Should true photographers use photoshop?

"True" photographers should use every resource available to them to create the image they are trying to convey.

There is really no difference philosophically or morally between using photoshop to manipulate photographs and using older darkroom techniques that were an established part of what would today be called 'post-capture' photography. Photoshop is more versatile, that's all. The difference is one of degree, not kind. Interestingly, the only medium of photography which is more or less immune from manipulation is reversal film. There is a certain simplicity and rigour about shooting slides: you either get it right in-camera, within very close limits, or you're wrong and there is nothing you can do about it. Oh, yes, nowadays you can scan the slide, play about with it, and even make another physical slide from the manipulation. But why bother? If you use slide film, you still buy into the idea of getting it right first time. Put this point to your brother. Would he consider transparencies to be the only true photographs? If so, what about the use of filters, like grad n.d.?

I don't think that statement is entirely accurate. Simply taking the picture isn't the end of the process of making a photograph. Using some form of image editing or RAW conversion software is almost required for any photographer using a digital camera. Especially for correcting artifacts and color if the image is to be printed. So whomever told you that is misinformed. It is an idealistic delusion to believe that the "best" photographers do not use photoshop. In reality, the program predates digital image capture and is as old as the flatbed scanner. People and photographers alike have been using the program to aid in the creation of photographic and visual expression long before the digital camera made everyone believe that they could be the best photographer. Photoshop should be used as a tool, the same as a lens, or filter. To believe that no methods of image manipulation is used by the best is a complete misunderstanding of what photography is. People have been manipulating what has been captured by a camera since the late 1800's, and is nothing new. The person who made that statement is, for lack of a better word, an idiot.

1

Fhotoace is a good, experienced photographer - and old school. In a sense, so am I. I'm absolutely committed to 'getting it right' in the camera and I know how to do it. Studio, or location. However, I use Photoshop extensively without any apology. If I get it right in the camera, why would I use Photoshop? Because the technology can't deliver what I want all the time. In the studio, where I get to play God, Photoshop provides the touchup that digital needs because of the technology. There are makeup artists, hair stylists, etc., for the type of photography that Fhotoace does and I use them, too, when I wander into his turf. I have a full studio of lights to work with and I know how to use them. Still there is a use for photoshop. Sometimes what I want can't be achieved within the limitations of the sensor.

Both Fhotoace and I and others that post here, like Perki88, Fishmeister, and others that I'm not recalling at the moment, but deserve mention, are all true photograpers, whatever that actually means. I've seen their work. For a variety of reasons, we don't necessarily see things the same way and take a variety of approaches to what we do.

For myself, I take as much pride in what I can do with 'straight' photogaphy as anyone and when that is enough, that is where it stays. When it's not enough, it''s the necessary basis for hgih quality work. It's the call of the 'true' photographer what they do. I learned two things from Ansel Adams in person - what the Zone System really is and how to use it, and how to work an image in the darkroom. Having spent 3 days with the man at one of his workshops, my impression is that if there had been Photoshop and Digital when he was alive, he would have been all over it.

Vance

Does your brother use anything but a pencil and paper? Does he use Photoshop or any other graphics program and a computer to perform his work? Then he is the proverbial pot calling the photographer kettles black.

If he wants un-edited photos to work with, then he needs to ask for them. He may not get them, but at least he tried. The trouble is not photoshop, it is the heavy-handed way a lot of people use it. What I see in a photo and what he sees in a photo are going to be two different things. If we were to both edit the same photo, I guarantee the results would be vastly different.

It isn't always possible to get the shot you wanted in the camera, no matter if you are shooting film or digital. It has nothing to do with inexperience or know-how, you just can't guarantee you can get the camera exactly where it needs to be, or that you have a lens of the proper focal length for the exact shot. Cropping to get more reach is not something invented with photoshop.

You don't judge a carpenter by his hammer, you judge him by the work he does. Photography is no different.

It sounds like your brother is saying he likes having the raw image so he has all the original information to work with - and then he Photoshops it. As a true graphic designer he knows the best way to make adjustments to an image to create the highest quality final. For the same reason, true photographers shoot raw rather than letting the camera make adjustments to the image and file format. And, if you are shooting on contract for advertising/publication they will want the raw file.

Most photographers concentrate on photography and have limited skill with Photoshop. Just like in the days of negs and chromes most photographers didn't process and print their own film, there were pros who did that for them. You could be a good photographer and not need Photoshop, but your files are the equivalent of negatives.

