Quote:
Originally Posted by scorwitz
It's a different story if you are going crazy and adding all kinds of effects or colors etc for artistic purposes, but if your point is to make a true representation of what you've seen, then what are your thoughts on using photoshop?
|
We have had this debate several times on the site and it might be worth digging around. However, it hasn't come up for a while (that I've noticed) and there have been a lot of new people, so we can run with it a bit.
To me, the argument that a photo is cheapened if it is not straight out of the camera suffers from several flaws. Firstly, taking a photo is not a natural process to begin with. Secondly, unless shooting in RAW mode (when you will have to do some post-processing), the camera will already be applying predetermined processing to create your JPG image. Thirdly, camera technology is limited and so cannot accurately recreate what your eye sees (a much lower range of sensitivity, particularly without the option to scan and recombine the scene in real time). Fourthly, most of the great photographers held up as icons of the film age spent a long time in the darkroom and so weren't believers in straight out of camera shots either.
Finally, and most importantly, art is about taking control of an image and giving an insight into what you see. Some of that is done in camera, as you frame the scene and arrange an appropriate exposure but the process that follows is just as much part of the artistic process.
Wulf