100........

Photoshop is a tool just like the camera and it can do wonders in the right hands. Put both those tools into the right hands and you get amazing results

Damn i ran out of time editing the last post

Everyone has their style of shooting and what they like and dont like, or will do and wont do. If it makes the photographers vision better who is to say it isnt right? It really comes down to individual taste

true... this can go back and forth forever and no one answer will derrive from it.... it's all a matter a taste and style...etc.. :pimp

Good post, and I would totally agree that a lot of 'photographers' don't take the time needed to make the shot, but saying a photog who uses PS to enhance a shot after the fact is now a 'graphics guy' is a little harsh, IMHO. Some of the old school photogs who've adopted the transition from film to digital and use PS might see it as a way of enhancing their 'art'.

For example:

http://www.foxyanya.com/graphics/any...udes-anya1.jpg

http://www.foxyanya.com/graphics/any...udes-anya2.jpg

Had Tom Ruddock not enhanced the images we shot, I doubt I'd be posting them here. :winkwink: However, I love his vision and his ability to see beyond the 'moment' and very much appreciate that he took the time to share his 'vision' this way. I would hardly call a photog of his caliber just a 'graphics guy', though. Just my lil :2 cents:

Anya

That's because my site is an "Amateur" site. I'm disappointed that you didn't figure that out for yourself.

those are great shots... but it becomes more of an illustration than a photo... im not saying a photographer is a 'graphics guy' because he used photoshop... but you lose alot of the actual focus when u do this... shooting models is about having the model be the point of interest and be first thing u see when u look at the picture... the background dominates what should be the main focus (the model)... imo...

Thanks Al :)
I can't say I agree with you on the background issue, but I'm biased because it's me in the pics. :winkwink:
Photographers each have their own vision and I truly respect that.
Now the 'props' guy standing underneath me holding the fan... he had an entirely different 'view' altogether. :)

Anya

Excellent posts, both of you.

That is a nice pic.

I have to agree with DonovanPhillips, SinisterStudios and benc here.

A lot of "old school" here trying to make it a dick competition and then contradicting themselves saying that they said something else altogether, well didn't sound that way.

Now, read it once and read it again - Time is relative!

Shooting for 10-15 years doesn't mean you've been improving the whole time. A talented newbie can learn to shoot better photos in a month than the old school pros with decades of experience. Dinosaurs usually only grow their ego's - one has to adapt, improve and innovate. Photoshop is part of that.

Now about cropping - most the first posters here said how they crop in camera and made it sound like photoshop is for newbies and not for REAL, PRO photographers. Sounded to me that they were just bitter they weren't good at photoshop.

Me? I crop in Photoshop. Why?

1. Cause I want the photos to be PERFECT!
2. It's faster, atleast for me.
3. It lets you take it easy and focus on getting more out of the model, rather than your camera, during the shoot.

Photoshop skill IS an important factor when hiring a photographer!!!

"3. It lets you take it easy and focus on getting more out of the model, rather than your camera, during the shoot."

there's a diff between quality and quantity.... the less time you spend behind the computer fixing your pics so theyre 'perfect' the better... youre just doubling your work for no reason... i'd rather take one good shot then take 50 and sit there for hours picking out the best one and make them 'perfect'... the less you take the easier it is to pick the best shot....

and all this 'true photographers need to adapt and evolve' is a bunch of BS imo.... take a look at some of top pro's that I would bow to in their presense... they still use film and respect that more than anything... ansel adams, jerry ulesman...etc.... if you think these guys grow their ego's than you have much much much to learn...

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Not to be rude, but thats some funny shit. Sorry, I so could not help myself.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I am a professional photographer and the answer to your question truly varies with what you intend to do with the image. It has to do with what we call pre-visualization, that is, seeing the final output before you ever take the photo.

Here are some examples:

If I am shooting a product, I might frame it far more loosly because the art director may want to use the extra space for something.

If I am shooting a model portfolio, I would frame more tightly.

In the old days, before digital, when we used a square format camera, I often framed a bit wide so I could decide whether to make the shot a vertical or horizontal.

With digital, if you frame wide and them crop down, you are effectively reducing the number of pixels, turning a six or eight megapixel camera into maybe a three or even two meg camera...which doesn't make a lot of sense if you can avoid it.

But there is also another consideration; the camera's digital sensor is a specific shape, and sometimes you have no choice but to frame larger because the shape does not correspond with the requirements of the final output.

A final thought, lately I have been cropping down to different size ratios (not 8x10 but, maybe 4x10) after taking the shot because I find that a more interesting and artistically pleasing aspect ratio for the final print. Our eyes see more horizontally than vertically, so I like these wider shots, even though my camera does not shoot it that way.

I suspect this has been absolutely no help at all!

Brutal

I think it depends on the subject matter & purpose of the shoot. I like to leave room for cropping on some shots so I can play around afterwards with different looks - tight crops, subject heavily weighted to one side etc. Cropping the image in camera certainly would speed up the production process on a standard model shoot, but it also limits your options later on, possibly impeding your artistic vision.

Are you telling me that all your photos are perfect enough not to do any work on them in photoshop afterwards?

No offence, but naming photographers and them using/respecting film just makes you a sheep. It's like saying: "Eat shit - 500 million flies can't be wrong!".

No offence taken - All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. :winkwink:

like is said... you have much much to learn..

t

thr flies are wrong?

No use arguing with this guy. I know little in comparison to most everyone in this thread and still have forgotten more then he knows about our field. If not, it sure seems that why based on his comments.

Until he (Seniorx)post his images for comparison its all meaningless babble.


It was an interesting thread.

:)

Finally another photographer joins the fray. Very intelligent post, for those who understand.

excellent post - lots of truth here :thumbsup

:thumbsup

tight pussy i like

:smokin

Plenty of good posts here...

Just some question to ppl who said that they don't need PS. Do you think that modles have perfect bodies? If your answer is yes, than I'm sure that you don't work "in" this industry, you are surfer...
Makeup artist, clothes, me as photographer, and PS makes her perfect.
If your camera makes "perfect" pics withotu PS, then it isn't only camera it is plastic suregon as well.
C'mon stop with BS! You can make "amateur" photo without PS, but glamour photo without PS is impossilbe. Period!

OK, this tread is useless without pics ;)

f4 - focus on face
http://www.mikescontent.com/inside/m.../p6015561x.jpg

f5.6 - focus on hair
http://www.mikescontent.com/inside/s...52318842fx.jpg

f6.3 - focus on eyes
http://www.mikescontent.com/inside/s...p52434722x.jpg

Enjoy

Very nice images!

Mike B

thank you mike . . . BTW the photography advice and input being offered here, with one or two exceptions, is about on the level of the porno advice offered up on the camera boards . . . bmb

Oh, and I forgot to answer on that question
Though I'm not one of those shooters (..These are the kind of shooters I am referring to...) ;)

I don't crop after shooting. I use PS on daily basis, not for cropping, I'm giving my best to make good composition during shooting, less work for me :)

OK, I took this less then an hour ago, its part of a set of 100 images. All of which were cropped in camera and no photoshop or enhancements were done to this images. All I did was resize it so I could post. Shot at f5, but I wanted the eyes more then the feet. :winkwink:

http://www.shootingmanic.com/samples/kate.JPG

natural beauty is always better :thumbsup

see, and the picture, imho, isn't perfect. I'd be in there whiting out her teeth for one...and fixing her eyes.

If we're talking just crop, what you have is nice.

Well no one is perfect and I dont see the point in making them perfect either, well unless its a glaring flaw and at that point, why are they being shot anyways? I shoot teen amateur girls and 9 out of 10 of them are as near perfect as one can get I guess. Ive never needed or used photoshop nor do my client do any heavy photoshop work on my images with the exception of tour shots (made into graphics) now and then.

Its a great tool for those that need it. I don't. Its not because Im a good shooter because in comparison to many in this thread, I suck. Its a time issue and a need issue. The time required, outweights the need. For me anyways.

:)

I don't know about eyes and teeth, but I would fix those shadows first ;)
j/k

I'm not used on resolution like 798x1200 with which camera you made this photo? Also, with combination of PS and maybe something other, you will make that pic atleast twice smaller (now it is 600kb, which is for 798x1200 inside photo too big)...
Also, you put one pic with only her eyes in focus, young girls are mostly cute that isn't a point, but each of them has some problem in lower part of body. You want to tell me that you would deliver photo with big pimple on her ass?
And... why to make them perfect? Because pic can't be perfect if model isn't perfect. And if I work I want to be as close to perfect as it is possible.
But... I understand your point...

how many sets of 100 do you shoot in an hr? most clients won't except sets of 100, need about 120+

It was a fast resize shot at 2000x3008 on a Nikon D70... my backup camera.

As for the other comments you made... either you didnt read my post or you didnt get it, one of the two.

This isnt a pissing match at all. All I was saying is that I do not need to have photoshop in my tool chest. I dont use it for cropping and i dont use it for retouching. I do not do any post production work on my photos. I have not needed to.... if its that god aweful bad that it needs cleaning, its deleted. Plastic looking girls will not make my clients happy, real and natural girls do.. pimples, freckles and all. :winkwink:

As long as my clients are thrilled, which given my work load its clear they are, im happy. I have no one to please, but them.

:thumbsup

My pricing structure calls for 100 images per set. I always deliver far more then that... in the 150 range. As far as how many sets can I shoot an hour.. it depends on the model, location and content of the shoot. I'm profitable, thats all that matter. :winkwink:

I think this thread fascinating, but I find myself disagreeing with some people here.

Now, I'm no photographer, but I do have a basic understanding of photography and I deal with very high-end glamour photography so I know what's good and what's not.

To me, just being able to take a photograph properly doesn't make a good photographer. With some good basic equipment, anyone with basic photography knowledge (such as myself) should be able to take a quality photograph (properly lit, in focus, cropped perfectly, etc). That's the EAST part of taking a picture (funny, some "photographers" can't even seem to get that right).

A TRUE photographer has the creativity to fill out the photograph: the backdrop, the backlighting, the pose(s), etc. THAT'S where good photographers are defined (at least by me).

As far as Photoshop goes, sure, every image SHOULD be touched up in PhotoShop, but not because of anything the photographer does. Color, lighting or cropping shouldn't be a part of the post-production. You might pump up some colors in the backdrop, touch up blemishes or reduce some wrinkles/bags/whatever, but that's nothing the photographer could have fixed before or during the picture.

I see people posting shit pictures all the time on GFY and it makes me laugh. There are really only a handful of GOOD photographers (such as Dean Capture, AaronM, among others) here: people that know how to light, know how to pose, know how to frame, and how to really make a beautiful photograph, and I guarentee you, they didn't do it in Photoshop.

:thumbsup

Great post.