Which is more important to digital photography:photoshop or the camera?

--It appears that PhotoShop IS the "darkroom" for digital photography!

With new PS , will PS actually level "most" digital cameras, in
that, their pix can be manipulated with PS?
Has PS become MORE important than the camera?
Since 90% of the people using a digital camera will never use Photoshop, I think the answer is pretty simple :-)

Of the other 10%?

I think most people will eventually come to the same realization they did with film, if the camera doesn't capture it, no amount of post precessing is going to change whats captured.

You HAVE to get it with the camera first, then you can tweek it with Photoshop.

Although I have seen some very amazing things donewith PS, then again, what they are doing isn't called digital photography :-)
 
digital post processing - photoshop and the rest are the most important. That is a thing that makes it digital (though you can scan, but that is analog to digital)

But for photography its #1 photographer, #2 camera, #3 post processing (the photoshop thing)
--It appears that PhotoShop IS the "darkroom" for digital photography!

With new PS , will PS actually level "most" digital cameras, in
that, their pix can be manipulated with PS?
Has PS become MORE important than the camera?

Gary
 
I think the camera, photoshop and your lighting are the main tools, your imagination is is the key.

But getting to your original posting - for me, Photoshop is the best thing since sliced bread. I wish I was a master at it but I know just enough to get by and do what is needed. I never had a darkroom and although I shot a lot and used photolabs, very few photos came out like I wanted - now they come out (in general) just like I want them. I could NEVER do what I'm now doing "back in the day".

wll
 
with editing software. That time could and should have been spent with learning (through trial and error) all aspects of properly composing a photograph.
--
Take it or leave it. The choice is yours. - Anton
 
--There is no way to objectively answer the question. The bottom line is that all of these elements contribute to the final product.

I've not seen a great picture that couldn't be improved with PP'ng. I also have seen poorly taken pictures that could not be saved by PP'ng.

What each of us has to determine, is what is lacking in our tool set and what is lacking in our skill set. Persue the better gear and improve your skills, all at the same time.

What can place your work in the top 5%? Composition alone won't get you there. DR alone won't get you there. 8fps alone won't get you there. Neither will distortion correction, and on and on, and on...

It's the culmination of all these things...

JMHO...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...
 
with editing software. That time could and should have been spent
with learning (through trial and error) all aspects of properly
composing a photograph.
--
Take it or leave it. The choice is yours. - Anton
So what are you proposing? No post processing? Go back to film and let a real professional develop your film?

Photography is a complete skill. I learned (poorly) how to use a dark room. Now I have a dark room on my computer.

A photograph, whether film, is just a piece of "plastic" until it is processed, and then printed on paper. If digital, it's a bunch of 0's and 1's until it is processed.

There's a guy who pays me money to process his digital images. He doesn't waste HIS time, he wastes mine... :)

If you don't want to learn the basic elements of post processing then you don't want to learn the basic elements of photography - that's the way it is... :)

Dave
 
Dave, I never said I didn't post process or lack the know how. I simply said that people spend too much time with it (on mediocre images). There's a reason why manufacturers put a button on the back of a camera with a trash can icon on it.
--
Take it or leave it. The choice is yours. - Anton
 
Dave, I never said I didn't post process or lack the know how. I
simply said that people spend too much time with it (on mediocre
images). There's a reason why manufacturers put a button on the
back of a camera with a trash can icon on it.
--
Take it or leave it. The choice is yours. - Anton
You do know that there are people who are clueless on this topic? There are numerous threads about how, Post processing is bad, but using levels and NR don't count." :)

The "problem" with your post is that it read right into my prejudices... :)

And of course, that's an entirely different subject.

But what exactly is the OP saying here, that Both of us are responding to? He really feeds into my prejudices... :)

My bad, your bad...

Dave
 
Fair enough. Actually, I'm very stern with myself. That's why I mentioned the trash can icon. If I don't see something I took with the extra appeal to it that lifts it a little above the ordinary, I simply get rid of it. (Whether it could have been improved by pp, or not.)
--
Take it or leave it. The choice is yours. - Anton
 
The GIMP is free, and a pretty good little program at that... and there are free raw developers too.
I have nothing against Photoshop, a great program, but I only use
it because of the convenience of working with my RAW files, and
creating digital art.

For the equivalent of a "darkroom," you need spend no more that $50
bucks.

Dave
Except for Polaroid, you had to develop every film. Either you or
someone else did it in the darkroom for you.

It's the same with digital image if you want quality. Either you in
PS or an automatic program does it for you to optimize and correct.

If you hate doing it yourself, take this little program. It
optimizes everything for you, very easy and excellent results. You
can download a trial version.

http://www.binuscan.com/

--
  • Mr Ralf -
--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/
 
are the most important aspect of your photography... a skilled photographer can produce beautiful photos right out of the camera that need very little or no PP, and likewise a skilled PS artist can produce a beautfiful peice of art from a very poor photograph. Most people are a combination of the two I think. Which one is more important? Well, that depends on where most of your skill is.

--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/
 
There's a reason why manufacturers put a button on the
back of a camera with a trash can icon on it.
--What a Quote... :)
A very good one... I would certainly benefit from using that button more, save me some memory card space it would.

--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/
 
Look at my Signature... I got a picture without using either(well, I did use a camera as a model, but you get the point)... you cannot get a photograph without a camera, but you can get a picture.
--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top