The "PhotoShop" Issue.
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
You can't polish a turd.
You have to start off with a decent image before going on to "develop" it. That decent original image is down to the photographer and, to some extent, the camera and lenses. And, as has been said earlier in this thread, images have been manipulated since way before the digital era.
You have to start off with a decent image before going on to "develop" it. That decent original image is down to the photographer and, to some extent, the camera and lenses. And, as has been said earlier in this thread, images have been manipulated since way before the digital era.
The whole "great shot, you must have a good camera" is an unfortunate truth.
My ego would love me to take absolute credit for the quality of photos I took with £10,000's worth of pro Nikon gear but the reality is that no matter how much effort I put into shots taken with my 4:3 Panasonic they will never be as good as ones shot with my old Nikon D3. Anyone in dispute of that needs their head examined. A good camera is more responsive, has better handling, better optics, a better sensor and better accessories such as a more stable tripod mount, better flash gun etc. No need to be precious about it.
My answer is usually "it doesn't hurt to have a good camera, that's for sure."
My ego would love me to take absolute credit for the quality of photos I took with £10,000's worth of pro Nikon gear but the reality is that no matter how much effort I put into shots taken with my 4:3 Panasonic they will never be as good as ones shot with my old Nikon D3. Anyone in dispute of that needs their head examined. A good camera is more responsive, has better handling, better optics, a better sensor and better accessories such as a more stable tripod mount, better flash gun etc. No need to be precious about it.
My answer is usually "it doesn't hurt to have a good camera, that's for sure."
Last edited:
Whole other kettle of fish that one.
As far as camera gear is concerned, under ideal conditions, pixel for pixel, most modern cameras are capable of producing superb results.
Where the difference does creep in is when the conditions are not ideal.
When the light levels are very low for example the sensor and processor will be stretched to their limits and a Pro SLR has limits far beyond that of a high street compact.
That being said though, I would still say that a good photographer with an iPhone would out perform a twit with a Leica any day...
As far as camera gear is concerned, under ideal conditions, pixel for pixel, most modern cameras are capable of producing superb results.
Where the difference does creep in is when the conditions are not ideal.
When the light levels are very low for example the sensor and processor will be stretched to their limits and a Pro SLR has limits far beyond that of a high street compact.
That being said though, I would still say that a good photographer with an iPhone would out perform a twit with a Leica any day...
True i had a play with a D4s last week and it's performance makes my D300 look like a shoebox pinhole camera.
Same when i upgraded my sigma lenses to the 'pro' f2.8 Nikon ones, a big step up in quality
I would say it's a percentage between user and equipment. I lent my D300 to someone at a wedding to take a picture of me and the couple and he managed to make it focus on the light fitting 30m behind us, put a 30% tilt on the picture and cut my head off.
Conversely at my knife throwing club someone with a D3200 (on automatic) didn't think they could get shots like i could with the knife frozen in the air. A few minutes tuition and some setting tweaks and he was amazed at what his camera could do.
Pro gear will always have an advantage over 'standard' gear as it pushes the envelope of whats possible. To be able to shoot the D4s indoors at ISO 6400 and not have any more noise than my D300 does at 200 was amazing. Sadly at 6400 my D300 has so much noise it makes a 'join the dots image'
I have never had a Nikon/Canon Pro level camera and dont really want the bad back to go with it.
I am happy with Olympus Kit.
As for camera I am with Gary it depends on who is using it I read in Amateur Photographer (26th July) recently of Julian Calverley a Pro Photographer of many years who has published his book and even though he uses Alpa Large format cameras mostly but this book is of shots taken with his iPhone.
Its not what you have got its how you use it.
I am happy to use my compact camera here are some shots from it.
China town backstreet B&W Explored by alf.branch, on Flickr
Copenhagen escelator by alf.branch, on Flickr
Muse @ Manchester 1-0-6-13 2 big flames and smoke rings by alf.branch, on Flickr
Media city 1 with XZ-1 by alf.branch, on Flickr
I'll just say that Julian Calverley is very lucky he took photos of landscapes on his iPhone and not sports events or most wildlife.
He would not be using his Alpa for sports or wildlife either would he?
http://www.alpa.ch/en/intro.html
Edited to correct the statement.
Last edited:
I have no idea, I have never heard of one but I assume by the tone of your post that Alpa make cameras only for landscape or portrait use?
I don't get your point? Because a very specialised and very expensive camera cannot do something, that something would not benefit from a good camera?
