interests are with subjects like Macro Photography or Wildlife

Anyway as Ron suggests, I think I might have a go at creating some impressionist pics, I have DA* quality lenses with which to capture the image then I'll use in camera software and choose "toy camera" filter


My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Hardgravity

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 20:07
Quote:
I can even say that people who try to have the best photo straight out of their camera are the lazy ones because they don't go through the effort of maxing out the possibilities of their digital camera

Aw Stefan, I thought you liked me!

As I said earlier, I try not to PP because the shot 'straight from the camera' is what I want. I do, however, remove dust spots and crop images, usually that's all.

For me using the camera and getting it right, without having to resort to PP is the main thing.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K5+Tammy 18-250, a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

bonnipics

Link Posted 21/04/2010 - 20:20
Well! I am surprised at the response and I am glad of the comments, at the risk of being a right bore, I have tried to explain my 'feelings' in wee bit more detail, so here goes;

Expressionism: Any method that stresses the artist's/photographers emotional and psychological expression, often with bold colours and distortions of form.

Impressionism: Any method which tries to reflect an interest in the experience of light and colour on objects, which made colour more importnant within the photo/canvas and its effect on the subject.

I can relate very closely with some of the B & W shots but havoing spent a lot of years developing and printing B & W prints cause I couldn't afford to print colour! they really have to catch my imagination.

Anyhow I hope I haven't upset any folks with my ramblings, and yes this is the best photo site by far!

Best Regards Ron
Quote:

Last Edited by bonnipics on 21/04/2010 - 20:24
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.