I was recently looking at some Photoshop tutorials on DVD which I'd picked up in Bangkok, a bit cheap I admit. But for some reason, I find them rather boring. It reminded me of those ubiquitous, 'ever so popular' cooking programs one gets on TV. A bit of Basil here, a bit of Thyme there, a pinch of salt, an ounce of butter and a dash of pepper etc etc.
I'm beginning to feel I'm a visual cook, catering to the esthetic eye rather than the well trained olfactory and taste-bud palette.
I mean, I could spend the rest of my life re-hashing, re-doing, modifying, altering, improving, enhancing, reconverting, stitching etc. etc. the images I already have, without taking another single photo.
Whatever print I produced just 3 years ago, I now feel to be inadequate. I'm confident I can now go back to the RAW image and perhaps by just using Raw Shooter instead of ACR, do a better job, not to mention a few other techniques I might have picked up in Photoshop in the meantime.
When is a photographic work of art really complete?
I found it inspired lots of connections in my thinking, and here's my response:
I think of Photoshop more as a paint brush for photographers. It's functions lend it to expressions of "artistic license" in much the same way a painter interprets reality. Artistic license and self-expression are accepted and respected in painting, and I see no reason they can't fill the same role and find the same acceptance in artistic photography.
Before photography leered its head painting was commonly used as "photojournalism," but the medium has certainly survived being supplanted in that role by photography. I don't see why some similar transition in photography over time isn't possible, or even likely.
With the ever-stronger emergence of television and webcasting, video is in the process of supplanting still photography as the main medium for photojournalism. My glass is usually half full, so I regard that as an opportunity for still photography to move on from the strict dictates of "reliality" imposed by traditionalists, much as painting was freed from reality by the emergence of photography.
I ducked the question of deciding when a photo is finished, because for me that's a lesser part of the bigger question.
I'm curious how my fellow NPN'ers feel about the role of Photoshop and the future of still photography.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on August 11, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Outside of photojournalism, I think still photography and video are different enough that they will peacefully coexist for the immediate future. As fas as the role of PS, it's such a powerful tool that it will always be a part of still photography - to whatever extent the photographer chooses to use it.
I do believe that it's only a matter of time before the Internet will be capable (in terms of speed and capacity) for us to share our videos as easily as we share our still photos now. Once that happens, still photography may begin to loose some of its mass appeal. And in our homes, we will have "picture-like" displays of continuously looping video adorning our walls.
A great man once said something to the effect: "The measure of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
I think you're brilliant, Jim!
Playing catch with a crystal ball is integral to my personality and intellect. My wife and I built our business by anticipating trends, not only as they affect our techniques and product line but also in gear expenditures and other investments.
She pulled a nasty stunt on me last year, keeping track of how much video work we passed on to others. Expressed in $'s, it appears that adding video would increase our business volume by over 50%. Gack!!!!! Though I've worked in video production in various capacities since 1976, I've loudly resisted moving it into our business. But the crystal ball is becoming pretty emphatic.
The crystal ball has something to say about our future with still photography, too. On the specific question of photoshoping versus reality our clients prefer many of the affects to "straight" photography, especially for large framed images on canvas stretchers, as I cited in this thread in the NPN Digital Imaging forum. Though 20x30 and larger images contribute only about 20% to our income, virtually all of those are canvases with more or less manipulation rather than "straight" prints. If manipulation is regarded by clients as "art" and has increased our business volume by 20%, my crystal ball has stories to tell.
I actually don't think "chef" is the correct analogy here. I would opt for "craftsman". Ansel Adams was certainly a master printer, developer, retoucher, camera operator etc. but these are just skills enabling him to be a great photographer.
Some get by on craftsmanship alone, some use it to express themselves creatively. Either one will not amount to much without mastering the tools and skills of their trade.
A very pertinent discussion for me at the moment. Two weeks today I'll be in the recovery room after having my hip replaced. While I learn to walk again, I thought I might go over old images and rework them in Photoshop. In approaching the stock company, the reply was there is very little demand for 'art' images.
