• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

The Photoshop Debate

Rachel Foster

New member
On several threads the question of photoshop and it's place in the work is raised. I've been thinking about it pretty carefully. I have a conclusion!

Do everything you can to get the best shot possible. After that, photoshop the hell out of it if it is needed. In other words, use every resources available to create what you're aiming for.

Now, y'all know I'm an embryo when it comes to photography. I'm shooting a lot, but it helps me discover what I need to work on. I think I've come to that point where study is seriously needed. My areas of concentration are going to be 1) my equipment, 2) technical stuff and the basics of photography and...drum roll...photoshop.

P.S. (Post script, not Photo Shop) You see? I am listening!
 
Last edited:

Don Lashier

New member
Rachel, imo you left out a critical 2nd step - get everything possible out of the raw converter. If you've done the first two steps right (actual shot, raw conversion) then the PS work needed is often (but not always) trivial.

- DL
 
I use PS very little, relying on getting the composition correct in the camera, and adjusting levels, contrast, etc. in my RAW converter. I use DPP 3.x.x and have been very happy with its functionality and results.

I use PS when I want to do masking or perspective correction or some manipulation that isn't possible in DPP.
 

Don Lashier

New member
The majority of my shots - I'd say 2/3 or more - are never touched by Photoshop. When they do go into PS I usually do some major work - layering, masking, ptLens, etc.

- DL
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel,

For the best photography, leave your camera at home! Take with you a piece of cardboard with a 1.5"x1"rectangle cut out. It's very light, has all the pixels your eye can hold and is far better corrected than anything PS can do.

This is the way to learn photography. Just find a subject. Move around it, looking through your cut out. Hold the cut out at different distances from your eye to zoom in and out.

Get close to the ground, enough for people to notice! Get up on some steps and do this again. This is what photography starts with. Now which of all these visions did you like the most? Come back as the sun is setting so that the light sculpts you favorite scene in ever changing levels of brightness and gold.

Now sketch what you have seen. The next day, get your camera and take the shot you have dreamed about. That now is the first step in photography.

Sports photography, the same thing. The brain needs to be trained before you start to work to pull your vision from a computer file. The brain needs a vision in order to have something to embed in a final print. There are many ways of getting from the RAW file to the print, but without a vision, you are at a disadvantage because you have only vagueness to express.

To further help, get a book with a number of great photographers and find pictures you like. This will be your compass and map!

The rest is 95% technique and learnable. The last 5% is the most creative finishes to your vision, however technic and finish to photography without vision are not really what the best of us is about!

Asher
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I don't use the cutout, but I've found I'm constantly looking at the world around me in terms of...interesting? compelling? meaningful?

I'm not sure what sketching entails. If it's more than a stick outline, I'm out. But certainly, the attempt would require carefully thinking through the image one wants. That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Rachel,

Trust me here! The framing of a picture is where the hunter's skill combines with the creative part of the brain. When the two meet you are ready! It's a huge jump from liking something to being able to make a picture.

Adams spent hours even weeks or months on one idea. There was a tremendous effort on the concept and how the landscape could be used to be the foundation of his inner vision. This part of Ansel Adam's brilliant work people get's little attention compared to following his famous "zone system"* which has formed the basis for all photography since.

I strongly advocate looking at Intent in photography. I have postulated, for my own work, that there's an "Arc of Intent" and ultimately an "Arc of Communication" when we make art.

The idea must be formed in the brain. One decides to make the photograph and then does the work. Finally when one is satisfied, enough work is done. Now, one has one's vision embedded and it satisfies! Your work reinvokes a family of feelings, ideas and implications that first started the project. Interestingly, the final image will always be different as we change as we see the work in progress. Our vision feeds on the work in an iterative process. Also we change with our life events so the artist and art always evolve and change each other in the process. However, Rachel, if one doesn't start with a vision, one can get lost, wandering with a lantern, picking up whatever catches ones fancy in that particular moment of image processing.

So, I'm an advocate for thought invested before action. That is why previsualization and pondering the matter is so important. The person who says take 200 pictures a day or a week is entirely mistaken. Take 4 careful pictures a day and no one will match your progress. But first one needs to slow down, then use one lens and learn that better than your mother knew you.

I'm arguing for simplicity before complexity. Change only one variable at a time.

The progression is choice of subject, approach and perspective, one lens one knows and a simple camera setting. After that, one can work on extracting the image that was in your head from the RAW file.

Asher

*The Zone system is an approach where the brightness or darkness of a scene is partitioned by decree into 10 zones degrees of illumination, from utter darkness to the brightest white. But what's the point?

Adam's created for his photgraphy is a useful tool to access the full the dynamic range capability of the photosensitive film or paper.

Too much or too little light or the wrong choice of film sensitivity means one has wasted opportunity for making a fully expressive image.

So the scene must match a film and the shutter and aperture setting must allow the dark and the bright areas to be shown. Here's a brief description of the full set of zones, Norman Karen's Simplified Zone System and and article he wrote in Luminous Landscape. Lightzone™ is based on the zone system and even Aperture™ and Lightroom™ and RAW processing depend on the fundamentals that Adams established.
 
Last edited:

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Photoshop

It is my policy to only use Photoshop in the most dire of circumstances.

I do not use it at all except on perhaps 2-3 frames out of 1000.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I do trust you. I'm gathering as much information as I can. I'm processing! It will happen! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (That was a maniacal laugh....)
 

Ivan Garcia

New member
Mmmmm. Well I am going to break it … I use Photoshop in my shots.
Now, having said that, there are some times, when everything falls nicely in to place, in which PS work is not required, but lest face it, I live in England, and those days are few and unfortunately very far apart.
Then there is travelling.
I have recently been in Thailand; most of the shoots I took needed PS work, why?
1- I had very limited time to get the shots I was aiming for.
2- Weather, locations, and time restrictions don´t always play in your favour.

For instance, the shot of the long tail boat.
I saw hundreds of those boats while my stay there.
However, none of the locations the boats were at met the criteria for my vision. That one was in the right location, but the light was far from perfect, (mid sun high in the sky). I took the shoot knowing that PS work would be required.

I did this with chemicals and the enlarger in my film days, and I´ll be dammed if I am not going to carry on doing it in the digital age.
The camera is my tool to record the image. Photoshop/chemical/enlarger processes, are the tools I use to create my vision.
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Photofinishing!

Remember in the film days you took your best shot and prayed that the image would be what you saw in the viewfinder. The image wasn't final until you sent the film to be processed.

Digital is the same. If you did well, had the right ASA, Shutterspeed and exposure, you had to have a good lab finish your work. The lab was about 1/2 of the process. If the chemicals were old, the color would be off. The finisher could dodge and burn or push or pull your film.

We have different tools to do the same thing. You have to get a good image first - PS can't fix everything - RAW or otherwise.

I've been shooting digitally since 2002 and RAW for only 1 year. And I just finished my first Photoshop Class, (should have taken it a long time ago) But, I have been using DPP to finish my RAW. Last year I heard Matt Koslowski call if Photofinishing. And yes, that is what it is - my image is not finished until then. But most of the edits are because you missed getting it right out of the camera.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Asher, thank you! The concept of "art" is one I'm working on discovering. What makes it art? Why are some photos great and others boring?

I have gleaned a lot to study on my few days here. I'm gathering up all the sources and info and launching into study. I've got a lot to absorb and I'm deeply grateful.
 

Bev Sampson

New member
Remember in the film days you took your best shot and prayed that the image would be what you saw in the viewfinder. The image wasn't final until you sent the film to be processed.

Digital is the same. If you did well, had the right ASA, Shutterspeed and exposure, you had to have a good lab finish your work. The lab was about 1/2 of the process. If the chemicals were old, the color would be off. The finisher could dodge and burn or push or pull your film.

I remember the reality of this when I had shot a film series by bracketing 1/2 stop under, over and actual. I was horrified when I received the prints back from a very reliable source and all three looked exactly the same. Until then, I never realized that the prints returned from the processing source were not then and probably never were what my camera actually recorded. Got to the point when I had to request that they print exactly as shot.

And my comments about PS. My opinion is that this software serves different purposes for different photographers. Some photographers are purists and want reflected only what their eye actually saw. Then PS can slightly improve exposure, can slightly improve contrast, and can sharpen (usually needed with digital). Others may want to add an artistic touch by changing the photo image to reflect their personal artistic touch, ie for a flying spoonbill, change the background color to B&W while leaving the very colorful spoonfill natural. Different strokes for different folks.

Bev

Just my opinion.
 

Andrew Rodney

New member
On several threads the question of photoshop and it's place in the work is raised. I've been thinking about it pretty carefully. I have a conclusion!

Do everything you can to get the best shot possible. After that, photoshop the hell out of it if it is needed.

Well, I'd substitute Lightroom, C1, Bibble, CR, Aperture for Photoshop! Raw rendering isn't color correction. I'd do as much global tone and color work, noise reduction and capture sharpening at the Raw rendering stage, then hand off localized editing and pixel tweaking in Photoshop.

Raw metadata parametric editing is far faster, provides far more options and controls and is truly non destructive plus, it makes updating similar images as easy as copy and paste.
 
Top