Photoshop??? Photographer or nerd???

[photohenrik]

Let me heard what you think???

Is a photographer one hoes go out and and take the picture and makes it good whit the camera or is a Photographer one whoes taking the picture and goes home and makes it good whit photoshop???

[framewerkz]

There's a necessary amount of post-processing that comes with digital photography, It's not a nerd thing. After all, you're just doing with Photoshop what any lab would do with 35mm film.

[jgroveuk]

I'd say that photography, like any creative process, starts with selected raw materials which are treated according to the artist's wishes - no rules! The raw materials in this case are the subject of the photograph, the processing starts with composition and pressing the shutter, and may or may not include digital manipulation, or any other form of processing. The finished image is an artist's statement.

[jcboyd]

I had the opportunity several years ago to view about a dozen images "Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico" side by side (what a rush!). It was interesting how Ansel Adams "Post Processed" them differently over the years. His “Post Processingâ€

[steveandbecky]

My brother took some 35mm slides of the Vermont fall foliage to a professional color lab where I live (midwest) and ordered some large prints. When he got the prints, he brought them over to me and was quite disappointed in the color and asked me my opinion.

I told him the color lab tech had probably never been to Vermont in the fall and didn't believe the foliage could really look that spectacular. He went back and had them set the gray point for a place that should have been gray. The result was the spectacular fall foliage that he had originally photographed.

The lab told him that they don't always get it right and sometimes the photographer has to provide some guidance on how it should look. They have account reps there and you work with your rep.

Sometimes my pics look just the way I remember them looking-- right out of the camera, but often they don't and I adjust the levels until the image is the image I wanted or remember.

I think the person doing the post processing can be trusted to "get it right" more than the electronics, firmware or film emulsion can be.

[professor_chaos]

I'm puzzeled by the comparison of PS to a darkroom, while it is true that post-capture processing of an image is possible for digital images, it is in fact inevitable in the case of darkroom printing. But perhaps the strongest reason I have for questioning the comparison is that I often hear PS users say they can "fix" things when they get to post processing, darkroom users are more inclinded to have a printing plan when they take the photo. Of course, this is not to say that PS precludes this type of approach and I'm sure many photographers do use PS in the same manner. What I do suggest is that on the average darkroom users are preplaning the bluk of their shots when composing in the field whereas the average PS user is taking shots with less forethought and making post-hoc decisons on how to present the image. LIke any new technology, PS has its strengths and weaknesses. Certianly, the skill level of the average photographer has declined as the result of PS, however, there is no doubt that the number of people shooting has dramatically increased and surely this is a good thing. As to who constitutes a REAL photographer, I will leave that to others and just part with my favorite self-quote."Im not a photographer an I got the pics to prove it". Please feel free to visit my galleries and leave comments.
Rodney

[jcboyd]

Permit me to ramble.
The computer is much like the darkroom. “Fixingâ€

[ukexpat]

Rodney

If you are shooting in a RAW format, you <i>must</i> do post processing in a RAW conversion application of some sort to produce your final images. RAW files contain the data straight from the image sensor in the camera without any in camera processing -- no colour correction, sharpening, contrast, nothing. If I posted a JPEG produced from an unprocessed RAW file, it would look very drab and unspectacular. In this respect a RAW file is akin to a digital negative. That's why I use Photoshop -- and yes I can do additional processing if I want to, but what's wrong with that? I doubt that there is a serious professional analogue photographer out there who has not used equivalent "analogue darkroom" techniques (dodging, burning, selective exposure etc etc) to produce their best work.

[professor_chaos]

Hey Nigel,
I think its possible you missed what I was saying. I wasnt saying I was opposed to post-caputure editing, Im not. What I was trying to say is that one consequence of the PS boom is a whole crop of people using cameras who are less inclined to focus on composition and correct exposure at the time a photograph is taken. And while I do lament the number of shooters of this ilk, I do (and did note earlier) that a secondary consequence of the digital boom is more people out using cameras which is a good thing. At no point have I suggested that post capture processing is bad, just that alot of people regard it as a place to fix their images rather than focusing on quality inital images.

Rodney

[jcboyd]

I agree Rodney. Many think of PS as a cure all and why bother to get it right in the camera when they can fix it in the computer. The goal should be first to do everything possible to get the file correct so a limited amount of post processing is needed. This would include things such as exposure, in camera cropping, and color correction. The less I need to do in PS the easier I feel the process is. With today’s digital cameras more can be done in camera than ever before. Just the ability to adjust the saturation and color balance in camera is a boon to the photographer of today.

[photohenrik]

What I mean, was that some people just takes the pictures and go home and cut the picture and all the things you can do with the camera... Every one can take a picture and make it good in PS, but not many kan make it good with the camera...

[dcfaria]

I'm the type of person who really don't care how the photo/picture was made. For me it's the result that counts! If I like a picture I really dont care if it's the "raw" output from a camera or if it's drawn from scratch in photoshop... It's ONLY the final result that counts. I mean, a picture can never recreate what you are seeing with your eyes. I don't even know how I'm seeing the world in terms of focus depth and format... I'm pretty sure it's not a 2:3 ratio or anything like it though

PS. I like playing around with photshop and I overdo stuff (sharpening etc) even for my taste. Hell, I don't even think I have a single photo on PBase which I havn't cropped.

[photohenrik]

But "dcfaria" are you then a photographer or a nerd???

[andersostberg]

I think it's a characteristic of digital SLRs that you have to do some post processing work like levels, sharpening and color adjustments. What comes out of the camera is not the finished picture.

The post processing work is a bit like the developing of film to paper. Get exposure, white balance and composition as right as possible in camera and then process in the "digital darkroom" for the finished look. This doesn't make the photographer a nerd in my view, on the contrary, it's part of the skills you have to master to get the most out of your digital photographs.

[pse]

I'm a Nerdy Photographer