What do you think? Must we learn photo editing?

[cyber3d]

Watching a recent OPRAH production called Visionaries: Inside the creative mind (featuring Annie Leibovitz). Annie said something that I certainly have forgotten and that is: When she went to photography school the dark room was an integral part of her education. And that it's sad it went away.

I spent a lot of my waking hours (and sleeping hours sometimes) in various darkrooms. Finessing a photograph was such a big part of the art and process.

So, that begs the question ... should we as photographers learn programs like Photoshop - as necessary and integral part of our photography? And, in this digital age, are we too reliant on "straight out of the camera" shooting?

[Biomech]

Yes
(didn't read the post, but yes)

.. did catch the word Leibovitz though, hate her work, no never mind I meant Diane Arbus

[KongeTorsk]

Originally Posted by cyber3d

So, that begs the question ... should we as photographers learn programs like Photoshop - as necessary and integral part of our photography? And, in this digital age, are we too reliant on "straight out of the camera" shooting?

As professionals? Yes. For a consumer who isn't directly interested in the making of the photograph, if it looks pretty/attracts attention I believe it's done its job. Perhaps not for all works like casual portraits. But for me, some of the most thought-intriguing and beautiful things I've seen involved many, many hours of Photoshop. Some didn't though. Working in Photoshop is quite a bit less hands on, which is a large turn-off for many photographers, but when I use it, I put hard work and dedication into it. The common definition of photography and photographs may be changing to adapt to our modern age.

I think more meaning should be given to 'straight out of the camera'. Perhaps it's just the work I've seen so far, but generally, 'straight out of camera' was a 'lucky shot in the dark' that didn't require a lot of skill or work to do. I'm sure quite a few of you out there can show me straight of out camera shots that would wow and amaze anyone.

Photoshop is also good for those who don't have access to certain props, lights, etc. that they want to create their finished product. For myself, as long as you did the work, the time, and you're proud, I don't really think it matters what you did to get to a polished final result. I think a lot of consumers feel the same way, or may not even give enough regard to feel this way.

I'm even afraid to become a professional photographer sometimes. I fear we may be some of the last due to advances in video and image technology. I can imagine a future not too far away where all pictures (in frames even) are high-quality GIFs, perhaps a bit like Harry Potter.

Ramble finished-just my opinion. I'm pro-learning and utilizing Photoshop.

[kirbinster]

Lightroom IS the digital age's replacement of the darkroom.

[Bruce A]

Photography is a combination of vision, shooting and processing. So yes processing is important if you really care for the end result.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Lightroom IS the digital age's replacement of the darkroom.

I'm sorry, but no...
PS is. LR is basic development. PS is significant manipulation AND basic development. I used to stack/combine images in the darkroom...can't do that in LR, but you can in PS.

Maybe LR is slide film development...

[inkista]

I think of LR as negative development, and PS as printing. Although I suppose printing is still printing. Maybe PS is everything you did on the enlarger/light table (y'know, masks & layers).

[sk66]

Originally Posted by inkista

I think of LR as negative development, and PS as printing. Although I suppose printing is still printing. Maybe PS is everything you did on the enlarger/light table (y'know, masks & layers).

Yep...but to the OP question...in the digital age I think we are not reliant ENOUGH on the SOOC image....too many images are too heavily processed for no artistic purpose other than "playing around".

Yes, you still need to know how to achieve your vision in camera and post.....anything else is stupidity and a waste of time. (well,... almost)

[nickbedford]

The problem is that many people view Lightroom and Photoshop post processing as bad because they think people use it to "fix" their photos. When used by a professional (in the quality sense of the word), these tools are used to "complete" a photo and turn it into something spectacular. Every effort is made to get as much in the real photo as possible then finishing touches or advanced composites and editing are done in post.

I don't see anything wrong with it to be honest. If something is clearly not intended to be "just a photograph" then why is it such a big deal that someone takes their photo (or collection of photos) into Ps and Lr to do more work.

I'm still learning a lot and making mistakes but I make every effort to get things right in the shot before doing anything in post. Often times, practical limitations require you to clone out a light stand leg or dodge and burn slightly. This is all part of what people did in dark rooms (not sure about cloning per se).

Some photographers almost always do some composites or draw elements in their images. It's called art.

[nickbedford]

Originally Posted by sk66

Yes, you still need to know how to achieve your vision in camera and post.....anything else is stupidity and a waste of time. (well,... almost)

Yes, but many people go through phases when learning. There's a difference between someone being naive coupled with a few hours mucking around verse someone who knows precisely what they're doing and why they're doing certain things to achieve it.