Has the photography society become too dependent on Photoshop?

This was an interesting discussion I saw on someones Facebook page this morning. Do you feel photographers have gotten 'sloppy' and too dependent on Photoshop vs getting the photo right from the camera? Now I'm one of those people that that does take for granted that if I don't get it right in the first shot, or potential the 3 others that I have taken digitally, that I can always fix in Photoshop later. How do you feel about this? At first I was thinking so what? You finish the race either way, who cares how you got to the finish line, as long as you made it there! But then I can appreciate the view of some of the purist, and see how easy it is for many photographers to forget about the process that goes into taking a photo.


I'm babbling, what do you think about all of this?

I'm grateful to be sloppy. Lots more thoughts on this -

www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...the-realization-that

www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...rocessed-in-software ?

Kelly

I think maybe so. I never see a photo on the internet that wasn't post prepped in some way. I don't do much because I can't use those expensive programs. Have a really cheap one and a free one I use. I look at every photo on the screen on the camera and mostly what I'm concerned with is composition. Then if something is off the other way, if it's not to far off, I make a feeble attempt to fix it. Sometimes I think it works.

I've pretty much proven to myself that my post prepping is awful limited due to me. I have a brother and two nephew's that can take a photo, put it in the computer and make it completely into something else. Who that does portraits for a living doesn't fix up the blemish here and wart there? Fool with the light to make the face look better. At least that's what I'm told. I look at side by side photo's and they look so much alike often I can't tell the difference. And then if it doesn't say which is the manipulated photo, I can't tell.

Be interesting to see a bunch of before and after photo's on one of these site's. One of my nephew's has that on his web site. He does it to show people the process he goes thru to make a photo as nice as possible. He has on of an office building with a four lane hwy going past it that he's added and a number of cars in the right spots. The building itself doesn't change other than the way it appears. Look at the first out of camera photo and the finished product and you won't think the are both from the original out of camera image.

Photoshop ( or any other editing software) is to digital like a darkroom is to film. its all part of the processing...

Some people seem to rely on fixing their photos later rather than improving their skills and learning techniques in framing and composing images; I think it would make for less work later on if a photographer can get good photos in camera.

There's a place for it, it can be used to do some creative photos. But I think you can compare it to something like writing, or a lot of things for that matter - if you were to rewrite practically every sentence you wrote wouldn't that tell you that you needed to improve your writing skills? wouldn't you have a hard time getting anything written because you're spending so much time rewriting?? With many things if you have to constantly correct mistakes how much would you ever get done?

It seems to make more sense if there's a purpose for it, otherwise it seems to be something of a crutch.

icepics wrote: Some people seem to rely on fixing their photos later rather than improving their skills and learning techniques in framing and composing images; I think it would make for less work later on if a photographer can get good photos in camera.

It seems to make more sense if there's a purpose for it, otherwise it seems to be something of a crutch.

I with you there Sharon fully.
I went out shooting with a kid one weekend, and I kept hearing him say I can fix that, or this in post. He actually got mad at me because I was not shooting fast enough, and kept asking why I lugged along a tripod. He was constantly wanting to move on to the next place he had on his little list, and was wanting me to hurry. To which I would say this is not a race, and that I always try to get it right when I shoot it, or as right as possible, because I have always hated post work. When I saw him later I asked how he did with the what I thought was about 1000 shots, he said he got about 10 that worked out. I on the other hand deleted aboput that many out of 100 shots that day. I am not saying I am that much better than him, but I am more deliberate in my shooting. Now when I first shot digital I went through my I can shoot a bagillion shots phase, but when I looked at the images, and the work to make them right, I went back into my film frame of mind. I do not care if I shoot one photo, or 100 in a day, but I do care to, and attempt to get it as right as possible. Also I am not a purist, as some like to throw that label on us, but I am a perfectionist in anything I try to do, there is a difference.
I started in film and did my own processing, and my own printing as well. Then there is slide film which I shot a lot of as well. For slide film there is almost zero forgiveness if you screw the shot. With print film you can fix a lot, but not on slides. I love digital in that now I can do it in maybe one or two steps. I may have to tweak the levels a bit, some brightness, and contrast, and that is pretty much what I have to do with maybe around 30% of my images. I shoot both RAW+ Jpeg fine so I have the best of both worlds to play with. And I preprocess my images using the picture controls that affect the jpegs, this is how you get what you want from the final images.
Here is a hint. When you first get your camera, try all the levels of adjustment in camera, and then compare then side by side. This is how you learn to process before you even trip your shutter. You can do far more than you think to get it right, or you can post process, it is your choice. I prefer method one.

What he said.

Photoshop is a tool, nothing more. It would be nice if people would stop blaming the hammer.

I give myself challenges that require PP; can't do 'em otherwise. And sometimes, regardless of how well I frame a shot, I might find that some cloning can remove something I don't want. Or some healing can smooth a wrinkle or remove a blemish that just really doesn't need to be there. I am at a loss to understand how this is a bad thing, given that it used to be called airbrushing.

Regarding the young man described by the OP, his problem is not a reliance on PS, his problem is a lack of care, attention to detail, patience, etc. His assertion that he could fix it later is just a lie he tells himself to rationalize his shortcomings.

What they both said.

The camera is also a tool! But some seem willing to except less and fix it later in some photo program.

Don Fischer wrote: The camera is also a tool! But some seem willing to except less and fix it later in some photo program.

Well, yes, that is a mindset, but the point I was trying to make is that (in the example given) the young man ended up with nothing that could be salvaged. Even with an 80lb sledgehammer like PS. So the problem isn't a reliance on the software. If he could use the software to create good images, that would be OK. But apparently that's not possible, despite the claims.

In other words, you have to have something to start with for photo programs to work. I'd buy that!

Don Fischer wrote: In other words, you have to have something to start with for photo programs to work. I'd buy that!

Pretty much so. But that all depends on which way you screw the pooch, and which format it is. You have to look at RAW as print film, and Jpegs as slide. With both if you blow out the highlights you are screwed, but if you under expose especially with RAW there is an amazing amount of detail you can call back, with Jpegs you can recover some but not even half as much, and it will screw up other parts of the photo that are right. I have recovered highlights before on some photos by using color shading, but it never looked right, and took far too much work to even get mediocre results. So you are still as always better off getting the shot right when shot than just doing the spray&pray.

Perfect your camera skills with Photoshop.

The key word in the question is "too"......answer is , no.

Not at all, Photoshop is just another tool to perfect fine art. Would you say a doctor is less of a doctor because he uses less of his hands on and relies on high tech computer guided instruments? exactly.