is it me or.....

[bigbaby987]

Is Photoshop and other such apps being just over, over used. I like a duotone, sepia and even nice b&w like anyone else, but what happened to taking great photographs and knowing that what you get in camera is on point? Sure a little extra saturation to make it pop won't hurt, but when you see a whole shoot processed, I personally am not crazy about it unless there is a predetermined effect aimed for.

Any thoughts?

[Victoria Bampton]

LOL Do you know how you can tell a new Photoshop user? Everything is filtered!!!

Yes, I'd agree, over processing happens all the time these days.

[PixelMagic]

Its just you.

Actually I think its hilarious that you would come to a forum named "Post Processing" to say that Photoshop is overused. You're not likely to find much support here for your opinion.

[bigbaby987]

that's cool fed... but you see it everywhere now... I mean smoothing skin, and imperfections is one thing, but looking like to just shot 300 part deux is another..

[DaveG]

There is a huge resistance to Photoshop from the former Slide using photographers. They would shoot, bracket their exposures, and bring the film into an E6 lab. Any image manipulation came in the field. Polarizing filters, split ND or colour filters and so forth were used, but after that they were done. The adventurers within that group would buy panorama slide mounts, but past that they'd just show the best exposed/processed slide the way they came.

Enter Photoshop, which brings a lot of learning curve, and resentment. Now, they say, I have to do all of this post production work, when before I had to do nothing. What they don't remember, when all they did was to project the image, was that dust was invisible, along with sharpness (at least critical, looking at the image at 100% sharpness) and that accursed E6 which was a huge variable on it's own. But it was easy and all they had to do was the shoot. Digital is hard (although they would suggest that it's MUCH easier & cheating somehow), but mostly they don't want to be a rookie all over again.

The guys that came from the darkroom side (me) were much happier to see Photoshop because we were used to post production. There was nothing glamorous about developing film. I automated it as much as I could, as consistency was the goal. I also think that I spent one day too many in the printing side of the darkroom, as I don't miss it even a little.

Obviously there are darkroom guys who resent digital, and slide guys who embrace Photoshop and digital; but I think that the root of it all is the sadness that comes from realizing that a lifetime of knowledge that specifically concerns film, is now meaningless. For example I can load a roll of 220 film onto a metal reel in total darkness. That is a skill. Now it means nothing, and although I don't mind, some do.

[tim]

I agree, simple can be best. I don't do much processing to many of my images that go into wedding albums, just basic enhancement of color, contrast, saturation, etc. If an image needs something it gets done, but generally they don't. In albums consistency is good.

If you an artist who sells individual prints... do whatever you like, or whatever sells.

[mai_lin]

Post Processing done well doesn't look like anything was done outside of a great shot: http://www.kkphoto-design.com/2005/index.html

The key is learning how to do that and it can require more learning than taking pictures themselves, I'm finding. If I see someone who has a fantastic knowledge of photoshop and can turn even mediocre pictures into something fantastic... they're sure to get a 'kudos!' from me! Being that this is the digital age, those are the people I want to learn lots from.



Jen D.

[bigbaby987]

I just see a lot of.. "I'll fix it in photoshop" cats now. get it right in the camera.. sure there are certain cirucemstances that could call for photoshop, but as one of my photography mentors put it to me.. "you're responsible for everything in the frame.. " period

[DaveG]

I just see a lot of.. "I'll fix it in photoshop" cats now. get it right in the camera.. sure there are certain cirucemstances that could call for photoshop, but as one of my photography mentors put it to me.. "you're responsible for everything in the frame.. " period

Years ago there was a saying that went: "Deluxe Negative = Economy Print". Which meant that if you did as much work in the camera as you could then you could buy an economy print, not a deluxe print that required burning in, dodging and so forth.

That remains true to a large degree, but to ignore Photoshop is to leave most of your game in the locker room. As one example of hundred's, I could use a pro lens shade with a vignetter to darken the foreground grass. Or I could use a gradient filter to accomplish the same thing. In my opinion I'd be a fool to do this in the field now. It's much easier to do it in Photoshop and more to the point it can be infinitely adjusted in PS.

To modify your mentor's saying I think now it should be, ""you're responsible for everything you give to the client. " period." And I'm saying: Who cares how you got there?

[poloman]

+1 DaveG
I think the work in the camera is important and the photoshop work is also important. Do a simple levels adjustment on your image and see the difference!

[airfrogusmc]

Get it right in camera and tweek it in photoshop. Let it (photoshop) complete your vision.

[airfrogusmc]

Rolling thin emulsion 220 films on metal reels does take some practice as does hand processing 8X10 sheet film in trays (total darkness also). Photoshop is the digital darkroom. Instead of standing at the sink with trays you now sit at a computer with digital files. If you want your images to look the way only you know how they're suppose to look you need to master this like you needed to master the wet darkroom.

[HankScorpio]

In my opinion, Photoshop should be used only to make a good image great, not make a mediocre image acceptable. I find it funny reading the huge lengths people go to in Photoshop to create an image that could have been done with one press of the shutter if only they planned the shot instead of planing the processing.

Photoshop is a wonderful thing and the reason I have a job but some people need to remember that just because it can do something, it doesn't mean you should.

[thekid24]

If someone has the skill to turn a less than stellar image into a magazine worthy shot using photoshop, more power to them.

Even if we step down from just getting a photo into a magazine. If a photog has the ability/option of correcting something that will take some photoshop magic, why shouldnt they do it? Sure it may be easier to get it right in camera but if they can correct it, by all means shouldnt they, especially if it is for a client?

I couldnt care less about how much photoshop was used to process the photo of May on my calender, I like it, looks good, i bought it, they made a profit. Why does it matter how someone edits a photo, as long as it meets expectations?

Keep doin whatchya doin, if youre good, someone will pay you for your skill, photoshop, or photography related.

[poloman]

I think that many people have a belief that you can fix anything in photoshop. This can cause carelessness at the time they shoot. The "I can fix that later in photoshop" thing.
All of us, sooner or later, will find a need to improve what we have done in camera. Sometimes this is crucial and can save an otherwise unusable image of an important event or person.
Unfortunately, I still make mistakes.
I took a photo of a young boy and his blind pony. The boy had draped his hat over the horses ear. This was a once in a lifetime shot and the whole scene was very brightly backlit and I didn't have a flash on my camera. The result was pretty bad. Despite EC the range of light had far exceeded the camera's capabilities. Using masks and layers, I was able to come up with a very salable image that the young man's whole family is now enjoying. I even got called great over it......