 |
Photography without post-production is like building a house without painting it. My camera is good at what it does, but it is not that good. It is not a DSLR and it has problems with white balance, which I correct in PaintShop Pro.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
You know what ruined photography? The darkroom. That's the real start of the long, slow decline - I say if the image doesn't appear without dousing it in chemical soup, then it's not really photography, it's more like chemography, or maybe satanic black magic.
That's right. Think about it: a dark room, with only one dim red light? Obscure potions and rituals? The stench of sulphur? Clearly the work of the dark lords of hell.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Use PS to doctor 'em... making masterpiece's still starts in the view finder, so mine are just walking wounded! ~~t
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i kinda like working in a darkroom... hmmm it will be a lost art, dodging, burning, stains on your clothes. the stench on your fingers.. i like it! it's real... but if you must do it! i get jealous of those friends that are a wiz at it....
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Whatever floats your boat. Don't forget, though: Garbage in, Garbage out.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Photography was never JUST about what happens when you press the shutter. Using 35mm film one had to think about which film one loaded (using more than one body if you wanted more than one ISO) and anticipating exactly what one would do in the darkroom. The cleverness of digital cameras has fooled some into thinking its somehow smart to want to get everything right at the moment of pressing the shutter. In fact, using PS -- not necessarily for correction or manipulation --- but simply to complete the process makes one a much more subtle user of complex and smart cameras.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well guys, I have a completely different slant, in various stages of my life, I've done wedding and portrait photograpghy, a stint with a newspaper and on a cruise ship that sailed around the Seychelles and all the other islands off the east coast of Africa and also for a gardening magazine.
Now i just want to create my own fantasies in photoshop and in the process, I have fun and derive immense pleasure to a stage that I cannot stop producing my images, now I have 2 addictions, photoshop and flickr.
You may like my stuff or hate it, but my images are unique and original.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I agree with stopped.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
There is still a lot of skill involved in photoshop. It is not just a computerised image. The person behind it still drives it, and determines the result.
I think photoshop is fantastic, and I have only just started with it. I also love to paint, and use some of my photoshopped images as a starting points to paintings. I suspect that I will use it a lot more in the future.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Depends what you are claim for the image. So I see nothing wrong with taking a photo of lion in zoo, sticking it into backdrop of savanna. However if you then present it as "Photo of lion in wild taken whilst in Kenya" I'd be a little peeved. But then the same would be true if presented with a stunning dragonfly macro which had no PS applied but that insect had been put in a fridge to chill it and then placed on some staging for the photography.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Besides, it'd look silly shivering away in its tiny mittens.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
unless you're trying to create original art which is no longer really photography, it's a good idea to go easy on the photoshop. Heavily photoshopped images are usually pretty obvious, and tend to be gag-inducing.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wouldn't the dragonfly just breathe some fire and... oh, forget it.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
No, that would set fire to its mittens.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Oh no! Somebody call the firefly.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
*groan*
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I told you to forget it...
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It's everybody's own decision. I don't use it, but that's because I don't have it.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think Leonardo Da Vinci once said something like,
"Every great artist utilizes the technology of his time".
Ok, that might have been a dream or a shroom trip,
I can't really remember exactly....
but it sounds like something he'd say, right?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Except he'd probably have said it in Italian, backwards.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
And not being middle management, he'd probably say "use", not "utilize".
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Opmet ous led aigoloncet al asu ednarg atsitra ingo
It's as good as on Wikipedia already.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
When you think about it, this is a logical extension of the arguments between 'fine art' and 'modern art' and between 'canvas art' and photography The argument then, as it is now, is one between artistry and craftsmanship.
IMO art is the talent of communicating emotion and a 'masterpiece' is something which is supremely effective at doing this AND demonstrates a unique level of craftsmanship in its creation.
Quite possibly, given the right circumstances, you or I could take an image which would have equal artistic impact to the best shots ever taken but practically none of us could reproduce an old master because we don't have the practical skills or time required.
We place a lesser value on craftsmanship which is more familiar - within our potential - so that a 'Photshop masterpiece' - however much artistic impact it may have - will never rate as highly as an 'photgraphic masterpiece'.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The Camera Takes the Photograph, The Darkroom Develops the photograph - The Photographer makes the photograph.
