What do you do about people that are anti photoshop?

[sarahashleyphotos]

Ya know the people that say they are doing things old school by not photoshoping their photos. I always try to use the people edit the same way in the darkroom as they do in photoshop. A photo is never perfect straight out of the camera. And even by setting exposure and stuff you are manipulating how you want the photo to look. If you use filters in front of the camera thats the same thing. Also there are saturation and other setting in the camera that you can change. idk I just dont get those people and I hate arguing with them because they are so ignorent.

[neil_r]

Kill them... kill them all

[peterbj7]

I hate arguing with them because they are so ignorent.
So don't - ignore them. But if they start getting better results than you without any PP then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position!

[sarahashleyphotos]

So don't - ignore them. But if they start getting better results than you without any PP then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position!

I haven't seen anyone that does not photoshop their photos get better results. And every pro I know uses photoshop. Im just trying to help out these ignorant people because digital photography is just as technical as it is an art and they fail to see that sadly.

[sarahashleyphotos]

& I mean really... Digital photography is digital therefore you need a computer to process it. Film photography is chemical therefore you need chemicals to process it. There is no such thing as "Not editing my photos is sooo old school" because people usually do and always have done minor edits to their photos. If a film photographer never edited their photos then the film roll would be sitting there all rolled up never to be seen or even still in the camera not developed.

[Sorarse]

Ignore them. The only person who matters when it comes to what you do with your photographs is you. If you are happy with your results, then what does it matter what anyone else thinks about how you got to your finished product?

[Permagrin]

Kill them... kill them all

I can see you forgot your meds today :lol:


OP, the reason most of those types of people are against photoshop for one or all of the following reasons:

a: people who overuse photoshop have a tendency to take photos wrong (either they don't learn how to properly expose photos, mis-focus or some other error and they over photoshop to make up for their bad photography)

b: they prefer extreme effects (and most old school photographers prefer photos that look like photos)

c: they over process a photo and don't realize how bad it looks

If you find yourself

a: then it's best to listen to their advice, learning how to take a photo is much more important in the first place.

b: if you like extreme effects, no problem. Many won't though. But that doesn't make it bad. It just makes you have a smaller following.

c: This is a category that may photoshop happy people don't realize they are doing. Some will overdo skin smoothing and think it looks great when really they are making their subject look like an alien. Some are over sharpening...gads, it's terrible. Some are over saturating.

In this case, it's important to learn from your detractors. Even if you don't like it, the bottom line is that you'll learn not to overdo something.


Now, I don't know where you fall in this. You may not fall in any or you may fall in all of them. I love photoshop and use it. Sometimes for extreme effects and sometimes I use it extensively and yet people don't know it's been done. Sometimes I make errors but the important thing is that if you want to grow in skill, don't discount what's being said to you. It could actually enhance your abilities if you listen.

[Veemac]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif What do you do about people that are anti photoshop?

Nothing.

To each their own. If they're satisfied with the results they're getting, that's up to them.

[Permagrin]

oh and don't forget, just because someone doesn't like heavy photoshopping (or even medium photoshopping) doesn't make them ignorant. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[sarahashleyphotos]

oh and don't forget, just because someone doesn't like heavy photoshopping (or even medium photoshopping) doesn't make them ignorant. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

All Im talking about is levels, curves, and minor things that usually need to be corrected and adding color profiles. People just dont understand all the technical things that go along with digital photography or fail to learn about them.

[Permagrin]

All Im talking about is levels, curves, and minor things that usually need to be corrected and adding color profiles. People just dont understand all the technical things that go along with digital photography or fail to learn about them.

well, I wouldn't worry then. Help the people who appreciate it and move on when they don't.

Again, many prefer a SOOC look and that doesn't make them wrong. It just makes them have a different opinion.

[Permagrin]

btw, I just looked at your gallery. You have some nice work in there.

[Scottes]

I make a brief effort to teach them about the negative effects of the Bayer filter on a DSLR. If they don't listen after that, I roll my eyes and walk away, because it's hopeless.

[joedlh]

I ask them the same question I asked an associate who told me that he didn't believe in evolution: Well, since you're picking which established principles you will "believe in", how do you feel about gravity?

If they're shooting jpegs, then perhaps they're happy with the results. For anyone who shoots in raw mode, post processing is a reflex.

[sarahashleyphotos]

btw, I just looked at your gallery. You have some nice work in there.

Thanks.

