Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: To what extend do you use photoshop?

  1. #21

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    nightmare, thank you for sharing your views with so much detail and so many examples. my very limited perspective of the various types and reasons for photoshopping has been broadened thanks to you. i have thoroughly enjoyed reading your replies and debating within myself over my view of photoshopping with the ideas that you brought up

    i do not mind a girl putting on some makeup to make herself look better, because it is the way she wants to present herself. i do not mind movies with improved scenery and visuals, because it is the way the director chooses to tell his stories. in that perspective, should i mind photos that have been touched on so that the photographer can tell his story?

    however in the very same domains as above, a girl who appears in front of me regularly with heavy makeup all the time scores negative points with me, because it is not her. i will not be bothered by a movie that is heavily edited, because i know either there is no alternative in presenting the scene, take "Avatar" for example. as for the photo album link you posted above, i have no qualms about it because i do not even view them as photographs. i view them as edited digital images. i view his album the same way i view "Avatar" - it's almost in a different genre altogether already.

    why do i feel the way i do about photoshop, then? the new perspective you gave me allowed me to analyse why i felt this way more objectively, and when i found that a few points in gengh's post fit into my thinking, i knew i had the answer.

    Previously, to me a post-processed photo compared to an original photo was like plastic surgery compared to natural beauty - certainly a large difference in the authenticity of the beauty that we see. But, what if post-processing was not plastic surgery, but simply putting on makeup? Or putting on a costume to get ready for a play? Or simply wearing nicer clothes to look better?

    countary to what my words mean in my starting post, i have always been okay with certain forms of post-processing. changing photographs into black and white, making artistic changes to the photograph to reflect the story of the photograph, the lomo application on the iphone that changes your photos etc. perhaps then the crux lies not in the extent of the editing, but the purpose behind the editing. i hold a disdain for photographs that either make me feel that it is trying too hard to impress. like adding colour to the white cloud streaks in the sky, etc etc.

    to gengh, hmm. no, to me stories do not necessarily have to be told without distortion. i enjoy stories told from different perspectives, different angles, and with different moods. but i don't like exaggerated stories told by people who are trying to impress me. hahaha! and so it has some to light. transfer that analogy to post processed photos, and this will be exactly how i feel about post-processed photos.

    dennis, thanks for the enlightening characteristic curve explanation as well

  2. #22
    Senior Member darrrrrrrrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,208

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    i took a class on media aesthetics (images) last quarter and am taking a class on photography this quarter. a common topic in both classes was the role and the effect of the photograph. also, i'm involved in the college newspaper so i get to see the news/photojournalist side of photography as well. from a photojournalistic/documentary perspective, photography should strive for neutrality, freedom from bias, etc. even altering the tone and contrast of the photograph beyond certain levels could create moods and effects that subconsciously affect the viewer, and are hence discouraged. cloning, posing, etc are also definite no-nos. pretty straightforward.

    from an artistic perspective, however, photography is just another medium like painting, drawing, sculpting, etc. the photographer as an artist has complete license to do whatever he wants to present his vision and ideas, even if the end result is completely unrealistic if he chooses not to depict reality. why should a photograph look realistic anyway? why impose these limitations on what a photograph should look like, just because we expect photographs to look a certain way? in fact, what does it even mean to be realistic when we are trying (are we succeeding?) to squeeze a 3-dimensional space onto a 2-dimensional rectangle? if a photograph can't truly capture and re-present reality, why keep up the pretense of appearing real?

    i'm struggling with these questions myself, since my journey into photography started from the "lazy" passive side, trying to "capture the moment as it was" of things the way they just happened to be, and not taking ownership and responsibility of every compositional element in the photograph. now i'm being exposed to the "fine art" side, trying to "make the photograph" in order to convey some theme, message, vision or idea. with very much practice, i have gotten the hang of taking technically competent photographs with pleasing composition but apart from looking pretty, what does it contribute to the world?

    i think i've gone quite a bit OT, must be feeling a bit clueless about my artistic photography assignments. i have to reconnect with myself on a different level, be more of a dreamer than a thinker, and maybe even redefine my own photography. coming back to photoshopping, as long as the artist/photographer does certain things in photoshop as a formal choice, as a means to a greater end rather than an end in itself, i will try to appreciate it and think about how and why it contributes to the final photograph. i met a photographer/artist who takes pictures of scenes but uses photoshop and a tablet to painstakingly rework the photograph layer by layer until it looks just like a painting. what is it: a photograph, a painting, or some sort of hybrid, or neither? whatever the label, his images and effort are remarkable and it's too bad for photography and painting purists which pooh-pooh his work.

