View Single Post
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
ajdroidx's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,766
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,077 Times in 628 Posts

Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I disagree. The quality of the negative always determines the quality of the print. These days, PS is used by many pros as a crutch. It is used to solve image issues that a good photographer would never allow to creep into their work flow.

Lots of "pros" do not know a blessed thing about photography. That said, I come from a time when professional photographers knew a few things. And I am quite bitter, too.

Yes, you can PS an image and if all you need is a decent looking print and if you can achieve the goal with digital processing, OK, that works for some people I suppose.

If you create bad negatives--either through poor photography or poor processing--your final print will lack shadow and/or highlight details and those things are vital if you want a truly great print.

Digital can help but it always comes down to the final print and your goals.

Certainly, an 8 x 10 view camera and film can create great images, but if your goal is to post images on FaceBook or eBay, it is perhaps overkill. A cheap digital camera is all you need.
You are right. Too much photoshopping, not enough actually "trying to get it right in the camera" The experiment with the film was to see if I could do it, to see what it was like, and that was a success, but also, since I did not make any prints and just stuck the processed tri-x on the film scanner to import the image to photoshop to make the negative look better then say, "look what I did!" to me was not in the spirit of doing so because I never made any prints from an enlarger. I never did get to that point because getting the equipment and space (I lived in an apartment at the time) and everything else and digital was taking over. I figured if I was just going to digitize the negatives, I might as well go digital

It irks me to see "photographers" going out with the mindset of "I can fix it later" or going out to shoot something and use photoshop to turn it into something else, and have it called "art"

Sure, I shoot panoramas at times, even HDR images to try to get a more natural image, the way my eye sees it. Yeah, I do adjust saturation and sharpen just a bit, sometimes cloning out stuff, but more often I just leave stuff where it falls because it was part of the scene I was shooting. Even if it includes roads with traffic on it because it was in the scene that caused me to pick up the camera and shoot anyway:

Glow by slitherjef, on Flickr

Although, whenever possible, I enjoy getting away from the city, the urban snapshot location that is the bane of most photographers and get some shots where I can mount a camera to a tripod and spend some time trying to get my shot.

Otherwise in the city, at work, on the go, I just make snapshots, which others seem to see as just that, other then the subject matter, then they go on producing digital art creations with photoshop, whereas it takes me a couple moments to do the basic tweaks I need in photoshop or what ever new program I opt to try over the 600dollar premium package.

Sail by slitherjef, on Flickr

Most people run from storms, I run to them (back by popular request )
Flickr Gallery
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ajdroidx For This Useful Post:
breadnatty08 (December 14th, 2012), Dieben (December 14th, 2012), ocnbrze (December 14th, 2012)