Photography Versus Photoshop
As I wrapped up an article for my new print newsletter, Digital Darkroom Quarterly, showing how to reproduce in Photoshop the effects of various filters you would normally put in front of your lens, I started thinking about the difference between photography and Photoshop. I’m sure we’ve all heard the saying, “I’ll fix it in Photoshop”. Many of us have probably even uttered that line when we knew current conditions or limitations of our digital camera were going to result in an image that didn’t quite match our photographic vision.
While I love that Photoshop and other software tools enable us to exercise tremendous control over our photography, I also realize in many cases it can be used as a crutch to replace less-than-optimal photographic skills or situations. As someone who helps photographers learn to produce the best results in Photoshop, I realize I may be perceived as contributing to this problem. It’s actually something I think about regularly. Whenever I’m writing or speaking on the subject, I try to reinforce that you need to start with the best captures possible (aesthetically and photographically), and that Photoshop should be seen as a tool for making your great images amazing, not for salvaging your challenging captures (though it is indeed very useful for that as well).
Considering all this, I find it exciting that there seems to be a renewed interest in focusing on photography again. This is a trend I’ve noticed recently. It seems photographers are in large part getting to the point that they have at least a basic understanding of how to use digital tools in their workflow, and now there’s a renewed interest in “getting back to photography” and making a priority of improving photographic skills first and foremost. I’m sure there will always be a need for more education on digital technology (and for my livelihood, I certainly hope so!), but it is encouraging to see photographers focusing more on photography than Photoshop these days.
Explore posts in the same categories: Photography
September 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I think you really need to distinguish between fixing it in Photoshop, which implies a mistake was made or the original was poor quality, and planning for photoshop, as in HDR or panoramas. My camera is simply not capable of take a good looking photo when there is a bright sky and a much darker foreground. In that case I plan the photo FOR Photoshop. I still try to get the highest quality originals that I can, but this is entirely different than a poorly shot photo that must be “salvaged”…
September 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
This is an excellent point. It is important to distinguish between “fix it in Photoshop” and “make it ready for Photoshop”. For images such as composite panoramas or high dynamic range (HDR) images, there is certainly nothing wrong with relying on post-processing for the final result.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Thanks Tim for making this point. Photoshop is to make good images better and not a FIX tool. Photography being an art, one should try to get it right with the optics and light. You said it right PS should not be a crutch.
Balan Vinod
September 28th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Hi Tim,
I enjoy your Darkroom Digest newsletter, and after finding nothing on printing in Photoshop CS3 Workflow I was delighted to find you have a Digital Printing Newsletter. How can I subscribe to this? I am not looking
for something free, and don’t mind spending a few bucks.
As far as the subject mentioned here ~ I photograph birds, and try to shoot photos that need nothing but slight tonal adjustments, and minimal sharpening ~ USM & Smart Sharpening usually over kill. In fact my wife shoots bird photos handheld that are so good, I can make 13 x 19 prints using 72 DPI that are amazingly beautiful.
Best regards ~ Gus