ON Demand. Signup Login. Inspirational Photo Nov Inspirational Photo Nov 9. Inspirational Photo Nov 8. Inspirational Photo Nov 7. Forum Home Recent Topics Search. Start Prev 1 Next End. Just kidding but wanted to get your attention. Photoshop has been the industry standard for years. My only complaint is that Photoshop is addictive! I can spend hours working on an image. I get totally adsorbed. Time is nothing. I learned Photoshop while working in the Commercial Printing Industry.
An image was imported over to the chromacom side from a High End Drum Scanner. Next I could run the script on the Combiscope and completely rebuild the job on it. Processing time Paging was a bear and took forever before the image was ready for output. Maybelline was our first major account. Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter, was my first full blown retouching job for them. Her complexion was really bad. I remember sitting with the Maybelline art director for three days to get the look just right.
So much better now. Images were initially cleaned up for print purposes. Photoshop lacked layers and used alpha channels at the time. If you messed up, you had to start over Later as Photoshop evolved, we found it could do so much more for client images.
When Digital Photography started to come along just a few years back, we had to do more correction for the early users. Resolution was an issue and 4MP images were tough to work with. Imagine that! Digital Photography remains a growth Technology and is here to stay. There a 24MP cameras on the market if you have deep pockets.
This is a fine argument for why there's no retouching in Photojournalism, but that isn't what we're talking about here. The whole original post centered around Commercial Photography, and lets face it, there's hardly any truth in commercials and advertising. Commercial Photography is all about perfection, no one wants to buy anything that isn't perfect.
I can't count how many times I've been given a product to shoot that wasn't yet ready for the market and therefore not "perfect" for the image. In these cases I've always been instructed by those in charge to fix labels, colors, and many other things to better reflect the product that would eventually hit the market. This is just the way it works now There truly are some things you just can't get in camera, and retouching, whether in the darkroom or in Photoshop, is what helps us get the results that clients are after.
In the end this post and others like it will not settle any debates on this issue, but it was nice to air it out for once. Check out the Fstoppers Store for in-depth tutorials from some of the best instructors in the business. Retouching has existed since photography was created. Retouching has lived since painting was the only way to make a portrait. Even movies were printed an exposure down or up to create the look the cinematographer wanted in the finished product.
In any craft, retouching, in it's many forms, have existed. It is part of the craft. Some abuse it but since when has that changed? I'm glad to see the bad aspects of such techniques so that I can avoid them and learn. I think you've hit the nail on the head there, with the word "abuse". Retouching should be subtle and invisible. You see way too many shiny, plastic people or products in photographs.
Why should retouching be anything? Why the need to control what other people do with their software? I have no wish to control. People can do whatever they want. I personally find the "look" in question perfect plastic people utterly repulsive, and cannot understand the appeal.
I also think that the ubiquitous heavy manipulation of models and portrait photos particularly in advertising has very negative effects on people's self-perception, and skews their view of what is "normal" in a dangerous way I work for a community magazine that often features teenagers who have won awards.
I don't go crazy, but I do touch up their acne, because I really don't think they or anyone else is that devoted to the truth of a massive zit that Wednesday. The truth is they won an award and they should feel good about that instead of feeling bad about their skin in the photo.
I use Photoshop to some extent all the time, so I'm not saying don't use it, but for many of the images that are produced today, I wonder why people base them on photography at all. There is so much manipulation of the original photograph that photography seems like the wrong tool for the job entirely. Why not take up painting or 3D rendering and produce the entire image that way if you're going to replace backgrounds, change faces, make a cartoon, etc.?
It seems that some people crave the "legitimacy" of a photograph, but then change it so much that it is no longer a photograph, but an artwork. Sometimes it is an artwork. I enjoy photo manipulations as art. Also, sometimes you take the photo the client asked for and later they want something else. Rather than retake, you change in photoshop. Because you can.
I use photoshop alot. For retouching photographs and other intensive manipulations. Most of the time it's way faster and easier to use photographs and photoshop. Those two take alot more time then taking a picture and manipulating it. Do they really? If you read Dave Hill's accounts of how he creates his images, I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be much, much easier to simply hire a great artist and paint the final image, bypassing location shoots, flaky actors, water damage, insurance, accidental drownings, wind blowing over equipment, plus weeks in Photoshop adapting photos that weren't quite right into the final composite Ansel Adams famously said "The photograph is the score and the print is the performance", or something to that effect.
If people were just paying for a picture they would hire anyone to take it, if they want your vision and it includes photshop They all are just tools to get the job done. Again this get it right in camera is a statement used by some to in their minds state they are more skilled and trained. Go watch an Amy Dresser tutorial and you will see even the best commercial shooters still retouch their images.
Its not about the process, it is about the final product. Trust me, few art buyers or agents care if you get it right or as close to right in camera. My agent doesnt. They just want a polished final product. Leave all that get it right in camera talk to your photo buddies who care, because the real world does not. So true. I mean, yes, get it as good as you can in camera so you spend less time re-touching, but you're not going to wow a client by saying, "I only spent 5 minutes post process and a lot of people spend 20".
I tried to get all artsy on my agent and he flat out told me no one cares, they just want their images and on time. If you can get it through post in time, they dont care. He doesnt care about my equipment either. So many snobby photogs are noticing their work is starting to look less unique and easier to reproduce so they have adopted this in camera religion.
Instagram proved that no one cares about the process but simply the results. We as image makers need to focus on the end results and stop trying to make ourselves feel more superior to others. In camera is great but its not the end all be all. If you dont believe me, go talk to Dave Hill and Jill Greenberg. It's silly to decry the use of Photoshop on the basis of "purity".
Zacker The One and Only 14 years ago. Do you know how many folks i hear say James Kaarremaa 14 years ago. Yes in some ways film is better and there are a few who still use it producing amazing photos. What's happening though is a lot of the good pro photographers have left film and what's left are more "artsy" types that can't afford or don't want to afford digital.
When browsing the film only groups it's often really hard to see what film can really do. The hate comes from non-professionals. Those of us that work in the creative services know the real-time advantageous that design programs afford us. To echo T-Gator above, I guess these people do not dodge and burn or crop their photos. Oh wait, the viewfinder, by default crops an image.
Anyone with a little bit of art history knowledge will realize that such seminal photographers like Ansel Adams who frequently use the methods of dodge and burn to composing prints made from different negatives in order to create entirely false, but romantic and heroic images of the west for railroad advertising, down to Matthew Brady who posed the civil war dead for his pictures realize that it's a false dilemna the "haters" engage in.
Why do people dislike Photoshop It's simple, really. People who can't, or won't, spend the dough to buy Photoshop, use something else. Then they attempt to justify their choice by demonizing the enemy. Those who still want to use PS, but can't get a pirated copy, dislike it even more. Ansel Adams was a darkroom genius.
If he were alive today he'd be a Photoshop genius. No doubt about it. No doubt, indeed. Adams predicted the advent of digital photography and undoubtedly would have embraced the new technology. More times nowadays I find myself looking at a scene and thinking that if I do this and that plus use CS3, I can get X in the end. In other words, I intentionally shoot the scene with the idea of using Photoshop as part of the creative process. It is not "just digital finishing", CS is an integral part of my creative process of making a picture.
I do my primary composition in the view finder to be sure but my camera does not know diddle about layering two or three images together. So since not only do I use photoshop, but I embrace it, I will be down below holding the doors open for all those other unbelievers of photographic purity.
I'm certain that people have said the same things about any technological advance in any creative or artistic field. Andres Segovia absolutely despised the electric guitar. There's no one right way to do anything. What matters is what comes out in the end; a great image is a great image, whether it comes straight from a 4x5 sheet of film, a digital SLR, a cell phone camera, or 6 hours of Photoshop processing. Eddie Rodriguez Photo 14 years ago. People who don't like ps is because they don't know how to use it.
So they obviously don't know what they are talking about. In a few years we are going to have 3d lens for slr cameras and we will be able to control focus in diferent parts of the image as well as moving the angle of the camera a few inches within the program, there is going to be a lot of controversy. I have photoshop essentials 2. When I was a boy Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left.
The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.
I used to be a bit of a "purist" myself until I came to find that Adams would spend hours in the darkroom manipulating images to produce the exact look and feel he was after. Photoshop is the darkroom of the digital age, and if darkroom work is good enough for one of the Masters of the medium, it's certainly good enough for me. Here here :. Zacker The One and Only Posted 14 years ago.
Edited by RastaRicanStudio member 13 years ago. Oktomvri 13 years ago. I can understand why some people dislike digital image manipulation - with its help, every average joe who owns a good piece of equipment, can produce some amazing images. Honestly, you truly have to lack any talent to take 'bad' pictures with technology these days. Yes, film allowed for manipulation as well, but it was harder to visualize the end result, took much longer, and was more expensive.
Therefore photography was reserved for the few good ones. I personally do very little editing on my images, and thats mostly because I have very limited knowledge of PS. If I knew more, I wouldnt be shy to show it ;. RastaRicanStudio 13 years ago. Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.
Ansel Adams. Mike Dodson 13 years ago. It's very simple. Next time someone objects, ask them if they don't like books printed using automated printers instead of an original Guthenburg printing press. Octomvri Don't you think it's a good thing that any average Joe can create amazing images now, though?
I don't really hold with "celebrity" and "exclusive". A lot of the dissent comes from inveterate film people I'm a film shooter, but I still use photoshop. If I still had access to a darkroom, I wouldn't post a picture here without burning and dodging and toning and whatnot. I don't see a problem. Aardvark For Freedom 13 years ago. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with PS personally. I think of it more as my own personal lightroom. I have my answer too. I respect the mother, but I prefer to go out with the daughter!
There are the ludites who cannot change, and the nostagics who believe everything was better in 'their day', or modernists who seem to reject the past. Photography is still a developing art form. The only thing about photography you can be certain of is that pretty soon it won't look like this.
So, is photography with digital cameras and Photoshop so different than before? Not really. Photgraphs stir the emotions, just as they always have. Take the best photo you can; whether it's old fashioned or ultra modern, if it's right, it's right. You'll know. Rich 13 years ago. I'm pretty sure there was as much fuss when colour film became available to the masses.
Some people just take longer to adapt - I was slow on the uptake, but I was never anti-manipulation, I just couldn't do it! Old dinosours I love it. I need it. I love all those Ansel Adams quotes.
It's amazing to find out how perspicacious he was. He was certainly one of those "in camera" luddites who wouldn't even allow for dodging and burning in the darkroom. There are always going to be those purists out there.
Its a tool that allows you to make your work better, so why would you criticize someone for using it? Every single one of my finished images goes through Photoshop at one point or another. Every day in my life has the use of an Adobe program.
People who are against Photoshop need to take a better look at the industry. Photoshop is here to stay, and if you're looking to make a career or continue a career in photography, you need to embrace changes to that industry.
Sink or swim WHEN they do that, we can discuss it. But you can't hate on a product based on what might happen in the future.
They've shown no indication that they're going to do that. They are a publicly owned corporation, meaning that they have a duty to shareholders to pull in as much profit as possible.
So yes, the rates are going to keep rising as long as there is no real competition. This why Lightroom is not mandatory CC. There is plenty of good competition in that space. Photoshop, not so much. And complaining imaginary hypothetical situations totally helps the situation. Thank you internet for providing such rich conversation. It's nice to know everyone is smarter than everyone else. I have a right to voice my opinion.
It's when consumers voice their opinions that corporations realize that they are going down the wrong path. See Netflix, Xbox, etc. I recently bought CS6 because I didn't trust Adobe to stay at a reasonable price. Although I enjoy working in Photoshop, I'm no fan of corporations that have monopolies running in an industry. You can argue that there are alternatives to Photoshop, but try getting a job retouching knowing Gimp or Corel Photopaint.
Same goes for Illustrator and InDesign. So no, I'm no fan of Adobe. Who's fault is it that no other company has a better product? Adobe, or the other companies? People are complaining that Adobe is too expensive They did evil things and bought all their serious rivals or something, is the way I understand it Well, for instance, in the 90s a small Korean upstart names Ulead made a program called PhotoImpact, which at the time was a direct competitor to Photoshop.
Adobe filed a lawsuit claiming that there were some kind of CMYK technology that these guys had infringed upon. This essentially killed it for professional use in pre-press which was where Abobe was establishing it's stranglehold. Adobe also decided if it couldn't compete somewhere, it would simply "buy out" a company.
How exactly this happens isn't clear, but it probably follows the same path Microsoft and Intel followed, which was to internally divide and conquer DEC, which at the time threatened their dominance with their Alpha CPU and VMS operating system. Basically, they "buy out" key people in the company to sell out. Adobe bought out it's competitors as well, notably Aldus early on, and, more critically from the perspective of modern competition, Macromedia.
With Macromedia out of the way, there were no threatening players left in the game to get in the way. Its simply an elitist attitude about getting it right in camera all the time and, "Look at me Im so skilled. Consumers of younger age dont care as long as its an iconic face selling something, and isn't that the point?
Photoshop and lightroom do make bad photos better and at the end of the day the final image is what counts, not the process. If you are stuck on this in the camera attitude, go shoot fine art or street photography, the commercial industry doesnt have time for an elitist attitude, they simply want good clean solid work and fast. Not getting it as right as possible in the camera is untenable from a professional standpoint. You end up spending your time making an okay picture good rather than a good picture great.
As a professional, always strive for as good as possible at every stage of your work. It is better to get it right than to try to "fix it" later. You still need post production we all do , but you can use those work hours to push the quality way out there rather than to make up for lack of care at the camera stage.
The Kate Moss example is just right. If you take time to get your lighting right something that compliments her more aged skin , then you won't need to work as hard at the post production stage, and it will increase your chances for a much better picture.
Hell, go back to film if you're so into "in the camera! Photoshop is my life. I can't imagine using anything else to work on my photos. Batch processing is usually not my style, and photoshop gives me pretty much every tool I ever wanted to work on my photos. I wonder if people who say "It's Photoshopped! I want to think that people who hate PS or LR are photogs that have no skills in using post production software so the only thing left for them it's to believe and defend the idea of a "pure" image.
Although I don't believe that's wrong, I do condemn the fact of hating something created with art and imagination. We are all artist and hating any form of creativity it's just wrong.
For my type of photography I need and love to retouch and post process images but Ialso respect and appreciate all kinds of images proccesed or not. The old saying you cannot polish a turd is no longer true, PS helps varnish and role that turd in glitter, may not smell any better but sure looks better. Painters and sketch artists have always had an advantage over photographers. While we are stuck only being able to capture reality they can go off and bring their crazy and wonderful imaginations to life.
They can utterly express themselves, give their own take on the world. Photoshop is the tool that gives photographers that freedom of expression. Photoshop is where our imaginations can run rampant and the only limitations placed on us our the ones we set ourselves.
0コメント