# What would you do without Photoshop?



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2013)

I've been thinking how we get lazy with the current software. Seem to have lost the ability to make the picture the way we want without using a computer. Then I remembered the work of a great artist from Brazil, my country. He called Valério Vieira, and did the work "_Os Trinta Valérios_" in 1901. In this assembly, the very Valerius appears thirty times in his brilliant work. What do you think about this?





"_Os Trinta Valérios_" by Valério Vieira 1901


----------



## pensive tomato (Oct 6, 2013)

I agree with what I think it's your main message about "getting things right on the camera first". Now, as much as possible, that's still a prerequisite step as we head into post-production work (using PS as a tool to realize one's vision instead of a crotch).

Also not knowing Vieira's work, I'd like to think that he for one would be all over PS, as this composite image represents the kind of work can be taken to unprecedented heights in our era of digital imaging!


----------



## JPAZ (Oct 6, 2013)

The things we can do in PP are remarkable. Eons ago, working in a darkroom and doing dodging/burning/cropping and dealing with choices in paper....and that was after choosing what type of film to use for that particular photo......all distant memories.

I agree that it is too easy to get lazy. It s very easy to fall into the trap of "I'll fix it later in PS/LR" instead of using your feet and the choice of lens and exposing the shot. There are times I'll remove a distracting power line or tweak the perspective (I don't have any tilt-shift lenses), etc. I generally shoot RAW for a reason. The lighting does not always cooperate , noise might need to be removed, etc. Post processing is very important and useful but does not replace getting the right shot the right way. But, seeing the posts on these threads, I know I am preaching to the choir, here.
JP


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2013)

Some more information:

A photomontage produced on paper and gelatin silver (b & w, 22 x 29 cm). "_The Thirty Valérios_" his self-portrait in 1901. This work awarded silver medal in 1904 at the International Fair of Saint Louis, in the United States. In 1922, Valerio Vieira received a gold medal at the International Fair of Saint Louis (USA) for the largest photographic printing in the world, an overview of the city of São Paulo measuring 16 meters x 1.4 meters.   




Small part of the panoramic photo of the city of São Paulo, made by Valerio Vieira in 1922

I'm thinking of the many times I hear photographers complaining that your current equipment is not able to do what he wanted...  That your computer is very slow...  Your camera does not have sufficient megapixel...  That software does not have the tool he would use...  Let's do the best we can now.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 6, 2013)

It is sure good to learn to do "good" technique and everything using just the camera. But Photoshop is nothing but a glorified darkroom. So what the photographers of yesteryear's were doing (including the likes of Ansel Adams) in Dark Room, we are just doing that in Photoshop. Photography is a form of art, and that means the artist's imagination plays a major role here. And darkroom from the days bygone and today's Photoshop just helps us in doing that - for some a bit more and for some a bit less. It is just about the degree. With the advancement in technology we can now do a lot more that we could in analogue days - that is the natural way of progress of technology. Photographers today quibbling about what would we do without photoshop is like doctors talking about how lazy they have become with the use of xray/MRI/anaesthesia in surgery/bloodtests/painkiller (take your pick).

When you are photographing the shot of the day with two energetic kids in the lucky composition that you could ever imagine and there is a tree trunk portruding from the back of the head of one of the kids then you neither have the luxury walking back and forth, change lens or anything - you just have to take the shot and thank the developers of photoshop in your mind.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 6, 2013)

"Let's do the best we can now"

That is the best possible mindset that we could have...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2013)

Get upset thinking about George Lucas, who has re-released "Star Wars" several times, and never seems to be satisfied with the result.  After all, whenever a new technology emerges, he can redo the scenes that did not like at the time. He had the nerve to replace an actor in a film released 21 years before.   In "Return of the Jedi" 1983 George Lucas remade the scene for the third time! ??? In the final section (125 minutes) appears the spirit of Anakin Skywalker and the original actor was replaced in the 2004 version by young actor Hayden Christensen, who made the character in the new trilogy!!!


