[Mag]

I've been wondering but haven't found the answer I'm looking for.

Assuming a person is competent with photo editing software, is the photographer's eye obsolete? All you need as an editor is photo samples then you can compose or manipulate a photo in any manner you can imagine.
 
Sure there are still Old School photographers that prefer to do mostly in camera processing, with minimal editing. But is that still necessary, an old way of thinking?

[JohnR]

At some point, you end up doing drawing not photography

I don't think it's obsolete - you can't really fake good composition. Or can you? I dunno. Even if you could, you'd still have to know how to fake it.

[Goosepond]

I don't know. I think the point and shoot crowd are getting an amazing array of great equipment that makes it awfully easy to take great looking shots.

But as John said, there's still the question of composition. I'm just a hack, but I was smart enough to get some nice equipment ( ) and when I shoot in RAW, add just a smidgeon of editing and print a 13"x19" copy and hang it on the wall.

I look at it and say, I'm not a good enough photographer to do that but there it is. 

Gene

[Mag]

I'm making the arguement that one doesn't need a photographer's eye at the camera end. As an editor however you would still need to know good composition.

What you need is your own samples due to copyright issues of using other peoples photos. Having samples you can then compose a realistic or artistic photo using layering, adjustments, etc.. So using a camera my concern would be getting a quality sample of subject or object, not composition.

[JohnR]

Yes, but what about depth of field, perspective angle, lighting.

[Mag]

Yes, but what about depth of field, perspective angle, lighting.

Well couldn't I have a good background shot with depth of field. Have a good shot of myself sitting in a lawn chair in my backyard. Then with editing tools place myself at that location, focused, lighting, depth of field, composition, etc.?

[JohnR]

I meant shallow depth of field, but regardless, what you say is I am sure possible, although I think it would be quite difficult to get the lighting in both foreground and background consistent enough to make it look real. However, that does not sound like a very interesting image either. Edit - no offence, I did not mean that you would not be an interesting photographic subject!

[TONEPUB]

I think it's tough if not impossible for people that aren't great photographers to produce great compositing effects in photoshop.  I've worked for a lot of top magazines and advertising agencies over the years and I've never seen it.

The best photographers make the best photoshop guys.

[charmerci]

I would lean the other way. That photo editors would be replaced by good photographers who can now manipulate the photo the way they really want to.

But I think in reality, neither will become obsolete.

[geowak]

This is an interesting question. It reminds me of the difference between an auto mechanic and a parts changer. A mechanic knows how the car works and knows how to troubleshoot problems, but a parts changer just keeps changing parts until the car starts to run.

Photography can be an art form, therefore the composition is an important part of the photographers eye and but the content or meaning of the image is the meat and potatoes.

Ansel Adams was a really great photographer because he could recognize all the important pictorial elements that make a good composition, but what elevated his body of work to that of a great Artist
was what he was trying to convey about the landscape.

What you choose to take a picture of.. is a moment in time, in the real world. The computer only allows editing of that image, it cannot replace it. I think that once you start editing the image, it starts to take on it's on life and meaning.

[thunderbrick]

If you start with crap, the amount of editing necessary to turn it into something worthwhile would, IMO, not be worth it.

I'm sure you could give a bunch of chimpanzees cameras and get something usable, but I'd much rather work with the idea and vision the shooter started with.

I'm in a photo club where one member thinks EVERY photo must be handled (mauled?) in PS, and can't see the beauty in a simple vision.
Irritating as hell.

[srb]

I'm in a photo club where one member thinks EVERY photo must be handled (mauled?) in PS, and can't see the beauty in a simple vision.

I took a Photography 101 course back in college.  We were instructed to leave our 35mm SLRs at home, and purchase a designated camera at the college bookstore.
 
The "Arrow" camera sold for $0.90 and was an ultra-cheap plastic affair styled to look like a 35mm rangefinder, but actually used 126 roll film.  It had a cheap tin lever that rotated three different sized holes in front of a tiny fixed focus plastic lens, with graphic legends of a sun, a sun/cloud and a cloud (the "aperture").
 
The whole idea of the exercise was to create a portfolio of black and white photos where inspiration, composition, framing and the use of ideal natural light were the only technical ingredients.
 
Steve

[low.pfile]

Editing is just a means to an end. And that end is what is the appealing aspect of visual images to each individual. Of course there is a gamut of preferences to the end viewer: for some it's vibrant nature images, for others technical precision of macros of technical bits, nature, or architecture and for others just conveyance of emotion. For software editing programs to be able to automagically achieve a final image that has appeal would require a level of sophistication not yet incorporated into editing software. Though it is likely not far off that there will some sort of visual intelligence to create appealing images.

Today, the image editing programs like Photoshop, Gimp, Picassa, etc. cannot understand the intent of the image communication be it a generic static product shot, a gut wrenching editorial shot or an artistic visual composition. Though the programs technical capabilities to allow the user to match/change colors, balance composition, delete, crop, blend, clone/emulate pixels is amazing in 2011.

I enjoy photography for the actual process of capturing a moment in time whether its directly captured in the camera or through slight to moderate manipulation of the original image to better convey the story, beauty, or intensity I experienced as I witnessed the event, person or object. Maybe future editing software will have a way of extracting an individuals vision/perception/ideals to automatically create images?

[low.pfile]

Another thing to consider that even renowned photographers didn't always capture it "in the camera." During the film days, darkroom editing was done as well, dodging and burning and other manipulations with processing, exposure, etc. Some, like Henri Cartier-Bresson, didn't even print the images he is famous for...he had people for that!  So photographer's eye isn't the only trait needed for creating great images. Powerful photo editing software just gives us another tool in the digital age.

