JPG

15 responses

• 

  Spectre Photo said (11 Jan 2009):

  I don't know if I really have so much expertise in this subject but I'll give it a shot.
  I prefer both digital and film. Right now I am using a digital slr and I absolutely love it.
  I have never taken a photography class to actually teach me the basics of using a camera, simple composition etc, all I really had was the manual and lots of trial and error.
  I have an old slr and I love it too, but for now I have yet to use it since the digital was purchased. I just feel like I can just shoot as much as I can and look to see what I've kind of done wrong or work on improving composition straight away..when I shoot digital it's sort of like a mini lesson I can give myself during the two hours a day when my kids are at school and I have time to myself.
  I know I really want to explore more with B&W film, developing etc in the not so distant future and actually take courses in school when both my kids are in school full time.
  As for thinking photoshop is cheating or art..I don't think photoshop is cheating at all. I think when it is used skillfully it can be used to create breathtaking works of art especially with a few well placed layers and textures you can add etc..As for me, I use iphoto to sharpen, crop and convert to B&W, sepia etc. Sometimes I don't. I have Photoshop Elements 2 and as some of you know I used it once on a photo to experiment with layers/textures, but was so frustrated and confused I kinda gave up on it..I would love to take a course in Photoshop also when I have the time to in the future also.
  One more thing: there can be a lot of snobbery that goes with the film vs digital debate..I remind my fellow jpgrs to be respectful of others please...

• 

  Joerg Schlagheck   said (11 Jan 2009):

  Interesting subject. Love the discussion and voted for this story. Photoshop and other programs like it are tools. They can help to get more out of a picture that has some imperfections or just alter a photo to match a specific taste. It is easy to screw up a photo using such a program. The possibilities are endless, but without a certain level of skill they are useless. I have found myself altering a picture, just to make it perfect, then going back to the original and liking that better. As for film, well I'm done with that for now. The old SLR is broken and I'm to busy shooting digital. That does not mean film is obsolete. It will always be around as a form of art (hopefully).

• 

  Mitra said (11 Jan 2009):

  I can go on and on on this one. But just to keep it short I will answer the questions one by one:
  1) I prefer digital, but more importantly most of the pros do too. Digital is now available in medium format (hasselblad,leaf digital backs) and the convenience of getting to see the end product and the variety of options available by and large surpass film by a mile. Those who still do film is because they are too into the medium and cannot adapt to changes quickly. Remember this has nothing to do with how good they are as photographers. A great photographer could have been a slow learner.
  2) Consider photoshop as the digital darkroom. Would you consider developing film is cheating. I say this unlike the popular notion, extensive post processing like dodging, burning, compositing were done on the film negatives. Photoshop has just brought the power to amateurs as well. Earlier only pros had access to darkroom and its technique.
  3) I think JPGs emphasis on keeping it real has misled people. Raw output from a digital camera is boring. You have to add some contrast,saturation, dodging, burning ,curves, levels, gradient layers etc to make the picture interetsing. The same principles held for film. At the same time to keep the picture 'real'...I would avoid over saturating, canned filters etc which instantly reduces the credibility of the picture.

• 

  Espen Tjernshaugen   said (11 Jan 2009):

  Yes it is a interersting subject. First, when a digital photo is shot it`s not a finished product...in most cases it needs a bit of sharpness and contrast and maybe some saturation. I am not into PS, to do the adjustments (the same adjustments you do when developing a film) I use a simple freeware program. The most important adjustments I do before I pull down the button with the pre settings, the picture is therefore manipulated allready before its taken. My goal is to do as little as possible after the picture are taken..but thats me. I believe there is a kind of border between a photo and a over edited picture, if a photo are so edited and changed by editing that it no longer have any similarity to the original photo, then its no longer a photo but a artwork done by the editing process. Many people do this in a great manner and create nice work...but the photo disappered on the way. Editing should be recognized as a own form of art since the photo for these artists just are a tool or basis. For me personal Im most interested in the process before I pull the shutter down, others are more interested in the pc stuff than to take pictures....it is each and everyones personal choise to do what they prefer....and the middle road will allways be there.
  Anyhow I wish photographers who deliver heavy manipulations could give some information about this instead of presenting it as a "clean photo", in the same way I wish photographers could give some info about their shooting settings (shuttetspeed, aperture, iso and gear)...then we all could learn some of eachother. I found it difficult to answer your questions (it`s not possible to answer them as the answers not are black/white). Anyhow I voted yeah!

• 

  Espen Tjernshaugen   said (11 Jan 2009):

  Mitra summed this in a more proper way than I did, think we share the same taughts about this.

• 

  Spectre Photo gave props (11 Jan 2009):

  I thought you did a fine job! :)

• 

  Jack Harwick said (11 Jan 2009):

  Pure, photos straight from the camera rarely standup to competition on the internet. If you want your shots to be noticed you have to add some "juice."