I don't get your point? Because a very specialised and very expensive camera cannot do something, that something would not benefit from a good camera?
Just to add another thought to this, given a conversation I had recently about flower photographs and ensuring the colours weren't manipulated or "photoshopped" it's worth mentioning there really is no such thing as an unprocessed digital image.
While there is a "raw" image produced by a digital camera, few of us ever see this, or would even recognise it as a photograph. What we see is the raw image processed "in-camera" by Mr Nikon, Mrs Olympus, Professor Canon or Dr Fuji. All of whom have different ideas about what accurate colour, contrast, dynamic range etc means. So anyone concerned about colour accuracy, should take no comfort in the idea that straight out of the camera means unmanipulated colours.
Even if you extract the original raw file into photoshop (not all cameras allow this) or other photo editing software, before messrs nikon etc have overly fiddled with it, the image you see is still dictated by Adobe, Apple, Phase one, DXO or whatever the raw file processing software you are using.
The big advantage of using raw however, over the image "out of the camera", when trying to get accurate colour, is because Photoshop and the like, allow you to manipulate the original image, and by including colour reference patches in a photograph, you can try and match these colours in photoshop to the "real colour patches" sat by your computer.
But then again, the digital tools we have available aren't capable of fully reproducing the "real" colours so a subjective assesment of reality is always needed.
Most people trying to produce accurate colours will have a colour managed system in place, but as soon as the images are viewed on a non colour/contrast managed monitor, or prints viewed in non colour managed lighting, then the colours will still be wrong. Even though, a lot if the time they may well be good enough depending on purpose.
While this is a long way from the extreme manipulation of images that can be done in photo-editing software, the irony is, that if you want accurate colour rendition for record shots, the last thing you want to do is rely on images "out of the camera" and the only way to do it is by "photoshopping" them, in carefully managed conditions.
Which, incidentally, is capable of giving far greater accuracy, more easily, than the olden days of film.
But, just as in the olden days of film, the adage that "the camera always lies" is just as true today as it was then.
Cheers,
Graham
While there is a "raw" image produced by a digital camera, few of us ever see this, or would even recognise it as a photograph. What we see is the raw image processed "in-camera" by Mr Nikon, Mrs Olympus, Professor Canon or Dr Fuji. All of whom have different ideas about what accurate colour, contrast, dynamic range etc means. So anyone concerned about colour accuracy, should take no comfort in the idea that straight out of the camera means unmanipulated colours.
Even if you extract the original raw file into photoshop (not all cameras allow this) or other photo editing software, before messrs nikon etc have overly fiddled with it, the image you see is still dictated by Adobe, Apple, Phase one, DXO or whatever the raw file processing software you are using.
The big advantage of using raw however, over the image "out of the camera", when trying to get accurate colour, is because Photoshop and the like, allow you to manipulate the original image, and by including colour reference patches in a photograph, you can try and match these colours in photoshop to the "real colour patches" sat by your computer.
But then again, the digital tools we have available aren't capable of fully reproducing the "real" colours so a subjective assesment of reality is always needed.
Most people trying to produce accurate colours will have a colour managed system in place, but as soon as the images are viewed on a non colour/contrast managed monitor, or prints viewed in non colour managed lighting, then the colours will still be wrong. Even though, a lot if the time they may well be good enough depending on purpose.
While this is a long way from the extreme manipulation of images that can be done in photo-editing software, the irony is, that if you want accurate colour rendition for record shots, the last thing you want to do is rely on images "out of the camera" and the only way to do it is by "photoshopping" them, in carefully managed conditions.
Which, incidentally, is capable of giving far greater accuracy, more easily, than the olden days of film.
But, just as in the olden days of film, the adage that "the camera always lies" is just as true today as it was then.
Cheers,
Graham
There are so many variations of what kit you can take pictures and the results you are going to get with them please lets not get hung up on who can what with what. The camera that is most use is the one that is with you at the time. Certain types and setups favour certain types of photography. No you are not going to able to shoot sports as well as a pro DSLR with a fast telephoto lens if you use a plate camera.
Photography is also full of compromises in regards to the kit you want, the kit you can afford and the kit you are prepared to carry.
