Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Personally I do not like photoshop. A lot of pics that I have looked at recently have been so heavily photoshopped that in some cases it is hard (to say the least) to spot any of the original photography, why ? The photographs look like they were pretty good before being "shopped" and IMHO would have looked so much better without being touched up. fair enough lose the odd blemish or sharpen up pics but most of the stuff I have looked at so far doesn't need anything doping to them.
Hope this makes sense.
Mal
Mal, I understand where you're coming from. However, if we all think back to our early days of using PS, or any image editing software for that matter, we were a bit over the top ourselves with manipulation. I believe it's a stage we all go through, and later realise that less is better in this case. I know I did some images that I wouldn't show anybody now.
I simply adjust colour, contrast and levels, if need be, resize, and a tiny bit of sharpening. I tend to use less and less manipulation as time goes by.
When I was a boy, whatever happened to me, my mother said it was a phase I was going through. I think if she were alive today, she'd say the same about Photoshopped images.
It's the same with sunsets, sunrises and pet shots; everybody goes through a phase, and later begin to tire of the same old same old, and move on to better horizons, hopefully.
It's a tool simple as that. It's there to be used or abused but it's all subjective anyway. You may not like it but there are lots that will. Would be a boring old world if we were all the same. 
Surely the same applies to any image program, not just Photoshop.
What you mean is you don' t like the way some people process their images.
I've used a number of programs in the past, and do use Photoshop now, but I can ruin an image in any of them!
Images were manipulated long before Photoshop using filters and / or darkroom techniques. Tone mapping effects were achieved by sandwiching a colour transparency with a black and white negative.
Photoshop just increased the number of variations and in many cases made it easier.
The important factor is whether the owner likes the finished image.
It's a bit like saying you don't like Cooking, or Music.
What you can do with an image in Photoshop is as varied as what you can do with food in a kitchen, and the level to which you can do it depends on your skill and judgment.
At first you may burn food, over season it, put too much chilli in... but after a while and some experience, you're going to get better.
Quote:
A lot of pics that I have looked at recently have been so heavily photoshopped that in some cases it is hard (to say the least) to spot any of the original photography, why ?
Without examples it's hard to say whether this is true - but it's not really forum etiquette to point out individual images. But if you take a look at the various awards galleries, you can draw conclusions...
GE - a mix of natural looking shots, quite a few with texture layers and desaturation and some traditional landscapes. Pretty balanced really.
RC - lots of birds, flowers and dark-over-saturated landscapes, so I'd say that these are not heavily photoshopped at all, except maybe levels and saturation in the landscape cases
HC - Lots of colourful coastal work, not really photoshopped, the portraits are a mixed bunch - some are heavily photoshopped, but the rest seem to be heavily "set up" shots - as in, lots of attention paid to the set in studio, very styleised cloting etc. - the kind of thing you'd see in magazines that most amateurs would not be able to afford to set up really - so photoshopped to death?? Not really in the HC gallery
EC - the portraits/people shots are heavily set up in the studio - set design, clothing, lighting are all incredible, but in general, they're not hugely photoshopped. There's lots of steam porn and odd couple stuff in there
That's just my view having looked at the galleries for a couple of minutes - so I'd probably conclude that there is a fair amount of "style over substance" shots in there (i.e. crap shot, great PS) but in general, it's not all Photoshopped to death in there - you just need a studio, some fantastic models with fantastic clothes and wonderful lighting skills 
For many images, if you can see that the image has been processed in an image editor then the photographer may have failed overall. On the other hand some artictic images blatently use image processing techniques and are often judged by the question "Has this improved the image? In this latter case there is likely to be a mixed response as in most art. On very successful photographer I know frequently produces images which pushes the boundaries provoking much discussion about his photographs. He does not mind that those who like and dislike his images are about equal number but is just pleased that they stand round debating the merits of his pictures while ignoring many good but routine images also being displayed.
Dave
Quote: Without examples it's hard to say whether this is true - but it's not really forum etiquette to point out individual images. But if you take a look at the various awards galleries, you can draw conclusions...
That's just my view having looked at the galleries for a couple of minutes - so I'd probably conclude that there is a fair amount of "style over substance" shots in there (i.e. crap shot, great PS) but in general, it's not all Photoshopped to death in there - you just need a studio, some fantastic models with fantastic clothes and wonderful lighting skills
1.
I would not dare to name names as that would be way off base etiquettewise (and lets face it "Downright rude") I', (I hope) am a fair man.
2.
In the galleries there is a pic of a woodland scene, very nice in itself but when you stop to look properly you can see blurs and repeated areas where it has been overworked and another of a seascape where waves are repeated,why?