Part of current technology is that new software or effects are available to all users at once, and they use it. It is to be suspected everybody here has bought a new lens that didn't come off the camera for a few weeks after the purchase until the novelty wore off. As you pointed out in the discussion on HDR, it is a tool, one that is hot at the moment. The novelty will wear off in a while or when the next hot bit of software is released.
In researching HDR it seems to be that it was originally developed for better 3D graphics rendering, particularly games. I've come across photos that look more like they were constructed by Industrial Light and Magic than originally taken with a camera. I'll not say it is right or wrong, but not my fancy to have photos resemble Doom. But given the younger generation of gamers, for somebody, it may be a very good market.
Over the years it is to be suspected we have all 'borrowed' at technique from a colleague, emulated an image we saw in a magazine, worked with the 'latest' developer. To my mind, the difference now is we live in the instant age of the Internet, and being a digitally technical age, we see a lot more people using the technology for the sake of the technology rather than the end result.
I wonder if the change in the marketplace, may also be having an effect. It would seem that industry now looks for icons rather than images. With the rapid changes in technology and the public demand for novelty, could it be an age in which the time it takes to develop a 'style' is now obsolete?
In the meantime, I'll be spending my recuperation in front of the computer, if I'm not falling over! :) If it avails something the agency likes, great. If not I'll know more about Photoshop. Any good videos somebody could recommend? Not Bruce Willis; Photoshop!
Recover quickly, David! While I will eventually have an appointment with the knife, I'm still avoiding it. Numerous friends wearing replacements are thrilled with the results. Pay attention and follow the dictates of the physical therapy nazi, however!
Not a Photoshop video, but I strongly recommend the late Dean Collins' tape "Dean Collins on 3 Dimensional Lighting: Principles of Photographic Lighting" from Chimera. It's directed more at the studio-types than general photographers, but I have found it to have immense utility beyond the four walls and light controls. It's a one-hour mindbender, and absorbing his points will certainly occupy your recuperation hours.
I guess you could call it an "anti-Photoshop" video, in that its insights about light sincerely cut Photoshop gymnastics. If you can't find it for some reason, contact me offline and I'll loan you mine.
Interesting you mention the lighting video. Wish I could remember where it was, but did come across an interesting debate regarding HDR in which it was argued many people using HDR were using it, poorly, as a remedy for not paying enough attention to the existing lighting conditions in the first place.
I'm curious how my fellow NPN'ers feel about the role of Photoshop and the future of still photography.
I really have no clue, Hank, although I suspect I'll have contempt for 'gimmicky' PS tools of the future (like I do for HDR now).
As one who tends to fuss over making the best prints I can, there comes a point where one must sacrifice perfection for excellence - a perfect print really can't be had. The reality is that NO photographic work of art is ever complete, as the resulting print will change and develop over time as much as does the mood and spirit of its maker. I'm not sure I've ever made two identical prints....
Ultimately, a photograph will succeed entirely on its ability to reach people. Photoshop or any means of making a print for this matter will not make a great photograph any better, although misuse/abuse of such tools can really kill an image (I've seen it). If a straight print is uninteresting and unworthy, not even seven hundred hours of Photoshop work and 200 layers will save it. A good images is just flat out good; Photoshop and prints are not required to prove this!
I whole heartedly agree with you Michael. If I can carry on with the chef analogy, the ingredients are what we find in nature to photograph. The photograph is the ingredients put together to comprise the meal. Photoshop are the spices and "this and that" to enhance the visual flavor of the ingredients. Before PS it was the darkroom.
If the image was "perfected" into a feast for the eyes in the beginning, then puttering with it further, never being satisfied, is bringing it onto the road to ruin. Sometimes we have to be satisfied and say this is finished. As in real cooking it is easy to get carried away with the spices etc.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Richard Wong on August 11, 2006 at 10:41 PM
"If a straight print is uninteresting and unworthy, not even seven hundred hours of Photoshop work and 200 layers will save it."
