"If you're a good photographer you shouldn't need to rely on Photoshop...

[5T3R30TYP3]

I never crop my 'proper' photos, not since a long time ago. I don't crop and I prefer uncropped photos. But I see nowt wrong with cropping.

The only reason I adjust colour balance is because colour balance is not always 100% spot on (e.g. if the lighting is difficult for the scanner to deal with, or if i'm shooting in mixed lighting (e.g. shooting with flash, with fluorescent or tungsten ambient light - the scanner will probably record the flash light slightly blue when it should be white). Whoever wants to huff and puff about it being wrong to adjust colour balance had better ask themselves why colour enlargers have Cyan Magenta and Yellow filters...

There's nowt wrong with adjusting levels either, if you think there is then you must be some kind of fool...

My opinion still stands that Photoshop is just a digital equivalent of a darkroom plus more. If used as a darkroom equivalent then how can there be anything 'wrong' with it... if it's not used to lie or cheat or trick people then what's the problem?????

 

[Firky]

People are quite happy to accept that digital is a replacement to film, but not ready to accept the digital darkroom... how queer

 

[boskysquelch]

People are ... queer

Nah they are jus full o' shit!

 

[cybertect]

Probably because they were never really aware of exactly what could be done by a skilled (very important word there) technician in a darkroom.

Now every person on the net seems to have access to a warez copy of Photoshop, or even PaintShop Pro or the Gimp, it's much more apparent.

@ paolo999

I do a lot of colour balance adjustment as a significant proportion of the pics I take are under sodium lights which fool the auto WB on my camera every time. Adobe Camera RAW has particular trouble with reds at these extremes - they go quite pink, which needs a lot of further adjustment.

Weirdly, Canon's own software and Adobe's new Lightroom beta seem to take it in their stride

 

[5T3R30TYP3]

Maybe it's because they're not capable of using photoshop techniques, and they're jealous of people who are?

 

[Firky]

photoshop takes thousands of hours of diddling to be good with it, am still shite at it

 

[snadge]

photoshop takes thousands of hours of diddling to be good with it, am still shite at it

so am I, my mates a whizz though and he's helping me.

 

[5T3R30TYP3]

what's your definition of being good at using photoshop? you could always buy my spare copy of martin evening's photoshop for photographers if you like!

 

[Firky]

It is a bit of an oxymoron that some of the same people who accept digital imagery are against the digital dark room - it seems the next logical step to me. Like squelch said the two things; being proficient photoshop monkey / or dark room monkey and that of a photographer, but the two lend themselves to each other very well.

To answer Stereotypes question; Mark Holthusen is a photographer and a monkey in photoshop, he was recently commisioned to do some stuff for Roger Water's opera on the French Revolution, Ca Ira. The work is fucking stunning (it was projected 100ft across on the tour - in true Floyd fashion)! I think it shows what can be done with when you combine a good photographer with photoshop skills.

http://www.markholthusen.com/caira/

The images do look very worked up on but they're done in such a way it is acceptable. Perhaps some of the anti-photoshop thing is down to much of the photoshopped images we see are done by amateurs and enthusiasts? I also think it depends on the style of the photograph in the first place.

 

[paolo]

I do a lot of colour balance adjustment as a significant proportion of the pics I take are under sodium lights which fool the auto WB on my camera every time.

Actually thinking about it yes - same problem with mine - when I come back with that sort of shot I have to colour correct it because it looks appalling otherwise.

 

[tupster]

Post production is all part of making the image

I always try to get my shot just as I want it first time in the camera, despite the easy disposability of digital images I take very few shots and believe in thinking about your shot and getting it right in camera. That said; working in photoshop is just the same as working in the darkroom. It's all a part of the process. It's great if a shot looks good fresh from the camera but tweaking levels etc. in photoshop is just the same as printing in the darkroom was.You needed to choose your paper grade, decide on exposure time, choose your developer, select areas of contrast to highlight and dodge and all the rest. My dad was a master printer and could analyse a neg in seconds, making these decisions and turning out a nice finished print.All professional work is post-produced either in the darkroom or on computer. If you just take snaps and take em to Boots to process then you get what you get. Even then, a lot depends on the computer analysing your photograph for you.It's all a part of producing a nice image.

 

[Descartes]

The questions is: how easily are you satisfied with your photographs?

For the student to express satisfaction with the 'original' neg without manipulation either in the dark room or photoshop only high lites a an inability to to consider alternatives in composition.

Anyone using a square format neg will know that printing on an rectangle paper will require adjustments, colours? how realistic are the colours and how near are they to your own requirements?

The Ansel Adams quote: that if a photograph needed the attention to detail that a painting required, then they would be a lot less failures ( I think he referred to bad photographs)

The use of the Zonal system required as much work in the dark room as the attention to exposure and composition in the camera. So. to cast aside the facilities in oth the dark room and the digital darkroom is to wear a pair of blinkers and ignore the ability to change the brush strokes, the canvas size and the colurs taht any artist uses in the production of the finished work.