The Camera often lies

Now I like taking pictures I have a nice bridging camera which I am happy with and I am happy with the results

However I have been reading Armature Photographer (which my Dad reads and passes them onto me ) and I find that even when holding a camera which costs £1500 and a lens that costs sometimes more that they still end up messing with the photograph in photoshop for an hour before they are happy with it.

We are all aware of airbrushing models in magazines and to me this and the above is all fake and why in gods name spend so much on equipment when you are only going to "fix" your photographs in photoshop its madness I tell thee madness lol

[Osem]

I must admit I feel more proud of pictures I've taken which haven't been post processed but I can understand why people, even using the very best equipment, want or need to 'tweak' their images. Some 'tweaking' is only doing what digital cameras do internally anyway so there's no real difference and of course having a top of the range camera/lens doesn't grant anyone the ability to take great photos. Each to his/her own at the end of the day I reckon.

[martyh]

Isn't it because the camera doesn't lie that they airbrush pictures ,a £1500 camera will take an great picture ,beautifully crisp and clear ..showing all the little imperfections that the artist does not want which can be airbrushed out .I do however understand what your saying ,sometimes it's those little imperfections that make the picture

[DaiNasty]

Digital cameras and Photoshop are just a more sophisticated version of stuff that's always been done. Years ago when I had my own darkroom there were all sorts of tricks to improve a print. Dodging, masking and burning-in to improve on your original negative.

Photoshop just adds a whole world of new possibilities.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Zing

Now I like taking pictures I have a nice bridging camera which I am happy with and I am happy with the results

However I have been reading Armature Photographer (which my Dad reads and passes them onto me ) and I find that even when holding a camera which costs £1500 and a lens that costs sometimes more that they still end up messing with the photograph in photoshop for an hour before they are happy with it.

We are all aware of airbrushing models in magazines and to me this and the above is all fake and why in gods name spend so much on equipment when you are only going to "fix" your photographs in photoshop its madness I tell thee madness lol

In terms of fashion models anyway, even though the equipment may cost the equivalent of a car, and is perfectly capable of producing a perfect reproduction (or at least a darn good one), the model frequently isn't perfect.

And no, that's not new. A girl I went to school with was a model. I don't think she was ever massively successful, she did appear in the odd teen magazine (usually in photostories) and she did model clothes for various catalogues and adverts. While she was quite pretty, she appeared far more sexy in her modelling shots.

Even if he or she is perfect, they may not be exactly what the client wants, and this is where I think the fashion industry is bad. Despite protestations to the contrary, they do seem to like to present the image that unhealthily thin women are sexy.

[Uncle Peter]

One of the reasons is because many digital SLRs do a minimal amount of image processing by default that compact and bridge cameras do automatically, ie: sharpening. The rationale being that the more advanced photographer likes to have control over these things.

You also get the arty-farty types who play with raw and do loads of funky post processing like HDR and filter effects. You can do many of those things with a bridge cam if it floats your boat mind.

Don't forget the people who strive for perfection becase they've seen perfectly good reader submission photos ripped to pieces in PP mag

[Tinky]

I'm convinced the camera does lie Zing. Every time someone takes a photo of me it always turns out to be of an old fat woman lol!

[smcaul]

i have 2 cameras that I use, one being a Nikon D200 (classed as a semi pro camera) and the other a Nikon D40, which is a consumer DSLR. The D200 always has to have the images "processed" in Photoshop or similar, where as the D40 has great images straight out of the camera! I like to use them both, but for just day to day pics the D4o gets used everytime, the D200 only gets used for something specific or if I am out for the day taking pics!!

[LSainsbury]

Originally Posted by Zing

Now I like taking pictures I have a nice bridging camera which I am happy with and I am happy with the results

However I have been reading Armature Photographer (which my Dad reads and passes them onto me ) and I find that even when holding a camera which costs £1500 and a lens that costs sometimes more that they still end up messing with the photograph in photoshop for an hour before they are happy with it.

We are all aware of airbrushing models in magazines and to me this and the above is all fake and why in gods name spend so much on equipment when you are only going to "fix" your photographs in photoshop its madness I tell thee madness lol

And it's taken you how long to realize this?

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Originally Posted by smcaul

i have 2 cameras that I use, one being a Nikon D200 (classed as a semi pro camera)...

Errr - sorry to pour water on that but that's a entry-level / mid-range DSLR!

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Digital cameras and Photoshop are just a more sophisticated version of stuff that's always been done. Years ago when I had my own darkroom there were all sorts of tricks to improve a print. Dodging, masking and burning-in to improve on your original negative.

Photoshop just adds a whole world of new possibilities.

Yeah - I'd agree with that.

I've recently purchased a copy of Elements 9 and so far I've only used it to resize / crop and adjust the curves of some photos. The photos on my site are direct from the camera I'm pleased to say!

[Rob]

Photos are only an interpretation of an image. Thus manipulation on a computer is just a part of the artistic process.

In the days of film people would experiment with different film types, shutter speeds, ISO settings and all before the variances of processing and paper types to achieve the effect they desired. Computer manipulation simply extends that process.

But you do stil have to have the core image. Trying to create something that didn't exist is wrong.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Rob

Photos are only an interpretation of an image. Thus manipulation on a computer is just a part of the artistic process.

In the days of film people would experiment with different film types, shutter speeds, ISO settings and all before the variances of processing and paper types to achieve the effect they desired. Computer manipulation simply extends that process.

But you do stil have to have the core image. Trying to create something that didn't exist is wrong.

You forgot about filters etc, but you are 100% correct.