Photoshopping is crowding out technical skill...an opinion

[tyler_schmalz]

<p>I don't have an answer except there is no accounting for tastes.</p>

<p>I'd argue that 80% of people don't know details about fine wine. Similarly, 80% of people (not the same 80% but the groups can overlap) don't know details about good music.<br>

Following: 80% of people don't know good photography.<br>

Tacky wedding photos are as in-demand as tacky sunglasses, UGG boots, and bad doormats.<br>

80% of people like those types of things. 80% of brides like overprocessed wedding images.</p>

<p>Note: numbers not necessarily important to the point and are estimates only for the sake of illustration.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>You can work for yourself or you can work for others. It's one of those golden rule things. "He who has the gold, makes the rules." One doesn't have to let photoshop or taste (or whatever) rule ones art - just don't expect others to pay for something they don't want/like. Nothing new there. </p>

[greg jansen]

<p>I've noticed typical wedding imagry has gone more and more to a heavy Photoshop'ed look, while general advertising imagry has not followed that trend.<br>

I think the wedding stuff has gone too far, and is at the risk of having a dated look to it.<br>

Think soft-focus filter stuff of the 70's.<br>

Ten years from now when you looking at the over Photoshop'ed images of today, most people will cringe.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Dang right that is what I said when I saw some of Picasso's work:-)</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"Photoshop is killing photography" - you have choice to use a grown up digital photo processing software like PS and venture to become "digital photographer", or you have choice to ignore all digital processing and remain "digital snapshooter". See what sells better to your customers.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Frank - Fortunately or unfortunately, I would say that there is a well funded market for both.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>I'm always amused by the discussions about Photoshop. Before trying to "love it or hate it" it is important to understand exactly what Photoshop is. (according to my opinion only of course). In the days of all film, it was not uncommon for people to leave their film at a photolab. (for the benefit of the very young).<br>

How many photographers do you suppose spent any time in the photolab with their lab tech/printer examining their negatives to see exactly what they had shot? Think back you film guys....did you really do that?<br>

I won't say this for black and white but for color, the quality of the color, exposure, and other factors was basically dialed into a very large machine. Depending on which lab you used the machine was setup for particular types of film. If you were lucky enough, or had done some homework, your film was the perfect match for one of these machines. You got the true color of the emulsion you had chosen, given of course you were marginally close with your choice of exposure factors. With color negatives, there was a lot of play room and forgiveness on the latitude of exposure range in order to get an acceptible result.<br>

The digital world changed some of those dynamics. The "film" is no longer a sheet coated with chemistry that has a huge exposure latitude. The little compact flash cards do not care about range. The sensor in your camera is now solely responsible for that. A big difference from that of film. Example - with film 1 sorta equals or is close to 1. with digital 1=1 period. That means if you shoot within a certain exposure range you are limited to what the sensor of your camera dictates. You may not always be exactly 100% spot on.<br>

In that case, your capture needs to be manipulated (a fancy word for adjusted or in some cases fixed). You are now doing the job of the photo lab. You have to process your images for all of the corrections that the photo labs automated machinery used to do for you. Whether or not your images are fairly well matched in exposure, consider that you are not a robot and your photographic situations are constantly changing in all manner of lighting and other factors - especially true at weddings. You cannot possibly produce every single image with the same exact - digitally perfect - exposure factors for each and every frame. Great photographers may come close to getting several in a row of perfectly exposed images but they do not always control environmental factors.<br>

Photoshop is for creating consistently even quality images, some enhancements, selective artistic creating (you can't say no one ever did it in the darkroom) and finally, adding hundreds if not thousands of lab tools that simple do not exist in the conventional darkroom or if they did it would be totally unaffordable to engage these tools for each and every assignment. <br>

Getting it right in the camera? Every single time? Has no great photographic artist ever needed burning and dodging? Toning? Enhanced tonal range? Exposure compensation? Artistic filtering?<br>

The view of some is that Photoshop is a crutch. I stipulate that these are people who are seriously afraid of having to learn new ways of creating images. Digital as well as film requires some post processing. If you take the negatives out of a camera you must still process correctly for good results. There is no difference between that and digital capture. I think the really great photographers out there are not necessarily the ones who can capture great exposures every time. They are the ones who capture the best moments to present after they are properly processed.<br>

I hope this rather long commentary did not offend anyone who thinks Photoshop is destroying photography. It is in fact making digital photography possible on a professional level. Otherwise, just like the one hour photo lab in film, you'd have some cool snapshots. Finishing an image <strong>is </strong> a major part of the art form.<br>

Now, in terms of overdone processing. That's simple a curve that must be learned. :)<br>

Lou</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>Because the camera captured what the eye saw and not what the brain experienced there will always be a need and a desire for manipulation. Always.</p>

[markonestudios]

I see photoshop as a digital darkroom and while I (nowadays) don't fully understand why someone would want to have a selective colour type of image (you know, B&W except for the flowers) as the centerpiece on their mantle, in this business (key word being business), the customer dictates terms, so if that's what they want, that's what I give them.

<p>On the other hand, I recognize, as do most here, the need for a photographer to satisfy his/her own craving for an image that he/she likes, so I make sure that as I'm shooting, I satisfy that craving as well as accommodate any special requests the couple may have for me. The client might not always get to see those images that I took for me but I am satisfied that I have nurtured and fulfilled my own photographic yearning and made the client happy at the same time.

<p>Much the same way as the wet darkroom affords a film shooter with opportunity to cross-process, dodge/burn, soft focus, etc., Photoshop allows the digital shooter similar capability. At the end of the day, client satisfaction - whether ill-informed or maladvised through print media and other sources - drives and fuels wedding photography trends. And we as photographers will need to adapt or die ;-)

[steve_hovland]

<p>I recently screwed up some exposures at an event. <br>

Photoshop did not save those images. <br>

If people think they can save it in post, let's hope they keep thinking that. <br>

Let's keep on getting good captures, and our customers will see the difference.</p>

[markonestudios]

Jumping on the back of Steve's comment, I would wholly agree, it is important to get the exposure right in-camera, in order to have decent working material before going into the darkroom, digital or otherwise...