    now if these effects (overkill HDR, gaudy borders, "radioactive" over-saturation, lomo photoshop actions, extremely shallow DOF for no apparent reason, photoshop lens flare, macbook photobooth color pencil/glow effects, etc) serve no purpose and are just to try to make a boring meaningless photograph somehow more interesting or attractive, it's just another overdone gimmick to me. that said, i'll get off my moral high horse and admit that sometimes i end up playing with these gimmicks too! sometimes you don't really have to care what others think about your photographs, if it makes you happy it's good enough!

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Still wondering where I belong
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    many feel using photoshop is about correcting flaws, improving its looks etc... to a certain extent its true, we always try to show our best works... nothing wrong here, just dun be too excessive with the fancy effects...

    but as i mentioned earlier... its not longer just about those mentioned above...its part of what photography is about... think about using a flash, filters etc...its just part of a tool to help u create the results u want... same with photoshop... many "artist", to them, the cam is just to a tool to capture the raw file, photoshop is just a tool to "work" the raw file to get the results they want...
    Gallery|Baby gallery
    I have become an expert in cleaning poo

  4. #24

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by tootboink View Post

    i do not mind a girl putting on some makeup to make herself look better, because it is the way she wants to present herself. i do not mind movies with improved scenery and visuals, because it is the way the director chooses to tell his stories. in that perspective, should i mind photos that have been touched on so that the photographer can tell his story?

    however in the very same domains as above, a girl who appears in front of me regularly with heavy makeup all the time scores negative points with me, because it is not her. i will not be bothered by a movie that is heavily edited, because i know either there is no alternative in presenting the scene, take "Avatar" for example. as for the photo album link you posted above, i have no qualms about it because i do not even view them as photographs. i view them as edited digital images. i view his album the same way i view "Avatar" - it's almost in a different genre altogether already.
    let's put it this way - for the makeup analogy, if the makeup of the girl was done properly, believe me, while you might be able to tell that she is using makeup, it would be done pleasingly enough such that you did not find it excessive.

    heavy makeup, if it can be discerned, in the wrong situation, i.e. not a formal dinner at night, perhaps - is almost always a no no.

    i always felt this way about post processing in photography - if it is done tastefully, if it is done well, it doesn't matter how much is done. as long as it is done ethically (i.e. not photojournalistic in nature, or by any means of destruction of the environment, harming of human or animal life, etc), i have no quarrels with it.

    overdone processing is like bad, heavy makeup. processing that is done well, is like makeup done by the best make up artist - refreshing, makes you happier, etc. of course no one will believe that the picture was not touched by photoshop, we all know the truth, but at the same time, we don't mind.


    one analogy that someone once used here was that dslr output was like raw meat, it is meant to be cooked. from experience with a variety of cameras i would not disagree, although it is obviously not an exact analogy. p&s output is actually just dslr output with less IQ (due to a smaller sensor), and the camera has cooked it for you. you can also get the dslr to cook it for you - there is a reason why pentax has all these in camera sharpening tools, tones, saturation, contrast, even bnw conversion. in that sense, the argument would be that: why let a machine cook it for you if you can do it yourself with more personality?

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Far East
    Posts
    1,466

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    In that sense, the argument would be that: why let a machine cook it for you if you can do it yourself with more personality?
    Because buying fast food is easier than slaving over a hot stove for a fancy meal, especially for a lazy bachelor.

    But seriously, fine tuning a mediocre photo into a better one is much more satisfactory, and you learn your way around the photo editing tools/settings at the same time. Well, I'm still experimenting with various looks and techniques after all these years. I think I'd better start thinking about settling down.
    Brand loyalty? Pffttt...| Got Flickr?
    I shoot JPEG (got a problem with that?)

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,984

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Actually, going with the movies analogy, I would say that great sci-fi and fantasy movies like Avatar and Lord of the Rings and King Kong would be like very beautifully done DI. Just like you said (tootboink), it's like a different genre, and we enjoy them without trying to impose our sense of reality on them.

