Note: In no way am I trying to step on anyone's toes. Please don't take my observation/opinion as a personal attack.

I feel like proficiency in Photoshop or other photo editing software is becoming more important than being skilled in actual picture taking.

Look at this gorgeous picture:



Absolutely stunning photo with a beautiful car but I can't help but wonder how much this picture was messed around with in PS or another program before being shared.

I appreciate pictures for the technique, creativity, and skill put into the shot, not how experienced someone is with software. Minor editing doesn't bother me, I do a little myself, but there comes a time when pictures begin to look unrealistic and are a bit overdone.

Another gorgeous shot but overdone IMO:



Does anyone else feel this way? Am I being too critical?

 

Its no different than a photographer taking his or her negative and processing the prints the way they wish them viewed.

Thats said...that is how I treat my photos using Lightroom which I feel is more of a true digital darkroom. As opposed to people who use PS to heavily manipulate and cut and and paste their photos. I dont have an issue with that either...but its not my style.

 

Doesn't bother me....Wish I could make my photos look like that..

 

It's part of the creative process. Sometimes you take a photo and it's exactly what you want. Other times, you just can't take the photo you want because reality doesn't match the vision you had.

 

IMO

It's a testament to personal preference and self-expression more than anything else.

What is the act of taking a photo... it's:
a) a subject you like to shoot
b) shot in an angle and composition that you like
c) using an exposure level (and other techniques) that you like

What is the act of processing the photo... it's:
a) deciding whether you want to process the photo
b) what style(s) you are going to process it
c) how much you are going to process it
d) whether you are going to add a border or any other finishing touches

Me personally, I truly feel that the potential of a photo, whatever it is, is not seen until it is processed in some way. There are very basic edits you can do to any photo to make it look better.

HOWEVER, this is changing, as cameras become more advanced. For instance, with the current generation of DSLR's, it's quite easy to get great looking photos straight from the camera. They are better than ever at handling the shadows/highlights, sharpness, contrast, color accuracy, and all of those things that make a photo look good. A classic statement is "it's not the camera, it's the photographer". This statement is becoming dated steadily as time goes on. You can take the same photographer and give them a new camera vs an old one, and the shot with the new camera CAN look better, just because of the camera.

That being said, I will very rarely ever post an unprocessed photo. I pretty much always process my photos. Something else I should mention here, I REALLY ENJOY processing photos. That is another area where personal preference comes in. I love editing photos. In some cases (particularly HDR) I enjoy it much more than taking the photos.

That being said, in terms of the full spectrum of photo editing possibility, I am doing very little. When you think of other techniques such as image compositing and using Photoshop more as a paintbrush than strict photo editing, you realize that there is sooooooooo many more possibilities to photo editing, than just tweaking a photo in LR or PS to make it "look better". You start talking about photo manipulations and you can see that the sky is the limit. It just depends on what you yourself want to do with your photo.

 

I dont find this accurate at all.

In the days of film you could always shoot with better glass (leica, contax, canon, nikon, plastic lenses (brownies/holgas) or film stocks with tighter grains and slower speeds versus faster and grainer.

And then you have formats...the old cartridge loaded 110....POLAROID!....35mmm, Medium format and the king, large format.

Obviously shooting large format vs 35mm will give you a superior image.

But its STILL the photographer that makes the difference.

The only thing today's technology has done is make it easier to put the best of technologies in everyones' hands. Doesn't make them better photographers.

 

i agree with you Tyler....the photo's seem to have lost its real essence....

 

I think you have to have the eye to frame a pic, and an idea of what you want to get out what you're taking. My point and shoot takes a more vivid pic than my DSLR, but PS allows me to get much more out of my T3i pics than my point and shoot. You can take a great shot with all the camera settings adjusted and Photoshop can most always make it look better IMO.

 

+1 and +1

 

What some people need to realize is that technology is changing and you need to keep up with it or you'll be left in the dust.

Photographers, computer programmers, engineers, musicians, doctors etc all experience a technology shift. The ones that hates the new technology are the ones that refuses or are unable to keep up. They feel obsolete and so they discredit the new style/technique.

