markyg said:
Now I fail to see how a photo can be praised if it has been modified in a program such as this? Respect IMO is using your camera to the best of your ability and choosing the setting, getting the timing right, lighting etc etc and combining all this to get the "perfect" shot. If however a poor shot is made to look better using one of these technologically advanced computer programs then surely the skill involved is not as a photographer but more as an expert of these programs?
Hmm.. and what if the thing you're trying to shoot doesn't exist, or you have in your mind something that's technically impossible? Maybe just too problematical to setup?
What if I wanted to shoot an army of cloned, female warriors running across a beach? What then? I could A) dismiss the idea as impossible, and just decide that to use digital manipulation is cheating, give up, and let an idea pass, or B) Use Photoshop.
You're saying option B is cheating.
Well, first of all... it's only the program doing the work if you just click on a filter, sure, but what if you are genuinely skilled in photo-manipulation? Is that not just the same as manipulating the image in a darkroom? After all, would you call Ansel Adams a cheat, or unskilled? What, with the use of the zone system, N+/- development, printing techniques, paper and exposure manipulation.... NON of his prints are "real" or "honest". Look at his picture Moonrise Hernandez".. you think that's real??? Since when has the sky been black when the sun is shining? No.. it's not real... NON of his prints are real.. they're ALL manipulated.
Ok.. so back to the original scenario:
That's cheating is it? If so, why? You tell me what Photoshop did to aid me photographically there. The only thing it did, was provide the impossible - 40 or so identical twins. I still had to shoot each individual image before I put them together. And... you talk of using photoshop as if it isn't a skill in itself!!! Can you TELL it's been made in photoshop? I'll post a hi-res version if you want, and i defy anyone to tell. Other than the fact that the women are identical, every shadow, every clump of sand kicked up by feet.. every angle.. perfect. All airbrushing is done by hand.. no filters used... How is that less skilled than if I did emulsion lifts or some other old school technique?
Photography is about the image you get at the end of it, not what you do to achieve it.
markyg said:
For example I am slowly beginning to realise the skill, care and pure expertise involved in taking really good photographs and I do not believe that it is a skill easily gained, indeed years of practice may still not produce a "skilled" phtographer.
I'm sorry, but learning to use a camera is easy.. photography ain't rocket science
You could train a Chimp to take a sharp, well exposed photo. It's not about cameras, and technical things... these are an aside... it's about images.. it's about what you take a picture OF... not how you take it.
markyg said:
Conversely these modifying programs would only take around a month to master?
I'm sorry mate, but you're just wrong, and showing your naivity now. I've been using Photoshop since version 4, and I'm still learning every day. If you think you've "mastered" photoshop in a month, be prepared to get a right royal raping when you go out there and try to get a job that entails using it in any professional capacity. It takes years, or even decades to master Photoshop. If anyone tells you they're an expert, they're also a liar.
Also... at this point... I'd like to point out that I use Photoshop only when I can't do it any other way. If it's easier to do in camera, then it will be done in camera, and I can acheive effecst every bit as good, and fantastical as using PS.
See that? All in camera... not even teh darkroom.. IN CAMERA. Don't believe me? Well.. tough.. you're welcome to see the negs... my contact details are on my website. It's a time exposure... the model sat still for 10 minutes!!! Lighting was just candles, and me walking around with a mag-lite. The red on the crucifix and and the "blood" is my light painting with a laser. The "ghost" in the background is also me. Why didn't I do that is PS?? Cos it would have been more difficult, that's why. Is what I've done here more skillful cos I did it old-school??? I think not.
markyg said:
The point being there are manuals and tutorials and given the required amount of time and dedication one could become a master of these and thereby produce "good" photographs from poor shots - basically involving no skill as a photographer but more as an expert of Photoshop. Conversely the same amount of time and effort will not necessarily produce a top quality photographer.
