Does photoshop take away from photography?

[hendrb01]

Names have been changed to protect the innocent.....

I ran across a comment to this Youtube videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlZWVBUxhH0 by a friend of mine who had this to say about it, "
when you realize that photography is ALL ABOUT PHOTOSHOP. Does it then lose the magic of taking a picture?"

I throw my hat in the ring and provided my 2 cents.

This is where it was supposed to go, "Photography is NOT all about Photoshop, in fact even though I have a license (As it is part of my Adobe subscription.), I have not used it. I do slight exposure and color correction in Lightroom, but that is nothing that you wouldn't do in a darkroom anyway. Most prosumer, and 100% of the good professional photographers (And I am not talking about commercial ad agencies), strive to get it right in the camera, then do minimal if any small correction in Photoshop. Again if you know what your doing it is no less real photography then dodging and burning, or multiple exposure prints in a dark room. Now going around willy nilly then dropping your film off at the 60 minute photomatt, so some hung over guy making minimum wage can develop your photos, or snapshots with your smart phone and calling it done, takes something away from photography."

For my effort I was told that I was delusional. What are your thoughts about the role of Photoshop in photography, and does it detract from the pure technical aspects of photography?

[SaintGermain]

Saying that photoshop takes away from photography is like saying that a hammer takes away from woodworking.

And for purposes of argument, you could say that lightroom and photoshop are the same thing. Photoshop has become synonymous with any photo editing program.

Back to my woodworking analogy, is a hammer the best tool for woodworking? The definitive answer is maybe. It's certainly an important tool, but depending on what you're trying to craft, it might not be the best tool, and it might even be completely unnecessary.

In woodworking, the first and most important material is the wood. If the piece you've chosen is rotten, or petrified, you might not achieve the desired outcome for the product you are trying to create.

But, once you've chosen the proper type of wood, then you have to start working it. If you're looking to make a cudgel or shillelagh, perhaps you need nothing more than a hatchet to create your final product.

If, however, you are wanting to do some fine scrimshaw work, you will need a variety of tools to include hammers, chisels, sandpaper and probably a copper jawed vice.

Photoshop is more than a tool, it is an entire toolbox. To say that photoshop is completely unnecessary to photography is naive at best.

Although it is often overused and can detract from the original image, this is not the fault of the product, but of the skill level of the artisan who is utilizing the tool.

[Cube Inc]

Perhaps one of the most convicting jokes (humorous stories?) I've come across deals with photography, and as I read the comment by SaintGermain, it came back to my mind:

A couple had invited a friend to dinner to see the latest photos from his trip. "Wow", the couple exclaimed as the friend showed them image after image. "Your pictures are amazing - you must have a really expensive camera." The friend smiled and said nothing. Once they had all eaten however, the photographer friend commented as he pushed back his plate, "That meal was absolutely delicious - you must have really expensive pots."

The point, of course, is that the cost of a camera does not a good photographer make; You can buy the most expensive paint and brushes in the world and still be a terrible painter, just as owning expensive pots and pans will not automatically make you a master chef.

We have certainly come a long way from the era in which taking a still image required one's life savings, hours of work in composing, framing, taking, developing and printing the photo, and decades of practice to hone the art. Certainly many, if not most, modern cameras have tools and features built into them that would have been incomprehensible even mere years before their making - but the fundamentals of photography have not changed, nor have the prerequisites necessary to capture a memorable moment. While modern tools like Photoshop (or Gimp, where I come from), can make short work of editing, enhancing, or embellishing an image, they can only ever do so much. For all the tools in one's kit, when it comes to photography - a person's eye is rivalled by none.

[hendrb01]

Hi Cube!

Nice to get a chance to comment to you here on the forums! Especially after being gone for so long. I also love the fact that you used your PETSCII signature block here, that is unique!

You mentioned a couple of things that I thought I would touch on.

1) That the primary principles of photography have not changed since its inception, One of the first "tips" new photographers will often get is to go to an art gallery and study the composition of paintings and try to mimic the framing, subject isolation, etc. So the fundamentals predate photography and have their root in painting.

2) You mentioned that we have come a long way from expensive gear, and the time one must now invest to take pictures. On the time aspect, while a lot of time might not be required to take photographs, a LOT of time and effort goes in to taking GOOD photographs.. You may get lucky and get a rare good photo, you may get really lucky and get a great photograph. However it takes quite a bit of time and trial and error before you get consistant, and even more time to develop a style. That is one reason photographers get so irked when a lay person ask us to take their picture, then try to "correct" something they think we are doing wrong (Most of the time it is one of the common mistakes newbies make, that we have trained ourselves to stop doing). An example being the far away "I was here" picture. Vs. Get as close to the main subject as possible, if you want more of the landscape / scenery, get a wider angel lens. Speaking of camera types, I see nothing wrong with taking pictures with Cell Phones! The best camera is the one you have with you, however ergonomically I hate shooting with them! People who routinely or only shoot with cell phones have no idea of the struggle I have getting a good steady image with a phone. There just are not very good ways of stabilizing them with your body.