Way back then, good photographers are the ones that knows how to set shutter, aperture, and choose which ISO film to shoot with. Now in the present time, the shift is not much worrying about the setting but how you could manipulate the photos to look correct.

Yes photo processing has become simpler and a lot more efficient, but that doesn't mean it's cheating or amateurish. Great photographers (actually, great anything) will always try to improve and adapt. Nowadays photographers have to improve on their digital processing techniques in order to keep up with the world.

Here is an example. What if Point and Shoot cameras one day trump DSLR's? Those that refuses to believe it will be left in the dust. Those that are too stubborn to adapt will be bitter to those taking advantage of the new technology.

 

I think I didn't explain well. Also I may have been referring to something different than the 'classic' statement. I am saying, if you have the same photographer, and you give them a new camera versus an old camera, they will take better photos with the new camera, using the same skills and techniques.

 

we're already there - the Sony RX1... for instance. It's up there with the best cameras ever made, regardless of size.

 

I honestly don't think we're there quite yet. But because of the vast improvement of PnS, it inspired me to use that as an example.

 

have you seen what the RX1 can do?

 

Yes I have seen it. But I understand what you're saying. I didn't make myself too clear.

The best PnS still cannot beat the best DSLR. My point in my example is that "what if one day the best PnS trumps the best DSLR?"

And the reason why I said that is because if a pro with the PnS go head to head with a pro with a DSLR, the guy with a DSLR will be bitter towards the guy with the PnS, even though the guy with the PnS has a better camera. So I guess that relates to digital processing. The guy that doesn't know how to use photoshop will be bitter towards the guy that can.

 

I don't really think a day will come when the best small camera is better than the best big camera. Because, all technologies are progressing steadily. No manufacturer is going to make a P&S that trumps their flagship. It would go against basic business model principles.

At least, this is the way it is, in 2013. Who knows what the future holds - it could be possible way down the road.

 

I get what you're saying...but what I said holds true.

If I was shooting on a 35mm Canon with their entry level glass...and then put on top end glass, It'll be a better photo. Film stock remaining the same between the two.

If I shoot the same subject again in large format...it'll be an even better photo because of the size of the negative and the optics.

Its no different than now...as I mentioned its just the technology is now smaller and more attainable. Computer chips have replaced film stocks and enhanced what lenses can achieve...or even out resolve them.

They might take an initial better image but they still don't make the photographer better.

 

a better image doesn't make a better photographer?

 

ask yourself this.

would you like to photoshop your wedding photos? or the photos of your children's birthday?

 

Well, again I didn't say it as a prediction. More to get my point through metaphorically.

 

seems like I am on a different wavelength here.

#exitingthreadlol

 

We're talking quality...resolution, coloremetry, latitude, low light, etc etc etc

Throw those features on a camera, throw it in full auto...and jpeg...and sure...an amateur or a non-photographer will probably a better looking photo than they might have with an older camera.

But does it mean they've sudden become better photographers? No

Does it mean they understand what shooting RAW really means? What they need to do in certain situations to attain certain looks be it affecting the DoF or the purposely over exposing for a certain effect? Do they know how to handle images in post (shooting RAW) so that you are not left with a flat "film negative"?

And most importantly do they understand composition? What makes a photo good and what makes one great?

The answer in no.

The equipment does not make the pro. I've seen too many examples of people who dropped a ton of coin for the best gear or had mommy and daddy float them 30K for a top end camera package...and they still can't get the results from it that a professional/enthusiast.

The camera is only the tool.

 

But think about it, PnS form factor CAN trump big DSLR's.

What if in the future, optics are obsolete and powerful lasers are better at processing images? Bigger doesn't always mean better.

 

I'm only going by final product. And I'm going by friends of mine, who have literally become better photographers overnight, because they upgraded their gear. I certainly put myself into the category as well. Better gear lets you get better photos, more consistently. This makes you a better photographer.

 

This is just natural progression of technology.

We already have a DSLR sized camera that plays in the Medium format world. We have smaller mirrorless bodies with interchangeable lenses that have made a big impact with their popularity...we have new P&S such as the XE-1 and RX100 that have been top ten 10 lists for 2012....we have fixed lens enthusiast camera such as the x100 and rx1 that have proven popular to certain shooters.

