The trend lately seems to be outdoor photos that are ridiculously over edited with programs such as Lightroom, Photoshop and other programs. Cleaning up a photo is one thing, but a lot of these pictures are turning out looking nothing like they originally started as. I like to see original photos, not edited "artwork." Has the computer killed the art of taking a high quality picture? Am I alone?
Nope I much prefer the work to be done originally w the camera in the field than the computer once back at home.
I like a well taken photo over a super enhanced one. Nature is has natural beauty that doesn't need to be enhanced.
Having the photography background that I do (I've actually processed my own film, made enlargements, and have done darkroom editing), you learn to appreciate the pre-digital greats (Ansel Adams is just one of those). I really try to capture the best image I can in camera, and tweak little things in photoshop. Like I tell me students, you can improve a great photo in Photoshop, but you can't make a bad photo great. I'm very competent in Photoshop, and it has its place for editing and processing photos, but I do agree with you to an extent. A lot of people are easily influenced by trends (both in design, media, video, web design, and photography). I remember back when flash based websites were the popular trend. 2Advanced Studios was a leader in that field, and EVERYONE and their brother were creating sites mimicking that style. Look at Heartland Bowhunter. I see more vimeo, youtube, and just general hunting videos posted on the web that are clearly trying to mimic the music video style format that, imho, HB pioneered. Photos are the same way. Look at the popularity of Instagram. People love that they can take photos from their phone that exhibit zero compositional or technical skill, and apply a border, or roughened edge, or color shift, and they believe they're pros. Likewise, many people who have Photoshop or Lightroom have no idea what they're doing to their photos, or what is truly acceptable (have no idea of tonal range, bit depth, luminance vs. color, etc.). To me, Photoshop should be primarily a tool to improve exposure and tonal contrast as well as an avenue to batch process images. I still use it for extensive editing, and extensive editing has its place, but most of your photos should shine (corny I know) right out of the camera. I could go on an on, and both sides can probably put forth legitimate arguments. I suppose it's all in what makes you happy with your photos.
You are not alone and plastic surgery is over-rated. There's a woman at the gym I go to that had the plastic job did My God!! I can't even look at her any more super body, but her face is Super Hideous!!!
Matt pretty much nailed it. There are great tools to enhance/edit photos that were slightly off when the photo was snapped. Making tweaks to fix exposure, contrast, etc. Remember some of the film "greats" were great in the darkroom, not behind the lens. Adams would be the first to admit that. His darkroom skills were ahead/above many others. Thats what made him great. Is taking your photos to the next level in a darkroom any different than doing so in Photoshop? I know what Dan is referring to though. I separate photos and images, if that makes sense. HDR, for example, is kind of cool to me because it takes my eyes to a place that doesn't exist naturally. I think they as cool images, not impressive photos. I can appreciate both.
Matt is spot on! IMO Photoshop is best used to enhance an image that can stand on it's own, just like tweaking prints in the lab in school. The problem is when the masses try to polish a turd. On a side note, HDR programs are responsible for some of the worst photos ever posted on the web.
Too funny!!! And what do you have when you are finished polishing? Photography is an artform requiring years of experience to master if that is possible. There are too many computer programs that allow people to get a good photo without putting into the time to learn the strokes necessary to produce a masterpiece. My wife is a computer graphic designer and she complains how people give her terrible pictures and expect her to make them look like what they saw before they took it. Nothing replaces the raw beauty of nature.
Of course, I have never met a teenager that didn't really appreciate having their facial blemishes touched up for the yearbook picture. Definitely a plus when used correctly, but yes it can be overdone which I think was the original thread.
I dunno.. I think editing photos has its place. See if you can spot where I edited (using Paint) an object to help illustrate a point I was trying to make last weekend. I wouldn't call this "over-editing". (Hint: the rake is really not there.)
