Subscribe in a reader

« 
 »
Jul 15 2008

Photoshop is not DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

Posted by jeff in Photography, tags: , ,

So what do I mean by this?  Well let me try and explain.  This weekend I was doing some research at one of my favorite places, my local Borders book store.  As per my norm, I started at the Photoshop section and then on to the Photography section.  I was looking for books that dealt with photography, more specific, digital photography.  But here’s the funny thing, every book that I opened had about half of its content dealing with cameras and photo taking and the other half on processing the images in Photoshop.  Sometimes it was more like 30/70 with Photoshop taking up the lions share of the information.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am sure these are all great books (which is why I don’t want to use any title names here), but these books should be titled Digital Image Processing, not digital photography.

This kind of reminds me of when I took a college class called the History of Photography.  I thought “This is great, I’ll learn all about the development of cameras and such.”  Wrong!  What I got was the history of photographers, not photography.  Okay, so I did learn something from this class but not what I was expecting.

When I pick up a book about how to take great digital photographs, I want camera techniques, exposure advice, even a little science to back things up.  The last thing I want is a Photoshop book disguised as a photography book.  Also puzzling is why Scott Kelby’s Digital Photography books are always filed among the Photoshop books.  They deserve to be in the Photography section more so than any of these other books I was looking at.  They are all about camera and flash and exposure and not image processing.

Now before everyone starts firing off comments about how digital processing is part of the photographic process now, let me say that I don’t totally disagree.  On the other hand, it is not part of the photography process.  The number of people that actually do their own Photoshop processing is very low.  I would hazard a guess that the majority of people using digital cameras are taking their cards to Costco or sending their images to Mpix and not doing their own post-processing.  So does this mean that they aren’t really doing digital photography?

So that’s my 2¢, feel free to give me yours.

Related posts:

  1. My Debut on the Digital Photography Show
  2. Shooting Digital Infrared
  3. Shooting Digital IR
  4. How to Improve Your Photography
  5. Creating Digital IR Images

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 at 12:02 am and is filed under Photography. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

24 Responses to “Photoshop is not DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY”
Trackbacks
  1.  
Comments
  1. Rudy Engels says:
    July 15, 2008 at 5:45 am

    Jeff,

    I’m 100% with you on this. The same thing happened when I started with a evening photography course here in Belgium. We could choose between analogue, digital or mixed. Because I wasn’t planning to go in a darkroom I opted for digital. The course was divided in two parts: theory and practice. Th first weeks theory was ok but than “the digital guys” had to stay at home because during a few weeks they were going to explain about chemicals in the darkroom (euh… I enrolled for pure digital?). The practice lessons started with… creating a virtual museum in photoshop… Euh? What about taking pictures, gear, …? So I had to stop.
    In our photoclub quite a lot of people know everything about layers, how to make a bad picture better… but they have problems with real photography and their equipment.
    Now, I’m an IT person myself and often they look puzzled when I say this but too many photographers are too much behind their computers instead of their cameras…

    Reply
  2. Your Photo Tips says:
    July 15, 2008 at 6:50 am

    I’ll agree with what you’re saying.

    It’s high time that digital photographers start looking at themselves in two parts. Photographers first, digital artists second. While it is important to note that you need to pay attention to any post processing needs or wants while capturing your image, books should be more segregated.

    I think the people it hurts the most are the newcomers to photography. If they learn that digital photography is photoshop they are severely handicapping themselves.

    Photography, like any other art/science/hobby/craft should be learned in steps according to importance and the most critical time is that at capture.

    Furthermore, if I want a book on Photoshop, I’ll buy a book on photoshop!

    Damien Franco

    Reply
  3. boris says:
    July 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

    As you said – it might be a question of how tight you define photography process. Nevertheless – is there a need for digital photography books? Maybe besides the question of camera technique isn´t it “simply” photography?

    Reply
  4. mike meyer says:
    July 15, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Like I’ve been saying for years, photography is shutter speed, aperture, ISO or medium sensitivty, and how much light you have. That’s it. So many people get too wrapped up into how does my Canon compare with your Nikon. That’s what your owners manual is for. They’re not as bad as you might think because you usually only need to read one sixth of the manual. Unless of course you like to learn how to operate your camera in Japaneese, German or maybe French. I guess calling digital photography is ok because your using a digital camera and using a image processing program. So if you want to learn photography and NOT photoshop get the original book by Ansel Adams, The Camera. Enough rambling, where’s Mr. Palmer and where’s the pie !!??

    mike meyer

    Reply
  5. Mike Moore says:
    July 15, 2008 at 7:59 am

    I agree, there should be a book titled “How to Take Better Pictures so You Don’t Have to Fix it in Photoshop”. It is easy to get a picture “close” in the camera telling yourself it will be an quick fix later but after fixing 100, 500, 1000 pictures each with different small problems you realize it would have been much more efficient to get it right the first time.

    Mike

    Reply
  6. Andy Smith says:
    July 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

    Good observation and post, Jeff.

    The term “digital” definitely seems to make bookstores and perhaps even book companies jump to conclusions, and it obviously impacts product placement. Category placement affects other arts, too, particularly in art-related fields. I’m sure we’ve all seen odd product placements in record stores (What are they? I guess the few that remain are media stores.) where instrumentation can lead a group to be placed in the wrong genre.

    In a related item, I think post processing and how it’s used is going to get more tricky in “labeling” the end product. We’re seeing a huge variety in what folks are producing. Folks who want a 100% realistic look, others that want to create new “worlds” and scenes through image manipulation, and a thousand degrees of variations in between. We’re already seeing discussion about what a photograph really is; it’s only going to get more interesting.

    Again, nice post, Jeff.

    Reply
  7. John Larson says:
    July 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

    After reading a few books on the basics of a digital camera, the ones that have been of the most value are those of photographs by outstanding photographers. Not only do such photographs inspire me, they motivate me to grow in my own photographic journey. When it comes to post-processing, I have worked very hard learning Photoshop, LR and Capture NX, along with their various plug-ins. With that knowledge under my belt, I find that I spend little time post-processing (Scott Kelby’s 7 point system is a paradigm for how I work; although I use different points).

    Reply
  8. Mike Palmer says:
    July 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Glad to see your alive and kicking Mr. Myer – I think I will ditto a bit what everyone has said – but Mr. Myer in his perfect eloquence said it simply “photography is shutter speed, aperture, ISO or medium sensitivity, and how much light you have.” It really gets down to the basic’s – and they really have not changed. I am not sure that the bookstore is the place to do research on such a fast moving technology as “digital photography” except for maybe the magazine aisle. The books on “photography” are getting to be out of print and not being replaced by updated manuals. The two Kelby books you speak of in my opinion are two of the best, this is what needs to be done to get the shot books ever. I think the average I want to learn “photography” person will not buy a book on photography that does not have some post processing in it. When you take in the amount of training on photography that is available on the net, the savvy consumer is already getting the full dose of free videos and tutorials. Is there really a need to delineate between camera skills and post skills? the lines are blurry~~~

    Reply
  9. Ray Sanford says:
    July 15, 2008 at 11:20 am

    I don’t agree. A great photographer not only has to know how to take the initial exposure, but also how to create a great photograph from that exposure. Ansel Adams was just as much the craftsman in his darkroom as he was at the photo shoot. It’s what separates the true pros from the amateurs. Photoshop is the darkroom part of the digital process.

    Reply
  10. Tim Solley says:
    July 15, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    What is it about digital photography books that they have to masquerade as something else?

    I mainly shoot kids, and several years ago bought a book dedicated to photographing children. The title looked good, the description on the back looked good. Even the chapter titles made some sense. So I bought it. Halfway through reading it, I realized it was almost completely about studio operations, Photoshop, and interviews with other kids photogs. Hardly any real useful advice for working with children.

    Seems to be an epidemic. But I guess that’s what sells, so that’s why books are the way they are.

    Reply
  11. mike meyer says:
    July 15, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    To add another good book to the list check out Michael Freeman’s “The Photographer’s Eye”. It’s a book about composition and why one picture looks better than another. This is my personal weak spot. I never know how to crop in on something so I tend to shoot too wide. So instead of using the crop tool in Photoshop I’m slowly learning how to do it in camera. Do you think Ansel ever cropped? Well of course he did but, not as much as we do today. Anyway, Mr. Palmer, do you have any pie?

    mike meyer

    Reply
  12. Luis Santos says:
    July 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Couldn’t agree with you more. I’m recent in the world of photography, although, as a graphic designer, i’ve spent years using Photoshop. So i understand perfectly your point. Digital Photography as a term is sooo connected to Photoshop, its almost imposible to find a decent book in Digital Photography (although im reading Understanding Exposure… brilliant!). For what i’ve learned, photography is photography; its fundamentals being the same, although techniques differ. Although i consider Photoshop (or Lightroom or Aperture) part of the digital photography process, its just not a photograph unless you take it with a camera.

    Reply
  13. Eric says:
    July 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    There’s still any number of books out there from the 35mm era which would cover exclusively what you’re looking for. There might be some info on film and darkroom techniques which are now obsolete, but I still have one or two old ones on my bookshelf which deal exclusively with “photography” as you’re defining it (They weren’t written for any audience that would have been doing their own darkroom work). I imagine newer ones are merely responding to the market, and covering the subjects audiences are demanding to be covered.

    I look at photography as a three stage process. There’s everything you do before you snap the shutter, snapping the shutter, and then everything you do after you snap the shutter. I think it’s useful to study each separately. The art of setting up (or finding) a scene, using lighting, and everything else that happens outside a camera is one topic. The nuts and bolts mechanics of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, lenses, and optics is another topic. And post processing (be it Photoshop or a darkroom) is another.

