Not meaning to start a flame war or anything, but before people start spouting about "there was photography before photoshop" and "people don't know photographic history", you might also want to educate yourself.
Those same photographers that "didn't have photoshop" didn't need it because they were working in a wet darkroom, with tools and techniques comparable to photoshop. They dodged and burned and over exposed, underexposed, used filters....everything that a photoshop person can do today.
Some of the greatest photographers of all time(Ansel Adams, W. Eugene Smith just to name 2) all stated quite clearly in their writings and in interviews that the image was not complete once the shutter was pressed, but only when the image was on paper, after post processing and developing.
2007-10-23 01:56:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by gryphon1911 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Oh, before Photoshop there were no great photographers. Everyone was lost in the dark. There was no Joe Rosenthal, Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, Arnold Newman, Walker Evans, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or a host of other famous photographers.... Sorry, but some of the people on here don't seem to know anything about the history of photography.
As stated, a good photographer doesn't need Photoshop to take good imagaes. It's not at all a necessity, it's just the easy way out. Though I'm not saying that wizards of Photoshop are bad photographers, I'm just saying that it is a totally different art form. It is graphic arts, not photography.
If a photographer can master photography without outside "helpers", they are a true photographer. If they use photoshop, they are a graphic artist.
My suggestion, tell your girlfriend, she doesn't absolutely need Photoshop.
2007-10-22 15:48:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by electrosmack1 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Here's the trouble:
Nowadays, photographers that offer Photoshop skills can out-compete those that don't for MOST entry-level photo jobs. Its absolutely true that you don't need Photoshop to take a great photo, but for a whether its a commercial contract or an engaged couple, clients expect the ability to edit digital files for a variety of purposes.
Certainly, high-level photographers are paid for their shooting ability, and graphic artists may provide all the post. But in order to get to that level, one needs to work on up. It will be difficult to "farm out" digital editing before becoming well established and being able to price accordingly.
Opting out on Photoshop will place your girlfriend at a competitive disadvantage as she starts out in professional photography. Its not that you need Photoshop to be a great photographer: its that there are plenty of great young photographers that ALSO have PS skills, and those are the people she'll be competing with for work.
2007-10-22 15:58:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Evan B 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Then, she needs to learn how to take the best quality images, directly in the camera.
Old time photography "purists" eschewed any manipulaton of an image, other than developing and printing. For many of these, even the cropping of images was taboo.
But for most photographers, particularly commercial photographers, even before digital images, a certain amount of "tweaking" in the darktoom was a pretty standard practice. Parts of images were "dodged" if they were over exposed, or "burned in" if under exposed. Negatives, and, even entire roles of film were often "pushed" in the developer to help assure a good exposure.
Photoshop is merely an extension of these practices. Your girlfriend should be encouraged in her quest. It will serve to make her a better photographer. If she, eventually gives in to the lure of the software, she will go into it a much better artist than one who COUNTS on Photoshop to fix all their problems.
I no longer have a film camera, or a darkroom, but my time in the dark was not wasted. I think I am a much better photographer and an artist, thanks to my past experience. Photoshop is only ONE of the many digital tools I use in practicing the skills I learned using film, brush, paint, ink, blade and pot of glue.
2007-10-23 08:20:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vince M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
having photoshop can be a great help, but! it is NOT necessary to be a GREAT photographer. its better to be able to *fix* a shot in camera, then to HAVE to use photoshop to "fix" it afterwards. if your girlfriend seriously wants to be a photographer? the best thing you can do is be supportive. there are some AWESOME sites online, that you could point her towards. :)
2007-10-22 17:07:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by asailorsstar 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Try Trick Photography Special Effects : http://tinyurl.com/yK7BGqsvj8
2015-12-09 03:45:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You know, she can always learn how to take a proper photograph. You know, learning lighting, composition, contrast, focus, depth of field, etc., etc., etc. All the things we had to know how to do before digital. Who knows, she may even learn how to and enjoy film processing and printing. In short, she doesn't need to know photoshop to "do photography".
2007-10-22 17:00:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by John T 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Many pros contract out all of their photoshop-type work. Look for a graphic artist in your area and see how that works out.
2007-10-22 17:14:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Picture Taker 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some men just like the potential to be competent to appear at and speak approximately women with their peers and flirt with who they wish. But others are potentially affraid of loosing their dating with their peers. If he says he doesnt wish a female friend proper now he would imply it or he simply wishes evidence that the connection will paintings.
2016-09-05 20:29:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If she is shooting digital then she is out of luck unless she is so talented she can hire a full time assistant. All digital files can be optimized by using photoshop. If you arent doing that it is like saying you want to play the guitar but you do not want to ever tune it. No one will ever take her seriously if she submits substandard files.
2007-10-22 14:54:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Michael L 3
·
0⤊
4⤋