Just curious... with photoshop seeming to be more important than learning to concentrate using the camera. I just wonder what did photographer's do? apart from spending many hours in a darkroom.
William
Posted by Rob Ashton on October 2, 2006 at 6:11 PM
The darkroom allowed the photographers to transform what they had captured on film into a visual image on paper.
Photoshop has taken this process and expanded it greatly. By taking raw digital data {the image digitised) and manipulating that image information we are able to get the most out of the raw data as possible. We can even alter it completely and create a totally different image to the one captured in the first place.
Photoshop (and other imaging software) allows us far more control of the captured image than ever before. We now spend hours hunched over a computer instead of in the darkroom and can produce even more remarkable things. Is this good? It can be great or it can be awful. It depends on the creator and the viewer.
Rob
Posted by Paul Williams on October 3, 2006 at 4:42 AM
As I recall, I used to pay someone lots of money to do the work on the neg and print or spend a long time in the darkroom! It's so much easier and cheaper nowadays to deal with digital.
However, Photoshop post processing is analogous film processing (some may argue otherwise, this is a personal viewpoint that works for me), and without knowing how to use your equipment, understanding the basics of photography, planning and exposing your shot properly in the first place, no amount of time and effort post processing in photshop will produce a fully satisfactory result. Photoshop is a brilliant tool and in the right hands can take a good shot and really put the icing on it, but it needs good raw materials to work with.
If I have to spend any more than 5 mins processing a shot in Photoshop then I know I've screwed up the bit that matters i.e. taking the shot in the first place. I make a mental note of where I went wrong for next time and move on to processing the next shot.
I still treat digital like film, unless there is at least half a chance that a shot is going to work then I won't bother pressing the shutter release. It's rare for me to fill up just one 2Gig card with RAW when out shooting. I know many people who do the opposite, but for me life is to short to sit down and try to assess and process hundreds of shots from a days shooting.
If I have to spend any more than 5 mins processing a shot in Photoshop then I know I've screwed up the bit that matters i.e. taking the shot in the first place.
If it ain't roughly right in the camera its unlikely to be make right in PS. Ofcourse you can montage and composite a number of select parts of images to make a nice image, as you could in the darkroom, it is just simplier.
It should be remember that whilst Ansel Adams was a fine photographer, he spend more time in his darkroom than he did in the field. If photographers now spend more time on photoshop than they do with the camera - is that any different?
Photography has not changed. To be a good photographer you have to understand both the 'capture' and 'process' side of phoptography whether it is a wet or dry process.
That said, in closing, it should be remembered that
It takes a considerable magic to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Discussion
3 repliesWilliam
Photoshop has taken this process and expanded it greatly. By taking raw digital data {the image digitised) and manipulating that image information we are able to get the most out of the raw data as possible. We can even alter it completely and create a totally different image to the one captured in the first place.
Photoshop (and other imaging software) allows us far more control of the captured image than ever before. We now spend hours hunched over a computer instead of in the darkroom and can produce even more remarkable things. Is this good? It can be great or it can be awful. It depends on the creator and the viewer.
Rob
However, Photoshop post processing is analogous film processing (some may argue otherwise, this is a personal viewpoint that works for me), and without knowing how to use your equipment, understanding the basics of photography, planning and exposing your shot properly in the first place, no amount of time and effort post processing in photshop will produce a fully satisfactory result. Photoshop is a brilliant tool and in the right hands can take a good shot and really put the icing on it, but it needs good raw materials to work with.
If I have to spend any more than 5 mins processing a shot in Photoshop then I know I've screwed up the bit that matters i.e. taking the shot in the first place. I make a mental note of where I went wrong for next time and move on to processing the next shot.
I still treat digital like film, unless there is at least half a chance that a shot is going to work then I won't bother pressing the shutter release. It's rare for me to fill up just one 2Gig card with RAW when out shooting. I know many people who do the opposite, but for me life is to short to sit down and try to assess and process hundreds of shots from a days shooting.
If it ain't roughly right in the camera its unlikely to be make right in PS. Ofcourse you can montage and composite a number of select parts of images to make a nice image, as you could in the darkroom, it is just simplier.
It should be remember that whilst Ansel Adams was a fine photographer, he spend more time in his darkroom than he did in the field. If photographers now spend more time on photoshop than they do with the camera - is that any different?
Photography has not changed. To be a good photographer you have to understand both the 'capture' and 'process' side of phoptography whether it is a wet or dry process.
That said, in closing, it should be remembered that
It takes a considerable magic to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.