Is Being A Good Photoshopper Becoming More Important Than Being A Good Photographer?
Jan 28, 2015 09:59:23 #
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
Jan 28, 2015 10:03:11 #
We all have different skills to express our creativity. Some people paint from a photograph they took. Are they photographers or painters?
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
Jan 28, 2015 10:09:29 #
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
Someone still has to be a good photographer to pull off good Photoshop. Photoshop is only a tool, like your camera and lens.
Jan 28, 2015 10:09:42 #
gemlenz wrote:
We all have different skills to express our creativity. Some people paint from a photograph they took. Are they photographers or painters?
Is it paint by numbers? Isn't that what putting a photograph together in Photoshop is? Photography by numbers.
Jan 28, 2015 10:14:31 #
When studying Ansel Adams, I learned he considered darkroom chemistry the heart of his creations. In fact, in a talk his son held up two copies of one photograph, one was pre-darkroom and the other post ... It was vividly clear his creative genius was in the post processing.
Jan 28, 2015 10:14:45 #
show1971 wrote:
Someone still has to be a good photographer to pull off good Photoshop. Photoshop is only a tool, like your camera and lens.
I don't know. A good photographer should be able to get the exposure right enough the s/he doesn't need to add things in photoshop.
Jan 28, 2015 10:15:46 #
gemlenz wrote:
We all have different skills to express our creativity. Some people paint from a photograph they took. Are they photographers or painters?
Norman Rockwell used reference photos...does that answer your question.
Jan 28, 2015 10:17:24 #
show1971 wrote:
Someone still has to be a good photographer to pull off good Photoshop. Photoshop is only a tool, like your camera and lens.
You mean someone has to be a good graphic artist or graphic designer not necessarily a photographer at all to do good Photoshop. Photoshop was not originally design for photography per se. Ps is a great tool to go with photography but it is a different skill set to also master.
Jan 28, 2015 10:17:33 #
LPigott wrote:
When studying Ansel Adams, I learned he considered darkroom chemistry the heart of his creations. In fact, in a talk his son held up two copies of one photograph, one was pre-darkroom and the other post ... It was vividly clear his creative genius was in the post processing.
That could be, but he started with the image. He didn't add parts to it from other images.
Jan 28, 2015 10:19:52 #
wingclui44
Loc: CT USA
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
I call them Photographic Artists! Not thing wrong with that. They need to be good photographers to become good photo artists.
Jan 28, 2015 10:21:14 #
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
They did this in the later 1800s when exposure times were too long to render both sky and foreground. Emulsions were blue sensitive and would render sky faster than trees and grass. the result would be a white sky with a well exposed foreground. Photographers would make two plates one for the foreground and one for the sky and combine the two in printing. A sky plate would often be used for more than one scene because the for the ground was clear on the plate making it easy to put whatever clouds one wanted with whatever scene they had. Nothing new here.
Jan 28, 2015 10:22:20 #
LPigott wrote:
When studying Ansel Adams, I learned he considered darkroom chemistry the heart of his creations. In fact, in a talk his son held up two copies of one photograph, one was pre-darkroom and the other post ... It was vividly clear his creative genius was in the post processing.
Visualization was the heart of his creations. It is looking at a scene beyond just what is in front of you. It is about an image that speaks to what you saw and felt about the scene.
Jan 28, 2015 10:23:57 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Mac wrote:
I don't know. A good photographer should be able to get the exposure right enough the s/he doesn't need to add things in photoshop.
How do you get the exposure right on a scene that has 23 stops of brightness?
Jan 28, 2015 10:24:28 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Mac wrote:
I was going through Flipboard this morning and came across an article "How To Add Clouds In Photoshop." And it made me wonder if this is where photography is headed: pick a subject, pick a foreground, pick a background, then blend them all together in Photoshop.
People who don't know Photoshop think this is what Photoshop is for.
Jan 28, 2015 10:25:17 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Mac wrote:
That could be, but he started with the image. He didn't add parts to it from other images.
So you're against star trail images?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.