Hey - this is me again...you know, the one who has lots of opinions after he's had a few... i am having a bit of a problem with the "I'm still working on this image" postings in this forum. (I'm sure I'm gonna tick some people off with this post) - but it seems more and more that mediocre images are being shot and posted with the "I'm still working on this" statement - instead of genuine photographic skills. There are places for Photoshop - to create images that cannot be accomplished through the lens - but it seems that Photoshop has become a tool to "fix' images that were improperly composed and/or exposed to begin with. in my opinion (and i realize that an 'opionion' is exactly what it is" - Photoshop is a wonderful tool to modify and create images that could not be achieved otherwise - but it seems that Photoshop has become a tool to 'adjust" photos that should have been created in-camera to begin with. It's become a crutch and an excuse for poor technique and vision. If you are a person who shot an image and are not happy with the result and are trying to correct for it, that's fine - my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine - if that's the case, you are NOT a photographer - you are a GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATOR...perhaps fully capable of manipulating any image into whatever you want to create, but it takes a PHOTOGRAPHER to create it in the camera! Photoshop skills are an artform in itself - but, perhaps, Photoshop capabilities need top be posted in the Photoshop forum...?

I am sure painters felt the same way of photographer. I do see how it matters or why there need to be lable. Why not simply create the best image possiable. J. Stuart J

I can see where you are coming from on this one...however, I still have to disagree.
"my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine"

that statement is like saying that you have a gripe with people who view the darkroom as part of the photographic routine. Photoshop is replacing all of the toxic chemicals and time consuming processing involved with the traditional darkroom. Granted it can, and frequently is overused, but In todays world of the digital imaging systems, it is a necessity(sp?).

Look at it this way....Take Ansel Adams, IMO one of the BEST photographic technicians ever. If you were to make a "straight" print of one of his zone exposed negatives it would look absolutely horrible...But with proper darkroom manipulation ie. dodging,burning,etc. he created some of the most amazing technically perfect images.....again just my opinion...right slynky ; )

I'm sure the same can be said about other photogs as well....
Take Minor White...where would he be without photomanipulation..or Jerry Ulesman?

All I can say is don't deny yourself the tools at your disposal, but learning how to use them to the best possible extent is vital.

Garbage in.....Garbage out.

-time for more beer

I could point out that the scanning process itself imposes a certain level of Photoshop "repair" (level/curve adjustment, grain reduction (see messages on grain and film scanners), sharpening, etc). But I think that would be trying to justify the use of Photoshop in the photographic process, when it's my opinion that it requires no justification. No more than dodgers, masks, bleaches, toners, inks and hundreds of other traditional darkroom techniques require no justification. Have you ever read The Print by Ansel Adams? Does the fact that Adams worked days, sometimes weeks working to get a print to look a certain way make him a graphic illustrator and not one of the best known photographers of the last century? Have you ever read books and articles by/about Master Printers? Many of the world's greatest fine arts photographers don't print their own images. They give their negatives over to trusted darkroom masters who then take the image to the next level. What does that make them? 90% of the things that you can do in Photoshop (barring exotic filters) have direct correlation to real world darkroom techniques. The question I would put to you is, where is the line to be drawn? What level of Photoshoping somehow invalidates the work and morphs the photographer into a graphic illustrator? -=>Donald

zzzzzzzz

...to the point where careful composition and technique is overlooked in the field as something that "can be fixed in Photoshop". - or "can be eliminated and/or added in Photoshop. To the person who feels he/she can "create the perfect sunset/sunrise" in Photoshop - or place/remove the building that happens to be in their composition. To the Photoshop user who uses Photoshop to correct improper exposures (more exactly, to the photographer who no longer is concerned with proper exposure - thinking that exposure can be corrected in Photoshop). For every example of Ansel Adams, etc. (don't get me wrong - I have every respect for these masters...they were not attempting to create or eliminate something that wasn't in front of their cameras) - there are the John Shaws, Galen Rowels, Art Wolfs - working entirely with transparencies eliminating them from the manipulations available to the B&W printer. Control is the issue - and Photoshop has made the lack of photographic control (and I'm talking about PHOTOGRAPHIC control) less and less important. Five years ago, the studio photographer would be concerned about dust particles on a small product shoot - now they let it ride and say "I can touch that out in Photoshop". Photoshop is a powerful tool - and I have no problem with the use of it to produce a desired image - it's when it becomes a crutch and a bandaid for poor photography that gets my goat. I seriously doubt that Ansel Adams would take less care in the initial exposure of his images had he had Photoshop at his disposal - my gripe is with people who take it for granted. I'm not impressed with mediocre images posted along with a followup of "see how much better I made it" - make it in the original exposure! I will, however, grant you this - it IS time for another beer!

