"I hate photoshopping and I hate editing"

[Dylan & Marianne]

I don't want to implicate any individual for the line above and I suspect it may have been taken out of context , but
That was the caption beneath a picture published locally (in a newspaper) quoting the photographer.

Your thoughts /reactions?

I'd imagine that with photoshop's bad press to the general public , many people would be thinking 'good on you!'
As a photographer, my personal reaction was a mixture of :eek: and :rolleyes:

The image by the way, was a good one of a local icon

[Bennymiata]

The photographer probably has no knowledge of Photoshop, and is too scared to use it.

He/She can't be much of a photographer either.

[livio]

I think everyone will have an opinion on this, personally I think that when processing digital images photo shop is a requirement. The adobe Light Room product is good but it is a crippled version of photoshop. For the purists they will depend on getting the image right through the camera, I have to admit I'm in this camp. I have also seen many a young photographer fix up their images with photoshop and enhance the image. When taking portraits, wedding photos, significant events photoshop is your friend. If your paying customer is happy with the result you can be assured you will have bought someone joy. If anything photoshop is more of an artists tool but then so is a digital camera. If you really want purity and photographic skills you need to specialise on a medium to large format cameras shooting on film.

[JM Tran]

Well, maybe he would prefer a Polaroid camera then, zero processing and editing, instant gratification:)

[fess67]

I prefer to post process. I actually enjoy it even though I am not good at it. For me it is an additional aspect to my hobby.

However, let me take a balanced view. It is perfectly possible to get very good images in camera and take them in JPG form. No need to process and perfectly acceptable results. If he was more moderate in his language and stated he sees no need to photoshop or edit as he takes care to get it right in camera then it may have been more acceptable. Of course creating it as a JPG is in itself processing however you get the gist.

[arthurking83]

I can relate the general idea.

Not that I'm a big fan of Photoshop, but I don't care either way which editing program I use ..

the process of editing is tiresome and cumbersome and tedious.

I suppose I'm the type that likes cheap thrills and everything done for me :p .. all I want is a camera that knows what I want from my images and they come out looking the way I want them too straight out of camera!

:D


Seriously tho I don't particularly enjoy editing, as I'd rather be doing something else, so I like trying to stick with the simple edits in life using simple editor software, but on occasion I've enjoyed watching an image 'come to life' with tweaking here and there, but on the flip side I've had more enjoyment seeing an image the way I wanted it to be SOOC.

[ameerat42]

This basic issue - PP - has been raised before, along with a substantial degree of ire, in a thread roughly titled "To PP or not to PP", or p's and q's to that effect.
Or have we all 4-gotten it and all the heated P's and Q's?
:rolleyes:m.

[Siggi]

I can relate the general idea.

Not that I'm a big fan of Photoshop, but I don't care either way which editing program I use ..

the process of editing is tiresome and cumbersome and tedious.

I suppose I'm the type that likes cheap thrills and everything done for me :p .. all I want is a camera that knows what I want from my images and they come out looking the way I want them too straight out of camera!

:D


Seriously tho I don't particularly enjoy editing, as I'd rather be doing something else, so I like trying to stick with the simple edits in life using simple editor software, but on occasion I've enjoyed watching an image 'come to life' with tweaking here and there, but on the flip side I've had more enjoyment seeing an image the way I wanted it to be SOOC.
I'm with you on most of the thoughts but I do have to say its also nice when you tweak that little bit extra out of a already good shot.

[jim]

Perfectly fair comment; perhaps they became a photographer because they like taking photographs, not out of love of sitting in front of a computer editing them.

Of course digital photos generally do need some post processing, but that's a different issue.

[mpb]

I totally agree, I hate photoshopping and editing too, however I do realise that it is necessary and as I shoot raw it is a necessary part of my process.

[JM Tran]

when I was working in a photo lab developing photos for ppl who drop off rolls of film, a lot of them think by pressing the shutter button thats all there is to having a nice photo

but developing negatives and positives is a laborious effort for film, just as it is for digital processing and editing in front of the comp. Not to mention we also do some slight tweaking for them to better the exposure or white balance etc, thus giving ppl a false impression they got it right in camera;)

ignorance is bliss for some I guess

[Dylan & Marianne]

I can relate to it as well - Marianne for a start hates editing images hence I end up doing alot of them lol
It depends on how you expect your general audience to interpret the comment though
To me, I think it just adds to the bulk of bad press out there about post processing - I should add that the previous editorial line before the quote read " [insert description of gorgeous scene] ....and its all 'natural' ....[insert the quote]
'natural' ? really?
ps. arthur, I also love it when all I have to do is export , sharpen and resize for the images that look great SOOC - I actually like post processing though !

