wafflehouse 10:55pm, 10 February 2007
im making this post rather than hijacking dudes photo comments

basically because i dont see much of a difference between photoshopping out or cropping elements of a photo digitally and say burning and dodging in a dark room

absorbed brake [deleted] 14 years ago
I'm not 100% sure about the point of this - but I think I agree. I like to use photoshop but not to 'cheat' I will use a little dodge and burn and mess with saturation / levels in camera raw, But yes similar results but I'm guessing PS is a lot easier. I need to mess with analog more...
wafflehouse 14 years ago
i wasnt really trying to make a point with this

it just seemed to be something people felt strongly about so i figured id post it up as a topic of discussion.
The Balmore 14 years ago
In the newspaper arena there is a lot of discussion about 'enhancing' images. Photoshoping out and adding in objects is now becoming a sackable offence with some level and colour adjustments getting people in serous trouble. For the news outlets it is all about reporting events truthfully and they see the enhancements as misrepresenting what went on. Cloning out a dust spot in sky is fine but clone out that bloke in the background that is spoiling the balance of the shot and you could be is serious trouble.

As for me a minimalist approach is what I take to my own images, set the colour balance, crop and gentle tweak the levels is all my images normal get.

Wil Collins Posted 14 years ago. Edited by Wil Collins (member) 14 years ago
personally, im fuckin useless with photoshop. i tend to set the levels when im RAW processing, maybe enhance colours a bit more in PC for the final pic(for some reason they look different in the raw processing program i have then they do on everything else) and thats it. unless im doing a sequance, but ive never done one yet, so meh

although i just remembered, i recently took a pic where i photoshopped out a ramp in the background of a pic, to enhance it.
johnnhorak 14 years ago
Things like changing levels and contrast were done in the darkroom, its just much easier to do with digital in photoshop.
absorbed brake [deleted] 14 years ago
Sweet wafflehouse seems like a nice topic to discuss so good one.
johnnhorak 14 years ago
I wish I had cs2 and could shoot raw, its real convenient.
absorbed brake [deleted] 14 years ago
I'm sure there are some free RAW editing programs out on the web? At least nikon and canon comes with software - did you not find any with your camera?
johnnhorak 14 years ago
I never even thought too look haha, i'll check it out, thanks.
TimWillis 14 years ago
i heard that Reuters was going to requite that all their images be shot with a 50mm lens, kind of sounds like bologna.
i'm really not that good with photoshop, occasional levels/curves adjustments, desaturate and such for my school newspaper, nothing special.
wafflehouse 14 years ago
requiring a 50mm lens is insane

although it is a versitile, there is no way you could use just one lens for all the photos
as far as "enhancing" photos for a newpaper or any other type of documentary purpose, seems just wrong, getting rid of a pile of trash in a landscape shot to make it prettier i can understand, enlarging flames on a burning building to make more of an impression for the sunday cover thats no good
Kewy... 14 years ago
Nothing wrong with a little tweak of colour levels of B/C here or there.
Sucks when people use PS to 'make' an image though.
hysterical run [deleted] 13 years ago
Lets face it, if you're not photoshopping your pictures You ARE cheating yourself. Theres a point where a photographer becomes a photoshop artist. You have to draw the line somewhere. You shouldn't be using photoshop as an excuse for bad photos.
Skittishsynapses 12 years ago
There isn't a difference between photoshopping and dark room manipulation. It's whatever you need to do to make the photo look it's best. Think of it the way Michelangelo thought of his sculptures: the statue was already in the marble, all he had to do was carve it out. Some photos are great by themselves, some need coaxing.

As for my own workflow, I use lightroom to get the photo close to where I want it to be, and if it needs further refinement, into photoshop I go. I am not particularly afraid to say I edit out undesirable things in my photos. I understand that skate photography is rather photojournalistic, so it doesn't like to edit things out. But I tend to look at photos as a fine art photographer and see a photos full of clutter.

If there's a lamp sticking out of a rollerblader's head, I should axe it. I'm not going to make it so the guy looks like he's rolling a 4 story anything, and fake a photo, I just want the skater to be center stage, and not get lost in whatever else is happening in the photo.
greghartmann 12 years ago
I think photoshop for alot of people is a tool used to make their bad photo good. I think it makes alot of people know they can take OK photos and change them later. When in reality they are a bad photographer but a good photoshop user. its kinda like cheating, because they go out knowing the photo will suck, but already plan before the shot to shop stuff in or out, or change the color. when really they need to try to make better light then and there, or get better timing or framing.
Skittishsynapses 12 years ago
I somewhat agree and disagree with you Greg. Yes it means you can shoot now ask questions later, but sometimes light, timing and framing just aren't possible. You just have to make due and work within photoshop. It's not going to make you a better photographer, but I think in this day and age, photographer and [digital] darkroom artist are coming to mean nearly one and the same. You just can't put an image out in the world and not do some work in photoshop..or lightroom or aperture. Some digital manipulation of the image is necessary.
Groups Beta