Forum menu
Looks like every day's a school day
Wouldn't that be nice?
Personally u have to decide weather your a photography or technician.Agood photographer can set the camera up properly,which few do and then get some great results.A technician fires away at anything and then makes it all right with photoshop or some other software.Granted its nice to be able to sharpen something up or add a little contasr or colour depth otherwise your just a computer jock and wasting valblke shotimg time sitting in front of the screen.Take a coarse and learn how to take a photo properly
Coasting, some examples of your work, please...
Also, I take it that you prefer black & white over greyscale?
I purchased the Photoshop elements/Premire elements 9 bundle at the beginning of jan and have found it excellent for organising and tweaking photos, for the money you cannot really go wrong!
I have used gimp (free) and it is excellent too if you follow a few online guides.
I take it that you prefer black & white over greyscale
so an image with just black and white(no midtone greys) over a 'normal' black and white image?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Agood photographer can set the camera up properly,which few do and then get some great results.A technician fires away at anything and then makes it all right with photoshop or some other software
Stupid.
The greatest photographers did their own darkroom processing. How come dark room processing is fine but using Photoshop with digital images makes you less of a photographer?
Photoshop isn't about correcting mistakes, it's finishing the product. Like putting polish on a piece of furniture or using T-Cut on car paintwork.
No matter how good you or the camera is, no camera is perfect. Every photo is an attempt by the photographer to capture some of what he or she saw in the way they want. Photoshop is one more tool to help with that.
I've not read everything but has anyone mentioned paint.net? Free download and easy to use. Has loads of funtions but if your juts after the basic crop and resize stuff its very good.
Lightroom is awesome but if you are struggling for the cash for elements then lighroom is the wrong choice, it's just too expensive. Although you can do crazy things with elements it is also brilliant at just doing that final tweak to a photo to make it great. I don't adjust photos very often but when I have to elements seems really easy to use and give great results (compared to photo impact that I used to use). As others have said the way to go is take the thirty day trial and crank through the tutorials to get upnto speed rather than pecking around the interface
Mr Smith, I really like your B&W image (not grayscale) you couldn't point me in the direction of a tutorial on how to achieve that with Elements could you?
BB
not my pic. sorry can't help with elements as i don't use it.
Personally u have to decide weather your a photography or technician.Agood photographer can set the camera up properly,which few do and then get some great results.A technician fires away at anything and then makes it all right with photoshop or some other software.Granted its nice to be able to sharpen something up or add a little contasr or colour depth otherwise your just a computer jock and wasting valblke shotimg time sitting in front of the screen.Take a coarse and learn how to take a photo properly
Got to take issue with this - 'proper' photographers use photoshop. If you're shooting raw you need to really as it's not 'developed' until you have run it through lightroom/photoshop/camera RAW etc... using lightroom is like changing the film in a analogue camera - wanna shoot velva? boost the saturation, and tweak the colour levels.
Furthermore where do you draw the line? When I started taking photos on my film slr I could only easily get film upto ISO400 - does this mean that I shouldn't use the ISO6400 setting on my 7D? Having technolgy at your disposable lets you be a better photographer, and opens up shooting opportunities massively - by being able to boost shadow detail I can save on having to take remote flashes with me... Most compacts nowadays whack on a bunch of contrast and boost the saturation before outputting a jpeg - is that allowed or is that just being a technican?
so an image with just black and white (no midtone greys) over a 'normal' black and white image?
I was perhaps being a little abstruse. Coasting's thinking is black or white; it's either one thing or another.
Try paint.net,> http://www.getpaint.net/
/p>
It is a free fairly functional editing program. You can add layers, adjust levels etc. If you only want to do some basic editing for photos to sort out some adjustments this should be all you need. Very simple to use. Much easier to use than a paid for fully featured program you are unlikely to use to all the features anyway.
IMO the photographer makes the photo not the software, OK, the software can enhance an already good photo but a crap photo will always be a crap photo no matter how much post processing it receives. Sharpening a pic may give you a nicer pic, but until the photographer learns to focus properly they can't, IMHO, consider themselves to be a photographer. They have a camera, they take pictures so they're a photographer, but you know what I mean.
Using Photoshop to change background gives you two photos and not one, I can't consider that to be a photo, it's a montage of two. If you have to remove an unwanted object from the photo, you have only done half the work of a photographer by leaving it in the shot in the first place!!! Or you haven't been able to set the camera properly...