Given the option I would have a D4s and a boat load of lenses for sports and wildlife
I would have a Hassleblad H5D-50C for Studio, portraits
For landscapes I would use an Arca 10x8 plate camera
That little lot adds up to many many £100,000's of pounds when you add in extra lenses and accessories and all will excel at some types of photography and be next to useless at others
On a recent visit to Bempton cliffs I could of got this shot with a i-phone as they were damn near at our feet
But there is no way I could of got this without an SLR, good glass, fast autofocus and a teleconvertor (even then it's a hell of crop)
Photography is also full of compromises in regards to the kit you want, the kit you can afford and the kit you are prepared to carry.
Given the option I would have a D4s and a boat load of lenses for sports and wildlife
I would have a Hassleblad H5D-50C for Studio, portraits
For landscapes I would use an Arca 10x8 plate camera
That little lot adds up to many many £100,000's of pounds when you add in extra lenses and accessories and all will excel at some types of photography and be next to useless at others
On a recent visit to Bempton cliffs I could of got this shot with a i-phone as they were damn near at our feet
But there is no way I could of got this without an SLR, good glass, fast autofocus and a teleconvertor (even then it's a hell of crop)
Last edited:
end of the day now I don't make money at it anymore the only person who has to be happy with an image is me....
Sod what anyone else thinks, if they like it ....fine, if they think it's been processed to death...whatever
The end result has always been the only thing that bothers me, I'll do what I need to do to get the final image I want
Sod what anyone else thinks, if they like it ....fine, if they think it's been processed to death...whatever
The end result has always been the only thing that bothers me, I'll do what I need to do to get the final image I want
As I said, a whole kettle of fish.
Not much wrong with those shots Alf.
Every camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.
I've seen extraordinary shots of wildlife and sports taken on very simple cameras and even mobile phones, some of which would not have been possible with a DSLR.
It's just a matter of being creative with the strengths and knowing how to work around the weaknesses.
Not much wrong with those shots Alf.
Every camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.
I've seen extraordinary shots of wildlife and sports taken on very simple cameras and even mobile phones, some of which would not have been possible with a DSLR.
It's just a matter of being creative with the strengths and knowing how to work around the weaknesses.
I missed a word from my original statement.
I do agree with the statement that the best camera is the one you have with you (same with a knife).
Gary
I very much agree with this.
I have a whole bunch of cameras I enjoy using including a self assembly Lomography Konstruktor that is in some ways bleeding awful but still fun.
As far as I'm concerned the advent of digital photography is the best thing that's happened over the entire entire history of photography.
Its done so much to put photography in the hands of the masses and removed a good bit of power from the Pros. I'm all for that democratisation within the medium.
Phones with a camera are a brilliant invention, maybe not the absolute best photos but you have it with you at all times and the OK camera you have with you is a lot better than the mega camera you left at home or in the car. Yeah maybe the manipulation in images is a bit much, especially when it causes people to have a warped body image and so on but don't tell me that its a new thing.
Here's some historical famous photos that demonstrate that fact.
Its done so much to put photography in the hands of the masses and removed a good bit of power from the Pros. I'm all for that democratisation within the medium.
Phones with a camera are a brilliant invention, maybe not the absolute best photos but you have it with you at all times and the OK camera you have with you is a lot better than the mega camera you left at home or in the car. Yeah maybe the manipulation in images is a bit much, especially when it causes people to have a warped body image and so on but don't tell me that its a new thing.
Here's some historical famous photos that demonstrate that fact.
Sorry about the threadcromancy but here's another interesting example from 1931.
Guess which one is the image most people recognise.
Guess which one is the image most people recognise.
This excellent discussion reminds me of the comment made about Monet. "He is only an eye- but what an eye!"
This raises what for me is at the heart of the issue. It is the artist/photographer who make the first conscious decision as to what it is that is worth recording. The word here is "values", we focus on what we consider to be important to us, what we value. This is the bottom line in the creative act. We see, we feel, we focus and this is a highly subjective process. We then choose the tools, the materials that enable us to best present the thing that we have seen to be of value. This applies in all visual art forms, not least photography.
This raises what for me is at the heart of the issue. It is the artist/photographer who make the first conscious decision as to what it is that is worth recording. The word here is "values", we focus on what we consider to be important to us, what we value. This is the bottom line in the creative act. We see, we feel, we focus and this is a highly subjective process. We then choose the tools, the materials that enable us to best present the thing that we have seen to be of value. This applies in all visual art forms, not least photography.
Sorry about the threadcromancy but here's another interesting example from 1931.
Guess which one is the image most people recognise.
I don't know who that is but for me I prefer the one on the left. Despite the fact that I can see the one on the right makes her look smoother and slightly younger.
The one on the left just looks better to me.
Similar threads