firestorm - I think that was misspelled. I believe it's "xxxxxzzzzshshshshzzzxxxthththblbl" (at least, that's what MY dictionary said)

It's interesting that you mention Art Wolfe......Not too long ago he found himself in the middle of this very controversy.... A shot of a herd of Elephants he supposedly made in camera was actually NOT. This image...that you've probably seen was of about 20? or so Elephants taken from the air...it recieved all kind of accolades from nature photographers etc,etc. Then it was found out that the shot Art actually took was of about 3....yes 3 stinkin Elephants...he then cloned them using photoshop to fill out the image and make it seem more dramatic....A totally FALSE representation from someone who USED to be a respected photograper in my eyes.

....Oh, yeah R.I.P. Galen Rowell and his wife .....I met him in the summer of '99 in Missoula, MT. One of the nicest people I've ever met. Was more than willing to give some tips and insight into his very inspiring work....Not bad work for an ex-auto mechanic.....He will be missed.

Oh yeah, where would friendly discussions be without our good friends...barley and hops..... I see your point on slacking in the name of photoshop.

nplus: Interesting what you said about Art - I have not heard that - but that's the point I'm trying to make (ironic that I used him as an example of the opposite). His shot of three elephants may have been a good photo, but his presentation of twenty (or so), evedently, is a prime example of a good digital illuatrator - NOT a photographer. And you are right - Galen will be missed.

I agree to a point - and I do so with a blood alcohol level below .08 - but it occurs to me in reading the above that this has nothing really to do with Photoshop. I may be wrong, but the real gist of it is seems to be that you seem upset that people aren't following THE RULES(c). Me, I'm of the opinion that rules should never, ever enter into the world of art. God, how terribly boring would that be? As long as you're not a documentarian, then whatever you need to do to get the image you want, you do. If that means pushing ISO800 to EI25000 to crank the contrast to insane levels, cross-processing and sticking it in a slide mount or compositing 6 images together to make one then that's what you do (and that's what has been done for the past 100 years). Now, there is one thing I have to add to that; if you do manipulate the image beyond "normal" enhancement (meaning addition or subtraction of elements) then in my opinion you must not represent it as something it is not. -=>Donald

I believe that photo was part of his "migrations" body of work.....I think the piece about his photoshopping was in Outdoor photographer...or one of those rags. Art still does great "real" photo work...I go to his gallery in REI here in Seattle all the time, but I just like to brush him off since he pulled that manuver. By the way, I'm going to have to bust out the macro equip after looking at your fungi images....thanks for the inspiration.... Suppose I'll have to update my gallery, now that I've been talkin' all this about that......seeing how everything in there now is 100% digitally produced....(they are in the correct galleries though)

Rules are meant to be broken......AFTER you completly understand them.....although breaking them is part of the learning process.....just do it correctly by following the rules of breaking the rules.....art rules.....and I say this with an alcohol blood level of .08 ; )

Wolfie, I'm gonna agree with you to a point - I too think there's too many WIP pics, especially considering 75% of the time you never see them again when they're "complete"........ But as to the statements about Photoshop, I'm sorry I totally disagree. Unfortunately my justification by using Ansel when I first read your comments has already been taken up.... and as for the comments about dust spots - well, if you get paid for what you do by the number of 'items' you produce, and you have a quick and easy way to finish something and move on, or a long, hard way that isn't as good in the results dept. which do you use? Yup. Photoshop. I'm not a professional, I can't spend the next 5 years locked in a darkroom learning these effects 'traditionally' but I want to produce what I 'see' in my mind. So I use Photoshop. That's means I produce work that I couldn't 2 years ago. These pictures give me pleasure, and by posting in the gallery have given other people pleasure. If the photography gallery was split into 2 galleries -'pure' photo's and 'postworked' photos - I'm pretty sure I know which would get the most hits......the pure photo's would probably be full of pets......... ;) he he. (",)

Interesting Debate...

IMHO nothing replaces a perfect exposure. There is no substitute for an exposure (digital, or film) that is well composed, cropped to perfection, properly lit and properly exposed in the camera. Anything less is a compromise.

Equally important, is that no amount of Photoshop, or traditional darkroom work will make up for a truly bad exposure. Poor composition, improper analysis or set-up of lighting, wrong aperture and/or shutter speed all lead to mediocre work at best.