Where do you draw the line? I guess where the photographer can plan and predict the photo they will take using the available technology (photography)against the technician who has to manipulate the photo to get the results they want (chancer). 😉
Define 'photo'.
i draw the line at what makes my job easier and how much i'm getting paid to produce images.
i love photoshop me.
Define 'photo'.
Why?
Why?
I beg your pardon, I forgot to say please. From your previous response, you appear to use the term to describe several different things. I was just curious as to what the term actually meant to you. I'm trying to understand your post.
A photo is any image that come out of the camera.
A photo is any image that come out of the camera.
So you don't consider development to be part of the process of creating a photo?
Development? What development?
You asked me what a photo is and the answer is any image that leaves a camera.
The original point was the difference between a photograher and a technician, both have a place as I said earlier and I even use Photoshop to fine tune.
If you're talking about post processing then of course there is a place for it, but I does not make a good photographer, it might make a good photograph.
What if a "technician" takes a photograph? And how can a "photographer/technician" who took a photo not be a good photographer if the photo they took is, or "might" be, a "good photograph"? Why am I even bothering to try and decipher this stuff?
Why am I even bothering to try and decipher this stuff?
I wouldn't if I were you, you're looking for a problem where there isn't one. 🙄
Define 'development'
😉
Define 'define' 👿
Don/Thre Fissh, ok only playing 😉
OP, Are you using RAW files? if so Lightroom is great for doing loads in batches, might be useful if you take a lot of race shots like the one you posted.
I just started using Elements & is great for what I want at the moment.
Adobe do a month trial on Lightroom & Elements & Nikon's Capture do the same trial too.
Well thats what I did, had a play with all three 😉
Me too.
diafine is a developer.
just sayin 🙂
IMO the photographer makes the photo not the software
What if it's the photographer using the software?
OK, the software can enhance an already good photo but a crap photo will always be a crap photo no matter how much post processing it receives
No-one's arguing otherwise, are they?
but until the photographer learns to focus properly they can't, IMHO, consider themselves to be a photographer
Of course. But Photoshop isn't about correcting bad focus or other mistakes, necessarily. If you are out and about with your camera, you just happen to see something utterly amazing and you whip the camera out and shoot from the hip - do you have to accept the results if they are imperfect, and beat yourself up for not being a real photographer?
If you have to remove an unwanted object from the photo, you have only done half the work of a photographer by leaving it in the shot in the first place!!!
I disagree! Sometimes it is not possible to arrange the world exactly the way you want it before taking your picture, quite clearly! See the tern photos on my other thread. I took it at a zoo, so the background was full of netting. Now I know I didn't do a great job of combining two photos, it's my first attempt - but the result is certainly (or should be with more skill) a better image. I couldn't remove the netting physically, and it would be silly NOT to take the picture just because the netting was there. Sure it would be better to be in Chile on the majestic Pacific coast but life sucks sometimes 🙂
I just don't accept purism in cases like this. You're using technology to approximate a visual scene. And now with your digital camera you are using software whether you like it or not. Doesn't matter to me if the software's in the camera or on a computer.
molgrips - MemberIMO the photographer makes the photo not the software
What if it's the photographer using the software?
[b]If you take the time to read and digest what I've said, you'll see that I accept this scenario[/b]
OK, the software can enhance an already good photo but a crap photo will always be a crap photo no matter how much post processing it receives
No-one's arguing otherwise, are they?
[b]Apparently they are[/b]
but until the photographer learns to focus properly they can't, IMHO, consider themselves to be a photographer
Of course. But Photoshop isn't about correcting bad focus or other mistakes, necessarily. If you are out and about with your camera, you just happen to see something utterly amazing and you whip the camera out and shoot from the hip - do you have to accept the results if they are imperfect, and beat yourself up for not being a real photographer?
[b]I think there are lots of examples of photos being shot from the hip and being very good photos, Alberto Korda's photo of Che being an example, photos from a war zone another. I think the difference is that if a pro photographer takes the shot and it doesn't come up to scratch, it never gets published. The hobbyist, on the other hand will. An both are acceptable.[/b]
If you have to remove an unwanted object from the photo, you have only done half the work of a photographer by leaving it in the shot in the first place!!!
