Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: stamper on January 09, 2011, 06:06:39 am
-
Last week I got chatting to a freelance photographer who told me he had benefited from a degree course in digital photography. He explained the benefits of the course in glowing terms and suggested it would help me in my endeavours because I had stated that I had stagnated in my efforts. I was almost convinced till he stated that in his opinion that Photoshop had no place in Photography and cited the usual things about trying to process bad images, taking elements out of an image and replacing them and other anti Photoshop statements. He was entitled to his opinion I told him but he then said that most of the tutors in the college believed the same. This put me off thinking about going on a course. The question is how can tutors who are philosophically opposed to Photoshop teach a course on digital photography with an open mind and educate people? I would have thought that this attitude would be more prevalent amongst film photography photographers. BTW this is in a Scottish college with a good reputation. Any thoughts? :(
-
I would recommend School of Visual Arts (SVA), they are currently providing a Master program called Digital Photography, co-chaired by Tom P. Ashe and Katrin Eismann.
-
I would guess that the instructors that have the opinion that Photoshop has no place in Digital Photography are old school film shooters. This train of thought is that you should get it right in the camera. It is not a bad philosophy. This is akin to shooting slide film. But, I look at Photoshop as a tool to enhance what you already have. It is our digital darkroom and our digital files are our negatives. I would not take a course in digital photography from someone who frowned upon image processors in general. I think that it is a handicap to not use one when needed.
-
Last week I got chatting to a freelance photographer who told me he had benefited from a degree course in digital photography. He explained the benefits of the course in glowing terms and suggested it would help me in my endeavours because I had stated that I had stagnated in my efforts. I was almost convinced till he stated that in his opinion that Photoshop had no place in Photography and cited the usual things about trying to process bad images, taking elements out of an image and replacing them and other anti Photoshop statements. He was entitled to his opinion I told him but he then said that most of the tutors in the college believed the same. This put me off thinking about going on a course. The question is how can tutors who are philosophically opposed to Photoshop teach a course on digital photography with an open mind and educate people? I would have thought that this attitude would be more prevalent amongst film photography photographers. BTW this is in a Scottish college with a good reputation. Any thoughts? :(
Your instincts are right on track. They're talking a heap of rubbish. The world has long bypassed these discredited ideas. The people professing this nonsense obviously don't have a clue about the basic foundations of digital photography. Start with the raw image - it's the best source of any digital photographic workflow. The image MUST be processed at least in a raw converter and then perhaps some in a program such as Photoshop, but with all the capabilities of raw converters nowadays the line between raw conversion and further post-capture processing has disappeared. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's technical fact. But moving well beyond that elementary consideration, is the whole artistic side of making photographs - what are the limits? Artists aren't allowed to use tools to enhance their creativity? Stay far, far away from such colleges as you mention - their reputation is ill-deserved if that's the underlying substance. I assume you are writing from the UK. There are surely excellent courses in photography and digital technique offered elsewhere there.
-
... He explained the benefits of the course in glowing terms...
I am curious as to what exactly are those benefits for him (or would be for you)? If someone is just now switching to digital, than yes, there certainly could be some benefits in taking a course. But how exactly do you expect to benefit from it? Which part of digital you feel you need to go deeper into? Better post-processing skills come to mind, e.g., an advanced Photoshop course, but that would be exactly the opposite of what that school seems to advocate. As for you feeling "stagnating in your efforts", is it artistic or (digital) technique-related?
-
I come from the film/slide era, hand-held meters and manual. Although I contend the best way to learn photography is to shoot everything (including focus) on manual until you gain a deeper understanding of how everything actually works, I also believe that PP skills are nearly as important as photographic skills in the digital age.
The attitude you mention sounds like antiquated pomposity. In a practical sense, it is, well, impractical.
Those who can, make a living at it. Those who can't--teach.
Find a pro who needs an apprentice.
-
his opinion that Photoshop had no place in Photography
Maybe it's important to point out that he is absolutely correct that in some fields of photography "Photoshop" does have no place.
In the specific specialisations of news. documentary and a lot of sport, any sort of manipulation is regarded as unacceptable and unethical. Maybe the course he was referring to was specifically aimed at those disciplines ?
Maybe the problem here is that "photoshopping" is now regarded as an adjective to describe image manipulation in general.
-
Maybe it's important to point out that he is absolutely correct that in some fields of photography "Photoshop" does have no place.
In the specific specialisations of news. documentary and a lot of sport, any sort of manipulation is regarded as unacceptable and unethical. Maybe the course he was referring to was specifically aimed at those disciplines ?
