|
| quote: | Originally posted by bananas
I don't like chopping, you've got to be able to make a picture without editing it later on, not that i've never done that, but i don't approve that :\ It's something like cheating, in a way. |
Though I do agree to an extent (it's always better to try and get the shot right before taking it as opposed to heavy post-processing) I also would like to add that your agument is like saying to an artist you can paint but you must use a brush only.
Keep in mind there are also time and location constraints i.e. sometimes you only have a split second to get the capture and then you'll need to clean it up because the digital representation is not always the same as what you see through your eyes.
Photoshop is simply a tool, albeit a modern one, for getting a vision from what you had in your mind to what you present to the viewer. Especially seeing as you can only attempt to replicate with a digital camera what was available on 35mm. Right now they are close but some things are still not as good on digital.
Even in lab days photographers manipulated images in the dark room. The shift now is to digital dark rooms. Many digital camera professionals swear by Photoshop and now Lightroom/Aperture for workflow.
Your argument reminds me of the vinyl vs CD-R vs mP3 debate.
As acclaimed photographer Steven Chong put it:
| quote: | | The use of Photoshop seems inevitable in the postproduction of my surrealistic work. For many of my shots, it would be almost impossible to shoot the images straight out of the camera. Photoshop is used to bring the images as close to the version in my mind as possible. The subjects in the images are all real, nothing was drawn. I often use Photoshop to arrange all of the subjects together. |
Check out the full interview and samples of his work here.
|
Still a higher res image would be nicer, i had to cut out about 5px worth of sky at the bottom since the boundary between the buildings and the sky was very messy.
