Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Who has a better advantage?

  1. #21

    Default

    i think the answer is quite obvious... TO ME.

    I'll go with the the "Photoshopper".

    Ok, some clarifications... I'm assuming you're not talking about images so bad they can't be saved. or that the one who uses Photoshopper knows nuts about photography. If those were the case, then of course, it wouldn't be justified to ask the original ques in the first place.

    Digital photography is a huge area. Unfortunately, many would choose (or rather unknowingly) not to learn about the post-processing. Speak to your amatuer frineds, even those who own mid-range DSLR's these days and you'll know. Everyone who owns a digicam would be so proud of their new toy. Slick, cute, slim, at least 5 MP, super zoom, anti-shake, etc etc. But when it comes to presenting their images or printing them out, Uh-oh... Many go stunned that there could be so much post-processing to do. Some who enthusiastically tried to embark on the journney of learning some photo-editing just gave up in the end. "Arghh, forget it. Just send them to the shops."

    So what they get is often mediocre images or at least those that to a good photoshopper, can be salvaged or much more work that can be done to make them better.

    Just on the topic of colour management alone can put many off. I don't think many really understand what this means. (Ok ok, I seriously don't either after reading much about it!) Read the postings on CS here and you can see all sorts of different replies on what you should do with your colours.

    But if you are an average photographer, but hell of an expert on Photoshop, wow, you can produce magic I think. Look at the works of those experts and you know what I mean. Surreal images, etc. Cut and paste that makes you think it's real. Again, remember we're not talking the original images being craps to begin with.

    Why digital then, or why is film dying?

    The general appeal of digital over films these days is clear: No need to mess around with films, digicams' design are more cool than film compacts, immediate viewing/download, snap/resnap at will, and digital is associated with another can't do without technology inthe 21st century: computers. It's almost like, if you own a computer, you got to go digital man.

    That's why if you read M Yamashita's (National Geographic photographer) comment today in ST, he openly admits he's an expert on films, but knows little on digital and neither would he gladly embark on it due to the huge "learning curve" involved. One would think , hey just give him a Canon DSLR 1Ds Mk II body right? What's the diff from his EOS 1-v film body? Just press the shutter?

    It's in the post-processing.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    I would say the None have the advantages.

    It's has its own weakness.

    You can only be good in something.

    Digital Retoucher is a specialized job. So is Photographer.

    Concentrating one is hard enough. Let alone doing double job but it's good that you have some knowledge on both areas.

    I would choose Photographer.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    256

    Default

    in my opinion,

    whichever the means, to achieve the ends.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default

    Whether photographer or photoshopper, whoever earns the most money is the winner.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    For some people, photography is about the final image (and maybe the revenue it brings). For such people, i think DI would be (silghtly) more important, bcoz DI gives great control over how the final image looks.

    But for others, photography is for the experience. Stalking a bird for 3 weeks in the forest. Meeting people of foreign lands. Experiencing the emotions of a full-day wedding. Squeezing through thick crowds for that one mugshot of some chio-film star (when there are better images on the net, free to boot). Taking the 10,000th picture of the neighobor's cat, this time with the new 350D. For such people, DI is secondary.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by denniskee
    dont think we are talking newbie photog here

    correct me if i am wrong

    1) average pser + advance photog

    2) advance pser + average photog
    Dennis, you are right on.
    Who has the better advantage?
    I tend to agree with David. I have seen some images (which i term as quite ordinary) taken by an average photog and being a graphic-artist, she turned those images into incredible images. It has affected me in my thinking that a "perfect" modern day photographer should also be an expert in PS skills. As such i tend to believe that No. 2 should have a bigger advantage.
    Last edited by Canonised; 6th June 2005 at 09:04 PM.
    always the Light, .... always.

  7. #27

    Default

    BTW, someone told me that in the market there is now a software to correct "out-of-focus" images .... anyone can enlighten?
    If this is true, i think we better dont trash those OUF images,
    always the Light, .... always.

  8. #28

    Default

    To me... it's like asking which face of the same coin has more value.

    Cuz it's the same process in series... depending on the final "product" the photog wants. If the photog can get the pic he/she wants without PSing... then he/she gets the pics.

    Else, Psing would be just as important in getting the final "product".

    But the catch is still GIGO... there is only so much you can salvage from a mistake.