Maybe the problem here is that "photoshopping" is now regarded as an adjective to describe image manipulation in general.
I have news for you - just in case you didn't know it already - your image is manipulated from the moment you click the shutter release if you are not shooting raw, and from the moment you open it in your raw converter if you are shooting raw. No news organization would accept a raw image the way it appears, for example, if opened in Camera Raw or Lightroom with all settings zero, tone curve linear and WB "As Shot". Every image is manipulated and that was true in the film era also. The issue for certain kinds of specialized photography is HOW it is manipulated, not whether it is manipulated.
-
Beat me to it.
Not allowed to use Photoshop to crop (sorry Russ), resize, spot and export for the web.
I'd be up for abuse at work if I put a 12 MB image in a web page.
Cheers
-
I have news for you
Did you read my last sentence and understand it's implication ?
Not everyone shoots RAW. In the disciplines I gave the examples of, it's far more common to shoot JPG.
-
Not everyone shoots RAW. In the disciplines I gave the examples of, it's far more common to shoot JPG.
I guess you didn't fully grok Mark's response. If you shoot in JPEG, the image has already been highly manipulated by the time it's been written to media. The only difference is that it's been manipulated by Nikon or Canon engineers not the photographers who shot the image. JPEG is not the "truth"...never has been (and never will be).
-
I guess you didn't fully grok Mark's response.
You've missed the point too.
It's not about the pedantry of if "manipulation" has been done to an image,( although there's a good argument that a JPG isn't "manipulated" but ought to be regarded as an original capture), but if the course discussed by the OP's colleague might be one devoted to a discipline of photography where major image manipulation of content is unacceptable.
It's difference between 'Photoshop' being regarded as an adjective rather than a noun, understand?
-
Quote
I am curious as to what exactly are those benefits for him (or would be for you)? If someone is just now switching to digital, than yes, there certainly could be some benefits in taking a course. But how exactly do you expect to benefit from it? Which part of digital you feel you need to go deeper into? Better post-processing skills come to mind, e.g., an advanced Photoshop course, but that would be exactly the opposite of what that school seems to advocate. As for you feeling "stagnating in your efforts", is it artistic or (digital) technique-related?
Unquote
I was told that projects would be set that I had to achieve. Dissecting images visually and giving your opinion and other things that would make me think more. All good but it was important to get everything ( well known advice ) "right" in camera and not depend on Photoshop. Good advice I thought but Photoshop in which I am fairly knowledgeable has it's good points because as others have pointed out the image has to be processed. You don't blame the tool but the operator for misuse? You can - imo - do all the "right" things and still use Photoshop. Honestly it has disturbed me for days that a well known college that teaches a course to degree standard ( HNC - higher national certificate in Britain - and above ) dismisses it. What kind of work flow does it have and what is their printing module? :(
-
Quote
It's not about the pedantry of if "manipulation" has been done to an image,( although there's a good argument that a JPG isn't "manipulated"
Unquote
The camera with it's settings using jpeg and with input from the photographer manipulates the image? A film camera and different types of films is manipulation, albeit in a broad sense? There is always some manipulation taking place so the photographer should control it himself.
-
The question is how can tutors who are philosophically opposed to Photoshop teach a course on digital photography with an open mind and educate people? I would have thought that this attitude would be more prevalent amongst film photography photographers.
Even if those teachers were film photographers, that would mean they can't teach, or worst didn't understand, basic darkroom techniques : get the maximum of information on the negative and make that information pretty on print is a way of thinking very similar to the one we use now while shooting raw (it's only a tad simpler now : expose to the right first, and then process).
-
But even with film the images were manipulated, burning and dodging, cropping, toning, different papers or filters for contrast at the printing sage. photographers have always manipulated their images in one form or another.
Every digital image is manipulated at some stage simply by converting the data from the sensor, the jpeg has the camera presets applied, even the raw file has data added (exif, lens correction etc)
I can see the point of trying to "get it right in camera" but as many have said here, PP is here to stay, these tutors seem to have their heads buried in the sand.
-
You've missed the point too.
It's not about the pedantry of if "manipulation" has been done to an image,( although there's a good argument that a JPG isn't "manipulated" but ought to be regarded as an original capture), but if the course discussed by the OP's colleague might be one devoted to a discipline of photography where major image manipulation of content is unacceptable.
It's difference between 'Photoshop' being regarded as an adjective rather than a noun, understand?
This can get into semantic entanglements. ALL images are manipulations - it just depends on HOW and HOW MUCH. The basic problem with a college's professional attitude against using Photoshop as a tool of image enhancement is that they are cutting off an extremely important aspect of making successful digital images, and students should not be misdirected in this way. That said, there is everything to be said for getting as much as possible "right" in the camera before making the exposure - also manipulation of another kind I might add! These are not mutually exclusive concepts - they are reinforcing.
