I was recently labeled an “elitist” because I cling to the value that the camera is the main tool of photography and not a piece of software such as Photoshop. This person insisted that it’s ok to perpetuate the idea that you can be terrible with a camera, as long as you can use a program to fix it, and even went on to say that you can turn a snapshot into a professional image….of course they were unable to do so when I asked to see an example…I asked them to show me an image where lighting and camera angle were corrected with software…I got images with the exposure bumped up and a recrop….LoL!
What are your thoughts on camera vs. software? Have I wasted my time trying to learn lighting, composition, posing, angles, variable of exposure, etc? Am I wrong that I feel like you should get it as close as possible to the way you want it in the camera? Am I also wrong to think that with only a few simple tips (that I try to give out when asked for) could improve the camera skills of someone who is used to merely taking snapshots?
I feel like I have cheated myself by learning photography with my camera!! I should have taken photoshop classes so I could be much more gooder photo-grapher!!
Of course it’s a silly question!
It worries me that that idea is perpetuated so hard. There are people (who admittedly are good at PS) that will actually tell people that want to be PHOTOGRAPHERS that it’s all about the post processing. I realize the PP is important, BUT it’s secondary to getting a decent image in the first place.
I sand floors for a living…this attitude would be the same as saying “Oh, you can do a crappy sanding job, as long as you know how to put the finish on right”. If the first step is crap, so then will every subsequent step be!
@Attic Gnome Your last line says it all!
Even for the non-pro though, a few simple things could cut a LOT of time off of post work!
I disagree that digital is “easier” (but I know why you said that). I personally started this whole photography racket in the digital age. I’ve never shot a film camera with the intent of creating something amazing (I’m 29, btw). That didn’t start til I got my first digital, and because I heard it so much I thought I was doing well because I could fix my crap in Photoshop. It wasn’t until I started treating my digital like a film camera that I started getting good. I didn’t think “oh I can take that out in PS”. I use the digital amenities like chimping to help me learn, but I try not to let them become a crutch for me to stand on like some do.
I’m glad someone else realized the difference in being good at post processing and being a good photographer….most link the two when they are separate skill sets!
@Ivomitcats
I see what you’re saying…now here’s the but…
Why SHOULD you have to change that with software? It’s not the ability to do it in software, but the reason WHY you have to do it.
Why take a photo when you can clearly see it’s going to be a bucket of guts that requires a ton of PP to even make it acceptable, let alone good?
I know what you mean about he “techno” guys. I’m not down with that either…I’m more organic with my work. I don’t concern myself with being TOO technical, or pixel peeping, or being anal about every minute detail that isn’t going to matter in a final print.
I can use just my lights and camera and make a beautiful portrait with no PP. Sure, PP can tweak it, but it would be acceptable out of the camera. Now can that be done with PS?
I just don’t like to see people misled into thinking that software somehow makes them a good photographer.
Make Beats 
