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

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14122567
I agree with your premise. It seems to me like many photographers are more interested in editing on the computer than in the actual photo-taking. I can understand how people would find it really enjoyable to sit at a computer for long periods of time, editing images. I am not one of them!

As for me, I want to "keep it real", at least as much as possible. So I don't use Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, noise reduction, etc. All I use is the simple iPhoto program that came already loaded onto my computer when I bought it.

My philosophy is, if I didn't get it exactly right in the camera, then I would rather delete the images, and go out and take more images, than try to fix a faulty image.
Why sit at a computer "faking" things when I could go on another photo trip and take more images instead?!

Tom, for a lot of types of photography yeah, I've been happy with the equivalent of an out-of-camera jpeg.

For a lot of others though, I became frustrated with the limits of the in-camera jpeg processing, things like the dynamic range challenges of many outdoor scenes. And so, part of my going for DSLRs was the fact that at the time that was the way to get Raw files, and I wanted those Raw files!

So, when I shoot things that would come out fine as jpegs, it is quick and easy to run the Raw files through say the Canon Raw software Digital Photo Professional (DPP) for a quick conversion, and I've done that and still keep the Raw files in my Lightroom library and am happy!

But DPP still acts like a "digital darkroom". It can read your in-camera settings for Picture Style and White Balance and apply them (with Contrast and Saturation and Sharpening and such) to your initial image preview, and so you have a "starting point" which will be "like the jpeg would be". Of course, though, with Raw you have the flexibility to change those things around and tweak them with greater latitude than you would with a jpeg and "normal" editing.

This is good stuff also because I have my camera "dialed down" to a Neutral Picture Style with Contrast and Saturation dialed down even more (to -4) because in scenes with dynamic range "challenges" using a Picture Style such as Standard or especially Landscape can give misleading "readings"/warnings of highlights, and they show up both in the histogram and in highlight "blinkies" -- same with Saturation and the RGB histogram. So, those settings come in handy when "Exposing To The Right" but can make for "dull"/flat tones out of the camera until you go to work with your Raw processing software!

So, yeah, my out-of-camera jpegs would tend to look fairly flat/lifeless without any Contrast/Saturation/Sh​arpening applied, but then a few tweaks and all of a sudden they can jook just as good as the camera could produce as a jpeg, and with a few more tweaks they can often look better!

My answer is:

"While perhaps not all have, many have".

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone comment about how they can "take care of that" in Photoshop.

I try not to do anything in Photoshop that I couldn't do when I worked in a darkroom. Somehow, to me, it's more like "photography" doing that...

I think it's a silly question. "Pure photography" in a digital sense is an illusion. The only way to sell yourself short is to not take advantage of every tool in your arsenal to make the most appealing images possible. I use whatever it takes to make the image in my mind happen. If I could draw an image that was 100% realistic without it taking days or weeks I would, but with a camera it isn't necessary. It seems that people forget that photography is simply the art of drawing with light. And where you do it - whether at the subject, in the camera, or on the screen as the final product irrelevant. I'm not going to do things in PS that are easier to do or that will provide better results with a camera, but likewise I'm not going to screw around with things to create real art from my mind directly on the sensor that is easier and better suited to PS either.

Now that is different for journalism where there is, or at least should be, some kind of loyalty to the truth. But when it comes to the art of photography, arbitrarily assigning yourself boundaries only reduces your capabilities.

I don't resort to "fancy" Photoshop stuff as a habit -- in fact, I've been using Lightroom as my "workflow central" since, well, since its very early days and rarely resort to Photoshop anymore, just for some special "stuff" or to play around.

But, I do have images that, over the years, have benefitted from "photoshopping" for special needs, special touches. Maybe a bit of cloning, maybe HDR or exposure "blending", whatever. Even though I tend to be a "naturalist" with my photography, I still don't look at "photoshopping" as being "inferior". I'll admit that I tend to shy away from the "over-processed" look, and yet I see some good photogs having a "style" in the processed look of their photos, good photos to start with, and then something "personal" in the processing...maybe not my personal style, but that doesn't make me "a little bit superior"...!

Call me old school, but I would rather spend more time shooting with the camera than fixing with the computer. Eventually, I imagine I will succumb.

I am still a relative noob to digital photography though. Time will tell.

V4her wrote in post #14182357
Call me old school, but I would rather spend more time shooting with the camera than fixing with the computer. Eventually, I imagine I will succumb.

I am still a relative noob to digital photography though. Time will tell.

Here's another noob and I tell you that postprocessing is probably the most effective means for me to improve my camera skills. I use raw and Lightroom to develop the pictures into something I like. This helps me to explore the different views I can achieve and helps me to identify the flaws and limitation of my technique.

Additionally, using LR frees me from from many of the technical worries like white balance or sharpening or colour balance or all the other fancy stuff that you should tell the camera for a decent jpeg. I have more time to focus on the real stuff that is important while taking the picture and worry about the development of the jpeg later when I have time.

V4her wrote in post #14182357
Call me old school, but I would rather spend more time shooting with the camera than fixing with the computer.

It is all a matter of degree of adjustability and ease of alteration!...

• For old film shooters accustomed to shooting color transparency film, you had to get everything right in camera because what you recorded was final.
  
• For old film shooters accustomed to shooting color neg, you had to get composition right, because film had wide exposure latitude and in the printing process you would tweak exposure errors. And it was possible to get localized adjustments and some content editing (if you did the darkroom work yourself) or if you spent time/money on retouching the negative and/or the print!
  
• For digital shooters who shoot RAW, all sorts of exposure errors can be fixed, and if your skills in Photoshop are strong you can even significantly alter content as well as localized adjustments to contrast, exposure, and color balance! And all of this relatively quickly and easily.

V4her wrote in post #14182357
Call me old school, but I would rather spend more time shooting with the camera than fixing with the computer. Eventually, I imagine I will succumb.

I am still a relative noob to digital photography though. Time will tell.

This is the irony; "old school" involved folks working long hours in the darkroom. Learn the history of photography; learn that post processing (as already mentioned several times in this thread) is not just about "fixing" but about enhancing, about completion.

My background is software systems development, and photography is simply a hobby.

When developing software, you don't rely on a single tool, you rely on toolchains. Photography is no different.

Your camera? Is a tool.
Lightroom? Is a tool.
Your photo printer? A tool.

You start with your eye and your brain, and you run your image through any number of tool chains that you have open to you. The better you understand all your tools and the chains you can build from them, the easier you can do your job and the better the work that comes out of it.

And remember, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem you see is a nail. And that means you're going to try some very ugly methods to solve something that called for a Roberson.

amandamoreton wrote in post #14108074
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.

house moms with rebels!
what about house dads with rebels? can't they ever become real photographers?

I got flamed beyond belief last year for my comments on this topic.

I keep getting told that photoshop is like the dark room, I agree and disagree!

I agree as it offers us the opportunity to process or correct an image for slight exposure and sharpness.


I disagree from the point that way over processed images are now produced that are far from what the new comer to photography is capable of producing. I won't mention the big name photogs who do specialize in over processing images as its not abou them, it's about how much is too much?


I love the modern style looking images being produced but when I started out in photography I tried to emulate the look and feel of an image like a young guy or girl try to lose weight, dress and try to look like the magazine model, which in real life doesn't look that smooth and slim and near perfect.

Hate me for what I say, but photography isn't photography anymore. A photographer today is more a digital artist. The most important accessory for the photographer today isn't a tripod, or flash or certain lens......it's a computer. Without this device your photography will be flat, boring and will not meet the level of the professionals. I know this because there are dime a dozen YouTube videos on how to get this look and that look, people on this and other forums asking how did the photographer get this look and that look.

I must admit that there are many traditional photographers out that do know how to take a shot that really doesn't need much processing but they are rare. I have met young photographers at a workshop who over a few coffees admitted that they don't bother with being to carefull in when composing or setting up shots or even getting the right light as they rely on photoshop to correct what they should have used their brains for. Digital has made us lazy with plugins and the like. This is why there is a saturation of photographers now. It's not hard to take photos now as your computer will make it look a million bucks.


I know a veteran photographer who hates photoshop and new generation photographers. He runs a school in north Sydney and all he gets asked is how to get this look in photoshop? He mentions that they should use their brain to work out the correct exposure and get the right light, not to photoshop it up.

Flame if you must but I write from my observations

l

Photography and processing are inherently connected.

I think photography has evolved and what it is now, is is not what it used to be.

That doesn't mean that it is not photography...

Well, imo, you need to get a good photo in the camera first, and then maybe PP it to perfection. Being lazy during the shoot, and just fixing it later in photoshop might work, but it'll probably take you hours to fix what could've taken you minutes if you just done it right the first time. That, and I don't think you can easily fix lighting screw ups. So for creating art and such, PP can be a valuable tool to use. Although I think for photojournalism, no serious manipulation should be done (no cloning things in/out and such...sharpening and color correcting are fine).

Just my 2 cents.

MRLSeries wrote in post #14201419
I must admit that there are many traditional photographers out that do know how to take a shot that really doesn't need much processing but they are rare.

I will just point out that Ansel Adams's best work all 'needed' (to reconstruct his vision) a lot of processing. Which is why he pretty much had to do most of the printing himself. He knew how to take the shot so that he could then print it the way he wanted.

Now, I do agree though that it is now easier to do PP and a lot of people can do a lot more a lot easier and just for the sake of it. And we are more saturated with images than ever before. But I honestly still see a lot of good stuff out there, you can't fundamentally change lighting and composition.

ejenner wrote in post #14216492
I will just point out that Ansel Adams's best work all 'needed' (to reconstruct his vision) a lot of processing. Which is why he pretty much had to do most of the printing himself. He knew how to take the shot so that he could then print it the way he wanted.

Now, I do agree though that it is now easier to do PP and a lot of people can do a lot more a lot easier and just for the sake of it. And we are more saturated with images than ever before. But I honestly still see a lot of good stuff out there, you can't fundamentally change lighting and composition.

psh, Ansel Adams is no better then those people who photoshop... jk.

I think when most people talk about "traditional" photographers, i think they mean people who took photos with film and let the lab "process and develop" photos for them. so in their minds, their job was done and the lab didnt do anything. which is of course false. if i took my photos to 3 labs, each lab will give the same photo a different feel and treatment. frankly, i knew plenty of people with film slrs, but rarely did one venture out and develop their own film. digital photography bought the lab to us in the form of LR or PS.