-
"PhotoShop" has become a derogatory term of the ignorant masses, based upon cutting and pasting images that weren't a part of the original scene, but I would expect a "professor" to understand this and realize that PP in general is an important and integregal part of all digital photography.
Nearly all my shooting is for magazines and newspapers, where such antics are not only frowned upon, it can end your association. But I use PhotoShop and similar softwares to enhance every photo before sending it out. I consider it unprofessional not to do so. I do, however, avoid layers, blending, HDR etc., because although not unethical, I suspect publications have software programs that flag such things.
At any rate, I would think that any course that didn't include considerable attention to PP techniques to be a disservice to students.
-
Yesterday I checked out a course in the Glasgow metropolitan college on intermediate digital photography. It stated that you need to know Mac to do the course. I know that Mac is popular among Photoshop users but I would have thought that Windows would have been the default computer programme or they would have used both? I am a Windows user so my options are getting lesser and lesser. This post isn't meant to start a computer war. :)
-
It stated that you need to know Mac to do the course. I know that Mac is popular among Photoshop users but I would have thought that Windows would have been the default computer programme or they would have used both?
If they've invested in Macs that's what you'll need to use. Providing both OS options would add to their costs, so I can see why just using one makes economic sense.
I am a Windows user so my options are getting lesser and lesser.
?? Using Macs is really little different from Windows. You ought to be able to get on with productive work within a few minutes. There are plenty of web sites that will help the transition. You'll just find a few minor annoyances with the way OSX works, but it really doesn't matter much.
Most of the big differences only really become apparent when trying to do system management and configuration changes, something you probably won't need to engage with when you're just working with applications on a provided system.
-
Thanks for the feedback. This is taken from the blurb on the website for the course.
>This course is not designed to teach you how to use Photoshop. All students should have basic Apple Mackintosh >computer skills. Please note that this is not a troubleshooting course for personal equipment.
It looks like they don't allow time to get up to speed? :(
-
It looks like they don't allow time to get up to speed? :(
Perfectly reasonable for an "Intermediate" level course.
I'd be displeased if I enrolled on a course pitched at people with experience and found people wasting course time on beginner's issues.
-
Yesterday I checked out a course in the Glasgow metropolitan college on intermediate digital photography. It stated that you need to know Mac to do the course. I know that Mac is popular among Photoshop users but I would have thought that Windows would have been the default computer programme or they would have used both? I am a Windows user so my options are getting lesser and lesser. This post isn't meant to start a computer war. :)
I use both operating systems, and from the point of view of Photoshop it makes next to no difference whatsoever. I wouldn't let that "prerequisite" be a discouragement - if there's an Apple store somewhere near you oir you have a friend with a Mac, go there and play with a Mac for an hour or so just to learn enough of the interface for saving and retrieving files (very similar to Windows), then join the course, open Photoshop and enjoy.
-
... I am a Windows user so my options are getting lesser and lesser...
How true (and so self-explanatory)! ;) :D
-
How true (and so self-explanatory)! ;) :D
Actually, it's not true. Apart from some arcane applications, there isn't anything of any importance you can't do on either platform and any significant operational differences between them are easily mastered. Commercially, it's a real horse-race between Apple and Microsoft to make inroads on OS allegiance at the margins, and I think this is excellent, because without competition their innate corporate arrogance would be even more insufferable notwithstanding the high-performance products they both make. Where we pay a cost for this competition is that application developers need to program for both platforms and that is surely costly to consumers who ultimately foot the bill, but I think the absence of real competition would be even costlier.
-
... I was almost convinced till he stated that in his opinion that Photoshop had no place in Photography and cited the usual things about trying to process bad images, taking elements out of an image and replacing them and other anti Photoshop statements. He was entitled to his opinion I told him but he then said that most of the tutors in the college believed the same....
I've found that this kind of talk often comes from people who are simply not skilled in Photoshop, and rather than putting time and effort into learning how to use it they make blanket statements about how it has no place in photography or how their images are better because they are "straight from the camera". They won't admit that they have a technical shortcoming with a critical piece of modern photographic workflow.
I do find it particularly funny in this case though....can you imagine any other field of study where the teachers at a college would eschew the use of the latest advancements in their discipline?
-
I do find it particularly funny in this case though....can you imagine any other field of study where the teachers at a college would eschew the use of the latest advancements in their discipline?
Music ? music played on original instruments.
Art ? water colour painting rather than acrylic.