[Chromisdesigns]

I don't think so.  First, the "photgrapher's eye" is necessary to even have a clue as to what is going on in terms of composition, lighting, focus, etc.  Because people can tell the difference between a good photo and a bad photo, but most people don't really understand what accounts for it.

Without "the eye", PhotoShop or any other package won't help you much.  What they DO accomplish, however, is to raise the bar in some areas like defect elimination, dynamic range, and color accuracy, among others.  There is now little excuse to NOT have a well focused, color corrected image that is not washed out and doesn't have good detail in the shadows.  These things are now so easy to do that you are just lazy if you don't do them.  Except where the omission is deliberate for artistic reasons, of course.

[nathanm]

If "good photographs" are the results we are seeing, then "the photographer's eye" in the author's process is self-evident regardless of how the result was arrived at.  There's just many different ways, processes, tools etc. to get there.

I would also argue that software advances on the whole have produced greater quantities of poor quality work while simultaneously offering tools for doing better work.  Just because Adobe offers you all these knives doesn't mean you have to slice your own throat with them, but unfortunately a lot of people do.

[charmerci]

If you read Ansel Adams, he said that 90% of photography is done in the dark room.

I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there when he took the photos but I would assume that meant getting the photo to look like what he saw - as opposed to enhancing what he was seeing.

[Photon46]

The idea that  digital hardware and time spent with editing supplants the photographers eye (and experience) is ridiculous. Sure, any decent amateur with today's technology can deliver a very good, professional looking image when providence dumps a photogenic moment in their lap. But being a professional photographer means bringing home the visual bacon EVERY time, no excuses. When a pro shoots weddings, they have to be in control of (or cognizant of) many disparate demands. Where's the lighting coming from and how do I balance it with my flash for best effect, do I use shutter or aperture priority for this situation, when is the squirming kid in the front row going to pause, whose glasses are bouncing reflections like a signal mirror at the lens, what time do we need to get to the reception and are we on schedule, do I have all the brides image requests covered? You have to be able to simultaneously balance aesthetic sensitivity, crowd control, scheduling, and technical control of your equipment. Plus, you better do it right every wedding if you plan on staying in business. I don't shoot weddings anymore, but that photographic genre is great training for developing a pro mentality and work ethic. Sure digital editing corrects many faults, but it takes time to correct them and time is money in any aspect of any image making/consuming business.

Another thing to remember is that even if a pro is only 2% better than a well outfitted amateur skilled at post shoot editing, that 2% is what separates the best from the also-ran contenders. I've heard professional classical musicians counseling music major students on this point. They remind them that if they show up for audition 99% perfect and prepared, the musician that's 100% prepared will get the gig, not them. This is true of any creative job in any competitive field.

Another aspect of being a pro is the old adage "f8 and be there." If you're a landscape photographer, that means getting your ass our of bed at 4:00 a.m. to be at your pre-scouted location at sunrise, knowing where the light is going to be coming from at a given time of the year, putting up with horrendous weather waiting for the right light, and staying in shape so you can lug that heavy camera outfit miles and miles. This quickly discourages all but the most dedicated.

There is so much more to being a top flight pro than composition, lighting, and other technical concerns. Whatever photographic genre you work with, you better have deep knowledge of what your competitors are doing, where your strengths and weaknesses stand in relation to their work, and what constantly evolving visual trends are vogue (or are considered passe.) I hope that these few examples lend a little insight into what being a pro photographer means.

All this said, there's no doubt that the proliferation of talented amateurs with good digital cameras makes being a pro harder. There's a large group of amateurs or aspiring pros selling their best images
for cheap and photo editors have huge numbers of stock images to chose from.

[Mag]

I can appreciate the effort that goes into getting pro photos. Being a hobbyist I find it difficult to motivate myself to get off my 6. Like if I want to capture a good train photo I have to get out there, find a good setting and wait for who knows how long for a train to come. I don't think most people comprehend the effort that goes with getting that perfect photo, they just flip through photos quickly.

If you get the Frame HDTV channel, there you can view some amazing photos. Now I'm new to Photoshop and I would find complex photos or landscapes difficult to fake. But the more simplistic photos I could see being able to edit a convincing fake, once I have some understanding of the software.

Take musical synthisizers for example. With realistic sound samples of instruments a musician can make convincing music with these samples if kept simple. It would be very difficult to reproduce with a synth how an actual saxaphone is played. But a song can contain a sound of a saxaphone if used appropriately.

So with photoshop if one has samples and uses all the tools and options in moderation. A simplistic fake IMO is easily done having good photo composition. Having to have a photographers eye with a camera no longer necessary, as long as person has some knowledge of what makes a good photo in editing.

[thunderbrick]

If you read Ansel Adams, he said that 90% of photography is done in the dark room.

I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there when he took the photos but I would assume that meant getting the photo to look like what he saw - as opposed to enhancing what he was seeing.

He meant the Zone System, which meant exposing negatives differently depending on the type of lighting, then developing negatives (or groups of negs) differently.  He did worked to overcome the limitations of the software (film) by expanding or compressing the tonal range so that a flat scene doesn't look muddy, or compress a very contrasty scene to show details in the highlights and shadows. Overexpose and underdevelop, or underexpose and overdevelop to get the tonal range he wanted.  That may be a gross over simplification (Nathan, correct me if I'm wrong), and that's before dodging and burning, retouching negatives and spotting prints  True, it was a lot of darkroom work, but it was by nature a slow process.  Anybody wacko that shoots with a view camera can tell you that.