Digital photography w/light room, photoshop etc....Are we selling ourselves short?

PixelMagic wrote in post #14053571
You said:


Perhaps you believe that magazines like Playboy, for example, never edited or modified their images.

LOL....Probably only for the better

PeteD wrote in post #14053350
"Looks" like about 90% of it.

It is a composite of 5 different negatives. The view out the window is a dead giveaway because there's no way they had enough dynamic range to capture a sunlit outdoor scene and an indoor scene in the same exposure.

Tools in photoshop are based on dark room techniques. Dodge and burn are obvious. "Unsharp mask" is a tool that many use to sharpen images in Photoshop. Go to the wikipedia listing for "unsharp masking" and you'll read that it was invented in Germany back in the 1930s.

I've taken portrait photography classes from a woman who started her career as a photo retoucher back in the day. Things like using razor blades to (literally) cut and paste people's heads into group shots and using an airbrush to remove blemishes from people's faces. She still does it today, things like using a very fine brush to paint in sharper and better defined eyelashes on inkjet prints.

The rubylith overlay shown in the Quick Mask tool also comes from the darkroom. Rubylith, amberlith, wax, etc. were common darkroom compositing tools.

Yea, along the lines of the previous posters I started in B&W in a darkroom and gave up after loosing darkroom access. I tried color film, but I didn't like the fact that you couldn't manipulate the image as much (at least not easily). With color slides you basically got what you shot and that was very alien to me. Think about that for a minute if you've never shot film - it's the same as saying SOOC is 'bogus' - in 1985! Nothing I printed was a straight print from the negative (I generally tried to print contact prints fairly bland though). And everyone I knew (no internet back then) thought the same way. The negative was just a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less.

I actually got back into photography then digital got to the stage where I could see that I could have more control over my images than I had with B&W film.

Of course I think it is a lot easier with digital, no question, but I don't think it is 'fundamentally' different. It's easier to take it to a more advanced level. But that just gives the artist more freedom and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Most people take average pictures and never process them. They use auto settings and in-camera jpeg1. Those includes phone and p&s cameras owners. Some of them are capable of image crop and leveling of horizon. Those are famous on Facebook.
Some people took average pictures and play with them in PP, it is big part of their free time interest. Those includes POTN members with computer gear in their sig.
Few people takes technically above average pictures and PP them for stocks.
Also very few people takes good pictures in all aspects of IQ and character, those are paid photographers, who used PP within small and practical limit. For them correct light is more important then PP.
And only very limited amount of us are capable of multiple tasks - take right exposure, capture the moment and create art in PP. Those are famous on Flickr

Digital pp has changed the game whether people are willing to admit it or not.
The more traditional photographers will say that you could achieve all of the same effects in a darkroom with film and will use that to justify their pp in lightroom/photoshop/wh​atever. These people tend to do a better job getting the picture correct in their cameras and use pp just for slight color adjustments and sharpening. They also tend to do the most complaining. You can do alot to a picture without alot of knowledge or skill. This might seem to undervalue a true photographer's product because so many people are capable of the same "caliber" of work now. They need to realize though that photoshop cant fix an out of focus picture, or one shot with terrible lighting/posing/compos​ition. This is what still seperates genuine photographers from the slew of "house-moms with rebels". They cant compete on this level and won't ever be able to until they are on the same skill level. This is known but people still worry about the "effect that photoshop has on photography" enough to discuss it constantly.
The people on the other side of the fence will take mostly unimpressive snapshot type pictures and boost whatever slider they can to make what they think is a good picture. These people seem not to care about getting the picture technically correct in camera because they know (or think) that they don't have to. They don't spend the time reading, listening and practicing because in the end it doesn't matter at all to the general population if the photographer knew what he was doing or not, it only matters what the picture looks like.

The fact is the only things that matter in professional photography is what the person that's paying you thinks, and what you think about your own work. photoshop doesn't make a photographer just like L lenses and 5d mark3's don't. they are all tools to be used how you see fit but in the end what you do with them is what makes your product.

To restate what I said at the beginning, photoshop has changed the game and people need to accept that. If overprocessed pictures are what people want now because that is what our eyes are flooded with then thats what you need to give them to stay current. Unless you have your own style that is successful, or you don't care about being successful and make pictures just for the enjoyment of it, you need to create something that is marketable. if you don't like it then don't use it but don't complain when no one wants it.


edit: i am not a "pro" this is my opinion only and i am open to discuss it

NO....and I do not miss the chemicals and having to work in the dark! You can NEVER ge t it "right" in camera, the eye has much more dynamic range than my camera, so if you can stretch in processing, why not? The Image in my mind and camera do not often match. I am enjoying the new freedoms!

S.Horton wrote in post #14109100

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Have reported you to PITA !

The food? No. Last time I saw a pita was about a year ago. It had chicken salad in it.

PixelMagic wrote in post #14053571
You said:

The posted links disprove your claim. Perhaps you believe that magazines like Playboy, for example, never edited or modified their images.

Many teen boys thought that women had no navels, judging by issues of Playboy long ago! Then a bit more realism crept back into the photos, when they finally stopped covering and airbrushing out genitalia, too.

PeteD wrote in post #14049774
Are we selling ourselve's short with the use of stuff in our digital photography like Light Room, Photoshop and other editing software?

Are we fakers because in fact, that is not what the scene/person really looked like?We took out blemishes, added contrast, changed colors, cloned this out or cloned this in, etc,,,,.

We are no more fakers than most other artists out there. Consider music - heard many performances where there was not mixing or other enhancements being done. How about film and cinema.

I showed a pic to my grandmother yesterday that I had printed on metalic paper 11x14. Was a sunrise shot. Her comment to me - "this is beautiful - did you mess with this?" lol - she was a camera buff for decades. Of course I messed with the picture - If I am going to print it I will surely adjust it is some fashion to make what is optimal to my eye. I see myself as a capturer and manipulator of light - I catch the best shot I can at the time and make adjustments as needed post. I would think we are selling our art short if we do not present the best product we can!!

PeteD wrote in post #14049774
First off, there is no right or wrong answer. This is just a general discussion to get everyone's take on the issue.

Are we selling ourselve's short with the use of stuff in our digital photography like Light Room, Photoshop and other editing software?

Are we fakers because in fact, that is not what the scene/person really looked like?We took out blemishes, added contrast, changed colors, cloned this out or cloned this in, etc,,,,.

I know some of the things can be done with filters. Like make a drab sky blue or warm. Make lights have a starburst. Or use dark ND filters with long exposures to actually make things disappear. So manipulation has always been around.

And Yes, we have to do stuff for our photos to sell. But that is not what this discussion is about. This is not about selling photos.

Have we lost our actual photo taking skills in lou of photo editing skills?

What about that pole that will show up in the photo? Don't worry about it, we'll just take it out later......

I am of the belief that we should take good photos with good photo skills. I understand that, sometimes it is impossible to get the perfect shot. A person may stroll in and so on.

What's your take on it? Let's keep it clean and fun guys and gals please.

As someone who has worked in a studio and a darkroom I can assure you that there is nothing bad about the capabilities we have now. The objective is to take a vision and make it a reality. The tools we have now don't allow for anything we couldn't do already. They just make it easier. It allows us more time to spend coming up with new ideas and exploring more options instead of wasting it in the darkroom.

Of course it makes it easier for others to do similar things which casues us all to work harder to make presentable work. It raises the bar for all of us. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. While it's true that a lot of people use it as a crutch, anyone who shoots a lot knows that it's still easier to fix a necklace or flyaway hair before the shot than after - even with all of the tools we have now.

PeteD wrote in post #14049774
Are we fakers because in fact, that is not what the scene/person really looked like?We took out blemishes, added contrast, changed colors, cloned this out or cloned this in, etc,,,,.

no, we are artists

watt100 wrote in post #14112035
no, we are artists

wow. I wrote two paragraphs and you said the same thing in 4 words.