But thats not really what the topic is addressing.

 

hell, I switched to my 5Dc just 2 weekends ago, at the club. my keeper rate went down drastically. does this mean I suddenly became a bad photographer?

 

No, it doesn't. It just makes it easier to garner desired end results with out doing any of the real thinking and work behind the image.

But again...if you don't have any of the basics of photography or have a natural talent for composition you aren't going to be taking better photos. You might be taking better looking crap, but its still crap.

The tool does not make the artist.

 

I disagree 100%.

 

No it means you were either using the wrong tool for the job, or you were looking for a specific look that that particular tool could give. Which would only a yield a smaller "good" quotient.

 

I believe you have just sided with me. Because, if I am using the wrong tool for the job, then it is purely a question of gear, no?

 

You're free to.

But I see it every day, and if you dont know how to use your tools than they aren't worth shit.

Its like when the Canon 5D came out...and the Nikon D300, etc...suddenly all these new "wedding photographers" popped out of the woodwork with these affordable prosumer levels cameras and called themselves professional...and the fact of the matter is 95% of them sucked and had no business even attempting to sell themselves as photographers. And those customers who wanted their wedding days documented were left very unhappy.

 

(As you are free to as well)

but it's not a question of not knowing how to use the gear. it's a question of the AF not being nearly as good. period.

 

No. If a painter wants to create a very thin line he isn't going to use a thicker brush.

But does that mean that everyone who picks up a thin paint brush can make a beautiful image with it?

No.

 

You have two hands. You can easily switch to manual focus. And if your hand/eye coordination is good enough and you've practiced shooting that way, you can do a much better job than just relying on older slower autofocus techniques.

Again...having the tools...and knowing how to utilize them. Big difference.

 

Remember I have done fine with the 5Dc over the past years with the club stuff, it has been great. I never felt it was the 'wrong tool' for the job. It did what I wanted it to, generally speaking. But the fact is - and it is a real fact - my keeper rate went up drastically when I upgraded to a camera with a top-shelf AF system. A camera that I did not have the means to own, years ago. Does this still mean that I chose the wrong tool for the job?

 

No. I am shooting in the dark, only able to rely on the AF beam from the flash as a source of focus. Yes, the red cross-hairs. That's it. There is no way in hell I could MF in this situation - you can't see shit in the viewfinder. Also, even if I could, it would be entirely counter-productive to MF at the club, on a regular basis. And, it would be foolish of me to do that on a regular basis, when better options exist. Unless I WANTED a weekly challenge. At this point after doing this for 8 years, I am not interested in that for nightclub work - I am interested in reliability and consistent results.

 

I look at photos I took with my old D100...and now even my D3...and I think to myself. If I had had my D800 at that time I might be able to make a larger print, I might have had a little more clarity, I might have had a little more latitude while processing. Better AF might have meant not missing a shot or it might not.

But they are still solid images taken with my own photographic merit. Having had the D800 would not have made me a better photographer. I would not have composed the images any different. I would not have processed them any different.

Again. The tool does not make the artist.

 

srika, I think your example of switching to the 5Dc wasn't a sound example. Reason being is that we are now talking about the AF system of the camera, not the user. With your upgraded camera, you took better pictures. But like Sarlacc said, you could have switched to manual if you were a better photographer. A photographer is a specialist, not a name for someone who shoots pictures.

To add, you can't see crap through the view finder but you can gauge distance and then adjust accordingly. This is what photographers did back then when computers didn't aid cameras, didn't they?

 

please see above - I could not have switched to MF.

I think Sarlacc and I are talking about different things. I am talking more about technical side, he is talking about the artistic side.

 

You shoot the same club consistently...you don't have guesstimates of distance at this point time? You don't know when your 10 feet away from a subject vs 15 or 20 feet?

You don't know that when you standing at the bottom step to the bar you are 8 feet from the center of the dance floor and when your at the bar your now 18 feet?

Because if I was shooting a location consistently over time I would rough ideas of these things. And if I needed to use MF I would have pretty good ideas where to reference my focus.

And again just because you now have a camera that has better AF and gets you more "keepers" doesn't mean it makes you a better photographer. You still know how to use your gear.