viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

Is photo editing taking the skill out of photography? I use serif PhotoPlus X5 and with care it can make a poor picture much better. In the old days you stood or fell by what you took.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I don't think that this is a cut/dried issue, nor do i think that you are accurate in saying "in the old days you stood or fell by what you took..." PP has replaced manipulation in the Darkroom, and the capabilities of what you can do have expanded but the "old days" were by no means a "straight out of the camera" time for everyone.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

Wrong, wrong, wrong....... Back in "de gud ole dazes" the lab was where you took your image and "created" a picture.. As now like then, rarely did a picture come directly out of the camera as a "finished" product... Every thing you can do now with photoshop ( or whatever ), we did back then with the enlarger, burning or shading or - geeze I forget all that we did... Same results , but different technics....

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Digital imaging and the vast selection of PP software has definitely lead to a high level of "sloptography" out there. There has never been a darkroom magician who could make as much improvement in a bad negative as the average Joe today can do with a bad digital image and a free or cheap software program.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

That's right. I had a darkroom and I developed and printed colored photos but never could do what I can do now. My original point was is it making the new generation of photographers sloppy?

14kphotog Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Thats why I shot slides. You had to get it in the camera. No P.P. You were good or junk is what you got ! :thumbup: :thumbdown:

AK Dreamer Loc: Alaska & Nevada

PP may make a poor photo better but it will never make a poor photo great. Fun to play in photo editing software at times but a truly good photo with all the elements of a good photo (composition, etc.) begin behind the camera and not in the computer.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I still shoot only transparencies in my film cameras, it does force you to do it right or throw it away. I HATE throwing them away!!

Fifty-Fifty Loc: Arkansas

Im sure you've heard the old joke about ,wow great shots what camera do you use and later on being invited over for dinner and saying wow great dinner what stove did you use....photography and cooking can be a bit similar as in,yes i have a shot and i did pp on it made it a bit more interesting.. but heres where cooking come in. I can follow the recipe and get a cake, but the good cook will adjust the recipe just a bit maybe a bit more milk to make the batter smoother and the cake moister... so when you run into one of those purist who think PP is ruining photography ..invite him over for some cake...this is my opinion, I'm not ranting and i certainly hope I'm not going to offend anyone

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

The attitude that "I can fix it later" drives me crazy.

However, as already has been stated , it is very rare to make a negative that will print exactly as one wishes.

Yesterday , as I was preparing for a class offering for the spring session I reviewed a DVD called the Eloquent Eye about Alfred Steiglitz that I haven't watched in several years.
(I would suggest true lovers of photograhy should watch) The narrator remarked that at the time Alfred began making images, along with the other buddy photograhpers of the time took a beating from the painters. The remarks being along the line of " the machine is doing the work, a man puts his head under a black cloth and the machine takes over" Does this sound familar?

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I didn't. I had my darkroom with its different chemicals, papers, filters. I dodged, burned, overexposed the underexposures, underexposed the overexposures, etc.

Todays darkroom is Lightroom, Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Gimp, Picassa, Picnik, Photomatix..................

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

As my wise old grandmother said, "What comes out of the camera is just the basics to start with." (Actually she didn't say that, but she said something close about cooking.)

I think it's interesting that whenever I go to a photo exhibition, they tell us the camera make, lens, shutter speed, ISO, f/stop, etc. Only by talking to the photographer do you learn just how much manipulation he did after the picture came out of the camera. What's wrong with that?

Old Tom Loc: South Fort Myers

Ah, the old days and the smell of those chemicals and the continual cost of paper and supplies. The half hour or so just developing and the dark enviroment.

I sure do not miss those days.

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

Absolutely true and there nothing wrong in using any of those tools in my opinion; however, it is best if one starts out with the best capture possible in camera first.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

For arguments sake, a poor photographer will always remain a poor photographer. He will be able to brighten up his too darkly exposed image are darken down his over exposed image and he will be able to saturate the colours of his image to make it seem that bit better. He/she will be able to add some contrast where they did'nt in the taking stage, but what you are getting is still a better looking poor quality photograph.

And if he is a poor photographer he will not have the eye to see what he can do to make his images better. Much like a poor cook can add more salt to their dish or a little more sugar or some cream or tomato sauce to boost it somehow, but it will still remain a crappy dinner with a little masking from some sort of spice or sweetner added. Those who know no better will think it taste nice but those of us who can cook or have had the luxury of tasting food from a great restaurant or great chef, know the difference and can tell it apart immediately. How many times have you possibly sat down to what looked like a nicely presented dinner but tasted bland? Looks nice but we can tell the difference from the first mouthful, in the same way you can see from the first time you set eyes on an image.

A good photographer no longer has to rely on a dark room technician to enhance his images to show them off at their best. But, a good photographer must now learn those dark room skills the technician had, if he wants to make his good print and excellent print. So I believe in today's world, there has been a greater burden put on a good photographer, because now he/she not only has to be a good photographer with an artistic eye but also a good darkroom technician to know what to do and how to acheive it with post production. Therefore a good photographer today has to have a greater skill set than a photographer did in the old days of film and labs if they wish to stand out amonsgt their peers.

So, in answer to your question, nope, crap just looks like pretty crap today and good photography can look excellent by the same had that took the image if the maker has taken the time to learn the proper skills of post production. However, if you've only ever seen or been used to crap and have no eye for good stuff, you will be happy to look at pretty crap and still be satisfied. So, it really makes no difference to that kind of person.