I disagree! Sometimes it is not possible to arrange the world exactly the way you want it before taking your picture, quite clearly! See the tern photos on my other thread. I took it at a zoo, so the background was full of netting. Now I know I didn't do a great job of combining two photos, it's my first attempt - but the result is certainly (or should be with more skill) a better image. I couldn't remove the netting physically, and it would be silly NOT to take the picture just because the netting was there. Sure it would be better to be in Chile on the majestic Pacific coast but life sucks sometimes
[b]And it's a fine photo, but accept it for what it is, a manipulated image and not a photo in its own right. That is not a bad thing. You answer the question yourself, a wildlife photographer would aspire and get the shot of the animal in its natural habitat, wherever in the world it is. A little bit of editing is fine, Alberto Korda/Che and cropping, but when there is a reliance on the technology to make a bad photo good or to trick the viewer, then this is moving away from photography for me.. If you want to shoot from the hip accept the photo for what it is, warts an' all![/b]
I just don't accept purism in cases like this. You're using technology to approximate a visual scene [b][WTF does this mean?][/b]. And now with your digital camera you are using software whether you like it or not. Doesn't matter to me if the software's in the camera or on a computer.
[b]At no point have I said that technology doesn't have a place, it certainly does, the HDR photos clearly show this and allow the photographer to display an artistic abilty. What I'm saying is that the technology allows people to think that taking a picture is easy and even if the picture isn't 100% perfect it can be manipulated and hey presto, I'm a photographer!!! 😆 Photography [u]for me[/u], is seeing the photo before you take the shot, composing, seeing the light adjusting the settings before and not on the computer afterwards. Have a look [url= http://www.google.es/images?q=Vivian+Maier&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1272&bih=602 ]here[/url] at some recently discovered pictures from a self taught amateur. You don't need the latest gizmos, simply the eye of an artist and the ability to use the camera. Based of your non-acceptance of purism these photos are crap. 🙄 interesting POV. [/b]
This has to be one of the dumbest photo threads ever. All photos from a digital camera are processed - looking at a page of 1 and 0 from the sensor data is not very visually stimulating. You can do the processing by default, inside the camera's own computer, or you can do it yourself in your own computer. Either way, you are "editing" the photo, making a bad photo (1 and 0 sensor data) into a good photo. Some choices of processing parameters are more aesthetically pleasing than others.
Beyond that - suppose I take a shot of a pretty flower. Suppose there's a Coke can in the way. Do I a) move my position to avoid the Coke can (even though the flower is then not optimally positioned, b) move the can, c) remove it in Photoshop, or d) pack up and walk away. Please explain how b and c are artistically or morally different.
You define "photography" how you like, but to talk about a separation between a "photographer" and a "technician" really misses the point, IMO.
So what you're saying is that you don't have to think about composition, simply take any old photo and change it later.
If I remove something significant from the photo that makes me a technican right?
So does that include removing the colour information? That's a fairly major part of the output of a digi camera...
🙄
[url= http://www.alisonwoodhamphotography.co.uk/ ]Mrs Monsta[/url] uses Elements 8. She says "it's way easier to use than P'shop" and she'd never used any post processing software. Actually, it's good to see PE is getting recognised as a product in its own right, rather than a photoshop 'lite' which is what it isn't.
Lightroom is good - but at five times the price (new) of PE you'd expect it to be. But look, you can buy LR at a later date and it has a plug-in for Elements so the two can work together. There are plenty of plug-ins for PE too, so you can extend its range as you become more au-fait with it.
So what you're saying is that you don't have to think about composition, simply take any old photo and change it later.
I'm saying a few things, but that's not one of them. In the example I gave, the photographer could "edit" the scene in real life, or in Photoshop. I asked you what the moral or artistic difference is between them.
What I AM saying is that a photograph is ALWAYS an interpretation - whether you do that with Photoshop, in the darkroom, or by your camera's internal processing makes no difference.
You used a very contrived example to make your point though. I would make a decision based on my point of view and the demands for taking the photo, and that's my personal decision. You will take a different path, and as I have to repeat for the umpteenth time, BOTH ARE ACCEPTABLE. 🙄 Great images don't have to be perfect, so the can of coke can stay if you want it. And as you say it's interpretation.
The point which seems to be way too complicated is that a photographer will decide on the image before they take the shot and others will change the shot at a later date to achieve their aim. IMO and my opinion, just like yours, is the correct one! 🙄
😆 😆 😆
No-one's arguing otherwise, are they?Apparently they are
I think you mis-understand. I'm certainly not arguing that.
What I'm saying is that the technology allows people to think that taking a picture is easy and even if the picture isn't 100% perfect it can be manipulated and hey presto, I'm a photographer!!! Photography for me, is seeing the photo before you take the shot, composing, seeing the light adjusting the settings
You're a photographer if you take pictures. End of. There's no yardstick as to what is worthy of the title and what's not. That sounds a lot like snobbery to be honest.