    The relative importance you ascribe to any of those three stages depends on the individual. Personally I like balance – I try to get the scene right, and use the right settings when I take the picture – but I’m not afraid (and see nothing wrong with) a little post production to make it better where necessary.

    Reply
  14. Andrew says:
    July 15, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    It’s something that will be said even thought you specifically told us not to say it. Digital Processing IS part of Digital Photography! If you want to learn about flash and exposure, buy a regular photography book. One of the major selling points of digital cameras is the fact that the images can be easily manipulated and fixed afterwords using computer programs like… you guessed it… Photoshop! The RAW format available in high quality digital cameras is used precisely for that purpose.

    And though you are right in assuming most people using digital cameras don’t bother with Photoshop and just take there photos to different outlets to be printed, you forget that these kinds of people aren’t the ones reading through Digital Photography books in the first place.

    Reply
  15. Mike Palmer says:
    July 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Mr. Myer , When ever your up for it, the Key Lime Martini’s at Coastal Flats are on me – well the first 2 each they are = ) Liquid Pie my Friend – and there is one at Tyson’s, so its about half way from Springfield and Potomac – and maybe we can get Jeff to glide up 66 from Manassas, if they are not hooking up his Fios that day. = )

    Jeff, gotta say – great topic for comments – I think everyone made good points

    Reply
  16. Mike Noble says:
    July 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    I think that I have to take a slightly different view than has been posted. I believe that “processing” is part and parcel of photography. If you think about film photography, nothing would be visible without the processing – whether negative or transparency. Because our images are digital, we can see them before processing (RAW) or right after the camera does the processing. But a photograph is not finished until it has been processed. Just as Ansel Adams beautiful work was not finished until he made the print (with a lot of work and manipulation involved.) Hence, there is no photograph until that happens. Photography as a whole is art & science. Recording the image in the camera entails both – selecting the aperture, shutter speed, lighting, etc., is the science; composition, manipulating the lighting is the art. Same for processing. Understanding what Photoshop does and how Photoshop (or other software) does it, is the science. Creatively and effectively applying these tools is the art. The end result is photography.

    Just my 2 cents. Great topic.

    Reply
  17. John Larson says:
    July 17, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Because many photographers see post-processing as an integral part of the journey, they shoot in RAW and set their Picture Control to “Neutral” (or its equivalent) and put settings such as sharpening, tone, saturation, etc. to “0″. This doesn’t mean that the capture phase isn’t primary. Taking a well-composed, well-exposed, well-focused (for whatever depth of field desired), etc. shot is fundamental. But Ansel Adams’ words about visualizing the final print include work done in the digital darkroom. Good photographers generally have a pretty good idea of “what” they will be doing in post-processing. In other words, post-processing is not primarily about “fixing” screw-ups; it is an essential stage of the creative journey.

    Reply
  18. Peter Dremstrup says:
    July 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    I once recieved a book on digital photography at Christmas.. Only, when i opened up the book, all it said was 20 different ways to screw up your photos in photoshop (make a person look like Shrek, do a lightsaber, etc.). I went straight to the bookshop where it had been bought, and traded it in for a book on another subject, simply because i decided that buying books on photography at those kind of stores was a waste :(

    Reply
  19. Barry Hillman says:
    December 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Too many beginner photographers become totally overwhelmed by the technology of photography and they quickly lose their way. Of course photographers have to understand the technology, but the amount of time spent learning the technical side should not be out of balance with the amount of time taking photographs. I think too many photographers have become slaves to technology. Let’s step away from the computer and stop trying to make the technically perfect image try to making a meaningful unique images in our camera.

    Reply
  20. jeff says:
    December 1, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    A mighty AMEN to that Barry!

    Reply
  21. Tum Buckly says:
    October 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    I was searching online and I found your site on google. Just finished reading a few of some of your other posts here. I’ve already added your site to my Google News Reader. Thanks for your good and educative posts and please keep up the good work as I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

    Reply
  22. Xavier Asqui Jr. says:
    August 23, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    WELL! i TOTALLY AGREE!! . . . to me? Photoshop IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY! . . . like yu said it is Photo/image processing . . . REAL photography film or digital is pictures YOU! or the photographer Takes . . . not a picture yu took and modified ? like wtf? dats stuuped dats FAKE!! . . . like i understand if yu photoshop to put letters or logo or background(modeling) to some pics but dats it dont change the Lighting or the Shades or shadows etc. DATS FAKE! DATS NOT YURS! . . . doze wud be pics of Adobe Photoshop dere not yurs! . . . im sorry im not a professional photographer but i have photography as a hobby and i take it serious . . . if yur pic didnt come out wit good lighting TAKE IT AGAIN! . . . witout photoshop i and many of my frends have taken WONDERFUL and AHMAZING Pictures . . . just to narrow evrything down . . . Photoshopping your picture is like telling a rapper to go freeestyle and yu tell him oh no say dis from another rapper OR Telling someone to give dem a secret recipe from the family BUT den yu put some other ingredients to make it “better” -__- its not deres . . .

    Reply
  23.  
Leave a Reply