Photoshop .. necessary?

[ADG]

Well, I think so. The problem is that it's a very expensive piece of kit for the digital photograher. It can be bought cheaper however, there is the educational version for students but another good trick is to scan the auction sites and/or computer markets for an old legitimate version of photoshop, make sure you get the registration information.

You can log into www.adobe.com and use the old version serial number to purchase an upgrade copy of Photoshop at a much reduced price. Certainly a worthwhile endeavour for someone who wishes to licence their software.





ADG

[Leftseat86]

I'm using Elements...very good and nice price aswell. :)

-Clovis

[screaming_emu]

I dont use any kind of editing for my photos other than resizing. Personally I'm not a big fan of editing. Its kinda like cheating. The photo should be as it appeared in real life. But to each his own opinion, and mine probably would change a little if I actually knew how to edit photos well. Before anyone says anything, I'm too lazy to read the photoshop tutorial. Thanks for suggesting it though ;-)

[mikecweb]

Necessary? Prolly not. But I have found by playing with it for many hours that it is almost as fun as photography. Joe I wouldn't look it as cheating but as bringing the most that you can out of a photo.

[FUAirliner]

screaming_emu wrote: "Personally I'm not a big fan of editing. Its kinda like cheating."

It depends what aim you try to achieve with editing. For example, images out of digital SLRs are meant to be sharpened. Personally, by editing a shot I try to reach the quality and brilliance of the original slide. Every scanner loweres the quality after a shot is scanned, so with your editing techniques you are meant to improve the quality as much as possible.

It actually is cheating when you clone out obstructing objects, remove vignetting, try to hide motion blur or straighten crooked horizons.

[jwenting]

To me, anything that couldn't be achieved in a wet darkroom would be cheating.
That includes replacing things in the shot with something else (such as cloning out things) and major changes to tonality except when needed to compensate for errors in the film, scanning or camera. For example a colour cast created by the scanner).

Straightening horizons, cropping, sharpening (in moderation), playing with brightness, contrast and curves (a bit) are IMO all allowed.

Photoshop certainly isn't required for that.
I use Paintshop Pro 7 and it's more than adequate for the job (at about 12% of the price).

[Freightdogg]

Personally I'm not a big fan of editing. Its kinda like cheating.

The late Ansel Adams, who is considered by many to have been the greatest photographer to have lived, used to spend hours in the darkroom massaging a single print to bring out the best possible aspects of it. Even though he only worked in Balck & White, he commonly used techniques such as masking, buring in, dodging, filtering, litho derivations, and sabatier effect. The final product almost always looked considerably different than what came directly off the negative, but the physical objects that were pictured were enhanced to the eye.

To me, anything that couldn't be achieved in a wet darkroom would be cheating.

Believe it or not there isn't a lot you can do in Photoshop that can't also be done in a darkroom. You actually CAN replace items and eliminate items in a photo if you so desire in a darkroom, and with filters you can change tones in a photo selectively. The only major difference with Photoshop and other digital photo editors is that the process is much easier and quicker. Isn't that why we have computers in the first place?

[ckw]

And let's not forget the fine art of photo-retouching, whether by brush or airbrush.

The point is, as soon as you press the shutter, you are "altering" reality, translating 3 dimensions to 2 ... we've all seen trick photos (whether accidental or deliberate) with things growing out of people's heads :)

To my mind, when you "create" a picture, whether by camera, paint or crayon, you are trying to make something pleasing to the eye. I think the best photographers pretty much have the final image previsualised, and either go out and find the image in the real world, or create it in the darkroom/computer. Neither approach is inherently superior or more ethical - just different means to an end (though each of us may have our preferred way of working).

I think the right & wrong comes at the presentation stage - if you try and pass off a manipulated image as reality, that to me is wrong. But I have no problem with anyone who uses their PC to create a beautiful image - its called "art" - and presents it to the world as just that ... a nice picture.

Cheers,

Colin

[Kenneth]

I use Photoshop Elements which is great value for money. As a non-digital photographer I need a photo editing software for editing out whatever the scanner did wrong (and to remove the dust and scratches that the crappy labs always persist in including in your prints).