How many photographers are using photoshop to clean up their images?

I'm 24 and have a budding interest in photography. Right now I have to use the equipment I have. Anyway, I have looked online at professional photographers work (often they are younger than me) and I notice the color pops out a little to much or everything looks just a little to clean. I compared these images to some books I own such as the Photobook and The World's Best Photography: Photojournalism and didn't see any work that came off like so many images I've looked at online. Basically, the color is just to perfect (almost to a level that seems animated) when compared to legitimate professional photographers. I personally would like to learn to use equipment the right way and not rely on photoshop to make my images presentable. Am I just late and wanting to join a dying breed?How many photographers are using photoshop to clean up their images?
You are so right. Too many young inexperienced and uneducated shooters make mistakes and then try to ';fix'; them using some kind of digital darkroom. Much like what beginning students do in their first class.





When shooting transparency film, there is no latitude and no way to ';fix'; anything. We had to be photographers and produce everything in the camera ... period.








I use Photoshop (Bridge) to modify my XMP files to reflect my copyright notice, my contact information, my clients contact information and keywords.





I do from time to time use the level control to adjust images that were shot in unusual lighting situations.





Of course when I shoot in RAW, I use Photoshop to create TIFF or JPEG files from them.How many photographers are using photoshop to clean up their images?
I could be [whatever] and say that 鈥?by definition 鈥?';photographers'; do not clean up images. They use the camera to capture images. A LOT of ';legitimate'; photographers do accomplish what you are seeing in the camera. I'd be foolish to say that nobody does any work in Photoshop or it's kind to enhance the final image, as many do. Even ';legitimate'; photographers may make some small adjustments to compensate for the inability to capture exactly what they want.





Viewing an image on a monitor is somewhat like viewing a transparency, also. The monitor is a light source so things will appear brighter. A print uses reflected light, so it might not be as bright. This is one reason why the prints you have seen in photo books don't ';pop'; quite as much as those that you view on a monitor. When I get a print of a slide, I do NOT view it on a light box or projected. I hold it over a piece of white paper and view it with light reflected off of that paper.





There may be some debate about whether ';real'; photographers alter images or not and I'd rather not go there. I'd rather just see someone admit when they couldn't get what they wanted and let the world accept that.





Check this out. http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei鈥?/a>





This is actually two ';untouched'; images merged into one. You just can't get the leaves, which are about 8-10 feet away, and the moon in sharp focus at the same time. I took two shots from almost the same spot, using a tripod, and combined what I needed from each image to come up with the final product. I dropped the sharp image of the moon right where the blurry one was in the shot of the leaves.





In fact, here you go. I just went through and added a ';NoPhotoshop'; tag to the appropriate images on my Flickr site. http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei鈥?/a> When I say, ';NoPhotoshop,'; I admit that up to 50% sharpening has been allowed for this tag. If I altered levels, contrast or saturation, that disqualified the image from this tag. If I cropped an image, or if I cloned out dust or fingerprints from a scan, I did not consider that to be ';alteration'; in Photoshop and left it in the group. Some are very boring snapshots, but some are images that I am proud to show.
Practically everyone doing professional work will modify the image they captured initially. Sharpening, levels, contrast are adjustments done best in Photoshop rather than relying on in-camera processing.


How many ';old school'; photographers modified their work by deciding to use a specific film emulsion. Velvia vs Elitechrome. Deciding to use a certain contrast paper in B%26amp;W work. Burning and dodging a final print?


The methods have changed not the ideas. People have always modified their results if they want to take the time to.


Does it make a picture ';more pure'; if you use chemical processes? Not really.....
jake, Photoshop is simply the modern day equivalent of the darkroom and there's nothing wrong with using it judiciously.





Photojournalism's goal is to portray life events as they are and so the photos are minimally retouched. The other pictures in the magazines and websites are for different purpose and editors want those images to ';pop';.





For your own photos, find what you like, try different styles, use photoshop or don't use it, it's up to you, but experiment and don't hold back, until you find your own style.
Do you have an SLR camera? can you shoot in 'raw'? because I shoot in raw and that means that the photo isn't


'formatted' so when you open it, you adjust the exposure, contrast and saturation of the COLOR before you even open it...this makes it easier to format the photo, not necessarily manipulate it. Most professionals use this format because it's larger. I love it because, while I keep most of my photos in their original state, it comes out much larger and you can make the colors 'pop' as the way you see it in real life more than if you shot the photo in 'automatic' form...it's a way of shooting more as the eye sees it than relying on the camera to do all the work





I still have the theory that, just because someone buys Tiger Wood's golf clubs doesn't make them a good golfer. Same applies to shooting in RAW format, but it can give you more creative freedom to make sure the photo looks as you saw it with the nake eye, since cameras can't exactly duplicate that yet, no matter how on target your creative eye is for color, depth, subject, etc.





Photojournalism still gives a little freedom to adjust the exposure of a photograph...I know bc I'm a journalist by day and a photographer by 'side professional hobby'





you still have to have an eye for what makes a good photograph.
I am guessing way too many. When I first started shooting photos I used film much like I still do. I fell it sort of keeps you a little more honest and it helps you get the basics down. I don't depend so much on corrections. You aren't too late I am only 28(don't judge, that's young).
let me put it really simple...........anyone can do photoshop (i cant but dont need to really) and manipulate images...the hourly rate is about a third that of a good pro photographer





so if you follow the path to making images in the camera with lights and other tools you will always produce better images than those that do photography in the computer -





a
You have a few things going on.





One is the images you see online don't look like that printed. They are brighter, more saturated and have more contrast because of the medium. If I put my print images online, they would look horrible because they are for print. Printed, they are beautiful. It's for just that reason, I have two profiles, online and print. I suspect that many photographers don't make the distinction and put up the print ready images.





Contemporary images are brighter and more contrasty than older images. Advertising and fashion photography have had a lot to do with creating a taste for that. Also, keep in mind that film and equipment have changed over the years and I don't mean just digital. Today's Tri X is not yesterdays film and the list of still remaining films would show the same thing. They have greater dynamic range, better color response, finer grain, etc. Much of what you see as too much perfection is actually the medium has moved beyond limitations of an older time. I can now shoot film at 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 with a quality that couldn't even be dreamed of several decades ago.





Keep in mind, too, that photojournalists shoot under less than optimum conditions and and the demands made on timeliness, etc., don't leave any time for doing the work that we wish we could do. I refer you to the work of W. Eugene Smith, one of the greatest photojournalists, to see the difference between the immediate usage shots he made and the essay work he did when he had full editorial control.





There is also a divide in attitudes, or more accurately, perspectives on photography. Some people almost make a religion out of 'in the camera' and take great pride in what they achieve, which they should. There are others, myself very much included, that try with (I like to believe) a similar level of skill, to get things right in the camera, but that is not the end of it. We may have an image that simply can't be caught at the moment of exposure. Photoshop replaces the darkroom and it's what we use it for. Some people do it to create novelty, others do it because it is the only way to make the statement, but it's always been done. People often cite someone like Ansel Adams, or the Weston's, or someone else as being 'pure' photographers. They actually believe that what they see happened and was complete at the moment of exposure. That simply isn't true.





However, none of the above goes to your question of being '... just late and wanting to join a dying breed?' Mastery and craftsmanship has never been the realm of the masses and the masters and true craftsman have never been a dying breed. There just has never been that many of them. You wouldn't be joining a dying breed, but a rather elite fraternity and the entrance requirements are simple. Learn to work to that standard and hold yourself to it.








There is only one person that can, or should, determine whether you learn to use your equipment well, poorly, or even at all. That is you. I certainly don't have anything to do with it and I don't want to. If you want to learn all the in's and out's, that is solely in your hands.





If you don't want to use photoshop to make up for your deficiencies, then simply don't use it. Figure out what you did wrong, or could have done better, and go back and do it that way. You have a camera in one hand and a mouse in the other. How you use either one of them is totally up to you.





Vance





Addendum:





Okay. It gets a little tiring hearing that 'real', 'legitimate', 'skilled', 'competent', pick you adjective, photographers do everything in the camera. The implication is insulting.





Here are two images. One is straight out of the camera. The conditions are what existed at the time and there is obviously no way to use all the nice lighting equipment everybody says use. The exposure was very carefully chosen to reveal the details where they are revealed and put the tones where they are. The sun is exactly where I wanted it and the flare was carefully controlled.





It was never intended to be the final image.





The second image is the one that I was after from the beginning. There is no way to get to the second image from the first (or any other first) without photoshop.





The intention of the image is what matters. This shot was for a photo essay about an industry moving on, in this case a shipyard, and it's effect on the community.





The intent was to dramatize, emphasize and create a feeling that mirrored the feelings of the people effected by the yards shut down. The grain was also intentionally added, since the original was grainless.





http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/T鈥?/a>





Now, either I am an unskilled snapshooter who uses photoshop to try and make my mistakes better, or I am just someone with a camera who calls himself a photographer and lets the camera do everything and uses a lot of fun filters that all I have to do is click and I get a great picture. I mean, there must be a filter like 'Noire filter for enhancing industrial decay. I'm sure I used it. Must have. Ya think?
1. Agree with above that too many ';photographers'; try to make up for their lack of camera skill in Photoshop.





2. However, for those of you who still hold the hard line that photoshop is somehow cheating, or that serious photographers don't manipulate their images post capture, I'd encourage you to look up the history of the Photo-Secessionist movement. Was Stieglitz not a true photographer because he manipulated his images in the darkroom with gum-bichromate?
I've used photoshop-type programs to crop, resize, and adjust exposure to my digital images. To be frank, I prefer that my photos be seen exactly the way I've captured them.





When I was shooting film (35mm and 2 1/4 medium format) I developed and printed all my own photos. Except for changing exposure and a bit of dodging and burning (showing my age here), I preferred an ';honest'; image when I printed it. No tints, no special effects, no darkroom magic. I was most satisfied when the magic what the picture I'd created in the camera.





I admire those who find, create, and dazzle, but I'd rather find, capture, and share. Just my humble opinion.
Interesting discussion you've started here. And you've already gotten some good information ... and some that's not so good.





Here's my take: I've been a photographer for more than 35 years. For most of that time I shot only transparency film ... and was quite good at it. Of course, I've learned the basics, and then some.





But today I'm completely digital. Would never go back to film! Some people may want to stay with film, some feel as if they have to. That's their choice.





I work with many other professional photographers, and I don't know of a single one who's still shooting film (well, maybe rarely).





If you're serious about photography you'll learn the rules and procedures - it's what we do in order to do the work that makes our living.





But the specific tools you use are far less important than your vision and imagination, your determination to work hard, and your ability to change with the times.





Today that means working in a digital world. Clients demand it, and everybody expects it. You simply cannot produce work as fast as you need to using traditional means.





Photoshop is nothing more than a darkroom. It's the means by which we realize the final deliverable version of our work.





Of course, it can be misused. But its basic function - if you're a photographer - is to optimize your images - and that's no different from producing work in a traditional darkroom ... except it's faster, cleaner, less smelly, and far, far less expensive!





Ansel Adams, the Westons, Steiglitz ... all of them ... would be using Photoshop today if they were still around ... whether they shoot digitally or on film.





Work with what you have ... and if you can afford the luxury of sticking with film - good for you.





But don't be made to feel as if you have to in order to become a REAL photographer.