If you are trying to capture an image seen by the minds eye - surely using a camera (digital or otherwise) has already changed that to start with, the same as a movie of a book you've read will seldom reproduce your thought and images of the story.
See what you see in the in the vista then use anything you can to reproduce that image the best you can and to your liking (after all that's why you take a photograph isn't it? not for the approval of other photographers and their praise?)
Develop the photograph (by any means) and when you like it you've succeeded, if others compliment, it's a bonus if they don't does it matter?
Pete
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
axel hydre
While I agree with you in principle, I think you should also consider that people place lesser value on craftsmanship that they CONSIDER within their potential, and that they often misjudge that potential.
For example, anyone can start up Photoshop and create something funky looking, so they consider anything done in Photoshop to be within their potential, "easy" if you like.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. There are some amazing digital artists here on Flickr where I haven't a clue how they did what they did, and for the absolute pinnacle, look at http://www.bertmonroy.com/.
Originally posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
-RobW- edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
 |
"You know what ruined photography? The darkroom."
I couldn't agree more. Adjusting contrast by using different grade paper (or worse - multigrade paper!!!) is just wrong. Dodging and burning using pieces of cardboard made from corn flakes boxes just makes a mockery of the art.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@-RobW- Yes, I agree, potential is subjective and perceived 'easiness' is a very large component of how we value things.
And yes, that image is an example of craftsmanship of the highest order. And indeed the artists creative motivation is his love of craftsmanship and he succeeds in communicating that so very well here. But is it art ? Does it succeed in making me feel something more than admiration for the skills required to create it ?
For me a masterpiece would.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
*davidsαngle [deleted] says:
photography without editing is not photography !
It's rather the question how much editing is good.. but I think that's a matter of taste. In art there are no rules. Some may like it, some not !
you have to choose if you want to do what you like or what the crowd like ..
even if you don't edit your pictures, the camera does it for you if you shot in jpeg..
so you can say every photo is edited except unfinished RAW..
;)
Originally posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
*davidsαngle edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
|
I see what you mean; it could have been both - he could have chosen to reproduce a thought provoking and emotive scene occuring at that station - then it would have had both craftsmanship and art.
Instead, if that was just a photo, you'd say *yawn* and move on - the only reason it has interest is down to the technique.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Technology never deskills art it just moves the skill about.
In the case of the train station one has to ask WHY? Its a bit like engraving the first chapter of genesis onto the head of a pin. Whilst one is amazed at the effort involved is the amazement any greater than being told that someone has spent a year collect 30,000,000 coke bottles?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Wow. Their dentist must be a billionaire.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Of course not. Art has no boundaries!
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If Art has no boundaries, why do they put frames on paintings?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Wow. Their dentist must be a billionaire.
Probably got a mouth full of plastic. Besides dentistry is a home/garage craft.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I have very, very serious dislike of even trying to use photoshop. I fundamentally object to its usage, to be honest, in every possible way.
This does, of course,have nothing whatsoever to do with my being entirely unable to work it. Nothing at all.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I recently read a couple of essays on this topic:
www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml
and
www.naturephotographers.net/articles0706/gt0706-1.html
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Doing post work on a 6MP image on a 40Mhz machine with 16Mb of RAM shows a dedication to your art that is admirable.
I think I'd have screamed and thrown the computer out of the window.
And then burnt the negative.
And then gone to the pub.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
Such a red herring. photoshop vs. photography. Must a side be taken?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If you don't have sides how are you supposed to sit in the middle?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think most of the work should be done in the camera and photoshop should be used for fine tuning. But I also love photoshop for manipulation work. Even then, I try to start off with at least an interesting image, then I'll play and play and play.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
No, thank you. I had to remove PS from my 'puter so I could put on more photos. Plus, I think when you alter a photo, it diminishes the photo. People take pictures, mostly to show what they see. When you alter that, you alter the reality of what you saw, and what it really looked like. People won't take you as seriously when you alter your photos.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Most people who keep knocking PS just do not know how to use this program, i've been using PS constantly for over a year and to date I believe I'm only about 20-30% adept in what is a very technical intense program.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I use photoshop for the same thing as Jayel - correcting white balance and other small colour issues. I run all of my flickr'ed photos through PS, although I don't usually make changes if they take the photo too far from what it really was. Besides, sometimes it's just a crap shot, and no amount of photoshopping will fix it.
I've also been known to photoshop certain flickr'rs heads on other bodies and into activities, such as skateboarding. But that's different. Right?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I agree somw what with purplewon2000. I am sure ps has its place but why have fancy expensive camera and take pictures when you can but a cheap one and fix the pics when you get home.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
One things for sure, photography without PS is cheaper.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I do not use photoshop. so, to select a photo I like, is very dificult...
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A digital camera is a little computer - it turns what you see into a string of bits. You control what it does - to some extent.
Photoshop takes that string of bits and turns it into another string of bits. You control what it does more exactly.
Are we arguing that it is more important to be an adept on the camera/computer than on the PC. Surely the best results come from being an adept on both ?
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
They see that you can't polish a turd, but a pair of old shoes always look better after a little hard work.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That second article peter bowers posted above is very good.
I'm not claiming it'll change anyone's mind (has anyone in the history of the Internet EVER changed anyone's mind?) but it's thought provoking.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Jayel up there said: "Photography without post-production is like building a house without painting it."
I see too many people putting paint on ruins, trying to hide the construction flaws under fancy colors and textured wallpapers ! Post-processing is just a way to improve, polish a picture, it never ever saves a bad picture. And some houses don't need painting ;-)
Also, everyone can be good at photoshopping, it's just a technique, a tool, nothing else. The talent of the photographer is in his eye.
PS: I've always found it ironical that Photoshop was abbreviated PS: that's what it is to me somehow, a Post Scriptum ;-)
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I see too many people using bad metaphors and piling more metaphors on top of them, to try and cover up the fact that the basic metaphor was shite in the first place.
I long for the day when a simple simile would do.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Get out of someone's bed the wrong side this morning, did we? ;o)
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I wish.
I've been putting too many apples in front of the horse.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's like the carrot calling the stick pointy.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Too many coots spoil the plum.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Look before you meep.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A coot in time saves limes.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Don't put any Gregs in a casket.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Also, everyone can be good at photoshopping, it's just a technique, a tool, nothing else. The talent of the photographer is in his eye.
Just like how everyone can be good at woodworking, or knitting, or sewing, or welding, or bookbinding, right? Just tools, just techniques, and anyone can do them as well as anyone else. What nonsense.
When you get right down to it, the camera is just a tool as well, but that doesn't mean that a blurry, underexposed mess is a good photo, no matter how much 'talent' is crammed into the eye behind that tool.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I've only just really started with digital and have only used PS for about 2 weeks but can remember the olden days when we had to carry around a box of filters and spend hours in the dark room to achieve the picture we had in our minds. What's the difference with carrying my tools around to having them stored at home. NONE. It's still photography (art) and you still need the talent and skill to pull it off.
By the way, any good groups for tips and learning how to use PS? I can't look at another Adobe help file so help me God.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Once you stop time, remove one dimension, and crop it to 24x36mm or 4x5'' or whatever, you've already crossed the line.
Everything, starting with the notion of how you will compose the photo, is post-processing.
--
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
On a technical level, I have to agree with rgdaniel.
Why an artist chooses to share what he/she has created, is the hope that they can bring to the viewer something unique. Something crafted to a point so that the essence of that vision is attainable.
A gifted artist will use their abilities to take you as a viewer past that point so that you are compelled to relate to it emotionally. Compelled to relate to an essence that is more than the material that makes it. This will always be evident whether a skill lies behind a lens, a brush, a musical instrument or even a pen for that matter.
It will tap into the poetry within all of us.
Into that which makes every one of us an artist.
Originally posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
panic-embryo edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
 |
the 90's were 7 years ago.
film vs digital? digital.
raw vs jpeg? raw.
photoshop or not? photoshop
canon vs nikon? canon ;-)
next hackneyed discussion topic please.
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
By the way, any good groups for tips and learning how to use PS? I can't look at another Adobe help file so help me God.
www.flickr.com/groups/photoshopsupport/
Posted 29 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