----------



## Pi (Oct 7, 2013)

I will keep doing what I am doing now. I do not use PS anymore. For the rare occasions when LR is not enough, I use GIMP.


----------



## iam2nd (Oct 7, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I've been thinking how we get lazy with the current software. Seem to have lost the ability to make the picture the way we want without using a computer. Then I remembered the work of a great artist from Brazil, my country. He called Valério Vieira, and did the work "_Os Trinta Valérios_" in 1901. In this assembly, the very Valerius appears thirty times in his brilliant work. What do you think about this?
> "_Os Trinta Valérios_" by Valério Vieira 1901



Your post is a good reminder for me to always try and improve my craft. I started photography as a hobby at a time when 35mm film was still very much mainstream. I was given a copy of "_The Darkroom Book_" by Jack Schofield (which I still pick up on occasion), and I can remember being so impacted by the amount of forethought, time, and post-processing work that could go into making a picture be the best you knew it could be. Today, there are some digital photos that I take and will spend what I believe is a fair equivalent of the time, energy, and thought as the great artists from the film days. But I must admit - most of my energy in that type of situation is spent in digital post-processing. In many ways, especially for occasions where I must shoot a large number of photos for an event (such as sports), I do catch myself KNOWING that if my exposure isn't spot-on (I do shoot full-manual), I can pull up the shadows or down the highlights with a good deal of latitude. Some would call it lazy. Depends on your perspective. I call it a balance of my time and resources.

But... time is money. So without Photoshop, I would summarily say that I'd probably be taking less -volume- of pictures, and making the ones I do take, count! After all, not having PS doesn't mean I couldn't edit my photos; it just means it would take more time doing the equivalent editing in a [real] darkroom.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Oct 7, 2013)

I still prefer pictures that at least look they may have come out of a camera. some of thet tat that passes off as photography leaves anlot to be desired!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 7, 2013)

Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.

Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.


----------



## TexasBadger (Oct 7, 2013)

I would cry if I didn‘t have Photoshop.


----------



## kbmelb (Oct 7, 2013)

I would reply to all the people who ask "Do you do Photoshop?" with a simple "NO!"


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
> 
> Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.



My understanding exactly.

On second thought, my answer to OP's question (topic heading) is "I would take lot less photos, my photos would be qualitatively much worse than they are today, and I would not be so immersed in photography as I am now, something else would be my first preference hobby. Photoshop makes my photographs better, and me a better photographer."


----------



## agierke (Oct 7, 2013)

> Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
> 
> Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.



this +1000

people romanticize the film days and wet processes like they brought some unquestionable truth to the medium. it has always been about image capture --> image processing --> image presentation. nothing has changed in the fundamentals of photography...nothing.

how it is done is far less important than how well it is done.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Oct 7, 2013)

Of course photographers used to alter their pictures in the dark room...every one knows this!!! Getting back to the OP perhaps photographers would take a little more time to at least try to get the shot right in camera. as Zack Arias says, if you hear yourself saying 'I will just fix that in Photoshop' then give yourself a slap!!


----------



## Ruined (Oct 7, 2013)

I tend to try to get it right in the camera. While I do use some processing, generally I don't like spending a lot of time processing or I feel as if I'm not taking the picture right to begin with... or creating a reality through digital manipulation instead of optical manipulation.

Good example, recently I took a picture of a stone house in a forest. I wanted to give it a bit of a purple hue to make it look "enchanted". While I could have done this in Photoshop, instead I used a magenta gel over my flash. I dunno, it just feels better to be able to get it right without extensive post-processing - more of a challenge, more fun, less keyboard & mouse drudgery.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 7, 2013)

agierke said:


> > Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
> >
> > Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.
> 
> ...


4


Yes. Also, not everything can be gotten right in camera. Bord photography, for example... Most of it requires a lot of post processing. Read any of the major bird photography blogs, especially Birds As Art. I do grow tired of hearing the "well you could just get it right in camera" mantra spewed repeatedly... 

