Is Photoshop making you a lazy photographer?

[fotografz]

More intellectual masterbation about digital again? " Junk in, junk out" is

as old as the first computer, and still true holds true today. Some folks

seem to think that anyone can just pick up the mouse and be PhotoShop

masters, as if the thing is capable of making the creative decisions for the

aesthetically challenged .

 

PhotoShop HAS made me lazy in the most excellent way. Spot knock

dust once and it's done forever. Store a RAW scan or digital file and

work on a copy that is an exact duplicate in PhotoShop layers. Hate

something?.. just delete that correction layer. Ansel Adams would've

wished he had the ability to dodge and burn on such an elaborately

selective scale. It even allows work to be done on a "Molecular" level if

you so choose. IMO, this program is one of the wonders of the modern

age, yet owes most of its' practical functions to the traditional darkroom

and the printing industry. So, in that sense, it is a traditional tool.

[Sanford]

When I say lazy I mean looking in the viewfinder and seeing that

odd phone wire or leaf in the frame and not making the effort to reorient yourself to eleminate the unwanted element because it's an easy fix later.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

That is why there are thousands of slides sitting in drawers that no one has seen. It used to be that prints from slides were horrible. I am not sure that using photoshop makes one a lazy photographer. It just makes it easier to display a mediocre image. If you start with a bad image you finish with a bad image. Will photoshop help if you have no detail in shadow. Not likely. If you have washed out higlights. Not likely. Photoshop will not help with images out of focus or with not enough depth of field.

Is slide film sacred? There is more than one slide that has been either remounted or masked with slide masking tape to hide parts of the image that detract from the subject.

Removing wires from images is a lot of work. It takes far longer to do this than it does to move the camera location.

There is a definate advantage using photoshop to selectively adjust levels and colour balance. Most of the time this is done to deal with the shortcoming of the photographic medium and not on the part of laziness on the part of the photographer.

 

At one time in-camera metering, autoexposure, and autofocus were also decried as devices that created lazy photographers as well.

The same could be said for any new technology in any field.

[jose f.]

"Is Photoshop making you a lazy photographer" is right up there with "using (blank) makes me slow down and think more about my pictures" as another reassignment of personal responsibility.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This is a weird question.<BR><BR>I spent part of today retouching and restoring a 2 inch square contact print from Italy from WW2; shipped home to the family of the man who died there during the war. The mans son; now old wants me to restore the last photo taken of this dad; a dad he never saw. The print is all spotted; discolor; and a mess. <br><br>Photoshop is just a darn tool; in good hands a powerfull one. My customer really dosesnt care what, how, or whatever hocus pokus tool is used to restore the photo that was returned with his dads effects. <br><Br>Photoshop can correct many ills; but it does take some labor to do. Getting a well exposed close print or negative will save alot of Photoshop work. What matters is results; not the mumbo jumbo methods; to the customer.

[bobflores]

PHOTO-what? I have only enough software on my computer to see the image once I've scanned in ( using a machine that amounts to a fax machine with a brain ). In my case... what you see is what you get.

[m3]

Please re-read my first post above. I did NOT say the computer was not a useful tool to achieve the best image possible. I did NOT say that we should adandon the use of the computer in making our final image. What I DID say was based on how we use the program ie "copy/paste functions" lets not call it "PHOTOGRAPHY". We don't call "copy/paste functions" when working in Excel, "doing photography", so why would you call it that when working on a photo editing program. I know individuals who make a living editing photographs on the computer for customers, yet don't even own a camera themselves. Are they considered photographers or are they computer imaging people. Photography used to mean photographing the image, mixing/handling the chemicals, bringing the paper and chemicals together spending time in the darkroom trying different combinations of chemicals, different paper grades, hand dodging and burning using hand made masks together with a lot of time and patience. You worked of a single print from start to finish with no interuptions (hopefully) or you started over again. You did not correct color balance, then go to dinner, come back and work on cropping, go to bed, get up, work on removing dust spots, have breakfast, go back and work on cloning, etc....Yes, computer imaging IS a powerful and amazing tool, however it is not photography any more than Excel, Word or surfing the internet is considered photography. I use it myself, however I do not consider it "doing photography". Hey, but what do I know. I'm just an idiot taking my camera out today in 5 degree snowy weather to get that image that few others will get because for them "it's too cold outside". Bunch of wimps..... :-)

[andy_piper2]

Ron: that last argument is a little like saying that just because a Teamster no longer feeds and beds down the horses after a day's work, he can't be considered a transport driver.

 

There are lots of people who make their living printing other people's pictures via traditional silver means - no, I wouldn't consider them 'photographers' based on that work alone. Any more than an orchestra violinist is a composer (to use Ansel's analogy). Although they may well be photographers or composers in their own right outside their 'day' job.

 

There are lots of artisans who take pictures, print them and hand-color them (for example). Before there was digital imaging available they did it with silver prints - now some may do it with PS. Some of they are truly artists in the quality and intensity of the images they make this way - others are hacks. But they are all photographers if they created the original image on film and take full responsibility for the final outcome (and wish to claim the title).

 

Conversely, I don't know that Cartier-Bresson ever made his own prints (at least once he was established and could have someone else do it).

 

In fact, I read an interview (Camera35) with his printer back in the 70s - who not only did ALL HCB's prints then, but commented on the - lack - of technical quality in some of HCB's most famous pictures (one was so overexposed that the printer turned on the enlarger and then went out for lunch during the 30-MINUTE exposure).

 

But he did see/capture the visual essence of moments/objects that we call photographs. And he was obviously still a photographer even after he quit making his own prints.

 

As to "the 35mm slide was the final output" - hmmm. How many National Geographic "slides" have you ever actually seen face to face? Or Gene Smith or Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams or Edward Weston prints? Compared to the number of their pictures you've seen 'reproduced' in books or magazines. One percent - maybe? - if you're a dedicated gallery/museum goer.

 

The "final output" is what other people see and relate to and interact with - anything else is just visual masturbation.

 

As to Photoshop and 'laziness': I'm out photographing more and producing more (and better) final pictures since my 'darkroom' went digital - especially color slides - since I can now make them more readily available to others more easily. It has energized my photography, if anything.

 

There is nothing wrong with doing as much as possible to get the picture 'right' in the camera, and then reproducing that 'rightness' as purely as possible in the final 'performance' - whether it be photo print, ink print, traditional slide show, digital slide show. But ONLY THAT final performance counts, ultimately.

[Allen Herbert]

But ONLY THAT final performance counts, ultimately.

 

Yes,i agree. However, the journey to that ultimate image can be equally rewarding. Lazy, well why make things hard.

[continuity]

Some days I think reading photo.net forums instead of shooting is making me a lazy photographer...

[travis1]

Almost OT:

 

in PS , you can use gaussian blur to enhance the OOF areas.

How do you do that in the wetdarkroom during printing?