    Then I would actually think of very nicely touched-up photos as equivalent to maybe Forest Gump, or Schindler's List. There'll be some scenes and situations in the movie (in Forest Gump's case, many situations ) which make you think "Wah, got so heng/shiok/zhun one meh!?". But you do not really question the reality portrayed in the movie, and you're pretty much glued to the screen. It's still pretty incredible and hard to believe, but it actually doesn't bother you 'cos the overall movie is just so good.

    Badly edited photos that try too hard to impress would be where the incredible and hard to believe parts are just too glaring to be ignored, and spoils the show. I can't give movies examples 'cos I don't want to talk about horrible movies that I've watched....
    My photos - see just some or all of it =)

  7. #27

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    i too have my doubts about photoshopping. i think night86mare certainly had a very strong arguement and having a rather neutral stand initially i was pretty much won over! until he quoted that link.

    i refer to the link that says

    "So what is the difference between doing it before the shoot at the scene, or after the shoot in Photoshop? What is the difference between pulling an obtrusive branch out of your way for that perfect landscape or simply removing it later on your PC. Why do wedding photographers carry clothes pegs to pin back the dress for some formal shots? Is that cheating?"

    and to me, the difference is great.

    that is the difference between combing your hair to look good before you start off your day, and undergoing plastic surgery to change your looks completely.

    that is the difference between a girl putting on some makeup, and a girl doing some bust enhancement or nose realignment.

    and that is the difference between pinning the dress back with clothes peg for shots, or doing post-processing to make a person look slimmer, for example.

    the difference is for each of the former, the laws of physics are obeyed and for each of the latter, what you see is shaped by man and shaped with a motive.

    i do feel that superb bokeh, the effect of having long shutter speeds etc - all do alter what we see with our eyes. and it may not necessarily be what we see in real life. it may even enhance what we see in real life, which is what photoshopping does. photoshopping also does alter what we see - but are you going to say that there is no difference?

    without photoshopping, photographers work with the laws of physics, and in physics laws, there are no exceptions or disparities. lighting, unwelcome obstructions, all are dealt with with the knowledge that can come only from experience. you can definitely make editions with photoshop but, where is the integrity of your picture then?

    different cameras do punch out pictures in different ways due to the mechanism and technology inside them, but there is nothing we can do about it and we do have to work our way around.

    night86mare asked, "is it so hard to believe in beauty?" i do not think so! his photos are really beautiful. but will i believe in it? i am afraid i will not, because that "beauty" in a post processed photo has been edited through the hands of another person and while most of the time you can tell that post processing has been done, there is no way of telling how much enhancement has been done.

    also, to night86mare, a point i am pondering over is: i notice you do very kindly put up photos or links for people who request to see samples from different lenses. however, when the photos have been post-processed(1 or 2 same as what you posted here, i think), how can people make a judgement when the image is not what the lens can give you? it will be quite inaccurate, won't it.

    elaven said "why would i want to showcase technological flaws?" but i do feel, instead of seeing a real sunset caught by a camera, why would i want to see a sunset edited by someone else to his own fancy?

    most of the time when i see a photo that looks post processed, nice is nice la, cannot deny. but i still will feel disappointed that it has been edited. just like when i see a pretty girl. pretty is pretty, but i will be disappointed find out she has had plastic surgery. do you all feel the same?

  8. #28
    Member 9V-Orion Images's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Autenticate ALGRN @ 7987.8270
    Posts
    1,760

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Actually we don't even need cameras at all, with 3D computer graphics software such as Autodesk Maya, you can render photorealistic scenes like those in avatar.
    CS Aviation / Flickr
    Per aspera ad astra

  9. #29

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    learn from YOUTUBE! What effect u wanna make den just google or youtube it! I used photoshop to remove scars pimples...mainly for perfection.

    also to make some frame.
    |Pentax Kx|

  10. #30

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by iCandy View Post

    night86mare asked, "is it so hard to believe in beauty?" i do not think so! his photos are really beautiful. but will i believe in it? i am afraid i will not, because that "beauty" in a post processed photo has been edited through the hands of another person and while most of the time you can tell that post processing has been done, there is no way of telling how much enhancement has been done.

    also, to night86mare, a point i am pondering over is: i notice you do very kindly put up photos or links for people who request to see samples from different lenses. however, when the photos have been post-processed(1 or 2 same as what you posted here, i think), how can people make a judgement when the image is not what the lens can give you? it will be quite inaccurate, won't it.
    i have put up before and after before,

    the adjustments are minimal, much less than what the standard imaging engine in a p&s would give you.

    i mean, of course there are exceptions, and i couldn't possibly go through the entire workflow for every image, but suffice to say, most photographs get touched on for less than 5 minutes.

    there are some where i will take the trouble to spend 2 hours, 8 hours on it. these are the scenes that warrant DRI (dynamic range increase). would you rather see just a mass of black at the bottom and the sky here?

    http://www.pbase.com/night86mare/image/99277964

    because that's the -1 ev of the scene. or would you prefer a blown out sky and just the water with black rocks? that would be +1.

    or would you prefer just the rocks, and everything blown out, that's +2 or +3 ev.

  11. #31
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by iCandy View Post
    night86mare asked, "is it so hard to believe in beauty?" i do not think so! his photos are really beautiful. but will i believe in it? i am afraid i will not, because that "beauty" in a post processed photo has been edited through the hands of another person and while most of the time you can tell that post processing has been done, there is no way of telling how much enhancement has been done.

    also, to night86mare, a point i am pondering over is: i notice you do very kindly put up photos or links for people who request to see samples from different lenses. however, when the photos have been post-processed(1 or 2 same as what you posted here, i think), how can people make a judgement when the image is not what the lens can give you? it will be quite inaccurate, won't it.

    elaven said "why would i want to showcase technological flaws?" but i do feel, instead of seeing a real sunset caught by a camera, why would i want to see a sunset edited by someone else to his own fancy?

    most of the time when i see a photo that looks post processed, nice is nice la, cannot deny. but i still will feel disappointed that it has been edited. just like when i see a pretty girl. pretty is pretty, but i will be disappointed find out she has had plastic surgery. do you all feel the same?
    You should start chasing sunrises and sunsets like the rest of us. You will understand that Nightmare's pictures do in fact reflect reality.

    Take a look at these pictures:





    Believe it or not, these are really how it looked to me when I took those pictures. The only thing different is in the first pic, I did not take care of the slight bluish tint in the buildings. But this is really how it looked like. You may not want to believe it. But if you chase enough sunrises and sunsets like us, you will understand you can really see beauty, even in Singapore.

    And one more thing about lenses. PP can enhance, but if the image quality sucks in the first place, the end result will not be as good.

  12. #32

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    here's another example of before and after:

    before


    after


    do you think cropping is like the pretty girl with plastic surgery? how about meeting a girl that only shows you one side of her face, then when you know her better, she shows you the other side and it is ugly. what about that?

    how about makeup?

    how about nice looking clothes, with cuts that flatter the figure?

    if you extend it to the girl analogy i think the argument can be taken in so many ways. this is my view - post processing done nicely, is subtle, no one will notice it is there. i don't believe in removing and adding fantasy things in the picture (like the common example, clean horizons), that to me is weird because that defeats the purpose of careful composition. nonetheless, what do you think of images like this?

    the horizon was not clean:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcherry/4398436969/

    do you think the camera sees things as you see things? i don't think so - we don't walk around with a square frame around our vision.

    do you think P&S cameras see things like a dslr at neutral settings? don't think so either. even at default neutral settings in a P&S there is no doubt the imaging engine has had to do more work to compensate for the limitations of a smaller sensor, etc.

    so if i up the contrast in camera, how is that different from me taking extra care to up the contrast selectively via curves in photoshop? the output of a dslr, as i probably have mentioned earlier is a lot more malleable because it is meant to be so for a level of customisability when it comes to treatment.

    i think it's easy to say that a picture untouched should warrant more merit than one that is - but when it comes to the crunch and we view the two, all other things equal, it is clear what the real answer will be, if the treatment is apt and done skilfully.

    if there is a need to feel that not touching a picture makes it better? then time to discard photography altogether, if you don't touch it, something already has, that's the camera. if you use film, the film has a unique set of curves, worse if you use black and white, where horror upon horrors, all color has been discarded. it will never end.

    "So what is the difference between doing it before the shoot at the scene, or after the shoot in Photoshop? What is the difference between pulling an obtrusive branch out of your way for that perfect landscape or simply removing it later on your PC. Why do wedding photographers carry clothes pegs to pin back the dress for some formal shots? Is that cheating?"

    let's take it further, if one wants to be absolutely purist, why stop at removing the branch during the scene? that's not fair, you should wait until the tide swells and carries it away. why carry the clothes pegs to pin back the dress to fit it better on the person? why not just get a seamtress to redo the whole dress, so that it would fit properly? or get the person to work out until they fit the dress well?

    you see, when you start thinking of such things, you will more often than not realise that while you think you have been in black, or white........... it never ends. you will always be stuck at grey. then it will become rather ironic for you to laugh at the soldier who fled 100 steps from the battle, while you yourself fled 50 steps.

    to me, a good photo is a good photo. as a personal bias, i prefer processing to be limited to the situations where we are limited by circumstance, equipment, but i acknowledge that that is a personal bias. cheers.

  13. #33

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by iCandy View Post

    also, to night86mare, a point i am pondering over is: i notice you do very kindly put up photos or links for people who request to see samples from different lenses. however, when the photos have been post-processed(1 or 2 same as what you posted here, i think), how can people make a judgement when the image is not what the lens can give you? it will be quite inaccurate, won't it.
    well, in most cases, i am not going to pull out a raw file (and i don't keep much of these, unless i think the image is good enough to warrant me wanting to rework it in the future) and save and edit just for the sake of satisfying this criteria.



    the thing is, it is my opinion that people usually wish to see what the lens is able to do, rather than all the nitty gritty things that you can't really showcase unless you give 100% crops, proper controlled tests, all of which can be found at specialised sites that actually bother to conduct such.

    also, i don't usually throw in things that have been worked on much.

    i have removed the previous set from photobucket because i do like to clean up stuff when i think that people won't view it anymore.... and i'm not sure if you got to see them, i don't know about you, but i don't think much had been worked on for those.

  14. #34

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    here's another article for those of interest in this topic,

    http://www.noisetoknowledge.com/the_...otographer.htm

    i can't help but disagree with some of the points, especially those that paint purists with broad strokes and overgeneralise them, but i do like what he says here, because it is in some part how i feel:

    As a photographer, I recognize that I make pointless arguments about distortions of photography in the darkroom, digital or otherwise. This endless argument over the rejection of a pure purpose of photography is a pointless battle.
    some other links with relevant quotes that echo my viewpoint:

    http://photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Iw51

    which probably takes this even more abstractly:

    The reconstruction of information is in the print, or digital file. If it is manipulated by brush or by some photoshop filter does it loose information, or gain information? Does that make an image more real, or less real? IS it ever Real until it actually enters the mind?
    http://photo.blorge.com/2008/05/16/p...about-reality/

    Lens choice and the angle of view distort the scene – sometimes quite dramatically. Telephoto lenses compress visual elements in a very unreal and dynamic way. Wide-angle lenses distort and bendthe foreground, granting the viewer a manipulated feeling of space and grandeur.For those of us who use film, its understoodthat highly saturated emulsions we use reproduce colour and saturation in a waythat we don’t see in the real would anyway. Consider for a moment black and white photography, an age old art form that has been with us for more than 150 years.In that time, the multitude of magnificent images portraying mankind and hisenvironment has become so establishedwithin our psyche that we don’t even arguewith it. It is established and unquestioned.
    Last edited by night86mare; 5th March 2010 at 04:37 AM.

  15. #35

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Huh? One of the opinions in this thread makes me feel like we shouldn't even wear goggles ever (darkened colored spectacles generally worn out in the bright sun) because doing so is preventing us from seeing 'reality'?!?!?!

    Seriously... come on!!!

  16. #36
    Senior Member creampuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dover
    Posts
    5,116

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Now here's a challenge... everybody should go out and shoot, especially iCandy.
    Then have those flat, lifeless, contrast lacking images straight from the camera (which probably isn't even representative of what one's eyes are actually perceiving) posted here.
    You can bet those images will often look lacklustre and you might be wondering if the camera is at fault for the so-so images.
    Unfortunately it all boils down on whether the photographer is ignorant or informed on the need for post processing digital images straight from the camera.
    Many can't fathom the need or can't be bothered, that's their choice. But they are missing the opportunity to get the most out of their images.