Quote: Surely the same applies to any image program, not just Photoshop.
What you mean is you don' t like the way some people process their images.
I've used a number of programs in the past, and do use Photoshop now, but I can ruin an image in any of them!
Brettb you are as close to spot on as can be, my wording was a tad harder than need be to describe my thoughts on ps.
Mal
As Mad-dogs & Ade have said.....
Its horses for courses, Nothing new either as tweaking images has been going on for years, The simple act of holding your hand under the enlarger lens to allow light to spill onto different parts of the paper for example.....
The digital age with computers & software has just added truck loads more in the way of adjustments, Some old some new, The problem is that new comers to photography tend to get real excited about the many things they can do via software.
Many soon learn that they can't rely on making good an image that has been badly taken in the first place, Others soon realise that " Less Can Be More " when it comes to adjustments, But along the way everyone learns to produce an image that pleases them, Rather than trying to produce images that please everyone else......
So if your into slightly lurid landscapes, Why the heck not, If you want to turn everything " Black & White " So be it, Its your image, Your choice, If your happy with it, Little else matters, Even down to the way you arrive at the end product.
You say
Quote: Personally I do not like photoshop
Well thats fine, Thats your choice, Therefore if you are happy to produce images without the use of Photoshop, Or any other image editing software, So long as you are happy with the end product, Thats all that really matters.....
You are quite at liberty to express critique on images that you see as " Overcooked " or over done in software too.......Hell! Its a free world, Well mostly anyhow.....
Well I got accused of overdoing an effect on one of my recent shots when all that had been done was conversion of the raw file which includes a small adjustment to saturation and contrast. The effect to which the comment referred was achieved completely in camera.
So it's not always possible to judge from the end result and is often as stated above down to not liking the end effect however it was created and thus to point the finger at PS is the easiest solution.
Quote: A lot of pics that I have looked at recently have been so heavily photoshopped that in some cases it is hard (to say the least) to spot any of the original photography, why ? The photographs look like they were pretty good before being "shopped" and IMHO would have looked so much better without being touched up.
Of course there's always the other extreme.
Those that boldly and proudly announce the image (usually a Raw file) is STRAIGHT FROM THE CAMERA. I mean what's that about? You're left thinking, well you've mastered the transfer of image to computer, the next step is to see if you can process it.
Surely that's a bit like, instead of cooking someone a meal, you bung a load of ingredients on the table and triumphantly announce straight from the kitchen cupboard
Looking through the galleries I can see quite a few images that are desperately in need of some 'shopping Not to say they're bad images - far from it in some cases, but they could do with some work - contrast, curves, even the dreaded saturation...
What comes out of a digital camera is NOT always (in fact rarely in my opinion) what the eye sees because the dynamic range is so limited. Your camera will try to equalise everything to an 18% grey modge and it succeeds admirably in it's job a lot of the time (unless faced with a really contrasty scene and then it goes into a spin ) You, on the other hand, without being aware of it, can see into every nook and cranny, visually experiencing a huge dynamic range because your eyes automatically compensate for light / dark areas.
Try it sometime - focus on the sky only but be aware of the foreground peripherally - the foreground will be darker... and then focus on the foreground immediately afterwards - try to be aware of the way the scene brightness changes - you'll notice a perceptible shift in the "exposure". Your eyes will take some time (no matter how little) to refocus and the foreground will visibly lighten up to show the "true" exposure. We equalise the light values far better than a camera sensor ever can because when we look at a scene in it's entirety we see it far more vividly and we manage to keep the light and dark areas open too (largely).
I'm no scientist so forgive my seriously layman-like explanation - I've done the above several times and it helps in a couple of ways. Firstly it makes me remember how vivid / contrasty a scene may have been so I can recreate it in Photoshop; secondly it helps me to decide how and where I'm going to concentrate my exposure.
Also sensors don't necessarily pick up the colours, contrast, colour of the light as they appear to the eye, these factors are dependent on software and choices you as the user make in the camera menus.
So, in conclusion - yeah I'm a big fan of Photoshop and wouldn't dream of putting a photo up without photoshopping it first UNLESS what I see on screen is how I experienced it in reality. And even then I might photoshop it because I may have decided, prior to shooting, that I wanted a particular look, mood, effect etc and am therefore taking the photo as a start point.
This has been discussed many times before.
Do you really think that film images did not receive similar treatment? The first manipulated image (Probably Two ways of Life) being about 1857.
Indeed many of the names used in Photoshop such as Unsharp Mask, dodge and burn are in fact wet darkroom techniques.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top