But then it actually depends on what you process right?
For example using a photoshop to do cropping? That's perfectly fine right.
Or changing the level of contrast, brightness, exposure which can be done in the camera.
But then if this guy changes the whole sky to make the photo more dramatic, then i guess that is a different story.
I guess it the photo represents faithfully of what our eyes see it without distorting any object in the photo, that should be find. Right?
Even our camera comes with digital creative filters like grainy mode, miniature mode, soft skin mode. Note that those kind of photos are already considered "post processed" within your camera already.
just sharing from ONE designers' point of view.
Any other designers share the same sentiment?
Last edited by Genie In A Lightbox; 15th September 2010 at 09:56 AM.
Even simple cropping could be wrong, if you crop out elements that have a relation to your main subject. Cropping out the person in front of the firing squad leaves just a bunch of guys with guns, looking like a simple exercise. The question is not about which software and which processing steps. A good photographer takes the tools that it needs to produce the image that he has in mind for a certain purpose.
I don't care if Ansel Adams or whoever famous photographer did it, but if you PP a lot then you are not a good photographer!!!
Think about it, if a woman always put a lot of make up on, do you still consider her beautiful woman?
Assuming now you are going to sign up for a wedding photography package. If the photographer tells you he will NOT PP at all, will you still sign up with him?
I love photography but my photos suck!
Truly ... if U are a photorapher and U ignore about editing ...than U are just a point and shoot type of a guy ... editing is and art ... i still remember when i was in my primary six.. i used to loiter at old photostudio.. and i see those old apek photographer .. how they used to edit manually with paint or some sort of chinese ink and brush, they used color paper, i forget what it's call and i have too experienced it... and when in my teenage i do editing in the darkroom.. i think many of us in the film era does that.. so if U are the guy, who point and shoot type ... don bother about editing..i luv to edit photo... its really worth it .. its an art ...
Last edited by hjebat87; 15th September 2010 at 10:55 AM.
I understand your point bro, but the question is not about whether you are a good or bad photograher. It is "Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?" So my answer will still be yes.
Like one of our example stated. If women put a lot of make up, is she still beautiful? It depends whether do u have a chance to see the woman without make up. if you don't, she will remains a beauty in your heart.
Same for photos. As long as people wont get to see those raw version.
All photos of model in magazines are with make-up and edited and yet people go gaa gaa over them.
So do you think those portrait photographers did a good job?
At the same time, we can also talk about efficiency.
For example an actual day wedding photographer.
As you know, for wedding, timing is very crucial.
When the couple march in, and u notice the exposure or composition is not fantastic, do you start taking like shots of them, and digitally enhance, or crop them later, or u start to adjust your setting on the spot while the couple is already walking down the red carpet and resulting in missing out several critical moment?
This applies for sports when timing is very critical.
I mean if u have the luxury of time, then you can ensure those shots are all one shot one kill with the best possible setting. Else, we got to lay back to post processing.
I'll try not to PP unless there are some serious distortions, underexposure or colour imbalances, but it's good to learn more PP skills though even if you don't like to use them, so that you know how to amend a bad photo whenever it is critical and necessary.
Er, if the photographer opens up a blank canvas in Photoshop and starts editing with the brush, of course he is no good photographer
Seriously, I would think a good photographer is judged by the work he produce, not by the process of producing the work.
My 2 cents worth.
If a ugly women puts on alot of makeup and looks beautiful, then I would consider her beautiful.How can I say she's not beautiful when she looks beautiful?
Unless If a women puts on a lot of makeup and still look ugly, then I will not consider her beautiful
Last edited by nedy77; 15th September 2010 at 11:24 PM.
Wah so what is it now? To be a photographer you have to be some kind of a Jedi?
What is so interesting to look at when it's too real and ordinary (as in seen in everyday life) ? lol
Welcome to the 21st century where post processing/editing is part of photography. Look at the famous and successful works of professional photographers like Chase Jarvis or Drew Gardner. Their PP goes way over board at times, but their photos simply look awesome.
Shooting in RAW already requires some basic PP anyway.