    While photog and DI are currently "different" vocation... this mindset have to change as they have symbiotic relation.... the final "product" is no longer limited to what the photog can capture... but also what else the DI can do to ENHANCE the pic to achieve your vision.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canonised
    BTW, someone told me that in the market there is now a software to correct "out-of-focus" images .... anyone can enlighten?
    If this is true, i think we better dont trash those OUF images,
    They can be salvaged for smaller prints with aggressive sharpening. But not for large prints.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Western SG
    Posts
    1,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canonised
    In digital photography age, who has a better advantage : the photographer or the photoshopper? I have seen very nice images taken by good photographers (but not many around) and fantastic images taken by average photographers but very good "photoshoppers". In this digital age, who has the better advantage? This is only a hypothetical question so no need to say better to have both skills, etc...
    Let's just assume there are only two extreme skills we can be .... a good photographer OR a good photoshopper, who do we prefer to be?
    IMHO, the good 'photoshoppers' will have the advantage for Digital image.

    But Who I prefer to be.... a good photographer.

    But if PSing is the darkroom part of the whole workflow.... guess that a good photographer will either have to learn it or partner someone good to realise his 'vision' of the final product.

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Default

    I'd choose to be a good photographer...
    You can capture the moment and even if the picture is not the clearest or the most colour rich, if the message is carried on to the viewer, it's a good shot.

    OTOH, unless you're digitally re-creating/ creating the image, you can't get the same moment.. And will the dark lords watch over you when the client says: "I want the shoot in film and I want the negatives".

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    For some people, photography is about the final image (and maybe the revenue it brings). For such people, i think DI would be (silghtly) more important, bcoz DI gives great control over how the final image looks.

    But for others, photography is for the experience. Stalking a bird for 3 weeks in the forest. Meeting people of foreign lands. Experiencing the emotions of a full-day wedding. Squeezing through thick crowds for that one mugshot of some chio-film star (when there are better images on the net, free to boot). Taking the 10,000th picture of the neighobor's cat, this time with the new 350D. For such people, DI is secondary.
    I second that. Film or digital, it doesnt matter as long you achieved what you desire. Inspiration and effort is what most people need.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    666

    Default

    hmmm... chicken and egg question.... but i think as the camera technology advances, the advantage will lean towards photoshopper. but since i am lazy, i would prefer to be a photographer than a photoshopper....

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    1 Dalvey Road
    Posts
    474

    Default beg to differ

    Quote Originally Posted by idor
    hmmm... chicken and egg question.... but i think as the camera technology advances, the advantage will lean towards photoshopper. but since i am lazy, i would prefer to be a photographer than a photoshopper....
    since i am lazy too,
    prefer to learn ps than good photo technic

    not everyone can be ansel,
    so if i hv to chose,
    photoshopper.
    i am not a streetphotograhy guy,
    reaction too slow,
    so the so call 'moment' means nothing to me.


  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default

    Experience, living in the moment, then when you get out of it, gotta start the workflow asap.Lol.

    I would take photography first and photoshop skills second.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  16. #36

    Default

    To answer the question posted by the OP, I belive an excellent photographer/average photoshopper will have an advantage over an average photographer/excellent photoshopper. With an excellent original image, not much will need to be done in photoshop. On the other hand, with an average photographer, an excellent photoshopper may be able to improve the image, but it will be hard press to get the image to the "excellent" level.

    Unfortunately for me, I am definately an average photographer and an average photoshopper. Very depressing.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Westy
    Posts
    2,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefox
    ...And will the dark lords watch over you when the client says: "I want the shoot in film and I want the negatives".


    Good one there! At this digitial age, there are still people who prefer photos to be taken in film.

    Unless the photoshopper is intending to scan all the pics and edit... but what about e negatives...?

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Arcanic~


    Good one there! At this digitial age, there are still people who prefer photos to be taken in film.

    Unless the photoshopper is intending to scan all the pics and edit... but what about e negatives...?
    BTW I still take Film... and scan neg.... cos neg fades in time..... so I keep scanned images as a backup to Neg...

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Actually, they're both more similar than you might imagine. Both need the crucial ability to see. A photographer who sees amazing images uses his camera to bring these amazing mental images to reality. A digital artist who sees amazing images uses Photoshop, with the help of composite images, to bring these amazing mental images to reality. If we play on a level playing field - ie no "surreal" images - then the two are actually very similar. And arguably, the photographer will get it done faster.

    There are areas a photographer will hold the edge - anything that happens in real time. There are areas where a digital artist will hold the edge - anything that doesn't depend on real time. Although to be honest, thinking about it the digital artist would still need to be a very competent photographer to produce good images to work from.

    In fact the more I think about it, the more I think the photographer wins, in anything that involves reality. Even for matters of reality outside the photographer's control, the good photographer will wait to get that brilliant picture. The digital artist might take what's available and enhance it.

    If we move to surreal images, then it's a whole different kettle of fish. Digital art should be assessed completely differently from photography; because they involve different criteria and skills, their judging criteria should be completely different. Photography doesn't begin to meddle in the surreal so there really shouldn't be any comparison in the two. It's like comparing photography to painting really.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •