In the end, what is accepted and not accepted depends on what purpose the photo was meant for. For journalism, any PP is a no no. :nono:.
But for fine art, and abstract... anything goes.
Is one considered a photographer if he relies alot on photo-enhancing software?
- Thread starter naheuy
- Start date
- Status
In the end, what is accepted and not accepted depends on what purpose the photo was meant for. For journalism, any PP is a no no. :nono:.
But for fine art, and abstract... anything goes.
the only time u dun need pp is when ur not shooting. film needs pp. the only reason why i have ppl who tell me pp is not good is because they dun realise that camera translates the signals into images already. last time film u have to develop to get images. i dun see a reason how that has changed since photoshop became digital darkroom.
btw, did i mention in police investigation, all pphotos are shot in film?
btw, did i mention in police investigation, all pphotos are shot in film?
I think a good photographer is a person who knows how to handle a camera well, also have a creative eye, and able to tell a story through his pictures. A good photographer should be able to capture what he/she wants to capture, and to present the final form he/she wants, being able to envision the final product (with or without PP) even before he/she hits the shutter.
It is not about the differences between the RAW picture and the final product. Look at the popular technique called "exposing to the right". The technique involves purposely overexposing a scene while not blowing the highlights. Then taking the RAW file, pull back the exposure in PP. This will enable the sensor to capture a lot more details in the shadow areas than just shooting at "proper" exposure and trying to lift the shadows later. The key is what the photographer have in mind as the end product. And the ability to use all tools and techniques available to him/her to get to that vision of the end product.
A person who snaps away like a machine gun without forethought, and picks out pictures that he thinks can make it, crop like hell, process like hell to make it presentable. That person is not a good photographer.
But then again... aren't we allowed to be 'bad' once in a while? Kick back and just shoot like a newbie just for the fun of it.
It is not about the differences between the RAW picture and the final product. Look at the popular technique called "exposing to the right". The technique involves purposely overexposing a scene while not blowing the highlights. Then taking the RAW file, pull back the exposure in PP. This will enable the sensor to capture a lot more details in the shadow areas than just shooting at "proper" exposure and trying to lift the shadows later. The key is what the photographer have in mind as the end product. And the ability to use all tools and techniques available to him/her to get to that vision of the end product.
A person who snaps away like a machine gun without forethought, and picks out pictures that he thinks can make it, crop like hell, process like hell to make it presentable. That person is not a good photographer.
But then again... aren't we allowed to be 'bad' once in a while? Kick back and just shoot like a newbie just for the fun of it.
Last edited:
Yup... legislation has not come to an agreement to digital photos as admissible in court for criminal trials.
That is why the digital cams you see them use in TV CSI series? all bullcrap. :bsmilie:
I can think of 2 situations when you must use photoshop.
1) Pictures for clients, no choice I think this is the industry standard. Unless the client states otherwise.
2) Critical or only shot of the subject photo. If that is all you have, and somehow u did not expose your photo correctly, you really have no choice.
But personally I feel that the way current DSLRs (espeacially the crop ones) output of pictures, ideally requires some photoshopping. For instance not all view finders give you 100% of the view, so chances are u might have taken some extra details beyond the viewfinder you might want to crop.
Also I keep seeing software updates on DP review, that this software update will correct vigenting effects, fisheye lens correction, (many many more lens needs this or that correction). So it sort of gives me this impression that by the nature of the crop DSLR, u need to do some mandatory adjustments, just to get a more how to put it "natural" photo, which I suppose they mean to be on par with film???
1) Pictures for clients, no choice I think this is the industry standard. Unless the client states otherwise.
2) Critical or only shot of the subject photo. If that is all you have, and somehow u did not expose your photo correctly, you really have no choice.
But personally I feel that the way current DSLRs (espeacially the crop ones) output of pictures, ideally requires some photoshopping. For instance not all view finders give you 100% of the view, so chances are u might have taken some extra details beyond the viewfinder you might want to crop.
Also I keep seeing software updates on DP review, that this software update will correct vigenting effects, fisheye lens correction, (many many more lens needs this or that correction). So it sort of gives me this impression that by the nature of the crop DSLR, u need to do some mandatory adjustments, just to get a more how to put it "natural" photo, which I suppose they mean to be on par with film???
Think of a band or a singer who records a track and does post-editing which is a normal thing to do. Does that make him/her a bad singer? Point taken
Most serious sport shooter I see spam the shutter when chance appear so as to not miss the best shot possible. Even the pro does that with their fast camera, lens and memory card. Important is still end product I guess. For hobblist, the process is also a good learning experience. Sadly, I am just a GWC, so cannot comment too much :cry:
Wow, so many response.
Anyway, I want to pose a question. Is Ansel Adams considered a photographer?
I ask because he was well-known to do heavy dark room processing to get the look he wanted. The only difference was that he did it chemically and we are doing it digitally now. Of course, he's more "Lightroom" than "Photoshop". Kinda hard to "photoshop" using films.
Anyway, I want to pose a question. Is Ansel Adams considered a photographer?
I ask because he was well-known to do heavy dark room processing to get the look he wanted. The only difference was that he did it chemically and we are doing it digitally now. Of course, he's more "Lightroom" than "Photoshop". Kinda hard to "photoshop" using films.
Unless you are using traditional method to print onto paper, if you are using a film scanner to scan into PC to print, you still can photoshop after scanning.;p
No need to pp your pics lah.. not original already.. if you pp then you are a photoshopper.. not a photographer..:bsmilie: Sometimes i think some of these "purist" are just simply LAZY to learn how to do basic and simple pp because its too troublesome, thus no pp = "true photographer". Sure nothing beats getting the image right the first time but if you have that mindset that pp is only for cheaters then you are cheating no one but yourself. Now go tell that to your friend. :bsmilie:
Well here is another question, what did he use to take a picture of that image? :dunno:
Well here is another question, what did he use to take a picture of that image? :dunno:
Last edited:
This question exists because some people don't know or can't photoshop.
There's so much more to learn in photography besides photoshop.
Shoot film, every shot = $. learn the hard way.
36 frames is easier to spot mistakes and correct them than 360 frames.
There's so much more to learn in photography besides photoshop.
Shoot film, every shot = $. learn the hard way.
36 frames is easier to spot mistakes and correct them than 360 frames.
If one has enough self-discipline to think before shooting, it doesn't really matter if its film or digital. If being limited to a roll of film is helpful, I can leave home with a 1GB card in my D3 and get 38 shots out of it. Its the same.
If you can't force yourself to think before shooting 360 frames, chances are you won't be able to with 36 frames either.
If you can't force yourself to think before shooting 360 frames, chances are you won't be able to with 36 frames either.
:thumbsup:
cause its significantly harder, to cut a guy from a negative, and paste it on another:bsmilie:
for internal usage maybe. for submission to court is a big nono
remmeber. if investigation, commonsense tells u that u dun have to wait for the film develop. but in court i'm pretty sure only film is allowed.
Last edited:
even use traditional method, still have the good old darkroom techs of dodging, burning, cross processing
we can still photoshop with chemicals:bsmilie:
Had this conversation quite a while back. The solution is to shoot in a 64mb card with each file at 1.8mb approximate. Black tape the LCD screen for those who got a side screen to see F-stop and shutter etc. If you are using one without side screen like the newer canon XXXD or 1000D series, black tape the LCD screen till you only have a hole to see the F-stop and shutter.:bsmilie:
even use traditional method, still have the good old darkroom techs of dodging, burning, cross processing
At least you won't get stuff like PP the eye to make it bigger, clone off the small chunk of vegetable stuck to the teeth, armpit hair disappear and arm smooth like silk:bsmilie:
- Status