I thought the same thing too until a few days ago. There was a photography / illustration / retouching agent that came over to the office at work and brought along 4 portfolios. Everything was amazing from a graphic design standpoint, but the thing that really caught my attention was how they were able to take photos of scenes like a generic southwestern road scene and turn it into an arctic blizzard. I studied it and couldn't tell that it had been manipulated even when I knew they did it. another scene had a road scenic in new england with all the colors of foliage, and turned it into a springtime road scene. granted all these projects were done for the advertising industry, but those prints alone had me convinced that the art is only really limited by imagination. Or personal ethics.
I'd like to see photography grow where no one has to question anyone's integrity for their choices. at the end of the day, I just want to see something visually appealing and preferably something I hadn't seen before.
Excellent points Michael, Will and Richard. I come from the old, old Photoshop school, first using the program in the early 90's on a book project. The tools and capabilities were exciting, but it became immediately apparent that Photoshop was a last resort. It was far better to get the shot "right" at the press of the shutter release. Nothing has happened to change my mind on that point when it comes to straight photography. Similarly, I have played with all the original filters and any that have come along since and found very little utility other than USM, gaussian blur, and high pass for the most part in straight photography.
But at the same time I see another form of "photography" emerging in which images are more heavily manipulated along the lines of a painter "interpretting" a scene, often producing results characterized as "painterly." I don't know what to call it really, but in our experience clients love it and pay high prices for it, universally regarding it as some higher form of "art" than a straight photo. If market forces factor into any photographer's business plan, it's something to watch. We're getting such powerful response from clients that we can't ignore it. In our application we are using lighting enhancements and selective focus to the exclusion of more far out techniques, simply giving a little boost to what's there- selectively and subtlely of course.
The affect of many of those adjustments are along the lines presented in the tape I recommended to David P. The tape demos lighting techniques, while photoshop can be used to produce very similar results without lugging all the equipment into the field. As in my early enlightenment however, the more you can accomplish in first capture, the less you have to work in photoshop. But far too often to discount photoshop entirely, the lighting simply isn't right for the results you need.
I'm not going to write a book about it, but here's food for thought based upon my application of Collins' studio techniques in the field, especially with fill flash. It's near religious dogma to "expose for the highlights," but how many people have really thought about what a highlight is and how texture, form, tonality and the nature and distance of the light affect highlights, and how highlights can work in turn to emphasize those points. Fine tuning exposure and DR can have dramatic affects beyond the results of simply exposing for highlights.
The second bit of dogma is the recommendation to set a strobe for -1.7 comp and fire away. But how many photographers study the relationship between fill and highlights, much less dynamic range, and make comp adjustments in response to the same features of texture, form, tonality and the nature of the light? I regularly use comps ranging from -3 to +1.3 depending upon the circumstances and the subject.
Those are my principal concerns in the outdoor and nature shooting I do most, and in fact are the points we work with in using photoshop for extra manipulation beyond "normal" photo processing.
This is all getting pretty esoteric, so I'll summarize by saying that it appears market forces are working to define "photography as art" in ways that may not be comfortable to traditional photographers. But as reflected in stock, changes are afoot with little regard for traditions in photography. Art for art's sake is one thing, and good on you if you can make a living at it without responding to changes in the market. But from a purely business standpoint, I'm not willing to put all our money on one horse. If art for art's sake becomes a hobby while I use the camera to make a living shooting something else, it's still a pretty fine life.
A nature photographer works hard for his/her photographs, battling the elements, travelling over treacherous terrains, lugging weighty equipment, getting up at 3 a.m., etc. The photographer is also infinitely patient, returning again and again to the same location until he gets the shot he wants. So after enduring hardships and spending hours, days in the field he finally gets the shot he wants.
But being somewhat of a perfectionist, he/she thinks the image is not quite "there" yet even after the basic adjustments from the RAW file in PhotoShop. The moment he goes beyond the basic adjustments PhotoShop begins to take the credit for the image; not the hard work that the photographer has put into it. And that I find objectional. In the examples Richard gave of the dramatic changes to ordinary shots it seems possible to forget about hard work and get the same images you want from the warmth and comfort of home in front of the computer
From the chef analogy standpoint, the image becomes comparable to a precooked package meal, instead of the hard work making it from scratch.
Interesting comparison Will with the meat. But if you're in business and the market wants precooked packaged meat, do you shut down your health food store? You might not eat the stuff yourself, but does that mean you can't sell it?
I've shot with some big-time nature and landscape photographers over the years, both as a friend and while in workshops. Universally they use this statement when reviewing and discussing photos:
"Don't tell me about the broken glass and cow pies you crawled through to get it. Show me the picture." Whether or not that has anything to do with Photoshop is moot, but from a purely business standpoint clients have no interest in how hard you worked for the photo. They're only interested in results. Same applies, I think, to any public display of photography whether for sale or not.
Very worthwhile discussion. Thanks!
Posted by Richard Wong on August 12, 2006 at 10:27 PM
regarding the examples I cited, those were done for the ad agencies because they had a particular composition they needed but the images were from the wrong season. They didn't have the time to wait for the right season to get the right conditions. It is a deadline oriented business after all. There's many reasons for why buyers need what they need and why photographers do what they do. At the end of the day, it comes down to doing what is best for you. Those were done for commercial purposes by a world-class production studio, so it's a different animal than what most of us here shoot for.
Posted by Scott Hussey on August 13, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Disrespect to chefs may not have beenb intended, but this seems very disrespuctful to chefs to me. I may be able to go to a bookstore and buy a few recipe books It may make me a better cook, but it does not neccesarily make me a great chef. If I work at it, and study, I can learn how different flavours and textures interact. I can learn how different ingredients and preperation processes affect the flavour and texture and consistancy of the food. Once I understand the mechanics and pricipals of cooking, I may be able to really create something, and at that point I might be on my way to becoming a chef.
In my mind the same thing applies to photography. My post processing abilites may have improved dramatically over the last couple of years. That does not mean I can go back and work on an old picture in photshop and make it into a picture that I took today. Chances are there will be other things lacking than post processing skills and technology, and I am not talking about having a newer camera or a better lens. There are much less tangible elements to a good picture.
I think all creative endeavours are like that. It is possible to have a complete understanding of all of the science and techniques that are required to really create something, and still not be able to really create.
Buy the best tools and ingredients, read all the books, take all the right classes and practice away. Yet there is still no guarantee your creations will be palatable. Something inside you has to drive it all, and that's where the art emerges.
Posted by Svein-Frode on August 15, 2006 at 3:30 AM
The problem as I see it is that very few of us will become an "Ansel Adams". By that I mean, being a great photographer, a great developer and a great printer at the same time. Digital has sort of forced us into trying. The good thing about it is creative control of course, but on the other hand the digital learning curve has forced many to photograph less and work in Photoshop more.
If I could afford it I would send all my editing and printing out of house and concentrate on the photography...
Posted by Will Webster on August 17, 2006 at 3:20 PM
If a rank amateur can weigh in...
I have two creative outlets: photography and cooking. So the analogy is interesting.
Some days I don't feel inspired, or don't care for the ingredients available, but if I don't cook something my family doesn't eat. Sort of like being a working professional photographer I guess.
Sometimes I follow recipes, sometimes I modify recipes on the fly, sometimes I just strike out on my own and follow my culinary zen. Those last are the most satifying times, but if they're successful it's in large part because of what I've learned from following recipes in the past.
I don't think there's any art that doesn't require a lot of technical skill. If you have the technical skill but not the vision you can create something satisfying. If you have the vision but not the skill you won't. If you have both you can create something spectacular - whether it's a photograph, a meal, or a symphony.
Discussion
19 repliesHere's his elaboration:
I was recently looking at some Photoshop tutorials on DVD which I'd picked up in Bangkok, a bit cheap I admit. But for some reason, I find them rather boring. It reminded me of those ubiquitous, 'ever so popular' cooking programs one gets on TV. A bit of Basil here, a bit of Thyme there, a pinch of salt, an ounce of butter and a dash of pepper etc etc.
I'm beginning to feel I'm a visual cook, catering to the esthetic eye rather than the well trained olfactory and taste-bud palette.
I mean, I could spend the rest of my life re-hashing, re-doing, modifying, altering, improving, enhancing, reconverting, stitching etc. etc. the images I already have, without taking another single photo.
Whatever print I produced just 3 years ago, I now feel to be inadequate. I'm confident I can now go back to the RAW image and perhaps by just using Raw Shooter instead of ACR, do a better job, not to mention a few other techniques I might have picked up in Photoshop in the meantime.
When is a photographic work of art really complete?
I found it inspired lots of connections in my thinking, and here's my response:
I think of Photoshop more as a paint brush for photographers. It's functions lend it to expressions of "artistic license" in much the same way a painter interprets reality. Artistic license and self-expression are accepted and respected in painting, and I see no reason they can't fill the same role and find the same acceptance in artistic photography.
Before photography leered its head painting was commonly used as "photojournalism," but the medium has certainly survived being supplanted in that role by photography. I don't see why some similar transition in photography over time isn't possible, or even likely.
With the ever-stronger emergence of television and webcasting, video is in the process of supplanting still photography as the main medium for photojournalism. My glass is usually half full, so I regard that as an opportunity for still photography to move on from the strict dictates of "reliality" imposed by traditionalists, much as painting was freed from reality by the emergence of photography.
I ducked the question of deciding when a photo is finished, because for me that's a lesser part of the bigger question.
I'm curious how my fellow NPN'ers feel about the role of Photoshop and the future of still photography.
I do believe that it's only a matter of time before the Internet will be capable (in terms of speed and capacity) for us to share our videos as easily as we share our still photos now. Once that happens, still photography may begin to loose some of its mass appeal. And in our homes, we will have "picture-like" displays of continuously looping video adorning our walls.
I think you're brilliant, Jim!
Playing catch with a crystal ball is integral to my personality and intellect. My wife and I built our business by anticipating trends, not only as they affect our techniques and product line but also in gear expenditures and other investments.
She pulled a nasty stunt on me last year, keeping track of how much video work we passed on to others. Expressed in $'s, it appears that adding video would increase our business volume by over 50%. Gack!!!!! Though I've worked in video production in various capacities since 1976, I've loudly resisted moving it into our business. But the crystal ball is becoming pretty emphatic.
The crystal ball has something to say about our future with still photography, too. On the specific question of photoshoping versus reality our clients prefer many of the affects to "straight" photography, especially for large framed images on canvas stretchers, as I cited in this thread in the NPN Digital Imaging forum. Though 20x30 and larger images contribute only about 20% to our income, virtually all of those are canvases with more or less manipulation rather than "straight" prints. If manipulation is regarded by clients as "art" and has increased our business volume by 20%, my crystal ball has stories to tell.
http://www.lenswork.com/lwpod.htm (the one titled "A Book I Won't be Purchasing").
I actually don't think "chef" is the correct analogy here. I would opt for "craftsman". Ansel Adams was certainly a master printer, developer, retoucher, camera operator etc. but these are just skills enabling him to be a great photographer.
Some get by on craftsmanship alone, some use it to express themselves creatively. Either one will not amount to much without mastering the tools and skills of their trade.
Guy
A very pertinent discussion for me at the moment. Two weeks today I'll be in the recovery room after having my hip replaced. While I learn to walk again, I thought I might go over old images and rework them in Photoshop. In approaching the stock company, the reply was there is very little demand for 'art' images.
Part of current technology is that new software or effects are available to all users at once, and they use it. It is to be suspected everybody here has bought a new lens that didn't come off the camera for a few weeks after the purchase until the novelty wore off. As you pointed out in the discussion on HDR, it is a tool, one that is hot at the moment. The novelty will wear off in a while or when the next hot bit of software is released.
In researching HDR it seems to be that it was originally developed for better 3D graphics rendering, particularly games. I've come across photos that look more like they were constructed by Industrial Light and Magic than originally taken with a camera. I'll not say it is right or wrong, but not my fancy to have photos resemble Doom. But given the younger generation of gamers, for somebody, it may be a very good market.