As for a PS replacement? GIMP.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Oct 7, 2013)

I like to "work" with my digital negatives with Photoshop.
It`s not a matter of fixing something, its the process of optimizing the material I have.
Looking back to the darkroom days and even with some romantic memories I prefer the possibilities of today AND Photoshop.
Better results. And this counts.
Would be a drawback not using Photoshop.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 7, 2013)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> Of course photographers used to alter their pictures in the dark room...every one knows this!!! Getting back to the OP perhaps photographers would take a little more time to at least try to get the shot right in camera. as Zack Arias says, if you hear yourself saying 'I will just fix that in Photoshop' then give yourself a slap!!



It depends on what you want to fix. Fixing someone's face to delete some pimples is desirable unless you want it there. Using ETTR (for shadows and DR), you also want to fix the exposure. Dodging and burning isn't exactly new. Meanwhile adding objects in your pictures that aren't there in the first place then that's the time you give yourself a slap.

Btw, ETTR isn't exactly getting the shot right in camera because you expose a little bit higher than desired and then just adjust in PP.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2013)

During this wedding season, there have been very few photos which needed photoshop. Most of my work this year have been completely edited and post processed in LR. It's fast and easy to edit 1000's of photos, where as Photoshop is more intended for single image editing. If Lightroom had the ability to render layers, I probably wouldn't need Photoshop anymore. I use PS so little these days, I haven't upgraded since CS4....I just haven't had the need.


----------



## wayno (Oct 7, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> I like to "work" with my digital negatives with Photoshop.
> It`s not a matter of fixing something, its the process of optimizing the material I have.
> Looking back to the darkroom days and even with some romantic memories I prefer the possibilities of today AND Photoshop.
> Better results. And this counts.
> Would be a drawback not using Photoshop.



Agree. Even with my comparatively limited PP skills, I love the creative aspect of PS/LR - usually subtly.


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 7, 2013)

Lightroom has already replaced Photoshop.


----------



## And-Rew (Oct 7, 2013)

what would i do without photoshop?

the same as i do now  - because i own Adobe Lightroom which pretty much only deals with 'correcting' the exposure in much the same way you would do in a dark room - crop, straighten horizon, dodge, burn - you know, the basic stuff.

I'm not unappreciative of what can be done with Photoshop, and i believe it has its place - certainly excellent for restoring old battered prints etc, or digitising them for posterity etc, but i'm very much a SOOTC sort of photographer 8)


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 7, 2013)

I can live without Photoshop... light room in the other hand.


----------



## zim (Oct 7, 2013)

Probably try PaintShop Pro X6 Ultimate, used to use PSP many years ago for other things not photography and have been wondering what it's like now, the price is the same as PSE so that's got to be good!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

it´s a shame that PS has no competition (no.. gimp is not a competition).

it´s hard to break the quasi monopol of PS in the professionell digital imaging world.
but it´s not impossible. 

but today there is nothing (unfortunately) that comes close to PS.

i would like to see corel put more work into paintshop.
it´s good enough for some user but has shortcomings that prevents it from being a replacement for PS.


i was using after effects and it´s layers workflow for years (i still use it sometimes) but nuke and the node based workflow is so much better in many things.

i was modeling organic 3D models with the boxmodeling and splinemodeling workflow for 8 years... then came z-brush and i never had to push a single vertex around by hand.

it "only" needs a company with a different approach and great ideas.


----------



## sanj (Oct 7, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> I would cry if I didn‘t have Photoshop.



Me LOUDER!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 7, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> I would cry if I didn‘t have Photoshop.


Alright. I admit that I too would cry. ??? But just for the ladies with many wrinkles of the face, a few extra pounds, stained dress, smudged lipstick... : I actually cry after taking a beating from them.


----------



## zim (Oct 7, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i would like to see corel put more work into paintshop.
> it´s good enough for some user but has shortcomings that prevents it from being a replacement for PS.



I'm coming from PSE just curious what are the shortcomings? might save me a bit of time!
Have to admit I really want to go LR at the moment thought


----------