Film based photography
All immediately spring to mind, I'm suer there are very many more.
Actually the idea that you must use Photoshop is pretty daft in itself.
-
Actually the idea that you must use Photoshop is pretty daft in itself.
That is, if you only shoot film, and always print it chemically, and never everscan it, yes. ;)
Otherwise, you have to face the need for some digital treatment (be it in the camera, or automated by the web gallery script...).
-
Actually the idea that you must use Photoshop is pretty daft in itself.
Nobody said you MUST use Photoshop, but one way or another the process of creating image pixels does edit the pixels, so the photographer may as well be in control of it and know why and how. Courses which deter or discourage this awareness and capability are not doing students a service in this era.
-
in his opinion that Photoshop had no place in Photography and cited the usual things about trying to process bad images, taking elements out of an image and replacing them and other anti Photoshop statements.
I consider this as another example of disconnection between academic and industry needs
Photoshop HAS it place in photography, at least in a broad sense. The problem is that it is so powerful and capable that it is commonly misused.
Even in news, documentary and sports photography, photoshop is regularly used (not necessarily by the photographers themselves) for accepted practices like cropping, tone correction, sharpening, resample, etc. Additionally, if you output to printed media, you need photoshop to apply curves or output profiles, convert to CMYK, separations. etc.
-
I have just finished reading this thread with great interest. I once signed up for a photography course at the University of Toronto and it was all about visual expression and the art of seeing through taking, viewing and critiquing slide film. I never did get to enter the course because I had to move. I wish I had.
I would venture to guess the course you mention is really emphasizing the art of seeing and visual expression and deemphasizing digital processing, and not excluding it. I see nothing wrong with that. You will be learning the art of seeing and visual expression first and foremost! When I first encountered and tried digital photography, I was rather dismayed at the amount of attention being paid to photoshop and processing programs, and worse, the attitude that virtually anything can and should be fixed, as if we should all endeavour to become masters of photoshop, and the work- the images, the content- matters less. This is the impression I had a few years ago and I still hold today. Given the thousands of images most of us avid photographers take every year using digital cameras, and that most are mundane , I am all for the emphasis being on the art of seeing and visual expression. If you learn to take good images, no matter how or what processing is used, or at what level the processing is done at, people will recognize the work as good. Photoshop and processing, though a part of digital photography, represent different skill sets and are for an altogether different course, as is printmaking, which many on this site lean toward. I would suggest you contact the school and find out about the course content. Only your priorities can determine what is best for you. Some courses are comprehensive and include all the facets of photography, including processing.
JMR
-
I am reading a book at the moment. The title is Vision & Voice by David duChemin. He explains that you should have a vision that starts with taking an image with the best possible exposure and composition. Import it to Lightroom ( ACR users can benefit ) and zero the sliders and then process the image as you visualised it when you pressed the shutter. There are over twenty examples of before and after images and the whole process is explained with regards to each image. I guess it is the digital equivalent of Ansel Adams. The author explains it better than me. It amazes me how many photographers boast about not using Photoshop. I heard a conservation yesterday between three photographers. The first two said they used Photoshop sparingly but the third proudly boasted about not using it and, guess what, getting it right in camera. Even if you get it right 99% of images - imo - can then be processed to be even better? As one poster pointed out it is probably ignorance of the program that leads to it being damned. At the end of the day it is the final product that counts and not how you done it? ;)
-
"Vision and Voice" is an excellent book and provides convincing evidence of the subtle inter-dependence between vision and visual expression, in this case using Lightroom. The book puts to rest any notion that these skills stand in any kind of counter-distinction. They are synergistic for producing excellent photographs using digital technology.
-
… it is the digital equivalent of Ansel Adams...
And yet, AA also did contact prints just as well (an equivalent of jpeg)
-
And yet, AA also did contact prints just as well (an equivalent of jpeg)
Yes, but he altered exposure and/or development time according to contrast range of the scene, similar to raw processing
-
And yet, AA also did contact prints just as well (an equivalent of jpeg)
Not really an equivalent of jpeg, given the fancy lightbox he used which allowed for selective (and repeatable) burning and dodging. Poor old Edward Weston had to wave his hands to do his burning and dodging; not so Ansel.
Eric
-
Yes, but he altered exposure and/or development time according to contrast range of the scene, similar to raw processing
Which you can do just as well by adjusting in-camera jpeg parameters.
-
Not really an equivalent of jpeg, given the fancy lightbox he used which allowed for selective (and repeatable) burning and dodging. Poor old Edward Weston had to wave his hands to do his burning and dodging; not so Ansel.
