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
Labels:

Comments

Steve said…
As it should be!
22:20
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?
01:17
Beyond the obvious said…
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.
09:08
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.
20:47
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Overcoming creative block and self doubt

Every photographer, for that matter every creative, I've ever met comes to a point when they're not happy with the work they're producing. The pendulum between creative highs and dry spells swings continuously. For some the cycle is long and the bouts are quite mild for others the feeling of doubt about their work can be a crushing experience which returns all to frequently. It's actually quite healthy to have these periods of doubt because it can often be the beginning of something new and interesting which takes you further than you thought possible. Creatives in the commercial world have to always perform and although they may agree looking back that they've had a few patches where their work was less good, they always seem to bounce back. A very few creative geniuses deliver such high quality work that their poorest attempts still surpass the rest of us. But I have never heard of anyone, from tortured soul of Van Gogh to the supreme showman and genius, Salvador ...
22 comments
Read more

What You Photograph Reveals How You Think

  Photography is often described as a way of seeing. Less often do we talk about it as a way of thinking. What you choose to photograph, and just as importantly what you ignore, quietly mirrors how your mind works. Some photographers are drawn to faces, micro-expressions, emotional spikes. Others chase atmosphere, light, mood. Then there are those who gravitate towards structure, systems, order, the invisible logic holding a scene together. None of this is accidental. The camera becomes a sorting tool. It reveals what your brain prioritises. Where others see chaos, you might see alignment. Where some look for drama, you look for balance. Geometry, repetition, flow, layers, these aren’t just visual preferences, they’re cognitive ones. Strong graphic images tend to come from people who think spatially. Who notice how things relate before they notice what they mean. Lines before labels. Structure before story. And yet, the best images rarely stop there. They gain depth when human pres...
1 comment
Read more

Is professional photography still a viable career?

I am not against amateurs and semi-professionals selling their photography. It's a great way to earn some extra cash. However I am concerned about the level of high quality published work and the standards that clients and the public accept these days. It seems that just about everyone is a photographer. The line between amateur enthusiast and professional is fuzzy to say the least. Photography enthusiasts are selling their images through stock libraries and microstock websites, directly to magazines or through their own and third party sites. They're accepting commissions to shoot weddings, being hired to shoot for magazines and selling fine art prints from their websites. They're teaching photography on the weekend and guiding photographic holidays and safaris. Photography became accessible to the masses with the first non-expert cameras and the famous Kodak slogan"You press the button, we do the rest." The digital camera age has taken the whole thing to a ne...
14 comments
Read more