Skip to main content

Are you a photoshopper or a photographer?

Candid portrait of Willy. Click on the image to see a large version.

Before working on the portrait of Willy above I spent an afternoon desk bound carefully retouching another portrait in Photoshop. It got me thinking about how many hours I spend working on images in front of the computer. The conclusion: way too many!

All around us we are inundated with images that strive to portray human perfection, from the sublime to the ridiculous in some cases. Just take a look at Photoshop disasters to see what I mean.

How many books, articles, tutorials are there showing you how to smooth skin, remove the faintest wrinkle, whiten the eyes, change the jaw line and the list goes on till nobody looks like themselves anymore in a photograph.

Well I'm declaring myself out of that particular race for unnatural perfection. Keep it real, raw and natural. If you've got laughter lines it's because you earned them and you should be proud of them.

As for the photography: get it right in camera. If the light is good and the composition works, and all the other technical stuff has been taken care of you will need very little post processing. And that's what I'm aiming at. I'd rather be taking photos than sitting behind a computer. I'm definitely a photographer, not a photoshopper. The portrait of Willy above is virtually straight out of the camera - just cropped.

Yours,

Paul
www.indigo2photography.co.uk

Comments

Steve said…
As it should be!
ronsbell said…
Well said. These things can certainly be overdone, but since post-processing of one kind or another has been part of photography since the inception of the art, where are you drawing the line. And why?
Ronsbell: thanks for your comment. I don't think I made it clear enough that I am not some sort of purist against all Photoshop. Where I draw the line is that the image should look as if it was achieved in camera with just a bit of traditional photographic enhancement - dodging, burning, saturation etc. I can't stand most HDR where the image looks like a cartoon, nor plastic skin, nor the kind of stupidy shown in Photoshop disasters. Why? Because I don't like photographs that bare no resemblance to reality.

At the end of the day it's a judgement call for each photographer.
ronsbell said…
Paul — I think you said that very fairly and very well. I share your dislike for photographs that have been so enhanced or so altered that they are more accurately described as photo montages or photo impressions than representations of an original subject. But as photo software grows ever more powerful and as cameras become ever more prevalent, it seems as if the standard of what constitutes photography (and of what the photographic market desires) will become ever broader. As you wrote, to each his own.

Popular posts from this blog

Approach to taking a portrait

Portrait of Amitabh Bachchan. Click on the image to see larger version. Every portrait is different but there are also elements which are the same, whether you’re shooting the famous or the locally famous. Fame is of course all relative. It depends on profession, accomplishments or media celebrity status. Whoever the ‘famous’ individual is there are millions of people in the world who will never have heard them. For example I photographed the legendary Indian Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, who amongst his many accolades was awarded the Legion d'Honneur, the highest civilian award of France. But I’m positive that many people in North America will not have heard of him – although he has more fans than Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro put together. I find that however well known a person is cracking through egos and insecurities is really important when it comes to getting authentic strong portraits. However I hasten to add that when it came to photographing Amitabh th

The portrait photographer's motivation

Easy access to the Internet and digital photography has resulted in an ever growing number of photographers uploading their images for comments and ratings from peers. Online communities evolve and these mini-societies each have their pecking order, internal groups and communal preferences. Photographers learn from each other. On sites that have a rating system there is often pressure to conform to certain styles, techniques and even subject matter. Although I participate in numerous sites (it's great fun), I recognise the danger of becoming a herd animal and losing the edge of individual creativity. There will always be the creatives that lead the way and the imitators that can only try to follow in their footsteps. This lead me to think about classifying photographers according their inner motivation. So as a bit of fun here are a few different types: The innovator Driven to always find something new, different and creative. Wants to be leading edge. Motivated by creative satisfa

Capturing the truth: The power of documentary photography to shape public opinion

Photographer, writer and artist, Paul Indigo (Photo by Magda Indigo ) Documentary photography is more important than ever because it plays a critical role in informing and shaping public opinion, particularly in today's fast-paced, information-saturated world. With the rise of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, we are bombarded with images and information daily. It can be difficult to separate fact from fiction. From a trusted source, documentary photography counterbalances the often sensationalised and biased coverage of social and political issues. Documentary photography can challenge dominant narratives and foster greater understanding and empathy by presenting a nuanced, humanistic perspective on complex issues. It can highlight underreported and marginalised issues, giving voice to those who are often ignored or silenced. In a world where many people feel disenfranchised and marginalised, documentary photography can help to create a sense of community and solidarity by