Similarly, you're an artist if you decide what you do is art. So yes, un-made beds, piles of coal, urinals - all art. That's the beauty of it to me.
You don't need the latest gizmos, simply the eye of an artist and the ability to use the camera.
Irony? A camera is a gizmo. All cameras were once the latest thing.
The reason I am taking a contrasting position to you, Don Simon, is that you appear to be arguing from a position of a techno-luddite. Apologies if this is not the case. Personally I don't like over-processed photos (and I've seen lots of those on film as well as digital) but I won't think less of any artist for taking them.
Photography is a bit of a schizophrenic discipline. On the one hand, it's a technical pursuit appealing to those who enjoy geeky details, and on the other it's an art form with all the vagueness and flexibility that can come with.
So what you're saying is that you don't have to think about composition, simply take any old photo and change it later.
If you like, yes. Who the hell cares? I won't look down on anyone for it. I might not like it, but that (and only that) is my perogative as a viewer. You don't HAVE to do anything.
BOTH ARE ACCEPTABLE
Yep, that's what we're saying. You seem awfully disparaging of those who use PS though, which is unfair and a little bit offensive.
a photographer will decide on the image before they take the shot and others will change the shot at a later date to achieve their aim
You are still a photographer if you use PS. Clearly. Anyone using light to make images (photo + graph) is a photographer.
Here you go Mol, this is the bit where I say I have PS but prefer not to use it, not anti PS. Am I a snob? Probably. 😆
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photoshop-elements-is-it-worth-me-getting-it#post-2203813 ]http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photoshop-elements-is-it-worth-me-getting-it#post-2203813[/url]
A high tech gizmo seen earlier today. 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
Luddite, maybe. I just get a bit sick of people who pick up a camera and think that taking good photos is easy. Software can devalue what I believe is an art form. The photographer is the artist with the imagination and the drive. I don't begrudge the use of technology, but I do begrudge the dependance on software or technology in place of experience and skill of a photographer. More purist than luddite.
Don't be offended by my comments, raise your game. 😉
I think I also said earlier that a photograph is any image that leaves a camera, therefore the person who takes the photo is a photographer. At no point is the word good being used and this becomes very subjective.
I'm starting to get bored now. 😥
I just get a bit sick of people who pick up a camera and think that taking good photos is easy
I don't know anyone who thinks that 🙂
Software can devalue what I believe is an art form
That's where we will agree to disagree then 🙂
At no point is the word good being used
Hmm yeah, a semantic point though: If we are going around taking photos then we aspire to be photographers (often, I know I do) so to be told we cannot be one because we use PS is therefore a negative allegation, don't you think? I appreciate that you might not be doing it deliberately..!
Did Polaroid shooters have the same arguments with regular film shooters back in the dark days of film?
so to be told we cannot be one because we use PS is therefore a negative allegation, don't you think?
But I have never said that, have I?
i think you are all over analising the process of taking a photograph and what is done with it.
i don't care if you coat your own glass plates and spend days producing a platinum/palladium print, shoot digital and produce perfect files through capture/HDR/stitching/photoshop software, shoot black and white film/dev in pyro or rodinal/print using cold cathode on agfa record-rapid with a selenium bath and once through the glazing machine.
it's all about knowing what you want to shoot and how to achieve it with the tools available. real, hyper-real, unreal or unrecognisable it doesn't matter.
although it's a bit of a moot point if it's just pics of your bikes/sunsets/close ups of household objects/ your own camera equipment to show off to other flickr users.
🙄
Don Simon,
I refer you to the first pic I posted on the previous page (reproduced below for ease of reference). It's the first time I used HDR to get the image I wanted because none of the three bracketed exposures captured the entire tonal range of the scene. They either blocked in all the shadow detail so I could get the sky and reflections properly exposed or blew the highlights to reveal the detail in the dark areas. HDR let me blend three exposures to get everything the way I wanted it (it's not a great shot because the three frames don't line up exactly despite using a tripod).
Point is the image out of the camera wasn't good enough so I resorted to software trickery to produce what I wanted. As far as I'm concerned, this is exactly analogous to darkroom experimentation (dodging, burning etc) where the photographer/artist manipulated the image parameters to get exactly the desired image on print.
Camera technology moves on apace - many cameras how have an auto HDR mode which may cause purists to throw up their hands in horror, but the same purists may not think twice about relying on the firmware which gives them correct exposures every time without the need for complex calculations and hand-held light meters.
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5190031374_73f30963e4.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5190031374/ ]323/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
HDR is actually an early dark room technique from the days of low DR film (back in 1850 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging ]apparently[/url]).