[YankeeMom]

I ask them the same question I asked an associate who told me that he didn't believe in evolution: Well, since you're picking which established principles you will "believe in", how do you feel about gravity?

If they're shooting jpegs, then perhaps they're happy with the results. For anyone who shoots in raw mode, post processing is a reflex.

I agree about post-processing and I post-process jpegs. :D

[peterbj7]

For anyone who shoots in raw mode, post processing is a reflex.
And not optional.

[number six]

What do I do about them? Nothing. Long ago I gave up on religious arguments.

-js

[-MasterChief-]

anti-Photoshop users use CorelDraw. :p

[HappySnapper90]

It all depends on what level of photo developing is done. Please don't throw terms like photo editing or photoshopped around because many people think the best looking digital photos are extremely edited with things cut and pasted out of different photos and the scene never existed how it shows in the final photo.

All I do is the minimum elements needed as I develop my photos in Lightroom. Please use "photo developing" instead of editing or photoshopped. Lightroom modeule is called "Develop". RAW files are developed not edited since a RAW file is not and image file!

[number six]

It all depends on what level of photo developing is done. Please don't throw terms like photo editing or photoshopped around

Trying to redefine longtime commonly-used terms, eh?

Good luck with that!

:p

[Karl Johnston]

I tell people I don't use photoshop.

...Though, photoshop isn't the only image editing software out there ;)

I will say, though, I have taken on a personal purist approach to photography in recent months.

[tstowe]

Kill them... kill them all

AMEN! You want to bring a pitchfork? I'll bring the torches!

[tstowe]

Reminds me of a What the Duck cartoon...

[tstowe]

and this one...

[tstowe]

My wife is an art teacher. She really hates the second one.

:lol:

[sarahashleyphotos]

My wife is an art teacher. She really hates the second one.

:lol:


Haha. Those are cute.

[sarahashleyphotos]

Im just talking about minor editing people. Ya know the edits that photographers need to get the most out of their image because digital cameras,every single one of them, are deliberately designed to take horribly flat photos with very little contrast or saturation. The manufacturers make them this way on purpose so they will capture the maximum amount of detail possible in the shadows and highlights.

[sarahashleyphotos]

because many people think the best looking digital photos are extremely edited with things cut and pasted out of different photos and the scene never existed how it shows in the final photo.

That is called photo manipulation not photography.

All I do is the minimum elements needed as I develop my photos in Lightroom. Please use "photo developing" instead of editing or photoshopped. Lightroom modeule is called "Develop". RAW files are developed not edited since a RAW file is not and image file!

Developing is what is done in the darkroom not photoshop. I have worked in a darkroom so when I hear "I developed this photo" I automatically think film not digital.

[chauncey]

We are talking semantics here people, the difference between photography and art, the difference between taking a picture and creating an image.

[Analog6]

Photoshop is a digital darkroom for digital images.

People like Ansel Adams and Frank Hurley (Australian antarctic and war photographer) manipulated their images in the darkroom, to fill their vision of the scene. What's the difference.

It's 'different strokes for different folks'. Why get in a knot over it?

[spkerer]

idk I just dont get those people and I hate arguing with them because they are so ignorent.

I consider them similar to those that a fanatically "Canon only" or "Nikon only."

I flip the bozo-bit on them, and then give everything else they say the appropriate weighting - pretty much ignored.

[bjyoder]

Im just talking about minor editing people. Ya know the edits that photographers need to get the most out of their image because digital cameras,every single one of them, are deliberately designed to take horribly flat photos with very little contrast or saturation. The manufacturers make them this way on purpose so they will capture the maximum amount of detail possible in the shadows and highlights.


Where is the line drawn? What if I use the healing tool to remove a dust speck? What if I use the healing tool to remove CA? What if I use the clone tool to add a catchlight? What if I select an area of sky and darken it to bring out the clouds?

Photoshop is here to stay. Each person has to take their stance on it. Just because someone doesn't digitally alter their prints - or thinks no one else should either - doesn't necessarily diminish their skills/artwork.
In fact, I work with someone that takes the minimalist approach; he has a hard time even cropping his photos to make an 8x10. He'll look at some of my stuff that is edited, and shake his head, wondering why I "have" to edit everything. Normally, I'm with the OP; all I mainly use is the first panel in ACR for most things, with some healing/cloning depending on the picture.