• 

  Amanda Lynn Jury said (24 May 2009):

  great artcile and i'd like to answer your questions if i may...
  1) hmmm, that's a tough one. in my mind, film and digital photography are almost two separate catergories. both art, but both very unique. i ADORE film; i think it is magic in the rawest sense and that time will never rob it of it's glory. yet, i shoot digital far more. i do love it, just in a different manner.
  2) no, in no way do i consider photoshop to be cheating. it is art, the next generation of photography if you will, or perhaps just a different branch. it takes skill to maneuver a good photoshop of a photo, and the very best do it in such a way that the original work is enhanced.
  3) i'm assuming you're referring to photoshoped versus not, rather than RAW files or JPEG files? i think it depends on the photograph, there is no absolute rule.

• 

  Pinto NH said (5 Jul 2009):

  Interesting article.
  I love both film or digital. They are have pros and cons.
  Photoshoped is cheating? Not at all in my opinion, even on news photograph as long as the picture still tell us the true story.
  In art, there are many possibilities, no boundaries. If you say photoshoped is cheating, what will you say about using wide angle lens, flash, filter. etc. They altered many things, e.g.: perspective. Eyes never see something like wide angle lens do. Is this cheating too? I don't think so. Cheat or not depend on the result and purpose.
  Photoshop is electronic/digital's dark room, still a tool for us, like camera and its accessories.

• 

  Daniel Lindquist said (7 Jul 2009):

  Many use modern editing programs in a creative way. Labor intensive special effects techniques for "old-school" film printing are now common in these programs. I used to work in custom printing darkrooms several years ago and am now just getting back into photography again with digital. I enjoy utilizing these programs to make the image the best it can be and to also create some composit images that have the "illusion of reality" ... but that is just what I like to do and everyone should be welcome to their own preferences as well.

• 

  John Edwin May said (8 Jul 2009):

  Both film and digital have their place... Your questions...1. I use both. 2. Nope ! & 3. Every photograph since college has been enhanced. My new digital scanned negatives are making much better inkjet prints than my vintage silver or chromogenic prints. Film is far superior to digital if the image contains important specular highlights.

• 

  Stan Kessanis said (4 Sep 2009):

  Have been a photographer for 35 years and a Photoshop user for nearly 20. Suddenly the millions of digital photographers are discovering the "digital Artists" who use Photoshop creatively to present their interpretations and they start asking questions to clarify their own confusion. Photoshop used poorly will create "junk photography" whilst in the hands of a sensitive artist will create true art. It' s a tool, and is immensely powerful as it unlocks the creative possibilities available to the user. Did we question Picasso's motives for producing his abstract art, or Dali? In the final wash up, the end result is the artists statement, and it doesn't have to be rated, measured or justified. It's simply art... subjective, revealing and vastly entertaining. What people aren't realising is that 21st century Digital Photography has re-invented the medium. Millions of talented photographers now have the opportunity through the digital camera to develop their skills, and through the internet they can join a huge global community to learn, share and grow. The result is that the domain of professional photographers has been intruded, ambushed and threatened. The magic isn't magic any more, but the prerequisite of talent and a creative "eye" still remains paramount. I have often said that the fastest man in the world probably isn't. Because somewhere, someone who is faster just hasn't had the opportunity to show their talent. Now everyone can showcase their talent in photography, but the on-line volume is so huge that perhaps we won't be noticed. The new creative category is digital art, based on photography, translated through software and expressed online or in exhibitions. The sky's the limit, but where to next? By the way, I have little time for film any more, it doesn't suit my thirst for "I want it now"!

• 

  Josef Grosch said (13 Sep 2009):

  I started doing photography when I was 12, let's not get into how long ago that was. I have been doing it, off and on, ever since. I pursued a degree in Art with a concentration in Film so I come from a background in film photography ie. Silver halide. I'm heavily influenced by the f64 group in general and Adams specificity. I see Photoshop and Aperture (My preferred tool) as my darkroom, a tool to develop and print images. I have friends who are graphic artist at web design firms. The things that can be done with Photoshop is just amazing. I just don't feel that it is appropriate for my work. I guess I am a bit of a purist.

• 

  Martín Alejandro Carmona Selva   said (16 Sep 2009):

  1. I do preffer Digital -it's easier to "process"-
  
  2. I trully believe that PhotoShop is like cheating -in the darkroom there was "magic" at least.
  
  3. I do preffer RAW -all my images are-.

• 

  Carl Kuntze said (2 Dec 2009):

  I haven't as yet mastered PHOTOSHOP, but many aspects are similar to darkroom work. Dodging. Burning in. Overdeveloping. Underdeveloping. The only anomaly is being able to move components of a photograph to "improve" an image. This might be dishonest if reporting news, but not in advertising. Being able to get black and white pictures from color images is another boon. Being able to deliver images to clients immediately is another. I'm fortunate enough to have a published writer in computer technique for my PHOTOSHOP instructor. I hope he doesn't give up on me when I keep forgetting his tips.