Ever since photo editing software saw the light of day the discussion has been going on whether or not post-processing is acceptable.
Many a “photographer” firmly believes that you’re not a good photographer if you can’t do “it” in-camera.
I think the whole discussion is too hilarious for words, if not even hypocrite.
I might not be the best person to get this discussion going, since I’ve been an avid Photoshopper (whooopsie! According to Photoshop’s Permission and Trademark Guidelines we’re not allowed to use Photoshop as a common noun or verb) ever since version 2, but what the heck… I’ll get it going anyway.
So… Why do I think it’s hilarious or even hypocrite?
Ansel Adams was a darkroom master. And he was a post-processing master. He dodged and burned the living daylights out of (or into?) his photographs.
Oh, but he used FILM! That’s different!
Yeah, right.
What about all those film photographers who pulled out their Velvia film, which was supposed to saturate the colors more?
The only thing that’s changed in the digital world is that we don’t pull out the Velvia film for extra saturation BEFORE shooting, but we go into Photoshop or Lightroom and do the saturation afterwards. And clean up some beans that got stuckon our sensor.
Oh, and all you photographers shooting JPG.
What do you think happens in-camera with the image when the data is processed into a JPG format? There’s a good amount of contrast added, a good amount of saturation, a good amount of sharpening.
But I guess that doesn’t count, because YOU’re not doing it, right?
I absolutely agree that editorial images should be untouched. That’s the golden rule.
But if you’re a landscape photographer, or any other kind of photographer…
Whatever it takes to make your images look good (just be careful not to overdo it) and makes them sell.
I’ve had discussions with people about this and even if I agree that you can’t make a good picture out of a bad picture, no matter how well you know Photoshop, you can enhance pictures.
If you get to know the possibilities of software like Photoshop, you learn to see potential in images that you didn’t see before. And you learn to create a unique style to your images if you’re going towards a more fine-artsie look.
And well… Be honest… Which one would YOU buy (if any)?
Before editing
After editing
Or which one of these?
Before editing
After editing
Note that these changes are all very minor changes. We’re not talking radical changes here, like one of my other creations:
Now this is Editing with a capital E. It requires some Photoshop knowledge and a peek in your other half's underwear drawer ;o) (source image courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox)
A screenshot of some of the Photoshop layers that were used to make this image (yeah, yeah, I know, not all the layers are named... ;o) )
great aritcle arno…I think this is what makes EVERY photographer an artist. You take an image which is really just a bunch of 1’s and 0’s and interpret it in a way that is most pleasing to you, the artist. Perhaps you like the default low contrast, low sat, soft image you got directly from the CCD capture, or perhaps you saw it differently. It’s all up to the artist as to what you saw and intended the image to be in it’s final state.
I don’t need a model release for your underwear. It’s unrecognizable 😛
Is that why I signed the model release form yesterday? For my UNDERWEAR?