Originally posted by graphicgr8s Have to agree on this one. It seems as though with photoshop generally speaking, we are starting out with less of a picture and fixing it. In the wet days we started with a good shot and just "tweaked" it. Personally I think the digital age has lowered standards for just about everything.
I'm sorry, I think that is missing the point and I also think its untrue.
You have no idea what the developing lab did to your print, so how do you know whether it was a lot or a little?
Ansell Adams spent hours, sometimes days, perfecting a print from a single negative. Was that because he was crap?
Frankly, I am impressed that modern cameras are often more intelligent that the apes holding them, and will do a fair job in green mode and JPG fine. But thats because they have a lot of computer firmware evaluating the exposure (even in Nikons case comparing it to thousands of stored scenes). The result is the best the camera can do, and is often pretty OK, but that does NOT mean its the best YOU can do if you opt to engage brain and learn basic photoshop skills (and no I dont just mean contrast, saturation and shadow/highlight control - although contrast is sometimes all you need) .
If you want to create high quality prints, you need to expose correctly AND post process correctly. You cannot sniffily dismiss photoshop as merely a way to recover poor shots. Thats a cop out. Post processing is essential to develop a shot that has real potential in the first place but which you may have had to deliberately underexpose to preserve detail in the sky (or a wedding dress). The camera can only ever get you half way there.
Yes there is a lot of poor photography around right now, but thats because its become very accessible to people who just want to take snaps for facebook,
or prove their manhood by walking around with a big lens blazing away at everything. Sadly an immense amount of rubbish is posted on gear forums by supposed enthusiasts who actually just buy more and more gear and bang on a lot about how much they "need" more this or bigger that. It really is no different to golf or fishing in that respect.
However, when I look around exhibitions and galleries in London I am amazed at some of the extremely high quality work being done by amateurs (some even teenagers) with modest budgets and modest gear and that standard is hugely helped by the availability of excellent information from the the internet and access to decent (even free) software for managing digital workflows. Its a lot cheaper and 1000X as powerful as owning your own colour lab and can make your humble entry level SLR look like a megabuck professional camera if you know how to use it.
And I am the first to admit that I am very much still learning after 30 years of SLR ownership, a library of photo books, and several courses - but I would never write off anything that could materially improve my photography.