Do you think photographers go over board with Photoshop these days?

Here's an album full of Photo Shop.
There's not one image in it that would be worthy of
enlarging, framing, let alone trying to sell.

Photo Shop is fun. Sales are encouraging.

GT . . . .

whazit2u.multiply.com/photos/album/15

Gary Trent photography wrote: Here's an album full of Photo Shop.
There's not one image in it that would be worthy of
enlarging, framing, let alone trying to sell.

Photo Shop is fun. Sales are encouraging.

GT . . . .

whazit2u.multiply.com/photos/album/15

And for many of them even if they were not abstract.

Photoshop is just another important tool for a photographer to maximize results

Gary Trent photography wrote: ADRIAN says:
"Yeh, just because you don't know how to create art in Photoshop don't put others down that do. Your boring photos are that way because, frankly, you don't know how to make them better."

---

Me: My "boring photos" grossed me some $10,000 last year.
In sales, reality is what sells.
Most all customers want framed images on their walls that are
recognizable and something they can relate to.
That's where the money is (if one is so inclined to sell photo'y)

If images are just going to sit in my computer, then I will
PS to my hearts content, but they will never sell off my gallery walls.
I've tried and it's simply a no-go unless your (maybe) in New York city.

I am NOT .... "putting others down that do." .... not at all.
PS is a very creative tool, yet it's just some photo-artists who
really know how to use the program, creatively.
It's those who I admire the most.

Just saying . . . . . .

Just because I posted right after you doesn't mean I was accusing you of anything. I was just making a general statement.

I looked at your gallery and you do exactly what I'm saying. Make art out of (boring) RAW photos. With minor adjustments. Not once did I say anything about unrealistic HDR etc. I said "art". Doing major adjustments and making them look natural is "art" in my definition, not just adding a bunch of "art" effects in PS. I never touch those effects, they look crap.

Sorry if you took this as an attack on you. I just posted after you is all.

BTW you don't need to hit return all the time, the forum will automatically format your posts.

Henry Peach wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: ...you don't know how to make them better.

In my college Photo 101 class, which was all film and years before digital, the professor taught that "99% of photographs can be improved in the darkroom".

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -Ansel Adams

Precisely. What is PS other than the modern version of the darkroom. You can mess up a photo in either.

Gary Trent photography wrote: Here's an album full of Photo Shop.
There's not one image in it that would be worthy of
enlarging, framing, let alone trying to sell.

Photo Shop is fun. Sales are encouraging.

GT . . . .

whazit2u.multiply.com/photos/album/15

See I don't call that "photoshop" I call that ruining a picture with filters.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Henry Peach wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: ...you don't know how to make them better.

In my college Photo 101 class, which was all film and years before digital, the professor taught that "99% of photographs can be improved in the darkroom".

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -Ansel Adams

Precisely. What is PS other than the modern version of the darkroom. You can mess up a photo in either.

Exactly! And just like in a darkroom you can either make the photo or turn it into pure rubbish. Most of the over done shots I see are no longer photographs. Now there are some people who do very interesting work but they a few and far between. The majority of what I see is people trying to make either bad photos or bad content interesting. In which case they fail.

Less is more. Simple as that. I am not a skilled photoshopper, which the Ninja pointed out in another post, and I am ok with that. If I screw the photo up at capture I tend to leave it in the recycle in. I would like to be better, but find myself more drawn to natural appearing photos. Again- that's me.

I don't use Photoshop at the moment, although I use Canon's own software to tweak things like white balance and contrast, and to make B&W shots. I tried Photoshop once, realised I had to learn how, but also that I need to learn to take good photos first. I think Photoshop is a tool to use to make something interesting of good photographs, but that that natural photos are the place to start.

Having said that I have made some pictures I like out of photos that did not turn out well (using simple but rather unsubtle effects in Paint Shop Pro), I just don't want that to be where I take my photography at the moment.

I'm discouraged about all the time spent in photoshopping images. I used to win awards in my camera club then...the manipulation of images became the norm. Now I'm lucky if I get an award at all. I'm a good photographer and not necessarily a photoshop guru. The judges are used to seeing pumped up images now and that's what they expect. So many times I've heard- if this could be redone using HDR you'd have a great image. Enough already!

yes i do. i think photography should be just that, natural, with maybe a little lighting adjustments. with all of these changes, adding people in images that weren't there to being with, clearing out the back ground, that takes the work out of it. i'll stick to my natural and look for a good background and if the lighting needs some adjustment i'll take care of that but thats it. making images into abstract, why not just paint something abstract?

this images is all natural except for a little help with contrast and it is a beautiful image

i agree with bdphotodesign- i have photoshop and couldn't tell you the first think about using it. it's crazy, how is this photography? its maniputation

heavensentimages wrote: yes i do. i think photography should be just that, natural, with maybe a little lighting adjustments. with all of these changes, adding people in images that weren't there to being with, clearing out the back ground, that takes the work out of it. i'll stick to my natural and look for a good background and if the lighting needs some adjustment i'll take care of that but thats it. making images into abstract, why not just paint something abstract?

this images is all natural except for a little help with contrast and it is a beautiful image

It's not natural. You're using a mechanized device to replicate something that is different from what your eye renders. There is NOTHING natural about photography. It's emulation.

If you don't want to edit your shots, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you. But you're only doing a small portion of photography and you're missing out.


Photoshop made the art more competitive and raised the bar. Either bend with the wind or break.

sometimes I just like to have fun with an image out of the hundreds that I take- for example this one

no it isn't reality but I always liked coloring with the bright crayons and as Scotty and Adrian said it's about ART as opposed to reality which is my next example

So if I manipulate an image to make the ice white or whatever it's still altered , just not out of bounds