LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

Someone said to me in the Forum, that they were a real photographer. Not a Photoshoptographer.
In the history of photography, photographers have been maniputating their pictures from the begining. Croping, using Darkrooms to get special effects, corrected color, etc.

Now we no longer use Darkrooms, because we have gone digital with our Camera's, and film is almost obsolete.
So how do we make adjustments to our photo? Most people use some sort of software, like Picasa, Correl, lightroom and Photoshop.
I know I'm not perfect, and sometimes a great shot comes along and it's a once in a lifetime shot. But, the lighting is wrong. You did not have time to adjust your camera's setting, etc. But, you take the shot anyway, hoping for the best, and saying under your breath, I may have to do a lot of editing, but what a shot.

Would like to hear back from others on "being a real Photographer" and never having to edited your pictures. Are their people out their that are so good and perfect they never have to edit?

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Ansel Adams was famous for some of his darkroom techniques.

People who say "real photographers don't use post processing" are elitist snobs who just want to have someone to look down their noses at.

EVERY professional photographer uses some sort of P/P, whether it's darkroom technique or digital post processing.

I get a chuckle out of these 'film only' snobs who talk about digital photography as if it were one step from pedophilia, but have no problem discussing which film is best for vivid colors at which darkroom settings and which lighting setup. They're simply doing PRE-processing, instead of post-processing.

When every 'film only' doofus uses a K-mart 120-Instamatic and Walgreen's developing for ALL of his/her work, then maybe I'll attach some import to their bleating. Not until.

I do very little P/P, but only because I'm lazy and usually screw it up anyway.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Real Photographers huh? I shoot about 1,500 images per day, mostly Sports, and have about 20 to 25 published in a long list of publications both online and print every day. I spend about two hours per day (usually between 12:00 and 2:00 in the morning) downloading, organizing, and Post Processing them getting them ready for publication. Without that PP session most of the images would be less impressive, less dramatic, noisier, and so on. This does not mean I am not a competent photographer, I could spend time listing my education and experience and how great I am but that would be unprofessional and out right annoying wouldn't it? I guess my point is that "real" Photographers take pictures that make people go "WOW", that tell a story without words, that accurately document an event, and that produce an emotional response in the viewer. If you can do that you are a "real" Photographer and PP is no more cheating than using a Polarizing Filter is. In any activity there are always people that want to establish an elite club so they can feel special. There usually the ones that can tell you exactly why their camera is better than yours but they cannot get a good shot of an indoor Volleyball match under crappy lights without a flash :-) you know like a "real" Photographer can :lol:

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

couldnt have said it better........

VixenlyVenimous Loc: Nevada

I think, as JimH said (in another way), that it really comes down to perspective. I do post processing on my photos, but usually very little because pictures that are bad are just bad and get deleted after transferred to the computer. But one thing that I ALWAYS do, on EVERY picture (at least now-I didn't before about 2-2.5 years ago), is to adjust the levels and curves to bring some of the color back because the digital cameras always add that weird..film-looking thing to the image.

But I also have pictures that are SOOC that are amazing. So, it all depends on perspective.

846Studios

First off I'm only talking about digital here, film is a whole other entity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with film, and I'd venture to guess that's where most of us started. There are pros and cons about both formats.

There are a lot of excellent Photographers out there, but I don't believe for a minute that anybody gets a perfect shot direct from their camera every time. Sure there a few shots here and there. The thing to understand here is that the digital process inherently takes away things in an image, things that you saw with your eye. Your eyes are pretty darn accurate at interpreting the things around you. Most digital images unedited are far less impressive than what your eye saw and what your thoughts were about how the shot would turn out. So, we edit them.

There is nothing wrong with doing some post process editing on a photo. It doesn't make you a cheater and it doesn't make you a fake.

There are many times that I have shot a photo and forgot to change my settings from a previous subject, not realizing it until I get home. The image on the screen of your camera never does justice to what it really looks like because it's so small and the pixels are so tight. A bad image can look good on the small screen. So, you either throw it away or you do some PP on it and try to salvage it. It all depends on how bad you want to keep the image. I do think that you should try to get the best image you can straight from the camera, but the digital process is never going to let it be perfect.

Baboo Loc: Rainier, Oregon

I now have a new word to use! "Photoshoptographer"!

This is great! LOL. I think that the others have said it all.

Keep shooting and "tweeking".

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

You know, while we're on this subject, I do think there's a difference between using P/P to alter or enhance an image to better match the photog's "mind's eye", and using P/P to "cook" the image so that it shows something that wasn't there, or was there and was removed, in order to present a patently false view, especially when coupled with an intent to deceive. Photo fakery is photo fakery.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

Jim,
Do you mean in a photojournalistic sense or are you talking about removing the telephone pole that seems to be protruding from gramma's head? I agree that "deception" is wrong. I'm less principled if we're talking about not-for-sale/personal use images.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Totally agree Jim, I shoot a lot of Teenagers and rather than embarrass them to the world I "assist" them a bit with acne and small retouches. I live at ISO 3200 so I can get that Shutter Speed up there and I "need" to remove some noise here and there and maybe bump the exposure some. And Cropping is a simple way to improve a shot all around but to utterly "compile" a new image is another discipline all together, its fiction not Photography.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

Yes Jim, please expain. I do sometimes have to remove objects to get the picture right.
Thanks for all the comments on the subject, guys.
From the photoshopgrapher,Rach LMAO

original picture from Alaska

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

No, I don't mean things like telephone poles and stuff that 'got in the way' - I mean like photoshopping complete people In or Out of the image, or putting a head on a different body.

TV Guide published a cover shot of Oprah Winfrey back in the 90's, I think, where they 'shopped her head onto Ann-Margaret's body, that they'd actually gotten from an even older TVG cover from the 70s.

That's what I mean as attempted deception.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

100% agreement. That stuff should be saved for MAD Magazine and Natioanl Lampoon.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

P/P photo. I took the green hose out and adjusted the lighting.

edited Alaska photo

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

And the water has so much more detail, the picture looks better (and the hose won't mind one bit). Now if you added Mit Romney sneaking a yound lady into that canoe then were getting into another subject entirely :thumbup: