Photoshop ... or not?

in #photomag6 years ago (edited)

Those two are inextricably linked! Or is not it?

I am in many photography groups on the facebook, and always there is the recurring discussion ... photoshop or not? You have to deal with two camps. One camp is absolutely PRO and the other camp is absolutely CON using photoshop.

And surely there are also a lot of people who do not talk about it. But there seems to be no way in between, either you love it, or you hate it it seems. It has even become a reason for me to leave facebook for the most part for what it is ... and just look around now and then. Sometimes when I need inspiration to photograph, or to blog, I MAY find something on facebook. But beyond? No, the hatred and envy among many people, and especially photographers and 'wanna-be-photographers', I want to let that go by.

Then back to where my post is about. Photoshop, or not?

Let me be very clear. I use photoshop! Certainly! The pictures as I want them do not come straight out of my camera. I also consciously shoot in RAW, (digitally negative), because I want to control as much as possible what my final photo will look like. And no, I'm not perfect ... but at least I try to be as perfect as I can be right now.

Because ... dear people, anyone who claims NOT to edit his photos, the camera has already done this for themselves. The people who do not shoot in RAW, photograph in Jpeg, more formats do not know most cameras ... (okay, sometimes TIFF, and the Pentax can also do it in DNG, but that is almost the same as RAW, only then a standardized RAW format) . And to get a Jpeg out of the camera, the camera itself has already adjusted the image ... which often means that a noise filter has already been used in the camera, the colors are slightly saturated, the sharpness is screwed up and the total picture is compressed to confiscate far fewer kb's on your memory card. But I want to keep all those things in my own hands. I want to take a photo with as much detail as possible from my camera, and then I do the adjustments myself as I want them ... then I save the photo in Jpeg.

For me this has the great advantage that I can decide for myself what I want to do for adjustments, that I can decide for myself what my end result will look like, and I can do all these adjustments locally where necessary for my feeling.

But this is not even really using photoshop, this is purely optimizing my photo. When I think of photoshop, then I think of making compositions that you have not even photographed at once. That's what I call photoshopping.

Nowadays when you say "Edit" on Facebook, a lot of people immediately react negatively. And why? It is ultimately about the total picture. When I say making a composite in photoshop people react like "oh, but that is not photography that is photoshop!". But they don't seem to understand, when I want to make that composite, I first have to make sure that the photo's with which I start my project are damned good! Because, I can not make a bad photo good with photoshop. And to make a great composite I need not one, but two, or maybe three or even four damn good photo's. What now, not photography? Of course it still is all about good photography. Photoshop is just the tool I need to create an image that never can be shot in one time.

And that can be because it is too dangerous to shoot it in once, or maybe because the background where I want to put my dogs in doesn't even exist, or maybe because my dogs totally can not do want I want them to do on a photo, or maybe because I think it's fun, but I don't want to let my dogs do what I want it to look like what they are doing. So many reasons why you could think of a composite

I'm understanding photoshop enough so I can edit photos to how I want it. Unfortunately, I am not yet so far that I can make beautiful composites. That is my goal, that is what I want to work towards.

Yes ... I am a photographer, and hope to become a good photoshopper.



For the real photoshop work I have a large number of examples, and some of them are for example Frans Heidenis and Adrian Sommeling and John Wilhelm. In my opinion these are real photoshop artists. That is what I would like to achieve. I already have the ideas, the implementation of which I still have to learn how to do ... That is still 'work in progress'.

How do you think about making compositions in photoshop in relation to photography?

Feel free to leave a reply in the comments!

Sort:  

Photoshop or not, if you can make your photo more beautiful or more presentable why not.

I often use photoshop to sharpen my foto's more after editting them. I am not that good with creating great compositions in photoshop, but I try most of the time to create already the composition with photographing..

True but I'm not talking about composition, but a composite .. and that means that you need at least two photo's to make it. And why a composite? Because some images CAN not be made with one single image ... and with photoshop you CAN make it.

Very well said @hetty-rowan!
I think that all those people who claim to be con photoshop are just ignorant about photography. Those of us that have worked with film remember numerous techniques in the darkroom to manipulate the result. Digital cameras and editing programs made it a lot easier but for me it’s the same thing. I definitely use raw even for simple shots although I rarely use photoshop itself. I prefer Lightroom that covers all my basic editing needs, offering a very fast workflow while I resort to photoshop when I want to remove a distraction from my image or something like that.
Now about delving into photoshop and creating a new image out of multiple ones I think it's great, I just never had the time to devote to it :)
Anyway the art of collage is much older than any digital medium and photoshoping (following your definition) is just a modern and more sophisticated way of doing it!

I am pro Photoshop, although I use Gimp nowadays. Thinking about buying Lightroom. Lightroom seems to be developed with photographers in mind. There are things one does better than the other and visa versa, so they don't replace eachother but complete eachother.

Your text would have been more powerful with some actual examples. The original, next to the edited one.
I like doing both, optimizing an image without making structural changes, but also using two or three images to create a non-existing animal, or put a crocodile in the road waiting for an approaching truck to attack.

People shouldn't be so fanatic, so serious about stuff.
What is bad, is when people start manipulating images and then pretend the result to be an event that actually took place. Like using it for a news item.

To use photoshop properly, is an art. Everyone can click a few menu options to change an image, but to change things in a way they still look real is a completely different story. Most people are very bad at mixing two images.

And you are right, some images can not be made otherwise. Macro images for instance. They need to be stacked to get an object completely in focus, there is no other way to do that. It has nothing to do with bad photography, there is just not enough depth of field to get the whole insect for example in focus.

It is silly to fight over it.

I know the text would have more impact with real examples, but the ones I want to make ... I simply have no examples yet! I working on it, but it's not that easy. I have to take everything into account while photographing the images I need, like focal distance, perspective, lights, shadows everything. Most of the people I know who are doing this kind of images work with studiophotography for the subjects and they adjust the studiolighting to the background to get the same look of lights and shadows. Because I don't have a studio ... (I do have the lights), I have to improvise a lot more and that's what's giving me a hard time with the lights and shadows.

Plus dogs, who are not always that cooperative :-)

But I hope to show some examples over time, and then I just make a follow up post ...

Macro stacking I know ... it's great. But the same stacking you can do with "focus stacking" ... to get landscapes sharp from foreground to background ... And that indeed also is photoshop.

Another example of what can not be photographed in one single shot is "levitating people or animals".

Had to look up "levitating", I mean I know what it means but didn't know how it related to photography.
The examples didn't have to be your own. The images you use already seem to have some work done to them. Showing the original too would have helped, since you are addressing two scenarios of edting images, optimizing and 'creating imaginary scenes'.

Howdy partner, I'm @photocurator, a curation bot; I keep an eye on the photo feeds, I vote random photos of my followers and at the end of the day I publish a post with links to the best photos. Follow @photocurator to get your photos curated in the future!

You have such beautiful dogs hetty-rowan. Always enjoying your posts. Pro and Con of anything is vital...my pro on it. Thank you for explaining in such a way that I understand clearly.

Congratulations! One of your previous entry last month to the Dailypetphotography was selected for the Month of Jul contest. The monthly contest closes on 8 Aug. Hurry up and come and vote for your favourite three pets of the month here !!
https://steemit.com/dailypetphotography/@dpet/endailypetphotographymonthlyelectionjuly2018-fp2byg44bc

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63657.90
ETH 2656.15
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.84