With that said, I will also point out that the use of the digital darkroom has its advantages. One of the greatest assets of working in Photoshop is the ability to be able to analyze one's work quickly and efficiently. Personally, I think this is what most people fail to realize.

How many people actually think when they start working on an image, what is wrong with this exposure, and what could I have done to make it better. Probably not many. I would venture to say that most people get an image into Photoshop and then ask what can I do to fix it. This is great if your primary goal is to become a Photoshop Wizard. However, if you are not analyzing the exposure itself, then learning and correcting your mistakes at the time of exposure, you are waisting a valuable resource in becoming a better photographer.

Whether you want to do traditional work in a darkroom, or create incredible fantasies of montage work in Photoshop, the basics still remain. It all starts with making perfect exposures.

Thank you Alpha. That is what I was try to get across in my (then) drunken state (blood alchohol level of roughly 347.9895).

Alpha & Wolfie - Now that I agree with. Nothing ever replaces correct exposure, good composition, etc. And I also agree with your analyzing statement. It's one of the biggest reasons I post here. Every critique and comment helps me to understand what I've done wrong and what I've done right. My in camera composition has become far better than it was even 3 months ago. My ability to anticipate the subject and waiting for the right moment has increased. And a large part of that comes from the conversations and comments. As for Photoshop, I -always- ask myself "what do I need to do to fix it". You have to. The scanning process is flawed and introduces error into your image. The fact that some people feel it's not necessary when they post an image is one of my pet peeves. It's like: Can't you see that color cast you picked up? Don't you see those dust specks? Can't you see that your image is flat and lifeless and the histogram only takes up the middle half? As for the more "extreme" enhancements, I also would hope that people are saving those for when it's necessary and not as part of their normal workflow. But if not, oh well. Reminds me of a darkroom technique article I read last month. Was called "The Printer's Art" and started with "The art of printing is a subtle and personal one - and knowing exactly what you want to get from a negative is the first, important, step." -=>Donald

"my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine - if that's the case, you are NOT a photographer - you are a GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATOR..." That would be the same as looking at the darkroom as part of the photographic routine. I'd like to point you towards Jerry Uelsmann: http://www.uelsmann.net/ No one is perfect. Perfect exposures are not commonplace, which is why people get 2 or 3 shots that are worth printing out of 36. Calling someone a graphic illustrator because they use photoshop to "fix" imperfections... that is a bold statement, nad isn't justified. People dodge, burn, tone, solarize, blur, soften, add bas relief, and do multiple enlargement prints in darkrooms, yet somehow, doing those things in photoshop makes you less of a photographer? I personally don't use a digital camera btw,I i loathe them, so i ain't really biased here.... If you ask me, someone who can make a "bad" exposure/shot look really good has tremendous skill. Not more or less, just a different kind than the person who has natural talent for "perfect" shots. Think about it, a "bad" shot, into something good. A bad shot into something bad, ok, you lack skill, but making it good? no offense, but what the fuck is wrong with that? Pressing the button is the first part of a photograph, and is definitely not the last, and not always the most important step in terms of the final output, be it digital or traditional. PHotoshop is merely another tool. People have relied on darkrooms for decades to aid in the final output, and sometimes that means going from a mediocre negative into a fantastic print... and I have the feeling there'd be a lot more slack cut to people who do it in a darkroom than in photoshop... its no easier either way, its just different people with a mastery of different tools. "Five years ago, the studio photographer would be concerned about dust particles on a small product shoot - now they let it ride and say "I can touch that out in Photoshop"." Well, that studio photographer would get rid of the dust particles with a little blower... what makes that more noble than blotting out the dust in photoshop? If anything, its more time consuming, and requires a greater level of skill, after all, anyone can squeeze an air tube... "That is what I was try to get across in my (then) drunken state." Im gonna bite my tongue on this one.

"If you ask me, someone who can make a "bad" exposure/shot look really good has tremendous skill." No doubt - but if the person had taken the time learning the skill with the camera instead of post production, why would he have the bad shot to begin with? My gripe is that it seems that more and more people are leaning on Photoshop as an excuse not to learn the basics of photography. If you can make an excellent print from a bad neg - imagine what kind of print you could make from a GOOD one. "Pressing the button is the first part of a photograph...". Pressing the button is the first step in making SNAPSHOTS. Considerations such as point of view, angle, lens selection, how much background to include, where to place the horizon, do I shoot horizontally or vertically, lighting angle, film selection, what to meter for, what combination of shutter speed and aperture to use, etc., etc., ALL have to take place before the button is pressed. The camera and lens are the first and formost tools in photography - but it seems that more and more people are more concerned with levels and curves in Photoshop then they are learning the camera. Of course scans will have to be adjusted due to the nature of scanners, but adjustments that can be made in-camera need to be made in-camera, not in Photoshop.

Not everyone is a professional photographer, most are merely hobbyists. Not everyone has the resources to buy the expensive slr camera, many make due with simple "snapshot" cameras. Telling those people to get their exposures right is a waste of breath, seeing as they dont have a choice. Learn to live with the fact that not everyone is a professional with pro-level tools. The photography gallery and forum are for, and i quote from the little bit under the banner, "all persons interested in photography", and having an interest doesn't mean you have the time nor means to do what pros are expected to do. Comparing Ansel Adams with the average hobbyist is a pointless argument. If someone like Alpha were to start posting shots that fall into your argument, I'd be the first person to jump on his back and scream into his ear "WAKE UP!", but very few people are at his level in terms of photographic skill, both pre and post production, nor do many have as much experience as he has which has led to his skill level today. Everyone starts somewhere. If you were to pick up 3D Studio max, and decide within a year to make a model of a Pontiac GTO (is that what its called?), people COULD post under it saying its substandard compared to the rest of the pontiac gto models out there, but then again after only a year of working with the program, you wouldn't really be at that level now would you... To tell everyone who isn't a pro to buck up and do things this and that way because that's what they SHOULD do according to you because you aren't satisfied with their work because they may not be at your level because they may not have the same access to the tools you use nor have as much experience as you may have, well, you're going to be quite unhappy as the days go by with those same people STILL not doing things your way, so maybe a place like http://www.photo.net/ is more your style. There are plenty of people there who say exactly what you're saying many times a day to aspiring amateurs and hobbyists, essentially taking all the fun away from the photographer (or maybe graphic artist? Perhaps "hack" would be a more suitable term), so you'll feel right at home. in the mean time, people like to have fun in this forum. there are people with 20K$ worth of equipment shooting professionally, and people with 200$ 2 megapixel digital cameras and photo deluxe software. It's a fun place, and I'd like to keep it that way, as photo.net is a boring and uninviting place if you're anything but a god.

Slynky, my friend..here, have an ice cream. Relax. :) I know exactly where you're coming from. That is the main reason I stay well away from photo.net and their "critiques". Don't get me wrong, there are some good people there who really enjoy photography and helping people; I won't talk about the ones who apparently feel it useless to toss their great pearls of wisdom at the swine and so instead hurl condescending insults. I don't think that's happening here or is likely (I don't think Michelle or Star or the rest of us would allow it). Wolf, like the rest of us, is just giving his opinion (not really an argument since the statements are broad without any real examples). Besides, if it does all go bad and this turns into photo.net, we can always hunt him down and rub him out later. :) -=>Donald

"my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine - if that's the case, you are NOT a photographer - you are a GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATOR...perhaps fully capable of manipulating any image into whatever you want to create, but it takes a PHOTOGRAPHER to create it in the camera!" Even to mess about in Photoshop, you still have to have that decent photo to start with - it's bloody hard work and requires a LOT of skill to make a bad photo a good one just using Photoshop. You can't polish a turd. Oh, and I reckon a real graphic illustrator would consider me to be a photographer, seeing as how I start with photo's. "but it seems that Photoshop has become a tool to 'adjust' photos that should have been created in-camera to begin with. It's become a crutch and an excuse for poor technique and vision." Wow. I'd like to see the camera that produces the pictures that are in MY head.......everything I do to my images can be done in a darkroom. I haven't got the skill (or technique) to do it there, and I don't think 99% of the people who post here could reproduce my pics in the darkroom either. That doesn't mean the people posting here (inc me) aren't good. "Photoshop skills are an artform in itself - but, perhaps, Photoshop capabilities need top be posted in the Photoshop forum...?" Agreed - as per my comment above, if we did this the photography gallery wouldn't be as big or as interesting, and maybe the Photoshop gallery would be watered down a bit? Apart from that, you had some pretty valid points ;) (",)

...so where do you stand on photography & PaintShopPro?... nevermind... I get what you're saying, & did my time in the darkroom & photography classes when I put an image through PSP/PS I think of it as adding frills, a little pizazz, a twist, an added thrill, it's just packaging & may not be to everyone's liking. I do tend to overdo at times, but I would also like to think the image could & would be able to stand on it's own straight out of the camera, there's always room for perfecting technique & personal style

Having sat here and read this entire thread, I'm gonna add my 2 cents worth. I'm just your average joe that works hard at his job 5 days a week. I own a camera and I enjoy taking pictures. I'm not Ansel Adams and although I admire his work, I do not delude myself into believing that I would ever be his equal. I also like to play with Photoshop. I'm no Jerry Ulesman, doing photo manipulation in the dark room, nor do I have the necessary equipment nor resources to aquire it or the knowledge to do his stuff. With this said, does it really matter whether I use PS to adjust a little here or to blow it completely out of reality. Isn't the important part that I am enjoying it? I am still very new to the technical aspect of photography, so I'm not skilled enough to come up with the perfect exposure every shot. But with each flub I learn something. Isn't that important? I point out that I am having FUN doing what I do AND sharing with this group the results of whatever way I wind up with the finished piece.