Which can be also done in-camera, i.e., in front of the camera, by either gradual neutral density filters or, as Weston did, even by hand. Not to mention that not all contact prints (by AA or others) are done with dodging and burning. And please do not be fixated on the literal meaning of "equivalency"… we are discussing concepts here.
-
And yet, AA also did contact prints just as well (an equivalent of jpeg)
There is a big difference though : jpeg is all about your choices at the moment of capture, and after that you're stuck (or nearly so) ; while contact printing is made after the fact, and can be redone at will to better convey the vision of the photographer.
Slide film seems much more equivalent to jpeg, I'd say - and AA did use some too, even if he was quite frustrated with the process (I recommend Ansel Adams in Color to all who haven't already read it).
-
There is a big difference though : jpeg is all about your choices at the moment of capture, and after that you're stuck (or nearly so) ; while contact printing is made after the fact, and can be redone at will to better convey the vision of the photographer.
Slide film seems much more equivalent to jpeg, I'd say - and AA did use some too, even if he was quite frustrated with the process (I recommend Ansel Adams in Color to all who haven't already read it).
Well said.
Eric
-
There is a big difference though : jpeg is all about your choices at the moment of capture, and after that you're stuck (or nearly so) ; while contact printing is made after the fact, and can be redone at will to better convey the vision of the photographer...
You are far from stuck with jpeg… it can be further manipulated after the fact (though with less flexibility than RAW), much more than a contact print can.
But we are now engaged in semantic nitpicking and are further deviating from the point I tried to make with the comparison between jpeg and contact printing: that there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.
Both jpeg and RAW are just tools, neither being superior to the other by itself, no more than hammer is superior to screwdriver by itself. Under certain circumstances, yes, each can be superior to the other, just like hammer is superior to screwdriver if the task is to hit a nail, and vice versa if the task is to unscrew a screw.
The same goes for manipulation if post-processing. Some images benefit from it, and some are great without it. Photoshopping is not inherently bad, and neither is non-photoshopping. Not photoshopping a visually lousy image is not going to make it inherently superior, just as photoshopping it wouldn't either (though it might make it a nicer-looking crap ;)). It is a mismatch between the purpose and the process that gives them both a bad name.
-
[...] there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.
To which I fully agree.
For the rest, I see more the jpeg as a lesser tool (less possibilities), but you can call me biased. ;D
-
Music ? music played on original instruments.
Art ? water colour painting rather than acrylic.
Film based photography
All immediately spring to mind, I'm suer there are very many more.
Actually the idea that you must use Photoshop is pretty daft in itself.
As pointed out in the original post, we are talking about a course in digital photography. The idea that college professors would say that Photoshop has no place in digital photograhpy is what is daft. No one is claiming that you must use Photoshop. But to teach a course in modern digital photography and deny that Photoshop is a valid tool, it seems to border on being a Luddite.
Try to walk into a recording studio and tell the musicians they shouldn't be using multitrack recording devices.
Do art professors really teach that only watercolor paints are valid for use in painting?
And if you were talking a course in film photography, would you be told that a darkroom has no place in film photography?
-
You are far from stuck with jpeg… it can be further manipulated after the fact (though with less flexibility than RAW), much more than a contact print can.
But we are now engaged in semantic nitpicking and are further deviating from the point I tried to make with the comparison between jpeg and contact printing: that there are great images that do not require much, if any, manipulation in post-processing, and that even "great manipulators', like AA, used to do them.
Both jpeg and RAW are just tools, neither being superior to the other by itself, no more than hammer is superior to screwdriver by itself. Under certain circumstances, yes, each can be superior to the other, just like hammer is superior to screwdriver if the task is to hit a nail, and vice versa if the task is to unscrew a screw.
I think there is a misconception in this way of thinking. A jpg is essentially a RAW file that has already been processed, it's just the camera software that has selected the processing parameters. There is no circumstance where a jpg could be superior to RAW, because a jpg starts out as RAW.
Please note that I am not denying the validity of shooting in jpg format if that is your choice. But trying to compare a jpg to a contact print is a flawed metaphor. There actually is no equivalent to contact prints in digital photography and I think that’s an important philosophical difference to be aware of. There is no physical medium that can be transferred directly onto paper, it’s all data, and all of it is manipulated into a form that allows us to see an image at the end of the process. It just is a choice of who does the manipulation, the camera or the photographer.
-
The OP said he got this info from a person not from the school. If they're using Macs they're doing PP. Why don't you do yourself a favor and call the school and ask them for the course curriculum so you know what the course covers. I think you're relying on bad info from this guy your spoke too. Good luck. Alan.