[sarahashleyphotos]

This person on DA has a good point....
"I work in film and digital and these purists are full of so much **** it's sickening.
Let's look at Ansel Adams, not a single one of his photos are the same as what they were when take on camera.
There's no such thing as "pure" photography, those people are some odd elitists that have lackluster talent.
If there's something too bright on my film print what do I do? Take it back to the enlarger and BURN the section, if it's too dark I simply DODGE IT.
Sound familiar? Same as in photoshop and practically everything done in photoshop can be done in the darkroom.
I think the best argument though is that if they shoot digital they're automatically not purists themselves because the cameras images are jpegs, meaning PROCESSED >D
Least when using darkroom or photoshop it's done by the photographer lol. "

[RDKirk]

There's no such thing as "pure" photography, those people are some odd elitists that have lackluster talent.
If there's something too bright on my film print what do I do? Take it back to the enlarger and BURN the section, if it's too dark I simply DODGE IT.
Sound familiar? Same as in photoshop and practically everything done in photoshop can be done in the darkroom.

Legendary photojournalist W. Eugene Smith was reputed to sometime work days on a single print. Many master printers did such complex manipulations in printing that they had to keep notes for each image in order to reprint it.

Not even just dodging and burning, but toning, selecting paper surfaces to emphasize sharpness or de-emphasize grain, spotting, using warm-toned or cold-toned developers and warm-toned or cold-toned papers.

And then there was negative retouching, which was done virtually all the time for portraits in black-and-white. Every hometown portrait photographer up until the mid 60s (when color took over) was also a good negative retoucher.

The famous Hollywood portraits of people like Hurrell were usually tremendously underexposed developed thin, for one reason because those photographers were always working against slow films and slow lenses, but also because a thin negative was easier to retouch. They often had more graphite on them than silver.

In the mid-70s, I used to take a glamour headshot on Kodachrome and dupe it in a Honeywell Repronar several times with various color filters on Ektachrome and cross-process the dupes in both Kodak and Agfa chemistry. Then I'd sandwich the dupes in various combinations with each other and with the original, in register and slightly out of register, then dupe the sandwiches on more Ektachrome.

Or I might actually create an "Unsharp Mask" sandwich with black and white negatives to increase sharpness to an unnatural degree (for those who have never known what "unsharp mask" in Photoshop actually harks back to.

[cdifoto]

All Im talking about is levels, curves, and minor things that usually need to be corrected and adding color profiles. People just dont understand all the technical things that go along with digital photography or fail to learn about them.
It's possible to set up a camera to provide as-desired results SOOC. Doesn't mean they aren't being processed at all but it means they can skip the Photoshop.

[Bullfrog142]

Ya know the people that say they ........are so ignorent.

I don't care. Why should I?

[DStanic]

I had this same "anti photoshop" conversation with my wife.

I explained that RAW files are digital negatives. When you import them, you must apply a profile to them. Whether it's "ACR4.4" or "Adobe Standard" any profile will make the picture look different, so there is NO SUCH THING as a "pure" or "untouched" digital image!

And if you are shooting JPG, you can change the picture style in camera to get similar effects as adjusting color/sharpness/brightness in photoshop. So which picture style or profile is the correct one?

Basically anything that could be done in Lightroom (version 1 anywayas.. version 2 has some "altering" tools) I don't consider "photoshopping". I use the term "Post processing" or "editing".

[Gibbo]

Kill them... kill them all

I agree :)

You have to move with the times. Now that film has been replaced by digital, it has created us as photographers to do so much more with our pictures.

I for one, won't give someone a photograph i knew could be better if i had run it through photoshop.

[argyle]

Ya know the people that say they are doing things old school by not photoshoping their photos. I always try to use the people edit the same way in the darkroom as they do in photoshop. A photo is never perfect straight out of the camera. And even by setting exposure and stuff you are manipulating how you want the photo to look. If you use filters in front of the camera thats the same thing. Also there are saturation and other setting in the camera that you can change. idk I just dont get those people and I hate arguing with them because they are so ignorent.

I do nothing...who really cares? And why are you so worked up over what others do? Reading your posts, you sound fairly young...you just gotta get over it and move on. Life's too short to worry about what others do or do not do. If they're happy, more power to them (or anyone else for that matter).

[HappySnapper90]

Developing is what is done in the darkroom not photoshop. I have worked in a darkroom so when I hear "I developed this photo" I automatically think film not digital.
Well that's your issue, not mine. Lightroom is just a dark room without chemicals. You can't edit a RAW file, you must develop it and convert it into an image file. Adobe is even seeing this by making the Develop module in Lightroom. So I can truly say I don't photoshop my digital photos. I use Lightroom (and it shouldn't be called Photoshop Lightroom, just Lightroom).
Trying to redefine longtime commonly-used terms, eh?
Good luck with that!
:p

Photos are developed either digitally or with film. A RAW file cannot be edited,it mus be developed. Consider developing negative film. Contrast/tone curve is applied to lower contrast scenes for the print.

Edting sounds like you are modifying what was captured, not just optimizing the contrast, brightness, and color balance.

[number six]

Photos are developed either digitally or with film. A RAW file cannot be edited,it mus be developed. Consider developing negative film. Contrast/tone curve is applied to lower contrast scenes for the print.

Edting sounds like you are modifying what was captured, not just optimizing the contrast, brightness, and color balance.


Well, good luck to you, and keep on banging that drum.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/customavatars/avatar112900_4.gif

[JWright]

I think way too many people are used to the "One Hour Photo" scenario. They would stick a roll of color negative film in their 35mm point-and-shoot, take their pictures and then take the film to the local drugstore or Costco for processing. They could stand there and watch the machine spit out perfect (to them) prints with little or no input on the part of the operator.

The average shooter had absolutely no concept of what went into making a traditional darkroom print. How many of us old black & white film shooters spent hours in a wet darkroom processing our film?

We'd first have to develop the negatives. This would entail careful control of the mixing, temperature and time of development. Once the negatives were dry, we'd make a contact print to better see which negatives were suitable for enlargement. Once the negative was selected, then decisions about paper size, surface texture and contrast grade had to be made. Once the negative was in the enlarger, then a test strip was done to determing proper exposure. The image was cropped, and any burning and dodging was accomplished.

After the print was exposed, it had to be developed, fixed, washed and dried. The final step was usually an hour with a fine sable brush and a bottle of SpotTone because it was virtually impossible to get the negative perfectly dust free in the enlarger.

Myself, I really don't care what non-photographers think of me because I use image editing software. It's the final result that's important, not the process used to reach that result.

[fotographee]

Thanks.

ditto! and as far as the people that dont use PP, if it suits them, then hey whatever floats their boat lol

[20droger]

anti-Photoshop users use CorelDraw. :p
Hey! I use Corel Draw to, well, draw. I find it works a lot better than PSE to make line drawings.

My wife, however, uses PSE. She processes photographs, not line drawings.

[20droger]

Kill them... kill them all
Slowly and painfully, Give them a REAL "stop bath"!

[Spacemunkie]

Legendary photojournalist W. Eugene Smith was reputed to sometime work days on a single print. Many master printers did such complex manipulations in printing that they had to keep notes for each image in order to reprint it.

Not even just dodging and burning, but toning, selecting paper surfaces to emphasize sharpness or de-emphasize grain, spotting, using warm-toned or cold-toned developers and warm-toned or cold-toned papers.

And then there was negative retouching, which was done virtually all the time for portraits in black-and-white. Every hometown portrait photographer up until the mid 60s (when color took over) was also a good negative retoucher.

The famous Hollywood portraits of people like Hurrell were usually tremendously underexposed developed thin, for one reason because those photographers were always working against slow films and slow lenses, but also because a thin negative was easier to retouch. They often had more graphite on them than silver.

In the mid-70s, I used to take a glamour headshot on Kodachrome and dupe it in a Honeywell Repronar several times with various color filters on Ektachrome and cross-process the dupes in both Kodak and Agfa chemistry. Then I'd sandwich the dupes in various combinations with each other and with the original, in register and slightly out of register, then dupe the sandwiches on more Ektachrome.

Or I might actually create an "Unsharp Mask" sandwich with black and white negatives to increase sharpness to an unnatural degree (for those who have never known what "unsharp mask" in Photoshop actually harks back to.

Top post!

[Alexei TND]

Stop the photoshop hating! :D
As stated a bajillion times already Photoshop can improve images, and theres nothing qwrong with using it if it helps.
Theres a difference between improving a pic or editing the living daylights out of it though.
Ive seen soem amazing pictures brutally murdered in photoshop, and ive seen images from so called purists, wich were good, but a slight level adjustment wouldve made em really pop.
It all depepnds on the image and who is editing it. The key is to find a balance and not to overdo it.

[Goshawk]

Some people should be banned from Photoshop.
I believe in keeping my images as natural as possible but still find Photoshop very handy, removing a unsightly pimple from your models face has never been easier or a piece of food between the teeth of your girlfriend in a otherwise great photo.
I think there is still some publications like some wildlife mags that frown on photos that were photoshoped. Has to be as shot out of the cam.
But then you get the persons that can make a lovely girl look like she has a ghastly plastic face, they are the ones that gives PP a bad name.
Check this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnoldbjornsson/2668677388/ I remember this link from a earlier post. The poster raved about the Hasselblad.

[Alexei TND]

Some people should be banned from Photoshop.
I believe in keeping my images as natural as possible but still find Photoshop very handy, removing a unsightly pimple from your models face has never been easier or a piece of food between the teeth of your girlfriend in a otherwise great photo.
I think there is still some publications like some wildlife mags that frown on photos that were photoshoped. Has to be as shot out of the cam.
But then you get the persons that can make a lovely girl look like she has a ghastly plastic face, they are the ones that gives PP a bad name.
Check this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnoldbjornsson/2668677388/ I remember this link from a earlier post. The poster raved about the Hasselblad.


wow, so....much.....plastic D=

[fly my pretties]

People who don't like photoshop are the same as people who don't like traction control on sports cars. 99% of the time they are just amateurs who think being a purist somehow makes them better than those who embrace new technology.

Never do you see these people create a beautifully detailed and post-processed image just to show you they can do it but just choose not to. These 99% take awful pictures, embrace a dying archaic technology and make the job of modern photographers much easier, because there's less people using our methods.

If you're under 50 and a purist, you've got no excuse.

Of course, there's the 1% who just take absolutely amazing pictures that don't need anything done to them, or their are the 1% who are masters of subject and composition to the point where processing is worthless.

[fly my pretties]

Legendary photojournalist W. Eugene Smith was reputed to sometime work days on a single print. Many master printers did such complex manipulations in printing that they had to keep notes for each image in order to reprint it.

Not even just dodging and burning, but toning, selecting paper surfaces to emphasize sharpness or de-emphasize grain, spotting, using warm-toned or cold-toned developers and warm-toned or cold-toned papers.

And then there was negative retouching, which was done virtually all the time for portraits in black-and-white. Every hometown portrait photographer up until the mid 60s (when color took over) was also a good negative retoucher.

The famous Hollywood portraits of people like Hurrell were usually tremendously underexposed developed thin, for one reason because those photographers were always working against slow films and slow lenses, but also because a thin negative was easier to retouch. They often had more graphite on them than silver.

In the mid-70s, I used to take a glamour headshot on Kodachrome and dupe it in a Honeywell Repronar several times with various color filters on Ektachrome and cross-process the dupes in both Kodak and Agfa chemistry. Then I'd sandwich the dupes in various combinations with each other and with the original, in register and slightly out of register, then dupe the sandwiches on more Ektachrome.

Or I might actually create an "Unsharp Mask" sandwich with black and white negatives to increase sharpness to an unnatural degree (for those who have never known what "unsharp mask" in Photoshop actually harks back to.

Wow, amazing read. Thanks for sharing.

[Mark_Cohran]

What do you "do" about them? You do nothing. You accept they have a different perspective and opinion than you, but you don't call them "ignorant" and I wouldn't suggest denigrating their skills if they are getting good results straight out of their cameras.

I use Photoshop extensively for many images, and not at all for others. I don't feel the need to "tweak" every image. Yes, I think that some photographers don't fully realize the potential of some of their images without some editing, but photography is an art as well as a craft and the artistic aspects of an image also relate to what a photographer chooses to do or NOT do to their image.

[happytrails]

Maybe this will explain better, as I am also anti photoshop. We "old school" types take pride in being able to envision a photograph in it's final form when we choose the film type and speed, paper developing time, composition etc. (photoshop allows hacks that know how to use the program to turn schlock into something else) We learned how light and filters affect our finished photo. We strive to get the photograph as close to finished as possible in the camera and not settle for an ok shot knowing we can fix or change anything after the fact. We spent and still spend a lot of time learning the art of photography and don't just "snap" away hoping to get something good, great or just adequate. BTW I do use Lightroom but it only allows me to do those things I could have done in my darkroom all those years ago. I admire those that can take a great photograph and I do want you to notice I said photograph, not picture. To me the difference is photoshop is for pictures and those that take them and photography is quite different. I do enjoy images that I knoware photoshopped some people's imaginations are quite remarkable. Not wanting to start an argument just give you some insight into us old schoolers.

[chauncey]

It sounds like happytrails, that to you, the process in achieving the image is more important than is the outcome...that the journey is more important than is the destination.

[JeffreyG]

We strive to get the photograph as close to finished as possible in the camera and not settle for an ok shot knowing we can fix or change anything after the fact. We spent and still spend a lot of time learning the art of photography and don't just "snap" away hoping to get something good, great or just adequate.

This is a straw man argument. You have projected that everyone who is good at digital manipulation of an image is also a lousy photographer.

I think if you spend some time with some of these manipulators, you will see that they are actually picturing the final image (with manipulations) in their head when they take the image.

To say 'people who learn photoshop are just covering up for their poor photography' is no more fair than to say 'people who disdain photoshop are just covering up their ignorance of how to use it.'

[Mark1]

Us old schoolers invented photoshop. Only back then it was with a piece of paper on a wire to dodge, or a paper with a hole in it to burn. Most of what photoshop does is a reproduction of what we used to do in a darkroom. Better, faster, easier, sure. But that does not make it any less of an art. Most people site Ansel Adams (mostly because they don't know anybody else) when they talk about work without photoshop. Unfortunatley Ansel is the godfather of photoshop. He had some of the most heavy post process work ever applied to a print. He added things, he took things out... Stuff we do now in photoshop.

Photoshop is simply the advancement of the darkroom, get over it and go shooting.

[advaitin]

It took a while for me to accept digital imaging. First, the paper I worked for had gone to scanning negatives. That made a file that could be adjusted in Photoshop (which was version 3 at the time). The NPPA had done some workshops with digital cameras, but I was less than impressed with the printed results. After retiring, I bought a Canon G2 to play with, then a D60. I wasn't fully committed until I bought a 1D and found satisfaction (I also went back to work for a while on a doomed magazine) with the speed and compatibility to my shooting style.

Then the bulk of my film cameras were placed on consignment at a local camera store and I haven't looked back. I use Photoshop and other editing programs as I used the darkroom, for fine-tuning the images. Even the cameras do that if you want them to, but I still prefer a little hands-on, even if it is with mouse and keyboard. My avatar shows me on the last job I shot both film and digital. My personal shots were on film and the job was done with digital images. That was in 2004.

There will always be purists. There will always be experimenters. But for most of us, I suspect, it's simply what gets us the results we need or want that drives the technique.

[RDKirk]

Maybe this will explain better, as I am also anti photoshop. We "old school" types take pride in being able to envision a photograph in it's final form when we choose the film type and speed, paper developing time, composition etc. (photoshop allows hacks that know how to use the program to turn schlock into something else) We learned how light and filters affect our finished photo. We strive to get the photograph as close to finished as possible in the camera and not settle for an ok shot knowing we can fix or change anything after the fact. We spent and still spend a lot of time learning the art of photography and don't just "snap" away hoping to get something good, great or just adequate. BTW I do use Lightroom but it only allows me to do those things I could have done in my darkroom all those years ago. I admire those that can take a great photograph and I do want you to notice I said photograph, not picture. To me the difference is photoshop is for pictures and those that take them and photography is quite different. I do enjoy images that I knoware photoshopped some people's imaginations are quite remarkable. Not wanting to start an argument just give you some insight into us old schoolers.

I think your "old school" must be limited to maybe the 80s. See my post above about film "old school" or Mark1's post.

Better yet, do a Google Image search on "Jerry Uelsmann," who was the Chris Angel of film photography darkroom manipulation.

If you want to claim "purism," go ahead, but even the very first generation of photographers well over a hundred years ago were doing every kind of pictorial manipulation their technology allowed. It's just plain silly--and patently historically erroneous--to claim "anti-manipulation" as being "old school."

[moose10101]

Maybe this will explain better, as I am also anti photoshop. We "old school" types take pride in being able to envision a photograph in it's final form when we choose the film type and speed, paper developing time, composition etc. (photoshop allows hacks that know how to use the program to turn schlock into something else) We learned how light and filters affect our finished photo. We strive to get the photograph as close to finished as possible in the camera and not settle for an ok shot knowing we can fix or change anything after the fact. We spent and still spend a lot of time learning the art of photography and don't just "snap" away hoping to get something good, great or just adequate. BTW I do use Lightroom but it only allows me to do those things I could have done in my darkroom all those years ago. I admire those that can take a great photograph and I do want you to notice I said photograph, not picture. To me the difference is photoshop is for pictures and those that take them and photography is quite different. I do enjoy images that I knoware photoshopped some people's imaginations are quite remarkable. Not wanting to start an argument just give you some insight into us old schoolers.

Are you really "anti-Photoshop", or are you just "anti-sloppy work", or "anti-extreme effects"? Let's turn the tables. If you don't think Photoshop should be used, try working under these conditions with your traditional post-exposure processing:

- Choose one film developer/dilution/processing time/processing temperature
- Choose one paper, i.e. one brand/contrast grade/finish/tone
- Choose one paper developer/dilution/processing time/processing temperature
- Print full-frame
- Expose each sheet of paper for the same number of seconds
- Throw away all of your toners/bleaches/etc.
- Throw away your spotting brushes
- Don't even think about creating an unsharp mask.

I love film. I love the entire process, from exposure to finished print. And it's amazing how little of the process happens in-camera, and how many parallels there are between film/paper and Photoshop processing. I refuse to work with one hand tied behind my back in either environment.

[Bosscat]

People who don't like photoshop are the same as people who don't like traction control on sports cars. 99% of the time they are just amateurs who think being a purist somehow makes them better than those who embrace new technology.

Never do you see these people create a beautifully detailed and post-processed image just to show you they can do it but just choose not to. These 99% take awful pictures, embrace a dying archaic technology and make the job of modern photographers much easier, because there's less people using our methods.

If you're under 50 and a purist, you've got no excuse.

Of course, there's the 1% who just take absolutely amazing pictures that don't need anything done to them, or their are the 1% who are masters of subject and composition to the point where processing is worthless.


I'll rock it old school as I have a foot for traction control and a brain to adjust the camera to get the photo I want.

Go shoot a roll of slides and see how much you can manipulate your mistakes out of that.

[Krzysztof]

It does not matter if you do PP or not, but it is a choice that will define you as the photographer that you are or will become. It most importantly defines you, your style and it delivers the satisfaction that you crave. That style will either scare your customers off or bring them in by numbers.

[number six]

To say 'people who learn photoshop are just covering up for their poor photography' is no more fair than to say 'people who disdain photoshop are just covering up their ignorance of how to use it.'

Actually, I'd say your second example is fair enough...

:cool:

[CountryBoy]

What bothers me more is people who claim not to PP , but do . I really don't care if someone does or not , but be honest about it . Even if it's done in camera !

[spkerer]

Don't get that too bothered about that, CountryBoy. Unless people are posting CR2 files and you're looking at them as a hex dump or such, there's some PP going it. It takes some PP to get it into jpg format.

[peterbj7]

There is an awful lot of nonsense being said in this topic. PP happens in-camera, in greatly differing different degrees depending on the manufacturer and model and the settings chosen. What is it that makes what happens in-camera sacrosanct and what is done afterwards somehow "impure"?

My problem with Photoshop, and I most certainly DON'T despise it, it that I am largely ignorant of most of its features and how to use them.

[RDKirk]

I think if you spend some time with some of these manipulators, you will see that they are actually picturing the final image (with manipulations) in their head when they take the image.


Many times--and you can go back to the Zone Systems as proof of this--"getting it right in the camera" means getting the image that can be best post-processed to meet your pre-visualized image.

With the Zone System, you may actually expose the image "wrong" (according to manufacturer's guidelines) and then process it "wrong" (according to manufacturer's guidelines) in order to get a negative that prints what you originally "pre-visualized" when you originally viewed the scene.

We do the same sort of thing with ETTR. We expose "wrong" (according to the meter) and then process "wrong" in order to get a print that reflects what we originally saw.

That's what "getting it right in the camera" is really all about...getting the result you intended to get at that stage of the photographic process to eventually produce the image you originally visualized.

[MP4/8]

People getting bent about others PP'ing, is like people getting bent about how much ketchup others' put on their fries.

In other words....why(??) does it bother 'you'??

It's not like photography is a box with only a 'shutter', that records light in a fixed way.

There's all manner of 'manipulating' how an image is captured on a medium. From DOF, to filters, to FL, to cropping, to B&W, etc...


In any event.....I hear that even Chuck Norris uses PS. Are you going to tell Chuck Norris that he must suck as a photographer if he uses PS?...:p

.

[JWright]

The original title of this thread is "What do you do about people that are anti-photoshop?"

My answer is "Ignore them..."

[birdfromboat]

Sometimes I post process while listening to music that has been so worked over in the studio that you can't hear the hand squeeks on the guitar neck or the trombone player draining their spit valve in the background and it really tweeks me. Just because you have the tools to make it sound better doesn't meen you have to use them! Oh, I could go on and on about this......

[neilwood32]

Are you really "anti-Photoshop", or are you just "anti-sloppy work", or "anti-extreme effects"? Let's turn the tables. If you don't think Photoshop should be used, try working under these conditions with your traditional post-exposure processing:

- Choose one film developer/dilution/processing time/processing temperature
- Choose one paper, i.e. one brand/contrast grade/finish/tone
- Choose one paper developer/dilution/processing time/processing temperature
- Print full-frame
- Expose each sheet of paper for the same number of seconds
- Throw away all of your toners/bleaches/etc.
- Throw away your spotting brushes
- Don't even think about creating an unsharp mask.

I love film. I love the entire process, from exposure to finished print. And it's amazing how little of the process happens in-camera, and how many parallels there are between film/paper and Photoshop processing. I refuse to work with one hand tied behind my back in either environment.

A lot of people going on about "Photoshopping" seem to foget that the vast majority of popular techniques that it employs were indeed used in film days.Dodge /burn/exposure compensation(altering the development process)/spot healing (brushes when talking about film)/combining exposures - none of these are new.

Unless one is talking about photography in the realms of taking snapshots, post processing is a requirement and always has been.

as a few have stated - even using a Jpeg written straight to the card involves the photographer making decisions regarding the picture styles/WB hence effectively post processing them (they are not the "as shot" images that a lot of people think they are - they have already been processed)

[chauncey]

I cannot figure out why you guys are even debating this subject...there is no such thing as a non-post processed printed image.
The image is processed in-camera or with computer software or in the printing process software itself. Somewhere along the line there is post processing.

[IrishK]

Tell them Photoshop is the equivalent of the darkroom in film photography. Good pictures are taken; great pictures are developed.

[birdfromboat]

tell them that by using photoshop you can get more keepers and delete the others. This helps to lesson your carbon footprint by recycling the electrons and cutting down the number of 1's and 0's that you have to maintain on your hard drive. It's a green thing.

wow, if that works for anyone, let us know. Maybe we should start a "whats the stupidest thing you have ever said about photography?" thread.

[Scottes]

I call troll. Guy comes in and revives an old thread, makes a single post that places himself on a pedestal, insults anyone who uses a [digital] developing system, then walks away.

TROLL! Troll I say!


/thread

[xcel730]

Basing purely on what I've seen, those who claims that post-processing is cheating and he/she is doing everything 100% straight from camera (JPG) usually don't know how to use any post-processing software and their photos generally are mediocre (a correlation?). Those who are true artist use photoshop to enhance their photos that are already very beautiful straight out of camera.

I usually not get involved with any of their arguments and sit back and listen to what they have to say.

Again, this is from what I've seen from a rather small sample population.

[Clean Gene]

Basing purely on what I've seen, those who claims that post-processing is cheating and he/she is doing everything 100% straight from camera (JPG) usually don't know how to use any post-processing software and their photos generally are mediocre (a correlation?). Those who are true artist use photoshop to enhance their photos that are already very beautiful straight out of camera.

I usually not get involved with any of their arguments and sit back and listen to what they have to say.

Again, this is from what I've seen from a rather small sample population.


I don't think that post-processing is "cheating", but I'll wager that far too many people use it as an excuse to be sloppy. Like, they'll just shoot and then use Photoshop to fix mistakes that they never should have made in the first place.

Of course, you can say the exact same thing about film. People shooting with film will often do the same thing.

[MikeFairbanks]

Saying no to photoshop is like saying no to salt, pepper, makeup, paint, etc.

Sometimes you want to make something look or taste nicer.

If you don't believe in photoshop, don't fix up your house before selling it.

[harroz]

I know of very few 'pros' that don't use ps, those that don't haven't kept up with the times and it shows in their images.

It is usually laziness or fear behind it, personally I wouldn't like to pay anyone who is lazy about their work, or has a fear of trying something with their work, so a no PS photographer is nothing to worry about.