Everything in its own time. There. :-) (*

...I have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion... Was in some interesting places last weekend, and I think I made some intelligent choices on equipment and film. Some of the compositions and exposures may be sub-optimal, as I was working fast, with not the most state-of-the-art equipment, (both photographic and physiological). Only halfway through my process flow; need to hit the processing lab next. If anything looks worthwhile, I'll post it. I did have lots of fun!

Thank God, Misha! (I think we needed a brief interruption in what's surely to become a thorn in some people's side. I had (have) no intensions of ticking people off - or to try to place myself "above" anyone at all. There have been several excellent points made (on both sides) - and I have enjoyed greatly the spirited discussion. I will be the very first to admit that my comments are made purely as opinion - and in no way to be misunderstood as "rules" that anyone should follow (except me). I'm the one who griped about "program modes" when they first came out, and then there was multiple-program modes....making it (to me) more difficult to learn the various modes of the camera then it would be to learn the basics of photography (which you STILL need to know in order to use these program-modes to their fullest degree!) What I fell in love with about photography was a pure blend of the technical and the artistic - I can think of no other medium that requires each to such a degree. Within my personal realm of subject matter, I need to be a chemist, naturalist, entomologist, biologist, physicist, artist, etc. - venture into shooting portraits and you need to be a psychologist, humanitarian, socialist, etc... I have no problem with "the art" being created within Photoshop - there are works that could not be created otherwise. My gripe (if that's what it's to be labeled as) is with photographers who haven't developed the skill yet to convey a message with the camera - and taking more time learning Photoshop than photographic skills. - I also would like to point out that jacoggins makes an extremely valid point - this is supposed to be fun, and nobody is to say what is "enjoyable" for anyone else. I would also like to point out a quote from DHolman "As long as you're not a documentarian, then whatever you need to do to get the image you want, you do." I fully agree with this as well. Slynky - I really do enjoy "goin' at it" with you - I think we both get something out of it. You stated "Perfect exposures are not commonplace.." - well, I have to ask why not? It's not like there are any surprises when you focus your camera at a subject. If you understand exposure and know how your camera's meter reacts to different tonalities (or whatever meter you;'re using" - there is absolutely no excuse for not getting 36 good exposures on a 36 exposure roll - and composition is not something that you need to look at after you make the exposure. I don't see why "perfect exposures" should be such a problem - it shouldn't. Yes, there will be situations where the contrast range of a particular composition may be out of the range of the film's recording capabilities, but you should be aware of that before making the exposure as well. I fail to see the excuse for bad exposure - but am willing to listen. (Believe me, I'm not trying to rub you wrong - I honestly would like to discuss/argue this a bit more with you - you tend to let it all out, which I really like) Other statements: When I made the statement about "commercial photographers letting dust on small products by....that can be taken out in photoshop" - I was speaking from experience - as part of a catalog with some 400 items in it, I played the part of the "art director" - overseeing the photographer doing the shoot. During the entire three days it took to shoot the products (small, cabinetry hardware - where a dust fleck looks like a piece of concrete), I kept hearing "well, that can be taken out in Photoshop", while I kept saying "no, go ahead and get it out now". I was the one who was going to have to retouch the images and put the catalog together. Now, this is a photographer who I have worked with for several years (going on 18 or so years) - and he was always a bit more efficient...but it seems he's gotten lazy (what does he care - he bills out $1,800 day rate anyway) - but now my client is going to be paying me $75/hr to retouch images). maybe I shouldn't gripe - time is money - but I would much rather spend time developing more challenging projects than "dust and shadow fixes" where a $10 can of Dust-Off (and a light tent) would have done the trick. Used to be, when this photographer and I would have a conversation, we would talk about photography...now, all he wants to discuss is Photoshop techniques. Anyway - I really have enjoyed this debate and do want to apologize for any feelings that may have been hurt - it was not my intension. Marc

Ouch.