Whats with all the photoshop hatred?!?!

[Fungia]

How come [almost] everyone on here seems to have the perception that using photoshop is a sin, and that people only use it to manipulate pictures to make them unrealistic/artificial?

I have nothing against Damiano but this was the most recent comment I saw and I dont understand why so many people take this viewpoint around here?

i don't have a good camera, or photoshop on my computer, so the photo is a true reflection.

Does no-one using a point and shoot realise the vast amount of post-processing their cameras do, in-camera, when creating the JPEGs?

Here is an example I took ages ago, and used in another post I made here. I didnt play with them at all in photoshop, and only resized them. I changed the JPEG settings in camera. Most point and shoots have exaggerated sharpness/saturation/contrast as stock, so dont think that if you're not editing your pics you're getting something more realistic than someone who does;

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2374/2299982227_912cd4b16d.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/2300775296_3f202acce4.jpg

I didnt edit either, so both must be realistic huh? ;)

Another point; using photoshop can be incredibly useful for making the pictures more realistic. We all have issues with whitebalance dont we? Not being able to capture just how blue an acro is, or how unbelievably bright that fluorescent green centred favia is, huh? Photoshop can solve this, and is hence why people shoot in RAW so that they can choose what is correct, not their cameras. Craigg uses it for the TAC pictures so that buyers can be sure what they're looking at is what the coral looks like in real life!


Rant over! Thanks,

Jeff.

[ifranky]

Craigg uses it for the TAC pictures so that buyers can be sure what they're looking at is what the coral looks like in real life!

Too bad that 90+% of the monitors need calibration to real colours. So playing with RAW (and colour profiles for cameras) only makes sense when your screen is calibrated to display real colours or for print (1). 'Cept, the viewers/readers online all have another colour display. Same as with TVs.

When creating colour schemes for websites, I check on 4-5 different screens always: Apple ACD, Apple laptop, Dell True Life, old CRT, old CRT 'optimized' for Office usage and if possible also at work on a cheapo TFT, again so called Office optimized models.

All those rants have been going ever since Photoshop. Ever since colour film for cameras.
Or differently said, why is it that the discus at my LFS looks so much more colourful, brighter than in my tank although LFS has tested and approved my water? Oh yeah, they only have white walls and all their tanks have blue background... plus the light they use.

Why do people use 10k, other 14k and other 20k halides?
It's all in the eye of the beholder. These rants are useless.


(1) not taking the quality of printer/ink/toner and absorption capacity of print paper in consideration




greetings,

[Wombat]

I see and use photoshop as an electronic dark room. I have to say I love the program for that reason. But as said in an uncalibrated environment don't rely on it (or a traditional colour print for that matter) to render faithful colours

[MrFish]

When post processing is used to fool people then its wrong, if its used to make a photo look more like the subject did to the naked eye or for artistic effect then that's fine with me.

I see post processing as an art form itself and can be used many ways, as said, unless you are shooting Raw then all camera's will process the pictures and the result will vary depending on the camera and the settings used.

Before digital, and still popular with digital camera's are filters for the lens, what about lighting rigs, these pre processing techniques were never considered cheating yet they do the same thing.

What winds people up are photo's that are intended to show something changed from its real life visual, such as saturated corals and fish that are intended for sale or to mislead.

[craigg]

As said, I have to use Adobe (Lightroom, being my weapon of choice), it does not matter what tricks I use with white balance when physically taking the shot, post processing does not show the "true" colour of the animal.

IMHO it would be a crime for me not to get the colours as true to life as possible.

That being said I usually only rely on White Balance correction and cropping.

As to saturation etc, as stated its all in the eye, and what looks good to me might look unnatural to others.

Craigg

[big chris]

id use photoshop if only i could get my hed round it,

i have cs3 and cannot get on with it, thats the main reason i dont use em,......... cos i cant

i think if like me you try to use it, it makes the pics look terrible and totally shopped and crap

[johnnyboy]

I have no problems with people who use any post shot proccessing software (me included), but you must state that you have.
Taking a good photo is a skill and a art form. Anyone can make a photo look good with post editing sofware (except me), but I suppose this is a skill/art form in itself.
JMHO