[Seabee]

It's all part of the digital process for me and I enjoy both sides to 'digital photography'.
I don't think you can have one without the other and how far you delve into either side is completely subjective to the individual and the end purpose!
As with all things you can either enhance or destroy!
It is simply a game of scales and balance............... We really need to stop comparing to film, they are two separate beasts but with many similar attributes!!

It is technology and fads have come and gone with it already in a short period of time!
It will keep evolving as we will also.
How much you do of either is completely in line with where one is at in their ' learning stage'

When skilled at something it is hardly noticeable............ When learning, mistakes are glaring!
So yes learn to get it right in camera and editing becomes less.......
Or learn to do both seamlessly well and the two beats can serve you very well!
Give them both their due to those that take the time to study them artfully!

[ricktas]

I bet a heap of people just rolled there eyes and thought 'here we go again' :D

People who state this, generally do so, cause they do not know HOW to post process WELL, and use it as an excuse to cover their own failings.

[farmer_rob]

when I was working in a photo lab developing photos for ppl who drop off rolls of film, a lot of them think by pressing the shutter button thats all there is to having a nice photo

but developing negatives and positives is a laborious effort for film, just as it is for digital processing and editing in front of the comp. Not to mention we also do some slight tweaking for them to better the exposure or white balance etc, thus giving ppl a false impression they got it right in camera;)

ignorance is bliss for some I guess

Film development may well require laborious effort, but it was someone else's effort. Now it is all my effort!

However, I like the reality that it is now in my control. My dislike is the time, and that i am often not happy with the result (so get it as close to right in camera, which really means "take more time early to avoid wasting time late").

Regards,
Rob

[LJG]

Probably pretty right there Rick. I am pretty hopeless with PP and like the photographer in question I hate doing it. Maybe if I actually liked sitting in front of a computer I may get better at it. I sit in front of a computer every day for a living so it is the last thing I want to do on my leisure time. The actual getting out and shooting is what I prefer. I try to get it as right as I can in camera, so minimal processing is required. The photographer in question also did not say the image was not processed or edited, that this is just his general feeling on the subject.

I do not think people can jump to the conclusion that a person is a bad photographer just because they do not like doing processing or editing. As Dylan pointed out Marianne doesn't like doing it either, and I defy anybody to say she is a bad photographer because of that reason, as she is an outstanding photographer. The 2 different camps, edit or not edit, are probably as divided as the Nikon / Canon camps and each side will ferociously defend their particular feelings on the matter.

[rellik666]

I do not think people can jump to the conclusion that a person is a bad photographer just because they do not like doing processing or editing. As Dylan pointed out Marianne doesn't like doing it either, and I defy anybody to say she is a bad photographer because of that reason, as she is an outstanding photographer. The 2 different camps, edit or not edit, are probably as divided as the Nikon / Canon camps and each side will ferociously defend their particular feelings on the matter.

The thing is people who associate PP with doing something dodgy. Marianne doesn't like PP but understands that it is mostly necessary as she gets Dylan to do it! :D

I actually enjoy it, but don't have the time to put into it to learn to do it better. And there in lies the problem for most. In years gone by you would take the picture and give it to someone else to develop. Now you do the developing yourself. I know this isn't for the pro or serious amateur who probably developed their own anyhow, but for the majority it is.

[gerry]

There is a good article regarding PS in regard to landscape stuff, its a good read and teh comments are also worthwhile reading (yes i know thats rare)


I think many people fall into a trap when talking about this subject. They assume there is a right way to process photos. There is also a general lack of understanding about how digital photography has completely changed the way we process photos. Photoshop and other photo applications are the digital darkroom.