Over the years it is to be suspected we have all 'borrowed' at technique from a colleague, emulated an image we saw in a magazine, worked with the 'latest' developer. To my mind, the difference now is we live in the instant age of the Internet, and being a digitally technical age, we see a lot more people using the technology for the sake of the technology rather than the end result.
I wonder if the change in the marketplace, may also be having an effect. It would seem that industry now looks for icons rather than images. With the rapid changes in technology and the public demand for novelty, could it be an age in which the time it takes to develop a 'style' is now obsolete?
In the meantime, I'll be spending my recuperation in front of the computer, if I'm not falling over! :) If it avails something the agency likes, great. If not I'll know more about Photoshop. Any good videos somebody could recommend? Not Bruce Willis; Photoshop!
Dave
Not a Photoshop video, but I strongly recommend the late Dean Collins' tape "Dean Collins on 3 Dimensional Lighting: Principles of Photographic Lighting" from Chimera. It's directed more at the studio-types than general photographers, but I have found it to have immense utility beyond the four walls and light controls. It's a one-hour mindbender, and absorbing his points will certainly occupy your recuperation hours.
I guess you could call it an "anti-Photoshop" video, in that its insights about light sincerely cut Photoshop gymnastics. If you can't find it for some reason, contact me offline and I'll loan you mine.
The days of portaging are over unfortunately.
Interesting you mention the lighting video. Wish I could remember where it was, but did come across an interesting debate regarding HDR in which it was argued many people using HDR were using it, poorly, as a remedy for not paying enough attention to the existing lighting conditions in the first place.
Dave
That title is "Dean Collins on 3 Dimentional Contrast."
Sorry for any confusion.
I really have no clue, Hank, although I suspect I'll have contempt for 'gimmicky' PS tools of the future (like I do for HDR now).
As one who tends to fuss over making the best prints I can, there comes a point where one must sacrifice perfection for excellence - a perfect print really can't be had. The reality is that NO photographic work of art is ever complete, as the resulting print will change and develop over time as much as does the mood and spirit of its maker. I'm not sure I've ever made two identical prints....
Ultimately, a photograph will succeed entirely on its ability to reach people. Photoshop or any means of making a print for this matter will not make a great photograph any better, although misuse/abuse of such tools can really kill an image (I've seen it). If a straight print is uninteresting and unworthy, not even seven hundred hours of Photoshop work and 200 layers will save it. A good images is just flat out good; Photoshop and prints are not required to prove this!
If the image was "perfected" into a feast for the eyes in the beginning, then puttering with it further, never being satisfied, is bringing it onto the road to ruin. Sometimes we have to be satisfied and say this is finished. As in real cooking it is easy to get carried away with the spices etc.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I thought the same thing too until a few days ago. There was a photography / illustration / retouching agent that came over to the office at work and brought along 4 portfolios. Everything was amazing from a graphic design standpoint, but the thing that really caught my attention was how they were able to take photos of scenes like a generic southwestern road scene and turn it into an arctic blizzard. I studied it and couldn't tell that it had been manipulated even when I knew they did it. another scene had a road scenic in new england with all the colors of foliage, and turned it into a springtime road scene. granted all these projects were done for the advertising industry, but those prints alone had me convinced that the art is only really limited by imagination. Or personal ethics.
I'd like to see photography grow where no one has to question anyone's integrity for their choices. at the end of the day, I just want to see something visually appealing and preferably something I hadn't seen before.
But at the same time I see another form of "photography" emerging in which images are more heavily manipulated along the lines of a painter "interpretting" a scene, often producing results characterized as "painterly." I don't know what to call it really, but in our experience clients love it and pay high prices for it, universally regarding it as some higher form of "art" than a straight photo. If market forces factor into any photographer's business plan, it's something to watch. We're getting such powerful response from clients that we can't ignore it. In our application we are using lighting enhancements and selective focus to the exclusion of more far out techniques, simply giving a little boost to what's there- selectively and subtlely of course.
