Is Photoshop just part of the art of photography?

>>2951950
Why "just"?

>>2951950
it depends

>>2951950
it's a tool.

>>2951950
Is an enlarger just part of the art of film photography?

>>2951950
Can anyone tell me how to get lightroom to try before I buy?

>>2951994
Adobe offers a 30 day trial...

>>2951996
I'm pretty sure Creeative Cloud trials only last 7 days these days.

>>2951950
If you want it to be.

I only use (free) pp to tweak images a little so they look like how I remember the scene was. Then maybe crop for a better composition. I've spent hours editing a raw only to find that the jpg was nice enough. I'll then merge the two so it doesn't feel like I've wasted an afternoon.

If you NEED photoshop to get the desired effect then so be it but you can't polish a turd.

Isi has been doing a jpg (+raw for archive) sooc workflow, only doing minor adjustments in camera for a while. Not as easy as it sounds, you reallly need to know what your camera can and can't do and set it accordingly (for each shot).

Or you can:
>have camera
>see a neat thing
>"neat" *snap*
>chimp at screen
>fuck it, I'll fix it in photoshop later

tl;dr
>Is Photoshop just part of the art of photography?
yes

>>2952090
lol, or you can drop all the fiddling with the camera, and instead of using time pressing slow buttons in the cold ,focus on the important stuff like compositions, getting different angles, looking around to find more interesting shots etc. and fix all that other stuff when you have a tool thats designed specifically for that purpose.

idk, doing slow convoluted stuff, just to satisfy some arbitrary notion of purity seems so silly to me.

>>2951950
source on qt??

>>2952100
Yes, you have a point but spending ten seconds, maybe more, getting an exposure close to what you want is better than clicking away on the off chance you can fix it in post.

>important stuff like compositions, getting different angles, looking around to find more interesting shots etc.
If your camera is set up for the enviromment and you can change settings easily and quickly then sure. Shooting raw files of buskers on an overcast day in P mode + auto everthing is fine.

I'm not a purist but less time editing in photoshop is more efficient photographically I think.

>>2952100
I don't think you realize how easily some cameras can control jpegs in (current year).

>>2952168
>10s + on getting the exposure right.

>camera set on approx correct exposure for enviroment and intended type of shot, moving/static, shutter/aperture emphasis, high or low contrast.
>frame, flick the dials 1-2 thrdstops, click.
>takes 2-3 secs tops

>>2952175
That's what I said diddle I.

I'm just a bit slow.

>>2951950
Yes post processing is a part of the art of photography. Especially if you get really into it and do unique things. There's no wrong answers here.

You might take a shot thinking you like the composition and exposure then and there, but then want to change your mind later. I like shooting RAW because it lets me tweak shots after the fact, rather than forcing me to stick with whatever I came out with. Some people might think there's some artistic superiority to be had in "getting it right in the camera", but to me all that matters is the final result. And you might find yourself unable to get the exact color balance and exposure you want and having to micro-adjust in post later, anyways.

>>2952100
I agree with this actually.

>>2952281
>Especially if you get really into it and do unique things.
lol fucking uptalking teenagers

File: 1438209545900.jpg (555KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 970x647px

>>2952139
just some portraits of myself

This isn't really a good place to ask this question. Lots of people here have the MO of taking uninteresting photos and PPing them within inches of their lives to make them appealing. Half the shit on this board looks totally unnatural, completely disconnected from reality. Impossible tonality, weird gradients, cloning and other manipulation, etc. And then it sets a fucked up standard where if your photo doesn't look like some instagram hipster clown vomit plastic bullshit people bitch about it in the CC threads.

It's great for tweaking things like contrast, saturation, sharpness, exposure, etc. No problem with that. But the meme of egregiously abusing it to completely change the character of images and turn them into uncanny freakshows really needs to die.

>>2952312
ur always so C&A Anita :3

>>2952173
>implying jpeg engines can interpret your artistic vision
>implying you would ever want to give over creative control of an image to a machine
>implying you hate photography so much you look for any shortcut, even if it gives half finished results.

Not even once.

>>2952543
Have you ever shot film before

>>2952544
Yeah, I also used a colour darkroom to change contrast, dodge & burn, and tone.

It was just the same in the film era, only plebs and those that could afford an assistant to boss around didn't post process their images.

There's still public darkrooms in most UK cities.

>>2952554
Yeah and shooting jpeg is like shooting film

>>2952555
>film
20+ stops of DR, allowing massive contrast without blowing/crushing anywhere.
Can adjust contrast from near nothing to more than you would ever want
Can adjust exposure by 5+ stops without worry
Can be toned, either all over, or painted in areas
Last forever

>jpegs
Limited to the exposure, contrast and colours you took it with, if you try and change it you get blown/crushed areas, banding, noise, incorrect colours, artifacts.
gets worse IQ every time it's saved

Jpegs are fairly similar to instax, if you must do a comparison; very little in the way of wiggle room, limited lifespan, seen as a good way to test exposure and as a jokey keepsake.

>>2952558
Is it 2008 right now?

>>2952560
Nah, it's 8 years later and people STILL don't understand film photography or why jpegs are a terrible file format.

>>2952558
>gets worse IQ every time it's saved
>limited lifespan

what the fuck are you talking about

you'll see artifacts if you compress or recompress but you'll never see any reduction in quality if you save or copy a jpeg

>>2952561
It's just funny because all the things you said here >>2952543 people praise film for now. Do you really think the majority that shoot film slave over editing in a darkroom? And do you actually believe that you cant do the same with in-camera jpeg processing?

>>2952554
>only plebs and those that could afford an assistant to boss around didn't post process their images.
So you mean to say that shooting jpeg is only for plebes or pros?
I suppose I could agree with this. Raw is generally obsessed over most by insecure photographers that need much more headroom to figure out what they want.

Poor analysis paralyzed babies.

>>2952379
Underrated post is so fucking underrated.

>>2952379
Put your trip on isi

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (95KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1280x720px

Yes, probably not the sought out medium in fine arts but it can be. I mean look at an ads in magazines, someone is getting paid to retouch that skin

I mean people forget taking a photo isn't a means of capturing what's real but setting a canvas for your creativty. Hence we have film, exposure settings, filters, ect ect

>>2952558
I don't disagree but I thought I'd mention that most of films latitude is in the highlights and not the shadows. You'll notice people never purposefully underexpose film by 5 stops - all examples of film latitude are demonstrated through overexposure.

>>2952613
And jpegs have more latitude in their shadows than film does.
Go figure.

It's not an either/or scenario anyway, most cameras shoot raw PLUS jpeg. Some can process the raws in-camera with a simplified raw converter.

>>2952631
>jpeg
>more than 2 stops latitude

>>2952637
>he literally doesn't know that jpegs have 3.4 stops of range in shadows, 1.8 in highlights
jokes on you faglord

>>2952638
Do you know what else jpegs have? Lossy compression and compression artifacts. Say bye-bye to your details and color tones.

>>2952641
>things new photographers reading troll posts written in 2006 actually believe
what a right hilarious imitation of itself this board has become

>>2952599
>setting a canvas for your creativity

I like the way you worded this part, and I totally agree.

>>2952668
You might agree, but you're both wrong and will never attain genius or greatness.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2013/07/12/creativity-how-constraints-drive-genius/#1b87b0d8a3ce

Photographers that carry all the gear and shoot the most "versatile" files they can never achieve anything but polished snapshits. They never develop a consistent artistic vision, a consistent style, and rarely develop their visual storytelling beyond leading lines to a subject.

File: c51af7969c7a0cc3496c4bd887062a6c[1].jpg (77KB, 564x725px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x725px

>>2952681
>what is a studio
i mean yeah ill never post up a givenchy ad but you get paid bank

i make $40 a hour just retouching skin

>>2952687
>you get paid bank
lol kids

File: crush_01[1].jpg (200KB, 500x635px)

200KB, 500x635px

>>2952681
Well actually revising my post, it is true that constraints incite creativity. Under lack of recourses, or pressure, you're going to find a way. Some professional don't even come from photography backgrounds. But in photography if you already know the fine arts and theory, and not follow the /p/ scenario where you just throw money into gear, then gear fagging and PSing can work if think into commercial work. That is Phase One, Profoto, C-Stands, etc. All these tools to manipulate a $20 product (which cost like $3 to make). So Photoshop will eventually be essential if you follow a line of work. The guy that does Clinique work is set.

>>2952690
>lol kids
>lol
lol kids

it is possible to make a living by moving some lights and pressing a button

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:29 15:52:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	635

>>2952681
>they will never have a consistent artistic vision

Implying you need to limit yourself to one camera/lens and shooting fucking jpeg just to be consistent. Implying that having freedom to edit based on circumstances and revise or change things is bad.

>>2952808
>implying jpeg shooters are limited from using their raw files as well to reprocess the jpegs
>implying jpegs is limiting yourself to one camera/lens
>implying raw files can encompass multiple focal lengths by even bringing up one camera/lens
all of my wut was spilt

>>2952312
>>2951950
what a fugly witch

File: 1438904760092.jpg (732KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 2048x1365px

>>2952866

>>2952564
No, you can't dodge and burn or make local colour adjustments in camera

>>2952589
Shooting jpegs is for plebs, pros shoot raw and then someone else edits them, be it the design team for a magazine or a company that process wedding photos for you. If you're shooting 5 days a week, it makes sense to delegate.

>>2952564
Now most people don't slave away in the darkroom, because first and foremost, it gets digitised. Everyone has a pc at home, a colour darkroom is a little rarer and pretty expensive and takes up half a room.

You do realise that when you get your negs scanned at the lab they do an automatic white balance and contrast adjustment on every shot, it's no more "pure" than digital.

>>2952681
"consistent artistic vision"
What, you mean, "gee, i hope this looks good through my murky, muddy fuji jpeg filter"

A real photographer analyses the scene, decides what's important in it and edits to maximise it's potential through the use of colour theory and light and shade. There is no one size fits all.

>>2952681
Also, that article is all about form following function. The constraints aren't self applied but utilised to make the most of. Which is the complete opposite of shooting jpeg.

>>2952000
>Adobe offers a 30 day trial...
>trips

either way its a trail

>come on /p/ for the first time this year

see you next year (CAPTCHA GAYLORD BUTPUS)

Besides herself what does she take pics of?

>>2953018
>A real photographer analyses the scene, decides what's important in it and edits to maximise it's potential through the use of colour theory and light and shade. There is no one size fits all.
Shooting jpegs requires more knowledge and mastery of both photography and light than polishing turds in photoshop and convincing yourself through mental gymnastics that its all your master plan, concocted at the moment of shooting.

There are plenty of reasons to shoot raw, but the average poster on this board would really, genuinely benefit from learning to work within the constraints of jpeg only for a year or two.

Retouching is simply not the same as photography, and if you learn to retouch before you learn to take photographs that are good of their own merit you will most likely never make it past the stage of a prosumer that thinks split-toning and frequency-seperation is a tool for high art.

>>2953021
>Which is the complete opposite of shooting jpeg.
If you're simply imagining what shooting jpeg entails and have no experience doing it, or no understanding of what setting custom jpeg profiles entails

But that mostly just means you're a Rebel user, doesn't it?

>>2953018
>edits to maximise it's potential through the use of colour theory and light and shade
>through the use of colour theory
c r i n g e b o i s

>>2953319
yall acting like setting the exposure, white balance and choosing a preset is such a big deal. its just lazy photography.


in lightroom or photoshop you mainly alter a few colours to fit into a nice palette, use contrast to lead the eye where you want it etc, just like any skilled photographer back in the day wouldve done in the darkroom, you cant do that in camera.
.

>>2953349
>ust like any skilled photographer back in the day wouldve done in the darkroom, you cant do that in camera.
a) yes you can
b) most photographers didn't work in the darkroom, only millenials believe this

>>2953319
>the average poster on this board would really, genuinely benefit from learning to work within the constraints of jpeg only for a year or two.

I don't agree with most of your generalizations as they're just that, but this I agree with. Maybe not a full year or two but a period of your life shooting should be done this way.
It forces you to become a better photographer. I went thru a SOOC phase and it changed the way I look at a shot and post processing.

I guess I'll comment on one more just to clarify why I'm saying they're generalizations

>Shooting jpegs requires more knowledge and mastery of both photography and light than polishing turds in photoshop and convincing yourself through mental gymnastics that its all your master plan, concocted at the moment of shooting.

I may be an odd case then because I did go thru the SOOC phase and I learned my cameras limitations and look at a scene with whichever camera I'm usings limits in mind.
But again, I don't really frequent /p/ that often so perhaps I'm an extreme minority?

File: anita cherrypicks.jpg (704KB, 2684x2048px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 2684x2048px

>>2951950
>Is Photoshop just part of the art of photography?

yes

>>2953785
Holy shit somebody make the troll look like people.

>>2953785

I'm curious to see if you can do this more often but with different people

>>2953322
>when a "photographer" doesn't understand color theory, yet argues for the colour in their photos.

Well, you just lost the game.

File: 1477582189548.jpg (703KB, 2023x1024px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 2023x1024px

>>2953785
>DUDE RED LMAO

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dp
Vertical Resolution	1 dp
Image Created	2016-10-27T17:44:24+02:00
Image Width	2023
Image Height	1024

File: 1477582592177.jpg (492KB, 1251x2025px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1251x2025px

>>2953785
>>2954389
here's the original

>>2954393
I love you

>>2953785
You can still see the fucking hoop's shadow

>>2951987
this

>>2954711
found the autist

I am awful at photoshop and have a pretty simple request, anyone wanna help me out?

>>2951950
not something i appreciate. i love beautiful pictures, but i'd appreciate more if it's just about the naturality of the photo, like, it should have the least technicality/gadgetery. that's why i love b/w because colors would make me feel "it's beautiful but is it shopped or natural ?"

>>2954393
>Your babushka will never hold a high score

>>2958182
shoot

>>2953785
How did they get the pretty girl to stand in the exact same place as the not pretty one?

Anita is yummy

>>2951950
Depends, just like autotune can be part of the art of music, It works when done in moderation, don't overdo it or use it as a crutch.