Is Being A Good Photoshopper Becoming More Important Than Being A Good Photographer? (Page 9): I can only speak in my behalf since we are all different. I use Topaz Adjust 5 in many of...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

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 can only speak in my behalf since we are all different. I use Topaz Adjust 5 in many of my photographs to enhance them but I do not tend to depart from reality. I usually start with a preset but I modify the effect to make the photograph more realistic.

JohninRockville Loc: Rockville, Indiana

There are some, involved in professional photographic organizations who suggest that in addition to traditional contest categories like nature, landscape, experimental, etc there should be added "photographic art" which might address this issue. Granted, one would have to depend in part on the honesty of participants, as it continually becomes more difficult to distinguish altered images from actual photographs.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I would never say someone shouldn't do something with an image if it pleases them. It's their image. Wether someone else likes the results could be another conversation. All images need post processing to one degree or another unless it is for editorial purposes.

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.

tomeveritt Loc: Fla. + Ga,NY,Va,Md,SC

Hey Ralf, It pops up because some photographers enjoy the conversation, You don't have to read it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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.

Wow! Nine pages!

With PS, you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you must have the sow's ear first. That's why you take pictures.

TheDman Loc: USA

jerryc41 wrote:

Wow! Nine pages!

With PS, you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you must have the sow's ear first. That's why you take pictures.

Show us an example!

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

I think one of many answers lies more in what your intention is for the photograph. (And pardon me for getting a bit existentialist here.) If your soul focus is to record the moment, such as a photo-journalist might do, then post tools are little more than something to complete the process. Any post-processing that alters the shot in a meaningful way would change the reason for its existence. But if you are taking the shot as a basis for an artistic endeavor, then its open season on those little pixels. Photoshop is only as important as you want it to be. The shot below stated out as purely recording the moment but then ended up as one that was processed to enrich the colors, thereby crossing from one intention to the other.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

SUPER great point!
Thanks for expressing that way.
Duane

Mac wrote:

Is it paint by numbers? Isn't that what putting a photograph together in Photoshop is? Photography by numbers.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

This conversation is akin to a cook who insists on using only one ingredient, and another who throws in all sorts of flavors to prepare their dish. Both take talent.. talent will be apparent in the final plating, hacks will also be apparent! I fully don't expect the respective cooks to do anything but try and knock down the other and declare their path as the superior one.

To each his own, and who cares if the PAYING customer is happy and willing to PAY!

(pay = admire, desire as well as well as - or in addition to buy)

Canonuser Loc: UK and South Africa

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.

It's no different to the creative techniques many of us used in the darkroom a lot of years ago. The big difference was that there were not so many of us doing it and almost none of us talked about it like everyone does now, so the subject never often came up.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

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.

That is a very interesting question and thanking for posing it.

For me, it depends on what you mean by "photographer."

We are seen an acceleration of the fusion of photography and other graphic arts--but this has been with us for many years. It may be, in the context of this discussion that the term is losing relevance.

Artists have been fusing many forms for a long time. If you look at a mixed meadia piece of art, is it pairing? Sculpture? Silkscreen? I think the \answer is really "none of the above."

Is it really a photograph if I use a polarizing or neutral density filter? The end result will not be an exact representation of what I saw with my eyes.

My goal is to make images that make me happy. I will use digital trickery if thats what gets me to my goal.

But thats just me. Everyone should decide for themselves.Again---interesting question and thanks got posting it.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

tomeveritt wrote:

Amen Brother - the ability to manipulate rules. Today's cameras take extraordinary images w/o PS

Thought I was the last man standing not paying adobe / month.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I'm with you, well said Tom, I'm not paying Adobe squat.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Burtzy wrote:

I think one of many answers lies more in what your... (show quote)

What is it?

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

tomeveritt wrote:

Amen Brother - the ability to manipulate rules. Today's cameras take extraordinary images w/o PS

Thought I was the last man standing not paying adobe / month.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

nope - there seems to be a small minority of us, but we're here...

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

Mac--

This is a really significant discussion. I discovered long ago that the "magic" of the lab worked a lot better when I had a good image to work with. I think that was part of the joy of Kodachrome--getting an image with a film that had excellent characteristics except for exposure latitude.

The argument has been in painting for centuries. The impressionists coexisted with classical painters such as Bierstadt (early) and Bougereau (late) and each went their own way.

Edward Weston was using zone system before Adams. He had a preference for contact prints--no practical way of enlarging a 16x20 negative. In his later years, his son Brett did his prints.

I really miss watching the print come up in the developer tray and doing the burning and dodging. But without a good negative properly exposed it was so much more work.