This debate boils down to the philosophy and intent of the photographer. For a documentary photographer, except for maybe sharpening and minor tonality tweaks, processing tends to take away from the veracity of an image.


http://www.photocascadia.com/blog/how-much-photoshop-is-acceptable-in-landscape-photography-by-zack-schnepf/

[davearnold]

I am another one who enjoys the "processing" as much (probably more then) taking the photos .... so many differnet paths for different results to go down.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I like Zack's stuff :) he happens to also be a very 'aggressive' editor of his images as is Marc Adamus
The said image in the paper was a landscape image

And once again I'd like to stress that the quote may have been taken out of context - for all we know, the photographer may have said "Images in digital media these days require some degree of refinement, especially landscapes where the end result is a presentation of fine art. However , I hate photoshopping and I hate editing ......so I try to get it as correct as possible in camera"

[Erin]

So not getting into the age-old argument, but I take photos specifically to play with in Photoshop most of the time. Not because I am lazy but because I love the process of bringing an image to life just that one step (or ten) than the camera could ever catch. There's a trick to getting it right, though, and 7 out of 10 people don't have the skills to do it. I hit that perfect picture only once in a blue moon too. That's where people turn around and say "I hate photoshopping". Lack of know-how can be way too frustrating.

[Bennymiata]

Many pictures can be brought to life using Lightroom or Photoshop, or other programs too, and it's not about changing the image, it's more about bringing out what you think you actually saw.

Here's an example of a befor eand after.
Photoshop was only used to re-size the images, and most of the PP was done in Lightroom.

Personally, I like doing the PP work, as for me, it is a major part in the whole process of taking the picture, then making itlook how I want it to.

87599


87600

[ricktas]

The argument for not editing also assumes that our camera gear is perfect and captures a scene with absolute precision. It doesn't consider distortion caused by wide angle lenses, softness due to lens design, inability of the camera sensor to accurately capture the scene. Remember that sRGB and AdobeRGB can only capture about 1/3 of what the human eye can see in the colour spectrum.

The human eye has a dynamic range of about 20 stops, most cameras are about 9-11 stops.

The anti-post processing mentality is assuming that this gear can capture accurately any given scene, and it renders it perfectly.

Being able to even correct a curved horizon is post processing, but all the photographer is doing is 'repairing' the photo to present what was seen by them at the time of taking the photo, and fixing distortion that the less than perfect camera gear created.

How this can be seen as a bad thing, I am unsure.

[bowjac]

My eye sees one thing, the camera sees another. Post processing provides a 3rd representation, or a 4th, 5th.....

Let's face it. I'm a post-processing junkie.

Now I just need to become good at it.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Oh well, this thread I started seems to have got back to the age old PP vs no PP argument lol

I guess what I was originally trying to stimulate wasn't actually that argument but :
1. how much people like post processing (regardless of whether you think its necessary or not)
2. what you think the quoted comment would mean to the general public.

My answers
1. I love it!
2. I think it's bad press against photoshop!!

[fillum]

The photographer in question also did not say the image was not processed or edited, that this is just his general feeling on the subject.Yep. Didn't say he doesn't do it. Didn't say he is opposed to it. Just said he hates doing it. I'm sure many of us have parts of our jobs we hate. (:angry0::angry0: timesheets :angry0::angry0:)


Cheers.

[Mark L]

1. I dislike, though it's necessary.
2. Is the general public likely to read this quote? Won't change the impression they already have (whatever that may be).

[Shelley]

I can do pp, well like to think I can, but jeez if I could afford to, I would pay someone to process my photos. I am always behind in processing. My husband nags me, I find I need to be in the mood to do it. But, birding I have to be really sick not to go out.

[ApolloLXII]

When people say they hate doing something, it's usually because they are either no good at it or find it boring. For the record, I LOVE Photoshopping and I LOVE editing. :)

[sunny6teen]

not that surprising really. the community has always been divided into photographers and printers. some take on both roles but it's not as common as often believed (or at least it wasn't).
take the previously mentioned landscape photographer. a professional landscape tog will spend 300 days in the field shooting/scouting etc. that's not leaving a lot of time for processing. instead, the film is posted to a printer who does the rest.
as far as I know, digital and photoshop hasn't really changed the process. I know a lot of the most renowned landscape photographers are sending their files back to teams of 'post-processors' with instructions on the final look.
It's not limited to the landscape folks. anyone who is getting plenty of work doesn't have the time to do the processing.
Dave Hill's portraits are flavour of the month lately and his style is quite 'photoshop intensive'....in short - he has a team of photoshop dudes.

Terence Donovan might have been top dog of London's fashion togs in the 60s...but he was nothing without Robin Bell. nothing has changed.