Rubbish... you can not make a good photograph from a bad one.. sorry. You can't fool me.. I can tell a desperate attempt to correct mistakes from 50 feet away, and anyone who knows what they're doing can as well.
markyg said:
Like I say this is only my
UNEDUCATED opinion and this may change as I learn more. Feel free to educate me
Then why post inflammatory comments when you admit to not knowing what you're talking about? Photoshop is a tool.. just like a lens, or a meter, or... a camera. I could show you work that is heavily manipulated, and you'd never even know it. THAT'S when photoshop is well used. Not to rescue a shot, but to create the impossible.. because it CAN'T be done in camera. So.. what's wrong with that? After all, isn't creating imagery about giving vent to your imagination? What you suggest is that we curb that imagination, for fear of not earning the respect of photographer who feel it's somehow less skillful? Well.. usually, the type of photographer than thinks that, is usually rubbish anyway, and just photographs steam trains in his local camera club, so A) who cares, and B) you're a dinosaur if you feel that because out there in teh real world matey, no one uses film anymore, and everything you see has been through photoshop. You try and actually work in teh industry with your attitude, and you will simply be laughed at. You're out of date. Photoshop, whilst it CAN be used by skill free hacks to try and improve things, is now a firmly established tool of the trade and skill in it's use is ESSENTIAL if you ever want to work in this field. Those that have resisted, or refuse it, are now paying the price, panicking, or retiring... good riddance to them, as they're holding back progress.
If Ansel Adams was still alive, he'd be loving it, because in one of the last things he every wrote, he was very excited about the prospect of digital imaging... I wonder if you would have called him a cheat?
If you're interested, I wrote a dissertation on this subject - the subject of people thinking digital imaging is somehow a "Lesser" art.
If you're interested, or anyone else... there's a link to it below. It's a 2.5Mb word file tho, so not 56k friendly. However... read it MarkyG, and you'll realise, "There's no such thing as digital imaging"
It can be found here
http://www.davidgregory.plus.com/dissertation.doc
markyg said:
And if you`re still awake after all that....respect! 8)
Still awake.
markyg said:
Edit: Just to say that I have a HUGE amount of respect for the people that have mastered these programs as I know they are hugely difficult to learn. It just seems to me they are two different areas of expertise and should be treated as such :?:
Wrong... they're not.. why make that distinction? It's all photography. take a look at my website at
http://www.david-gregory.co.uk Everything you see on there, apart from the woman with the iron, the guy snorting the Pot noodle, and the woman in white in teh padded cell, plus the one I've already shown you.. the death one.. apart from those 4 images, everything is MASSIVELY manipulated... in fact.. the ones that are location shots.. aren't. The vulcan bomber one? The woman holding the crystal ball? How about the woman on the bench? Nope... not location shots. The models were in a studio against a white backdrop.. the locations were shot seperately. Cheating? No.. I still have to take all the same thiungs into account. I still have to match lighting, exposure, and understand the physics behind it. You think it's easy to shoot someone indoors then paste them into a shot outdoors? Try it... LOL. No.. it takes not only skill in Photoshop, but skill as a photographer, because in order to "cheat" at photography, you have to be a master of photography, just as someone who cheats at cards, is usually a master card player.
SOrry, but no time to spell check that, and besides.... as your opening line suggests, I, or my work, is not worthy of respect
How about putting your money where your mouth is? May we see your work?
I'm not angry at your comments, nor bothered by them, and welcome to the forum. It would just be interesting to see what you deem to be skilled work compared to what you consider unskilled... what you consider to be real photography vs. cheating.
Please read my paper... it's a bit weighty, but meticulously researched, unbiased, and honest. I used to feel the same as you until I researched the subject. It's now rare that I don't manipulate my images in some way... there's a reason for that: I've learned that when used properly, photoshop is just the 21st century darkroom, nothing more. Photographers have been "cheating" for over 150 years... but for some reason, you feel that cheating in a dark room with chemicals is more honest. I wonder why.