Me, do something like lith processing just to cover up a shot that I've not lit well - never!
Warning - rant approaching! This subject is something that's bothered me ever since my college days, and although it's not all that common in the professional world, whenever I'm on Flickr I find examples of it all too readily.
It's not enough to take a crap photograph, and then muck about with it in photoshop for ages, adding filter after filter, and hope that the results will be acceptable. They won't. It'll look like you took a shit shot, and tried to polish it. Likewise, it doesn't work at the camera stage. Taking a boring shot, and then shooting it through a fish eye lens doesn't make it any better. It's still boring, but now it's really distorted and boring. Well done.
Likewise, you can't mimic the “Dave Hill Look” or the “Jill Greenberg Look” (to give but 2 examples) by simply twatting your shot with, say, a load of high pass filter and a bit of reduced saturation. Post processing is inevitably a part of many photographers workflow, but someone's look will be the result of everything they, and the rest of the crew have done. Lens choice, lighting, hair and make-up, styling, location, casting will all have a much larger role to play than many people think. You only have to browse through some of the forums on Flickr to see thousands of charming examples of this. “Look” cries someone, “I've done a Dave Hill shot!”. No you haven't, you've taken a shot of your dog, and not a great shot at that, and you've pumped so much high pass filter onto it that it looks like its' fur's on fire. Someone like Dave Hill brings together good lighting, styling, strong composition, and careful use of photoshop to produce a stunning result. One element alone is not enough.
High pass filters, cross processing, desaturation, vignettes, fish eye lenses, orton effects and the vast panapoly of zany, wacky and far out things you can do to your shots all have their place. Generally that place is to be employed with restraint, and used as part of your overall plan for the shot rather than as a panic button after you realise you've taken a turkey. Or, as all professionals will secretly admit, they can be employed to dazzle a naïve and easily impressed client. Never done this myself though, oh no......
7 comments:
I could not agree more, at times this view has lead people to think of me as a curmudgeon and a philistine. But as far as I am concerned, this is the one major downside of the current popularity of photography.
People don't invest in an image. They take the scattergun approach, then spend far too much time dicking about in post-production.
While digital has its advantages, I try to treat it like film (for the most part, but there are occasions when being able to take dozens of almost identical images in a short space of time has its benefits), and take time composing and investing in an image.
That's not to say my photos are 'better' than anyone elses, but at least I am not guilty of 'turd polishing'. This, as well as the obvious (finance) is the main reason I've never purchased PS, and don't intend to.
Amen, brother!
Blimey Tom,
You really should start looking for a professional therapist matey!
Or at least consider spending a day walking around a show like Focus where you are allowed to rant as much as you like at the poor stand staff who are there just to be abused by great unwashed, (yes they were really unwashed)
Seriously! feel better yet?
D
yeah, don't quite know where that one bubbled up from - it's nothing new to me, we used to rant about it all the time back in the mid 90's at college. I think it may have been something to do with hanging out on the Photoshop/Semi-pro forums on Flickr a bit too much!
I promise I'll come to Focus next year, not to look at any cameras, just to ask you annoying questions!
Photoshop is a tool, much like an artist' paint brush. Every artist out there has a personal way of being creative. The argument you are making is a valid one as far as Photography losing it's value is concerned, but let's face facts, photography lost it's value as soon as it went digital. Just remember that you are an artist, your camera is your tool and when people invest in your work, they invest in you, your vision, and your creative talent. Don't let it bother you that other people are using different tools (Photoshop) to achieve a desired result, just be thankful that there is still something out there that makes you original and use it to your advantage. I say this to everyone "Accept it and Move on" there is no reason to start a war over something you can never change, no matter how upset you get about the use of photoshop, we live in a very competitive world,
it wont change, just be the best that you can be and don’t cause yourself unnecessary stress over another photographers choice to photoshop their images. The thing that upsets me most, are the creative commons websites out there that are undervaluing what we do as artists, unfortunately all we can do is hope that there are still people out there who value art based on it’s visual appeal and not the amount of times it can be reproduced for under $100.00. I hope this helps ease your mind.
Hi Piotr,
OK, I think you might have mis-interpreted me a bit there.
Fundamentally, my point is, you can't rescue a shit photograph by shooting it with a fish eye lens and twatting it with a dozen filters in photoshop - it's still a shit photograph. Fish Eye lenses (etc) are fine, Photoshop is an incredible tool, but each need to be used appropriately rather than as a panic button to cover up a bad shot.
And as for your other points - I don't think photography lost it's value as soon as it went digital - what an absurd point - I've made far more money out of my photography since the shift to digital (which in my case was about 8 years ago). I also disagree about microstock, as I've never felt it threatens me in the slightest, only those who would ever dream of charging a couple of dollars for each image. I work for national magazines and advertising agencies, and I'm really not concerned about stock sales that fetch tuppence ha'penny, as they're just not on my radar.
Thanks for reading, but I don't think we're singing from the same hymn sheet!
All I was trying to say, is that you shouldn't let it bother you that much, I know it can be annoying when people hit photoshop as a panic button for a bad image, but overall, it's not affecting your life in any way, so don't let it cause you unnecessary grief. As for my comment about microstock agencies, that was just my oppinion on the matter, I guess my experience with microstock agencies has made me view them under a different light, maybe I did something wrong, who knows? Perhaps one day you can guide me in the right direction.
It's very unfortunate that text cannot portray emotion, I really wasn't meaning to offend you and I'm sorry if I did.
Regards,
Piotr Pociecha
Post a Comment