[jim]

Shelley, that's about it for me too.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Mark - this was in an everyday widely circulated newspaper with a half page feature -hard to miss it :P

[Ezookiel]

I also hate it. Not saying I don't agree with it, just that I hate that for an hour with the camera I'll spend way longer than that sitting at a computer, so yes I do hate it. I however also love it. I love the way I can put an extra degree of "artistic" on an image than I am currently able to do with just the camera. I also love "fixing things up" - so there's the whole sense of taking something that isn't great, and making it better, is very satisfying. It's not just that I'm not yet a good enough photographer to do that in the camera, though that may be part of it, it's the way you can make an image vastly more spectacular than I think any photographer would get SOOC. There was a picture recently in one of the comps of a woolshed. The amazing light coming through the windows and holes, etc was spectacular. The original photo prior to the editing and photoshopping was much less spectacular. I'm not sure any skill level would have got that final image SOOC. It is part of the skill set of a good photographer, I believe, to be able to work the whole of his/her medium, to get the final result to look the way they want it, or the way they saw it, and I may be wrong as I'm no expert, but feel that may not be possible to do in a single SOOC image.
But you can still hate doing it and not have to hate the concept of it. It is a lot of work, and it's nowhere near as nice work as being out on the site taking the photos, so pefectly entitled to hate it. If you then took that to refusing to do any, then I imagine your photos will suffer for it.

[Stingray]

I never used to PP and was happy with my shots :)
then my partner (who is a graphic and web designer) showed me how just by tweaking the levels a lil can make a good shot great ..
Even being colourblind I can see heaps of differences from b4/after .. its really a lil learning curve .. so now I almost always PP :)
PP can be a lil or alot of tweaking .. depending on the outcome you want .. :)

[Arg]

Plenty of people hated darkrooms too!

If you hate editing and photoshopping, just do what the darkroom-phobics did: load your camera with slide film (today: set camera to jpeg files) and take a lot of care to compose to the corners of your frame and get the exposure right first time (bracketing if necessary).

I don't see anyting wrong with the above approach, and I don't see anything wrong with photographers who work that way.:cool:

[Xenedis]

I don't want to implicate any individual for the line above and I suspect it may have been taken out of context , but
That was the caption beneath a picture published locally (in a newspaper) quoting the photographer.

Your thoughts /reactions?

At face value, my view is that the photographer who takes a dim view of editing (or flatly refuses to do so) is imposing significant artificial limitations on himself or herself, and perhaps doesn't fully understand the nature of digital imaging.

[I @ M]

Oh well, this thread I started seems to have got back to the age old PP vs no PP argument lol

I guess what I was originally trying to stimulate wasn't actually that argument but :
1. how much people like post processing (regardless of whether you think its necessary or not)
2. what you think the quoted comment would mean to the general public.

My answers
1. I love it!
2. I think it's bad press against photoshop!!

My answers.
1. Love and hate are at the extreme ends of the spectrum to me. I enjoy processing images to make them look the way I want them to be but I don't enjoy using every tool in the palette (a) because they all need to be used (b) because they are all available to be used.
2. A statement such as was made by the photographer is definitely bad press for Adobe photoshop. I would be interested to know if he specifically meant the Adobe product or whether he was referring to image editing / enhancing programs in general. I think all most of us realise that "photoshop" has become the all encompassing term for editing programs and at the best a handful of non photographic or graphics inclined members of the public would realise that there are actually more than one program out there to create the "photoshop" look.
As much as Adobe photoshop or lightroom have become hugely successful and capable programs they have also become their own worst enemies because for every well edited image that is produced by a competent person behind a mouse or graphics tablet there must be half a million images that are glaringly bad produced by incompetent editors. Doesn't matter whether the good or the bad images went through the Adobe product or simply an art filter that was in the software supplied free with the camera when new, they are all assumed to have been "photoshopped"

[Wayne]

I hate doing it, but understand it is often necessary just do things like crop/straighten/contrast etc. If I have little creative thinking that will prompt me to move an image to photoshop and create many layers etc. I do 98% of my editing in LR. In saying that, I think the lack of skill is a reasonable barrier and creates a fair amount of frustration for me, so I tend to avoid it.

[Dwarak]

I cannot see how the photographer who owns a digital camera can hate photoshop so much I am not good at it either but try to use a very simple workflow which works for most shots I take and do not try to do too much. To me it's a step in the digital process something like developing a film in a lab.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk