Pentax users hate photoshop

Yes, plus the individual adjustments in the RAW converter, which would not suit my workflow.

Purists, thats the word i was looking for, thanks impotentspider.

I think you`re right. Pentax users are not sheep that follow the latest trends, fads and marketing blurb, and therefore are not drawn into the latest fashion of overprocessed images.

I agree we all use some processing in our images but where does the point lye where a photograph is no longer a photograph and becomes a piece of "digital art"?

having worked in a lab, I can honestly say that your average customers work could improve dramatically, if the guy doing the printing knows how to print...

I remember one customer, who complained the camera he bought was defective and had tried twice to exchange it/repair it and was upset at being told is was fine...

I was new there and it didn't take long to figure out the staff (all one family) had no clue what they were doing...

once he had somebody at the lab machine that new how to fix his screw-ups, he decided the camera had "Somehow started working properly"...
go figure...

I reiterate my position which is very different from yours.

THere might be a 2% of pentax users who are professional photographers. the remaining 98% doesn't NEED photoshop for their living, and therefore has a choice of using it or not.

On a much vaster scale, professional photographers generally use canon and nikon cameras, and therefore on those brands' fora, the impact of professional use of photoshop is far greater.

DOn, exactly my point.

In fact in film days, it was much more 'elitarian' to be a professional. Both because the equipment was harder to buy/maintain and because the knowledge of working in a darkroom was far superior than today's working on photoshop.

A pro in film days would have known how to process film, make negatives, expose them in the enlarger, and then process the prints to achieve a final result. and any manipulation throughout this 3 hours process (for 1 roll of film) was subjective and prone to manipulation.

Of course I use Photoshop just as every photographer for the past 150 years has used his or her darkroom to tidy up images and create more artistic finished pictures. If you shoot in RAW as I now do exclusively I can't see how you could avoid using Photoshop to get the final image.
What I'm not enthusiastic about are those over blown creations of confectionary such as over-the-top HDR which are more about how clever the photographer is on a computer than he is with a camera.
davidu

Do I like Photoshop? Love it

Do I post process my images? Yup.

Does it look like I do? Maybe


Knowing how to use Photoshop efficiently is really important to me. But, I like to keep things in the realms of believable (well, generally speaking). My intent is to convey what I saw (even if that's in my mind's eye), rather than what the camera saw.

I've pondered on doing a Photoshop one-to-one or group session... but never got round to it. Always happy to share some techniques

Matt

I avoid it by using something else: Silkypix.

Some years ago I considered what it is I enjoy about what I'm doing. It certainly isn't a job. I took the steps in the system and rated them on a scale of one to ten:
1. going out to take photos. 8
2. the process of taking the photo. 9
3. editing the photo. 5
4. printing. 2
5. displaying, selling, etc. 4

Creating a piece of graphic art isn't on my list at all. That would be a graphic representation of a scene that never existed in reality.

So, I use Lightroom and I'm not an expert with Lightroom.

I have a friend who is an expert with Photoshop. He's a retired professional photographer. I was insecure with my editing skills so I asked him to help me. I picked 15 raw files with specific problems. When my friend came over he doesn't use Lightroom and I don't use Photoshop so I edited my photos while he commented.

He made a number of comments about other things I could do with Photoshop that I wasn't doing with Lightroom. On the other hand, he commented more than once on the speed and ease of use for Lightroom.

Bottom line, he said my editing was acceptable. With my priority being getting out, going places, meeting people, and taking photos, that's good enough for me.

Of course, $950 infuences my decision, too.

I dont think it is a question of needing to PP or not becouse you are pro or am. There are vast numbers of amatuers out there using Nikon and Cannon equipment. Photoshop is such an accessable program and all the glossy mags print plenty of how-to`s showing you how to manipulate your images to the extreme. I think amateurs buy these mags and after reading a few think that that is what digital photography is all about.

My OP was just making the observation that Pentax users here seem to post images that have lighter processing and a more natural look.

So i ask my second question again ....

When does a phtograph stop being a photograph and become digital art?

Photoshop just doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather get the effects the old fashioned way, with filters or by adjusting exposure (such as using long exposures at night to bring out more detail than the dedicated auto mode would show). The only thing I tend to do is bump the brightness up a touch on photos I plan to print, and I can do that in-camera.

Being a good photographer and a good photoshopper goes hand in hand to create the perfect image. It is technology that is available to us and why should we not use it? Just don't over do it!!
I myself only use PS for levels and cropping (and for sharpening before I used Pentax lenses.)

Answer:
It's already digital, so when the people looking at the image decide to call it "Art"

in the moment you click the shutter, having the image recorded on a digital sensor, that is already digital art. (the various parameters and settings of the camera already influence the photographic outcome)

I have already explained why on pentaxuser you see less photoshop in my previous posts - so I will not re-state it.

Also, its obvious that many nikon and canon users are amateurs.
"If all hippos are animals, and some animals are penguins, all penguins must be hippos? " (simple IQ test question to describe your statement)

Penguins are not hippos.

I was just saying that its not exclusive to pros, in fact i think its the opposite, pros use photoshop alot but tend to know when to stop. Amateurs tend to push things too far IMHO.

So older film photographs are analogue art? lol.