does anyone consider...

someone less of a photographer if they use photoshop a lot?

Ive been on numerous photography forums and i usually tend to get the same replies everywhere.

"photoshop ruins pictures" "real photographers leave pictures as they are"

blah blah blah

i personally think this is a load of twoddle. as you can see i do use photoshop a lot and do enjoy heavily manipulating photographs but i dont see myself as less of a photographer because i still got to go out, set up a shot, set up the home studio and everything a non-manipulating photographer does.

this might sound like a load of rubbish to you and sound like im nagging XD but I just thought I'd get some feedback and see what you photographers think.

Tags: manipulate, photoshop, pictures

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jake Ripley on March 29, 2008 at 8:59am: thanks, yours are great too, none of my flower shots have had that sense of transparency in the leaves as yours do.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gary on March 29, 2008 at 9:14am: Jake, I have to admit that the original shots didn't have that transparency either. I use a addon product from NIK called Vivesa. Here is the orignal and the PS'd one.
I cleaned up t he background and made it solid black and then used Vivesa on the flower to bring out the "transparency".; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jake Ripley on March 29, 2008 at 9:28am: Interesting, I wonder if you lit the flower from below if it would create a transperancy effect... I might be trying something today...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gary on March 29, 2008 at 9:31am: This would be an interesting idea. Let me know what happens.
Gary

Permalink Reply by Terri on March 29, 2008 at 8:42am: Here is a photo I took...one is straight from the camera and the other is slightly enhanced by PS....I wanted it to be more vibrant so I increased the contrast...I don't consider this photo to be photoshopped, yes it is but not so much that it takes away from the actual photo.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jake Ripley on March 29, 2008 at 8:55am: Agreed, this is the extent of my photoshoping typically, that, maybe a slight rotate& crop, and a watermark.

Oh, and adding thick black borders are all the rage. hahaha; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Terri on March 29, 2008 at 9:28am: Here's an image I did in PS....now this is what I consider to be photoshopped and more art than photography...even though I shot all the photos that I combined in this image...it's not photography....well unless you want it to be...LOL; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jake Ripley on March 29, 2008 at 9:32am: yup, thats rediculosly photoshoped haha, it's still an awesome piece though, amazing work.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Terri on March 29, 2008 at 9:33am: Oh that one is MILD compared to some of the wild stuff I do!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jake Ripley on March 29, 2008 at 9:38am: all your pieces seem to be tasteful though, they're more graphic design pieces with photography integrated, you've got skill.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Earl E. Gibson on March 29, 2008 at 10:01am: Hello All...

That is what I was trying to say in another forum on here. Once you pass a certain point, it is art or graphic design, no longer a photo. To me.. and again.. just my opinion, a photo represents a location.. an item.. a place in time that someone could go see.. visit and enjoying seeing what someone else took a photo of. Once you pass the line it may be a very very nice picture, but it is no longer a photo.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Terri on March 29, 2008 at 10:04am: This one is a bit more wild....kinda like my mind! My version of 'Grasping for time'.; ▶ Reply to This