[ QUOTE ]
Reference:
There are some photographers that refuse to accept the idea that certain techniques are possible, plausable and practical using software tools such as photoshop. My point in the above thread is not that one is better than the other, or that the photos used in the example are any less beautiful. It's all about making these broad statements like "You just CAN'T get that effect in photoshop"
[/ QUOTE ]
dave,
of course photoshop does extend our creative toolbox, but it is not possible to surpass optical laws. scheimpflug
is one of them. you can use this to extend the area of focus or use it in the revers way like mark does but you will never be able to do this with photoshop.
I used to be a "get it right in the camera guy" until I started learning what was done in the days of film in the dark rooms. All of a sudden Photoshop started appearing as a normal evolution of things. Having said that, I have a strong background in mathematics from college, including courses dealing specifically with writing mathematical algorithms for finite state machine (i.e. computers). One has to remember that when manipulating an image in a computer we are dealing with integer arithmetic. As such, there is only so much precision that can be attained. This introduces round-off error, saturation errors, you get the idea.
The more you manipulate a photo, the more errors you introduce. And no, shooting RAW doesn't solve this problem, it just makes it less severe.
It boils down to this. If you don't get what you want when you click the shutter, you can often correct it in Photoshop. And while that image will look better once manipulated, it will never look as good as if you had got the shot correct before clicking the shutter. You are always better off getting the best image possible, and manipulate less later. This was true in the days of film, it is still true today.
Use Photoshop to correct minor problems. Don't use it as a crutch. And don't use it so that you can justify being lazy behind the camera. Reasonable approach?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I like your reference to film developing techniques. In this context we have replaced the 'sweet and sour' smell with a digital darkroom.... and what is wrong with that?
I also appreciate your insights into integer math. Not being a mathematician I look on it in the simpler context that light is a wave and digital, being binary, will never be more than a practical and useful surrogate - but I think we are on the same plane.
I also agree that ps is best for enhancing adding to a good capture, not replacing it. But if you are good at it, it can take photography to a new place....and fwiw, that's cool with me [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
This is a complex issue, and I think I big part of it is often
overlooked. Part of the difference between film and digital is that
there is a even more profound difference between darkroom techniques
and the whole world of what you can do in Photoshop.
Doing intricate work in layers, channels and paths is something
thousands (maybe millions) of people do every day but it's considered
a skill or a craft, not an art. But people who are masters of
Photoshop really are artists, but there is no body of accepted
intellectual knowledge and criticism that goes along with what is
normally accepted as "Art" (with a big A).
As far as I'm concerned that's the biggest part of the problem, and
the one no one ever seems to want to talk about.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
As far as I'm concerned that's the biggest part of the problem, and
the one no one ever seems to want to talk about.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's one of those things that will simply take time for acceptance to come around. Remember, it took a long time for photography to be accepted as an art form by the general public, and Photoshop is in its infancy (relatively).
Eric
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Bill, I am also coming from an academic background (computer science, graphics) and I appreciate your comments on integer arithmetic and the potential for data loss.
But I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that an image manipulated in Photoshop will never look as good as an image that was exposed 'correctly' in-camera. The reason is that there's another important ingredient when it comes to evaluating images: the human visual system. Numerical errors, data loss, or compression all imply a loss of quality, but that's not necessarily true when the results are processed by our complex optical system (which is astounding, really).
For instance, can anybody tell the difference between a level 10 JPEG and an original 16-bit uncompressed TIFF in a blind ABX-style test? No, because JPEG's design capitalizes on certain properties of natural images and our visual system, e.g. we are more sensitive to changes in luminance than chrominance (color).
Another example: a 16-bit grayscale image implies ~65k recordable tonal levels (or ~32k in Photoshop). Compare tonal level 60,000 to 60,001 -- can our eyes tell the difference? Not at all (we are more sensitive to changes in shadows and mid-tones). This implies there is still a lot of room for manipulation and editing that would go completely undetectable by the human eye.
Eric
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
My point in the above thread is not that one is better than the other, or that the photos used in the example are any less beautiful. It's all about making these broad statements like "You just CAN'T get that effect in photoshop"...even resorting to calling photoshop techniques "paltry parlor tricks".
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
It's easy to have meaningful, academic discussions on the web about photography. It's also easy to have schoolyard slapfights on the web. I'm not sure there was much disagreement in the thread you referenced, just different people comfortable with different methods. However I'd like to point out that early in that thread you posted:
The effect Mark achieves is trivial to do with Photoshop (it would take me all of about ten minutes, max). But just because you can easily do it in photoshop doesn't mean you SHOULD do it in photoshop.
Your point is well-taken but you are also guilty of making broad statements.
Michael
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
