Photoshop or photography

sunilmendiratta · February 22, 2011

Now after invent of digital photography most photos are heavily edited in photoshop and the effects created by photoshop(there are exception to that) are mostly not visible to amateur or normal(non professional) audience. Now there is no limit to the extent pictures are manipulated and presented. There should be some limit or not, that question is discussed to the death.

I am the user of photoshop(and not against it) and think that ground is not leveled for the film photographer. I wanted to try my hand on it(film) but i get scared of not having photoshop handy. Sometimes i think the pleasure of developing the film by myself will be so satisfying and worth it.

Sunil

john_h.1 · February 23, 2011

<h1>Photoshop or photography</h1>

</blockquote>

digital vs. film

craigblankphoto · February 23, 2011

The pleasure of developing film is a hoot. Do some research. You can probably find a place to rent or some classes to take. Or just send off transparencies to be developed.

tom_mann1 · February 23, 2011

Hi Sunil - You are obviously unaware that this topic is discussed frequently on photo.net. It has been discussed here for at least the past decade, with the frequency of discussion increasing to the point where now, there probably is always at least one active thread on the topic. People tend to hold very strong views on this, and many have an almost knee-jerk instinct to respond whenever the opportunity presents itself, e.g., a new thread such as this.

The above list is only a small sampling of all the photo.net threads relevant to this topic.

HTH,

Tom M

don_essedi · February 23, 2011

"I am the user of photoshop(and not against it) and think that ground is not leveled for the film photographer. I wanted to try my hand on it(film) but i get scared of not having photoshop handy. Sometimes i think the pleasure of developing the film by myself will be so satisfying and worth it."

You will have Photoshop handy if your film is scanned. Otherwise, one needs an enlarger and a darkroom. In either case, the film will have to be developed first. So, no problem.

sunilmendiratta · February 23, 2011

Well the subject "Photoshop or photography" was intentional, i know film can be scanned and then used as digital then why film why not digital(directly).Arguably we can say that medium format film are scanned because of the high cost of the medium format digital camera. I think full frame sensor can fill medium format film.

Either process should be digital or if film then till printing it should be developed in darkroom.

I do not want to advocate any one over the other i was just saying now manipulation is more than the art itself.

Regards,

Sunil

tony_leinster · February 23, 2011

I can manipulate horse manure all I want, still won't turn it into a diamond! lol.

Wouter Willemse · February 23, 2011

Sunil,

most photos are heavily edited in photoshop

</blockquote>

Can you back up this statement? Most photos I look at never saw photoshop and come straight from a camera.

vit_asmo · February 23, 2011

The advent of Photoshop made photo folks suddenly believe that you don't have to be a Van Gohg to create a masterpiece. All I want to say that in film days one could spend lots of time and expertise to achieve a certain look or effect in the picture and nowadays it's done for 5 minutes without needing to leave your home. The progress has devalued the talent!

riz · February 23, 2011

I think Photoshop is really devastating for photography. Now anyone can take an ordinary photograph and make it extraordinary by using that tool.

steve_levine · February 23, 2011

The greatest photographer of the 20th Century, Ansel Adams, quite often spent hundreds of hours to make a single print. Were his darkroom manipulations cheating? Should he have made straight prints only?

riz · February 23, 2011

Well he cheated too. But you can distinguish darkroom versus Photoshop manipulation. There is a way difference and lots of options in the later.

matt_needham · February 23, 2011

"Now anyone can take an ordinary photograph and make it extraordinary by using that tool."

Prove it. Where are all these extraordinary photos? It's possible that Photoshop has raised the bar on what we consider mediocre. These days there is little excuse besides laziness to not get color and contrast right. Some of the gimmicks seem novel at first, but they quickly become ordinary. HDR or over saturate or lens baby (or whatever the latest trick is) the boring photos that a million other photographers have already taken. Photoshop isn't saving them. They are still boring. Great photos are still few and far between.

hjoseph7 · February 23, 2011

Photoshop is great no doubt, but for certain applications such as portraits(especially if you are producing prints) it is better that you get it right in the first place.

steve_swinehart · February 23, 2011

But you can distinguish darkroom versus Photoshop manipulation.

</blockquote>

My goodness this gets tiresome. Get some perspective - photos have been heavily manipulated from the very beginning of photography. Photoshop is NOTHING NEW in photo manipulation. <a href="http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~118763~82037:Dawn-and-Sunset?sort=INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID&qvq=q:AMICOID%3DSFMO.ST1998.0397%2B;sort:INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID;lc:AMICO~1~1&mi=0&trs=1">Henry Peach Robinson</a> - a manufactured image. <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Oscar-gustave-rejlander_two_ways_of_life.jpg">Oscar Rejlander</a> - a manufactured image. <a href="http://www.admiraphotography.it/popup/duane-dusseldorfer-big.html">Duane Michals</a> - a manufactured image. <a href="http://mocp.org/collections/permanent/uploads/Uelsmann1982_224.jpg">Jerry Uelsmann</a> - a manufactured image. <a href="http://edelmangallery.com/witkin63.htm">Joel Witkin</a> - a manufactured image.

Now, why don't you tell me exactly and very concisely, with no hyperbole, or editorial comments, just technically - HOW can YOU tell PS from darkroom manipulation? Since the examples given range from the 19th century through the 21st century - and ALL were done using darkroom techniques - what exactly is wrong with using a computer and software to achieve the same type of image manipulation?

You personally don't like photo manipulation? You personally don't like computers? You personally don't like computers used for photo manipulation?

<a href="http://pdngallery.com/20years/art/20mostinfluential/uelsmann.jpg">John Paul Caponigro</a> - a manufactured image. Done in a computer with software.

patricklavoie · February 23, 2011

nothing stop you to use film and scan it.. photoshop have nothing to do at that stage, even with digital. during capture film / digital you have the same tool.. the exception is that with digital you can see the result right away and fine tune your camera.. with film you need to pay more attention, use a lightmeter (well you could also use one with digital of course), filter, film for the use of what you are trying to do, ISO etc...

many digital shooter couldtn use a film camera because you have to know and learn a lot more stuff before pressing the button.. and it cost money to make test, trial and error and a expensive option.

When you mastered the capture process, you can scan or use the digital file, and do a *normal* darkroom to your file, and bring it to a spectacular image.. like i use to do via the tradionnal darkroom and chemical choice, temperature, ratio, paper choice etc...just took more time : )

hjoseph7 · February 23, 2011

"what exactly is wrong with using a computer and software to achieve the same type of image manipulation?"

I had a teacher who could tell if an image was photoshoped in less than 10 seconds. Experts in the photo journalist fileds where image manipulation is a no-no, can do it even faster. I really cannot tell the difference myself, but I'm sure an expert, or someone who was trained in immage manipulation detection could easily tell the difference between PS & darkroom manipulation.

I have no problems with photoshop as a matter of fact Digtal photography was something I was tremendously excited about when I was still into film. I am not a "Ludite" by any means, but having been raised and trained in film, it's not easy burrying all that stuff away. I think allot of people who consider themselves traditionalist feel the same way. They just learn to live with both mediums.

The problem I have is with the younger generation and the techno-geeks, who think they know everything and feel that tradional photography is/was inferior and should be burried as if it never existed.

Getting back to my teacher who could easily detect image manipulation, he was forced to give one of the students a "D" after he detected that many of their so-called exotic pictures of animals from Costa Rica they handed in for the final project were digitally manipulated. This is the thing about digital...

vcakic · February 23, 2011

My photos are lightroomed.

patricklavoie · February 23, 2011

I had a teacher who could tell if an image was photoshoped in less than 10 seconds...

must have been a really bad photoshop, or the student have put yellow dot on the parrot or use a extra sharpen that create halo all over the place... Its is not possible to tell, well of course whe all know that darkoom is darkroom, tradional or not, and since most of the new generation dont know how to use a tradional darkroom it is safe to assume that every images for the past decade or so have been *manipulated*.

But for me me you cant say "im against Photoshop" it is a too big affirmation that dont mean anything really... you can say that you are against adding or removing element from a image, you can be against putting licorn and laser across a sky.. that is for me image creation more than image manipulation.

If someone is against Photoshop he have to be against traditional darkroom?.. witch is fro me a non sense. Because you also have to be against flash, filter, tripod and all other *gadget* that have been use for years to help you get where whe are in the photography era.

So i can say that i dont like or that i dont particulary like image creation like what most NAP member are doing year after year, but i can recognize that many have serious talent in image creation. It is not my cup of tea ; )

but i dont think no one can really be *against* Photoshop for is darkroom part anyway...

aplumpton · February 23, 2011

You may wish to use film for black and white photography, where post exposure changes can be made under the enlarger. These can also be done in Photoshop or other programs, but getting a fine black and white print is for some of us easier and more pleasurable to do by the traditional method than by digital printing. I have found the learning curve a bit steep in regard to B&W digital printing (maybe I will achieve what I want some day, I haven't given up) and therefore find the negative to print better suited for me at present. And it is true that MF film photography yields high quality negatives or positives that not all small sensor digital cameras can yet provide, and as far as black and white goes the best traditional printing papers seem to have an edge over the digital equivalents.

Of course, this is not clearly one or the other in terms of potential, and some are perfectly happy with digital B&W prints. Photoshop is a very valuable tool if you go the scanning and digital printing route. It comes down to what you enjoy doing. Those doing darkroom work are often attracted to it by its particular type of craft experience as well as the print results.

starvy · February 23, 2011

There used to be much manipulation by those who processed at home or still do. This would be equivalent to photoshop to an extent. However, photoshop allows for more amateurs to manipulate the final result.

I personally think that some people use it rather a lot and it suits their style of photography. Others are occasional users.

SCL · February 23, 2011

Sunil - you're wasting psychic energy on this topic which has been debated to death. Just get on with doing what you want to do, how you want to do it, and when you have mastered one technique move to another and see how it fits you. It is sort of like comparing home cooked meals to restaurant meals....some of each are outstanding, most are ok, and some are really rotten. One isn't necessarily better than the other, one won't necessarily put the other out of business. one will gain in popularity over the other then the pendulum will swing the other way. Just get on with your personal artistic vision in your own way and don't worry about others.

KenPapai · February 23, 2011

"Now after invent of digital photography most photos are heavily edited in photoshop and the effects created by photoshop..."

1. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's even close to the truth. Maybe you (Sunil) never learned how to compose and expose properly... ehh?

2. Do you print your work often or just post pleasing, sharp images to Facebook at 720 px?

steve m smith · February 23, 2011

Prove it. Where are all these extraordinary photos?

</blockquote>

They are drowning under the millions of mediocre images people are posting everywhere.

Spearhead · February 23, 2011

Now anyone can take an ordinary photograph and make it extraordinary by using that tool.

</blockquote>

Since "anyone" can do it, can you please give an example of something you can do.

Sign In

Photoshop or photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in