photoshop lovers

Welcome! from Virginia USA

Since I believe that all photos are the representation of the photographer's artistic interpretation, and that no photo is a true representation of reality, then whatever an artist does to a composition is fair game as long as you are honest about it. After all even a telephoto lenses is a misrepresentation of where the photographer was actually at when the picture was taken.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jadeast on February 13, 2008 at 7:07am: I am an avid photoshopper, but I have to Ken Rockell's site that is what I believe is what all about, getting there before daylight or waiting for darkness in some remote location in order to experience the golden hour, which only lasts for about two minutes by the way. Ken offers some dynamite tips for photographers of any level. You owe it to yourself to visit kenrockwell.com; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Willy on February 13, 2008 at 2:27pm

I have been an NAPP member for about 2 yrs now. I have been known to get lost in photoshop for days. I currently use PS3 but am always willing to upgrade and learn more. There are alot (and I do mean alot) of free tutorials hanging out there in space. I have learned alot from other PS users but consider myself pretty much self taught. I'm always looking for a challenge as well as creating new techniques. Photoshop for me is an addiction.

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken Setzer on February 27, 2008 at 11:13am: Well said, from both of you. I've had it suggested to me that Photoshop is somehow "cheating." But really, is it much different than using different techniques for developing film? Or using a filter on a lens? I don't think it is. If a photo isn't great to begin with, PS won't make it so. It can also be overused, and ruin a good shot (something i sometimes do!).

I took a couple PS classes a couple years ago, but since then I've learned on my own, including A LOT from free online tutorials. There's TONS out there. And it's loads of fun.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jadeast on February 29, 2008 at 12:45am: I use PS elements, paint shop pro and nova development. Each has some component that I need that the others don't. While I used PS to fine tune lighting and saturation on occasion I prefer to do it in camera as much as possible. I will sometimes take a photo that I know that is not going to be what I want it to, be but with the addition of some component, such as a better sky or trees to create leading lines, so I will PS those components into the photo. How else for example do you take a landscape with a moon without PS? If you photograph the moon large enough to identify then there is no landscape, if you include enough landscape to be attractive the moon is just a speck. If any of that is cheating, I can accept that but I am still going to continue to use it when I think it is necessary to turn an ordinary picture into an extraordinary photographic work of art. I practice what I preach, My photographs hang on my walls at home.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike on March 20, 2008 at 5:36am: Hello everyone, I am just learning photoshop so wont have a lot to contribute to the discussion but I would like to keep tabs on what is happening here and hopefully gain some knowledge from yall. I have played around with PSP and Bryce 4 and 5 though not in some time. I don't even have either installed now. But I bought PS-CS2 about a year ago (got 50% off through Wacom)and have only recently began to understand a little about its workflow and capabilities thanks to online tutorials that I have found or been pointed to and a book I bought written by Scott Kelby, PS CS2 for Digital Photographers. Photoshop kind of like Excel in a way as for as software design. Microsoft had 200 some odd software engineers designing different parts of the software and when joined together the end result is a piece of software that is capable of doing more than any one person can imagine. I'm sure Adobe did something similar with PSxxx.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike on May 1, 2008 at 5:13pm: I use PSE 5.0 and am not ashamed to say it. As someone a lot smarter than me once said, "every time you move the camera you're manipulating the image."; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike on May 5, 2008 at 3:34am: Nice job Patricia!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrick on May 29, 2008 at 7:48pm: I'm a photoshop junky, I just love it , everything from the basic stuff to crazy stuff, and you can't beat it for repairing 75 year old damaged photos. My grandparents idea of keeping photos was in an old cigar box out in the barn. I love my grandparents to death but I have spent so many hours repairing a few photos, its unreal.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nicci Collisi on June 20, 2008 at 10:39am: I don't beleive that it is a misrepresentation of the photo at all.... I think it's just a faster, quicker way to ummm.... beautify our photos! If that makes sense. I use PSCS3... I love it... and I love learning more about it. :) :) I know that doesn't help very much but... that's all I got.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jadeast on June 20, 2008 at 1:11pm: The most important pieces of equipment you have is the eye that looks through the lens, the finger that trips the shutter and the imagination to recognize the image. the most expensive software in the world still doesn't do that. For that we are all created equal, some of us are created more equal than others.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by goozer on July 14, 2008 at 12:39am: "Reply by jadeast Jun 20

The most important pieces of equipment you have is the eye that looks through the lens, the finger that trips the shutter and the imagination to recognize the image"
That's right jadeast, and on this purpose I thought to add on my reply a little example of what I think Photoshop contribute on the Photographer's world,to be honest a little bit Pepper on a single usual Shot.
I'm a Photoshopper too and I have to say, that sometimes with this program is possible to save, or adjust some shots that are anyway beautiful but maybe not SO beautiful for many proof guys, just because the equipment is missing 'cause to much expensive and so on, like for ex. a big Zoom Objective or a Fisheye, but that isn't meaning that the Photograph,in this case, isn't good enough
just a thought, I hope you like the meaning of this.
If you wish to look at the picture is on this link :here; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on November 7, 2008 at 6:51am: "In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen

When I hear people say Photoshop is cheating I know one thing for sure they probably don't know much about Photoshop. Another thing I can be fairly confident of is that they don't know much about the traditional film darkroom either.

Before film was introduced a complete knowledge of the entire process of creating a photograph from start to finish was required to be a photographer. In 1888 George Eastman began selling cameras that came pre-loaded with roll film, and processing and printing was included in the price. At first you had to mail it back to Kodak, but by shortly after the turn of the century cheap, semi-automated processing and printing was readily available in most towns. Several generations have grown up with 99% of the photographers using lab services for processing and printing. The importance of those stages in the creation of a photograph has been swept under the rug.

Cheap, uniform processing is good stuff, but sometimes taking control of the processing can result in a better photograph. Read Ansel Adams' darkroom books: The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. Those were my darkroom manuals, and when I moved from the darkroom to Photoshop the technical aspects were different, but the fundamental concepts were the same. Photoshop is a lot faster, cleaner, convenient, and more accurate than the traditional darkroom, but if it's cheating then dropping film off at the lab for someone else to finish is too. ;); ▶ Reply to This