File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Skill with Photoshop = skill at "photography"?

Discuss. I have a friend who is one of those "spends more time in Photoshop than behind the lens" types, and it pisses me off.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern836Focal Length (35mm Equiv)78 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:31 19:07:52Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length52.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2256Image Height1496RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used1600Color ModeCOLORImage QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested1600Tone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusClosest Subject, Left Selected, Unknown FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations656Image OptimizationNORMALSaturation 2AUTO
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
IMO, photoshop is fine until the point where the image looks too artificial. Kinda like makeup. Shopping shouldn't make the picture, only enhance it.
>> Anonymous
you can shop something all you want, but its not gonna make a bad photo into a good photo. that said, punch your friend in the face.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>94299
An example of her "photography" for judging purposes.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>94299
I photographed an hour yesterday (about 220 photos), and today spent three to four hours in Photoshop to edit ten best photos, forgetting the rest.

>>94301
I disagree. The photos I shooped yesterday would have been shit without PP.
>> Anonymous
>>94316
and i disagree because i dont really like a lot of your photos and notice that you seem to think you are the shit
>> Anonymous
>>94316
Remember when computers didn't exist?

If your photos ALL need Photoshop to look good, you need to reevaluate how you take pictures. There really was a time when photographers took incredible care in the frame and setting of their shots, and as a result their images were just gorgeous without enhancements.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>94316
If you make 220 pictures in an hour, only getting 10 pictures that even need photoshopping to look good, while the rest is forgotten..
Then you're doing something really wrong.
Go get an old film SLR and shoot 35mm without post. Learn it that way.
>> Anonymous
OP here. The reason I bring this up is because said photographer gets legions of attention, Co-op placements, and general praise from people who don't know what exactly she's doing. It's fucking annoying.

Welcome to real life, rite?
>> Anonymous
>>94325
real life is dumb. i havent gotten any co-op job offers because my gpa is shitty since thats all they care about, even though once youre out of college nobody cares.
>> Anonymous
>>94320
Back then photoshop was called the dark room. And that was a big part of being a photographer. You could take all the beautiful pictures you wanted, and not know shit about a dark room and fuck your pictures all up. Photoshop is no different.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
People have been doing touch ups on photos for years, even before digital cameras. They did it with fashion and portraits and it was even done with landscapes. Ansel Adams loved dodging and burning for hours to get the most out of a photo and that wasn't done on Photoshop.

Darkroom work has always been part of the process, whether it is a digital darkroom or not. All that matters are results.

Some of the best touch-up artists are amazing and easily deserve as much respect as the photographers, even if their work is different from what you concentrate on.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Back in the days it would have been a lot harder to photograph low light musis gigs. Now it's no big deal to take as much photos you can, just making sure you get what you want. And edit the best ones later.


And I'm not saying all photos need PP. Some need, and some not. The less PP needed the better.
But sometimes one just can't make things look supaduba without PP. Not when you don't fully control things around you.

>>94317
Your argument is the shit.
>> Anonymous
>>94336
thanks for agreeing with my argument.
>> Anonymous
>>94306
well if she spent hours in photoshop enhancing that she clearly isnt a very good photographer.

that sort of image could be created in five minutes.

shoot raw. maybe crop and rotate etc. increase saturation. adjust colour tone and white balance and maybe a little sharpness (though this image isnt that sharp as a final result so the initial must have been bad)

so for me.
photography> any photo shopping.
the only post processing an image should need is a few adjustments in a raw converter.
anything much further beyond that and you should really consider your photographic skills.
>> Anonymous
>>94345
i second this. if i shoot a gig or something for my friend, ill get about 120 photos in an hour. the only shopping i do IF its needed is curves/levels. ill usually get around 10 good photos for them.
>> Anonymous
Artists and pro photographers have used touch ups for years. Being snobby about it is only depriving yourself of a useful (perhaps vital) tool.
>> Anonymous
>>94330
>>94334
Q. F. T.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>94325
So her method gets good results? Then fuck you, she's Doing It Right and you're Doing It Wrong. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If she's making good images, I don't care how much she's throwing at them. If you think your shots are almost as good as hers without PP, then learn to postprocess properly and blow her out of the water.

(Caveat: I almost never postprocess any of my stuff beyond a resize)
>> Anonymous
I try to make everything happen behind the lens that I can. I get a kind of "dirty cheater" feeling if i do more than say rotate and crop or remove (read: hardly noticable) powerlines in the distance from my landscape shots.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>94334
>>94348
>>94362
YES!

everyone else, get over yourselves. in the creation of imagery i believe the ends justifies the means. if you can take a perfect photo in one shot well good for you, but since there is photoshop available why not use it to enhance the vision/idea/form you want to express?

Of course, there is a point where pictures become more photo manipulations than just photos, in which case they need to be judged with a completely different set of rules, however, i believe this does not make them any inferior to photos - if the creator intended them to be photo manipulations that is.

with that being said,
>>94306
her shit sux.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>94383
>with that being said, her shit sux.
QFT.
>> OP
I agree with a lot of people in this thread, but I'd like to point out that she is going for the "realism" style of photos, such as wedding shots and family/friends photography. She's beyond "deviantArting" it and wants to pursue this as a career.

I guess I'm just jealous of her rabid fanbase of friends.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>94438
Don't worry about that. If your photos are superior, you'll do better over time and be more respected. The issue with photography, as with all other arts, is that you can't take a shitty photo and say that everyone is a bad judge of quality if it receives poor reviews. On the flip side, you can easily play to the wants of audiences and get something that strikes a chord with people. Some things can't be done without Photoshop, and some things done with Photoshop are essential if you make a little mistake or something somehow gets into the image.

On that note, how might one get RID of lens flare in an image? I know perfectly well how to use Photoshop to put lens flare in, I was 12 years old at on point as well.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNoritsu KokiCamera ModelQSSImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3087Image Height2048
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>94438

Wedding doesn't mean realism. There's a lot to be said for some cosmetic touch-ups. Even if you've been asked for a photo journalistic style the bride or her mother won't thank you for the portrait that clearly shows her developing moustache, bags, cracked and yellow teeth and so on. The customer is not always right. Especially when you are dealing with laymen who you are being paid to do the work for because they don't know what they are talking about.

The only absolute against touch ups is when it is being used in either a legal context or when it is being used in or with a news article. Both of which is likely to land you or your employers a lawsuit.

Not that they make any worse photographers, but on the internet you'll find that women have certain advantages when it comes to getting praise from the peanut gallery that makes up the internet. Their boobs go a long way in getting a fan base.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>94442

The best thing for lens flare is to avoid getting it in the first place. Other than that you are going to have to do some heavy editing by hand to mask it.
>> Anonymous
In my experience, weddings tend to be among the most edited photos in the industry. Well, behind advertisements. People want to look back and think that they looked so beautiful on their wedding day, and sometimes they'll gladly take something outright fake to look back and think about how beautiful and glowing their faces were, etc...
>> Anonymous
I was worried about that. I wish I had a DSLR, then I could have just deleted the photo and tried again, but I guess it's just more reason to save up...

What surprises me about the photo's lens flare is that none of the lights were really that far out from the center of the frame. If the shutter speed is set to something really long, like 30 seconds, would lens flare be unavoidable, or is it something else?
>> Anonymous
>>94447

Do you remember the settings you used to take the picture?
>> OP
>>94443
>The only absolute against touch ups is when it is being used in either a legal context or when it is being used in or with a news article. Both of which is likely to land you or your employers a lawsuit.

See, that's me. I'm a journalist. I'm used to my photos being second to my piece, and why my style is a bit different. I guess that's why I'm jealous. Thanks a lot /p/ for not calling me a fag ><
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>94456

it's Ok, a lot of photoshopping drives me absolutely insane, too, and i can't stand anyone who does that to their photos- i majored in photojournalism/art/english, but i always have to remind myself that everyone has their own way of doing things.
>> Anonymous
>>94456
FAG
>> Anonymous
>>94362
>>(Caveat: I almost never postprocess any of my stuff beyond a resize)

aint that the truth, they're so shit nothing can save them.
>> Half-Eye !Ir.x8Zkt3c
I think there are three types of people in here:
1)Artists, who are using tools
2)Documentators, who want to capture reality, no matter how harsh or beautiful
3)Trolls.

If i want to create a piece of art that should look exactly the way i want it to, and i have the tools available, i may use them to an extent it makes the purist snobs puke. Just do not pretend that to be reality. If i want a crisp, artsy picture without any postprocessing, because that is my way to do it - why not. It does not even need more skill in taking, post processing is not necessarily "fixing what i screwed up while taking the picture". If i am a troll, i should pack my tiny little pen0r and GTFO.

tl;dr do whatever you want to. If Picasso would have listened to trolls who said zomg he sux, where would art be now?
>> Anonymous
>>94547

What if I am not a troll but I still have a small penis?
>> Half-Eye !Ir.x8Zkt3c
>>94549
then the above does apparently not apply to you. speaking of small pen0rs, can someone make this board SFW again? my fellow drones here are faint of heart and i do not seek any trouble with the head honcho - surfing at work is bad enough
>> Anonymous
>>94550

bump some threads to push it off front page
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>94535
Pretty much, yeah

>>94549
He was just saying that trolls have small dicks, not that *only* trolls have small dicks. So there's nothing to say you can't be an artistically- or photojournalistically-minded photographer with a tiny cock.