  17. #37

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by creampuff View Post
    Now here's a challenge... everybody should go out and shoot, especially iCandy.
    Then have those flat, lifeless, contrast lacking images straight from the camera (which probably isn't even representative of what one's eyes are actually perceiving) posted here.
    You can bet those images will often look lacklustre and you might be wondering if the camera is at fault for the so-so images.
    Unfortunately it all boils down on whether the photographer is ignorant or informed on the need for post processing digital images straight from the camera.
    Many can't fathom the need or can't be bothered, that's their choice. But they are missing the opportunity to get the most out of their images.
    Well said and to the point.



    Quote Originally Posted by iCandy View Post

    elaven said "why would i want to showcase technological flaws?" but i do feel, instead of seeing a real sunset caught by a camera, why would i want to see a sunset edited by someone else to his own fancy?
    LoL
    You should take up sightseeing instead and forget about capturing images cause thats not real.


    To each his own, I guess.
    I like to look at good photos posted. Great if its 'real', no big deal that its not (like Avatar) ; so long as no trickery is involved to tell people that fake is real.

  18. #38

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    Quote Originally Posted by iCandy View Post
    also, to night86mare, a point i am pondering over is: i notice you do very kindly put up photos or links for people who request to see samples from different lenses. however, when the photos have been post-processed(1 or 2 same as what you posted here, i think), how can people make a judgement when the image is not what the lens can give you? it will be quite inaccurate, won't it.
    Neither has he ever claimed it to be otherwise.
    Moreover, perspective does not change and very often many lens queries are queries on perspective (how wide? how near? )

    The person asking for information has to be clear as to what he/she wants to see samples of as well (Eg. 70-200/2.8 wide open shots; Color rendition no PP pls; etc)

  19. #39

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    To answer your question, I guess we have to assume a broader perspective of things.

    What is the goal of your photography?
    For myself, it is to capture my choice moments. My goal is a get a good photograph that conveys the message of the moment, I want it to 'pop', to have impact and I want it to leave an impression on the viewer.

    Having said that, I am not really particular about how I go about achieving that 'good photograph'.

    Photoshop, at the end of the day, is just another tool. It just as much a tool as your camera, lens and tripod.
    They are all just means to an end, means to help me achieve that ideal photograph.

    Photoshop, for me, is just like make-up. It's meant to accentuate the photograph, not to cover up or compensate for a poorly captured image. It's all about using it judiciously.

    Of course, some guys use Photoshop very heavy-handedly. They use it to create very dramatic effects, but that's their prerogative. As long as Photoshop helps them achieve their creative vision, I say 'bravo'! As long as it helps them achieve their intended impact and end result, I'm all for it.

    Maybe along the way, we start getting confused by our notions of photography. We get caught up by the the 'true way' of photography and start to border on being a 'purist'. But when did photography ever start having a 'true way'? If we go by this notion, then are we are all 'cheaters' and 'deviants' by using digital means and for embracing technology?

    Sometimes, I see some guys displaying a sub-standard image and stating very proudly that no PS was used. And I think to myself, why not? Your image remains sub-standard, and the fact that no PS was used doesn't add any value to it.

    About your dilemma between the virtues of your K7 and your PnS, I think the K7 would serve you so much better in capturing the 'moments', I mean, the benefits of a DSLR is well-documented and has been expounded throughly enough.

    Furthermore, nowadays, almost everybody uses Photoshop to an extent. So the playing field is pretty much even.
    So technically, everyone can produce that beautiful photos you see in galleries that have been through some Photoshopping, but is everyone producing such images? Nope, why? Because at the end of the day, basic photographic skills, your vision and visualisation still form the core of your image.

    I say, just embrace what we have and make the fullest use of it and not worry too much about the right way or truest way to do things. Evaluate your motive for photography and everything else will fall right into place.

    Cheers!

  20. #40

    Default Re: To what extend do you use photoshop?

    I thought for PP is up to individual since its their own pic and work and its up to them. Be it if they shown it to the world or not. Thats the reason why there is always criticism which is good.

    As for me, Photoshop is always about contrast and sometimes B&W. But my work has alot of "Fake Lomo" effect which I love to do to bring out the character.

    But I am for Originality of the pic image that came out from the camera itself. I always tried my best to make my image looks great w/o editing them except file size :P. Usually the bad ones and the experiment ones goes to Photoshop.
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •