A somewhat philosophical question..............

No category fits this question really so I will throw it here.

Although this question is more applicable to the old timers amongst us who spend(t) many years working with film and darkroom work but anyone here feel free to chime in.

So here's the quesiton: Do you think programs like Photoshop (and I guess to a lesser extent Light Box, though I have never used it) made us lazier photographers?

Now I would not call myself a master at Photoshop, however I possess above average skills in the program. As much as I have ever needed and if I come up upon a problem I don't know how to fix, I research how to fix it. When you are shooting film, and know you are going to be printing it yourself or sending it out, you seem to be far less tolerant of annoying things, especially in the background. If an object would be distracting, most times we will change our position to minimize or eliminate it. I find myself nowadays though saying "ah, the heck with it, I will just clone it out in Photoshop" rather than taking the time to move. To me at least, this makes me feel like my abilities in PS have made me lazier. What's funny, though, when I shoot film I am right back to the less tolerant, even though I can scan the negative and work it up in PS too.

What are your thoughts on this? And when we are done we can talk about other less important topics like world peace

Actually, I think PS makes some of us better photographers. There are shots out there that if I had to shoot with film I would go on the the next shot and skip it. Sometimes there is no way to get the shot you see in your head. This is one example for me.


All sorts of distractions in this shot but to get it this is the only way. Power lines, telephone poles, buildings etc.

With Photoshop I can get the shot I see in my head on to paper.
So it all depends on the person. Some may be lazy, some may be willing to go the extra mile to get the impossible shot.

I think it's an easy trap to fall into. I have found, though, that if I have to spend too much time processing a photo (except when I'm deliberately manipulating a photo), then it wasn't a good photo to begin with.

I really try to remember that feeling I had when behind a film camera, --- you only have one chance so get it right. I try not to even consider the photoshop option while I'm shooting --just go for the best possible shot.

Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:

Actually, I think PS makes some of us better photographers. There are shots out there that if I had to shoot with film I would go on the the next shot and skip it. Sometimes there is no way to get the shot you see in your head. This is one example for me.

View attachment 30382

All sorts of distractions in this shot but to get it this is the only way. Power lines, telephone poles, buildings etc.

With Photoshop I can get the shot I see in my head on to paper.
View attachment 30383
So it all depends on the person. Some may be lazy, some may be willing to go the extra mile to get the impossible shot.

Click to expand...

Aw yes, but Don, did that ability to remove power lines actually make you a better photographer, or just better at removing annoyances in the final print. That was kind of the gist of my question.

In life the "perfect shot" does not exist, it is like Santa and the Easter Bunny, but with film you worked around things to get it as close as possible. It forced you to look at things from different perspectives and come to grips that it is ok to have a few imperfections.

There was a simple rural church in NC I always wanted to photograph. It was all white clapboard with a tall and narrow steeple. But they had a power cable that ran from the church to the power pole. A big black, ugly power cable. For me it totally ruined the shot. But I wanted the shot so badly I took it anyway. I then took the negative, placed it on a light box emulsion side up and under a magnifier, used a sharp pencil and retouched the negative, removing it. It would have been so much easier in 120 than the postage stamp but I finally managed to do it. This is what we did when we were stuck with film. It would have been a BEAR to try and mask it away in the darkroom.

ohkphoto said:

I think it's an easy trap to fall into. I have found, though, that if I have to spend too much time processing a photo (except when I'm deliberately manipulating a photo), then it wasn't a good photo to begin with.

I really try to remember that feeling I had when behind a film camera, --- you only have one chance so get it right. I try not to even consider the photoshop option while I'm shooting --just go for the best possible shot.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. I see lots of these what I call GWC's (Guys With Cameras), offering to do model shoots and they say on their profiles they will take around 200 shots during a shoot and guarantee 10 good ones. That causes about half a dozen circuit breakers inside my head to simultaneously pop. I have gone out on a 3 hour shoot and come back with 30 images. And the model agonized over them for 3 days to pick the ones she liked best. "Spray and pray" is a philosophy I could never wrap my head around when I was in the Infantry, and even less for photography. it is ALWAYS to get things right in the camera, than to rely on Photoshop to correct things you should have gotten right when you took the photo. Like I said, I can fix most things in PS, but I will be damned if I am going to spend 45 minutes on one image trying to correct what I should have gotten right the first time.

Looking back at the history of photography, you can pick any point in time and say that photographer has it easy compared to those that came before him or her. I'm quite sure that when wet plate technology came out the working photographers at the time felt it was somehow cheating and that "real" photographers don't use wet plates.

So the way I see it is every new step in technology opens up yet another door to push the science of photography to that next level and what might look like "laziness" to some contains the seeds to the next step in creativity.

I come from that "ancient" world of film. I find that even though I am now in the digital world, I still compose my shots so I have a minimum of processing later. It's the way I learned and was trained. When I take a photo, I don't think, "okay, I can fix that later." I try to take the best photo I can. I will crop photos if I have to, adjust contrast, exposure, etc. as needed, and even do a little cloning to get rid of some weird thing that I somehow missed, but very rarely, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to make a not-so-good image acceptable.

If I have to a lot of extra work, then the image was not that good to start out with. Also, I don't go along with the spray-and-pray method of photography. Taking more photos of something does not necessarily mean I will get a decent image anyway. I rather take the approach that less is more.

piperbarb said:

I come from that "ancient" world of film. I find that even though I am now in the digital world, I still compose my shots so I have a minimum of processing later. It's the way I learned and was trained. When I take a photo, I don't think, "okay, I can fix that later." I try to take the best photo I can. I will crop photos if I have to, adjust contrast, exposure, etc. as needed, and even do a little cloning to get rid of some weird thing that I somehow missed, but very rarely, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to make a not-so-good image acceptable.