Wow, so many haters on here. What a bunch of morons.

I think what your brother most likely meant is that he doesn't like it when it's overdone. He probably doesn't have a problem with photoshop per se, but rather when you depend on it for EVERYTHING. For example, if someone uses photoshop to make up for consistently shoddy work - then that *is* lame, but most people (at least on here) don't seem to have a problem with it.

However, especially with negative film, there is a lot of leeway with what you can do. For example, most people would not consider dodging and burning 'cheating'. And neither is color correction (it is a negative, after all).

When I scan my negatives, I often have to color correct because the scanner made the picture too green or too magenta (or cyan, etc.). Additionally, I can use two different scanning software and get two totally different looking pictures (for example, one saturated, one not). Same scanner, same negative, yet two entirely different-looking scans (without using any photo manipulation). So which one is the 'true, honest' representation? For me, it's the one that looks better.

I can't speak for digital, but people say that 'post-processing' is necessary because digital does not get it right all the time. I don't know if I agree with this (as I have very little experience with digital photography). I happen to like my digital photos just the way they are. But who knows, maybe the unmanipulated pics are not doing me justice (maybe my pictures are actually better than that, and I just need to correct them in photoshop).

Photoshopping is not necessarily cheating, as long as you keep it WITHIN REASON, or you are purposefully doing it for artistic reasons (meaning you are not trying to hide the fact that you used photoshop). For example (using slide film as an example), most people do not consider cross-processing as cheating.

Ideally, true photographers should get it right the first time. But we are only human, and the camera is not the same as the naked eye. Every once in a while we can use a little help from photomanipulation. If I have a picture that is good in every respect except for the exposure, and I can salvage it via photoshop I'll do it; I'll just be sure to tell people that it wasn't my photographic skills!

That said, I would rather get it right the first time. It's more gratifying than trying to fix it afterward (if it can be fixed at all, which it usually can't; so I almost never try, unless it's a really good picture in all other respects, which is very rare). Plus it forces me to improve my skills, which is a good thing. If I can increase the ratio of good pictures to bad pictures (lately it's been 50/50), I'll be stoked. Since I can take credit for it (instead of giving it to photoshop!)

Yes and no... as many of the other have said it has it's place when you need to get something altered. For example... I was a graphic designer before I was a photographer... should I use Photoshop now? Hell yeah, because I can and I have the background to do it.

FhotoAce I repect your views... but your view and the viewof the OP brother have holes in them. You can't, I repeat CAN'T do everything before the shutter is pressed. Why not? Show me how to do Blue or Green Screen before or during the shoot without post work. You get a gig from a designer that wants his model suspended in the air like she is flying.... how you going to remove the harnesses from the picture without post work.

If you send the work out because you can't do it is one thing... but if you truly can do it, there is no reason not to. Everyone uses Ansel Adams as an example... would he be as good as everyone makes him if he didn't have darkroom skills? Dodge and burn baby... If I sit there like he did mastering my B/W landscapes in Photoshop because I'm digital, how does that make me not a true photographer?

Your brother is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Yes, the aim should be for any photographer to "get it right" in the camera.

But to say that true photographers don't or should not use photoshop is just patently ridiculous.

What were filters for? what were darkrooms for if they were not tools to alter or enhance photographs.

Photoshop is just a tool that when used properly should enhance an already good photograph.

It is the equivalent of the film darkroom. It certainly can be (and should be in some instances) a lot more. After all there were people who spent many hours manipulating their work in the darkroom.

With film there were (still are) expert darkroom workers, there were spotters and retouchers and working on films or prints was a skill in itself.

Many photographers didn't have those skills themselves or didn't have the time themselves so sent the work out to the experts.

They still do although many now, due to the advent of digital, can do this work themselves.

Skytreader - looking at the work on the link you gave, well, some of the stuff on there is far from amazing and a lot of it is badly in need of a bit of a "tweak".

He might be proud of the fact he does no editing - maybe before he brags about that he should actually learn how to take a properly composed and exposed shot.

it depends what you're using photoshop for.

it is good for taking out blemishes, red eyes, and other things that ruin a photo that you can't really help. but if you're going to do extensive photoshopping (ie- there is a situation where a photographer photoshopped out a celebs legs and put in new ones they had made from scratch), now thats extreme.

it is just a way to enhance images, but i dont believe true photographers should rely on it.

I use it coz i enjoy being creative and i have a DSLR and am only slowly learning how to use it.