The affect of many of those adjustments are along the lines presented in the tape I recommended to David P. The tape demos lighting techniques, while photoshop can be used to produce very similar results without lugging all the equipment into the field. As in my early enlightenment however, the more you can accomplish in first capture, the less you have to work in photoshop. But far too often to discount photoshop entirely, the lighting simply isn't right for the results you need.
I'm not going to write a book about it, but here's food for thought based upon my application of Collins' studio techniques in the field, especially with fill flash. It's near religious dogma to "expose for the highlights," but how many people have really thought about what a highlight is and how texture, form, tonality and the nature and distance of the light affect highlights, and how highlights can work in turn to emphasize those points. Fine tuning exposure and DR can have dramatic affects beyond the results of simply exposing for highlights.
The second bit of dogma is the recommendation to set a strobe for -1.7 comp and fire away. But how many photographers study the relationship between fill and highlights, much less dynamic range, and make comp adjustments in response to the same features of texture, form, tonality and the nature of the light? I regularly use comps ranging from -3 to +1.3 depending upon the circumstances and the subject.
Those are my principal concerns in the outdoor and nature shooting I do most, and in fact are the points we work with in using photoshop for extra manipulation beyond "normal" photo processing.
This is all getting pretty esoteric, so I'll summarize by saying that it appears market forces are working to define "photography as art" in ways that may not be comfortable to traditional photographers. But as reflected in stock, changes are afoot with little regard for traditions in photography. Art for art's sake is one thing, and good on you if you can make a living at it without responding to changes in the market. But from a purely business standpoint, I'm not willing to put all our money on one horse. If art for art's sake becomes a hobby while I use the camera to make a living shooting something else, it's still a pretty fine life.
But being somewhat of a perfectionist, he/she thinks the image is not quite "there" yet even after the basic adjustments from the RAW file in PhotoShop. The moment he goes beyond the basic adjustments PhotoShop begins to take the credit for the image; not the hard work that the photographer has put into it. And that I find objectional. In the examples Richard gave of the dramatic changes to ordinary shots it seems possible to forget about hard work and get the same images you want from the warmth and comfort of home in front of the computer
From the chef analogy standpoint, the image becomes comparable to a precooked package meal, instead of the hard work making it from scratch.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I've shot with some big-time nature and landscape photographers over the years, both as a friend and while in workshops. Universally they use this statement when reviewing and discussing photos:
"Don't tell me about the broken glass and cow pies you crawled through to get it. Show me the picture." Whether or not that has anything to do with Photoshop is moot, but from a purely business standpoint clients have no interest in how hard you worked for the photo. They're only interested in results. Same applies, I think, to any public display of photography whether for sale or not.
Very worthwhile discussion. Thanks!
In my mind the same thing applies to photography. My post processing abilites may have improved dramatically over the last couple of years. That does not mean I can go back and work on an old picture in photshop and make it into a picture that I took today. Chances are there will be other things lacking than post processing skills and technology, and I am not talking about having a newer camera or a better lens. There are much less tangible elements to a good picture.
I think all creative endeavours are like that. It is possible to have a complete understanding of all of the science and techniques that are required to really create something, and still not be able to really create.
Buy the best tools and ingredients, read all the books, take all the right classes and practice away. Yet there is still no guarantee your creations will be palatable. Something inside you has to drive it all, and that's where the art emerges.
If I could afford it I would send all my editing and printing out of house and concentrate on the photography...
I have two creative outlets: photography and cooking. So the analogy is interesting.
Some days I don't feel inspired, or don't care for the ingredients available, but if I don't cook something my family doesn't eat. Sort of like being a working professional photographer I guess.
Sometimes I follow recipes, sometimes I modify recipes on the fly, sometimes I just strike out on my own and follow my culinary zen. Those last are the most satifying times, but if they're successful it's in large part because of what I've learned from following recipes in the past.
I don't think there's any art that doesn't require a lot of technical skill. If you have the technical skill but not the vision you can create something satisfying. If you have the vision but not the skill you won't. If you have both you can create something spectacular - whether it's a photograph, a meal, or a symphony.