If I have to a lot of extra work, then the image was not that good to start out with. Also, I don't go along with the spray-and-pray method of photography. Taking more photos of something does not necessarily mean I will get a decent image anyway. I rather take the approach that less is more.

Click to expand...

You and I are absolutely on the same page.

I also forgot to mention, that, unless it's action stuff, or lots of moving subjects, I normally keep my shutter on single shot, not continuous. I did the same thing when I used film cameras with motor drives.

I agree with all of you. Do you best on the shot. It is rare that I spend a lot of time processing any photo. One like my earlier post is the exception. There is no way to get that shot without all the garbage. But I do love the shot enough to work for it.

I think action shots (e.g. wildlife (esp. birds), cars, sports) benefit more from a "spray and pray" philosophy, as most peoples' reflexes aren't quite fast enough to get that perfect shot, and the technique allows for selection of a single perfect photo out of a whole bunch of the same moment.
Otherwise, my philosophy is similar to what others have already said: go for the best possible shot; there's no coming back to retake that shot if something isn't "photoshoppable" (and it's not like I am too familiar with Photoshop editing, anyways). I also like to think of framing your shot with shots that have moving figures in them - be patient; usually, your subject will fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle.

Perhaps I can add my $0.02 worth. It's not always Laziness. I consider myself a GWC (I like that term Scott, thanks). I know I will never be good enough to try doing anything professionally. Yes, I do "Spray and Pray". Sometimes I get some good shots that require nothing other than a little tweeking. Other times I have to use every trick I know in photoshop to make it a good shot.

All I'm trying to do is have fun. Since I can no longer have the ability to go out hiking around the countryside looking for shots, I have to settle for what I can get to by car. Right now it's pretty much Grandkid photos which I won't post online. Spring is coming though and I have several people who plant lots of flowers that I can shoot.

Definitely agree with knowing how to get at least a solid base shot where major touch-ups aren't needed.

Else, technology allows us to push the envelope farther and focus on new concepts than worrying about film developing right or getting the settings of the shot absolutely perfect the fist time.

Having that good eye will be eternal in this art.

SkvLTD said:

Having that good eye will be eternal in this art.

Click to expand...

That is the essence of our craft. No amount of technology will ever be able to replace that. Without it, we are not photographers, we are picture takers

The hardest part of the transition for me to digital was trying to learn to shoot more!! I have to consciously tell myself to take capture additional viewpoints/angles, modify exposure comp, etc. I love LR and PS because it brings me back to burning and dodging in the darkroom. I second Helene's point about the quality of the image versus the amount of post processing.

Eduard said:

The hardest part of the transition for me to digital was trying to learn to shoot more!! I have to consciously tell myself to take capture additional viewpoints/angles, modify exposure comp, etc. I love LR and PS because it brings me back to burning and dodging in the darkroom. I second Helene's point about the quality of the image versus the amount of post processing.

Click to expand...

We can do that? Well hell, I have just been treating it like flim! I went on a 2 hour shoot today and came away with 35 images. From my way of thinking, I made it with 1 frame to spare! I still have 4 GB cards in my D700. I have one in the camera and another in the camera bag just in case. That gives me 153 images in RAW per card. I have NEVER come close to filling up one of those cards on a shoot, EVER!

STM said:

We can do that? Well hell, I have just been treating it like flim! I went on a 2 hour shoot today and came away with 35 images. From my way of thinking, I made it with 1 frame to spare! I still have 4 GB cards in my D700. I have on in the camera and another in the camera bag just in case. That gives me 153 images in RAW. I have NEVER come close to filling up one of those cards on a shoot, EVER!

Click to expand...

I've said this before, but go to the Alhambra in Granada, Spain and try NOT to fill a card or three. The other spot that will challenge that claim is the Kuekenhof Gardens outside of Amsterdam. Both are photographer bucket list worthy.

Never touched a film camera in my life.. though as a kid i used just press the roller kinda thingy on my dads yashica, pentax, minolta and kodak cameras & press the shutter button... the sound made me feel so good
or even just waiting for the charging sound of the flash just so that it reaches crescendo & i just 'flash' away.
so that's my state of affairs so feel free to kick outa this thread..

but to answer the philosophical question from ym point of view, that laziness you talk about is the flipside of technology.
look around you.. everything technology offers makes you lazier...

at the same time, no one is perfect.. no one can take every single shot perfectly.
yeah, your skills may have improved with the fact that you had to take every shot right.. but there are aspects in a shot which just can not be controlled.
Add to that the stress in your mind that you HAVE to get the right shots or your client will hang you upside down like the film..
i like peace & calm while shooting.. brings my creativity out..

just like everything in life, each has it's own positives & negatives.
AH!! A philosophical answer to a philosophical question

- the views of a total noob photographer with zero knowledge of film cameras

I almost feel like PS and LR make the photographer have to work that much harder at his/her craft as opposed making them lazier.

What about the digital camera itself making one lazier? I know it is a whole lot easier for me to go around with a digital camera and shoot at things than it is to do the same with a film camera.

Eye-level said:

I almost feel like PS and LR make the photographer have to work that much harder at his/her craft as opposed making them lazier.

What about the digital camera itself making one lazier? I know it is a whole lot easier for me to go around with a digital camera and shoot at things than it is to do the same with a film camera.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Back when you could not "preview" your image, it forced you to spend more time making sure that you got things right in the camera or you wasted film, money and possibly a shoot. I actually have the preview on my D700 turned off. It only drains battery life. If I really need to see how the image looks, I push the button. Though sometimes I will admit that if I am not sure i got something right I do sneak a peak now and then (but don't tell anyone!!!) . It does, however, come in handy if the client/subject want to review the shoot instead of waiting to get proofs.