My emphasis
About the emphasis:
It does not stem from a "Holier than thou attitude". It stems from working in print as a journalist (and broadcast with both audio and video), working with press photographers, have them learn me the ropes. It comes from cases were the integrity of the photographer has been questioned simply because people could read (in the metadata) that the photo in question had been through PS. It comes from having the notion of what you're doing is "documenting". I don't use audio recordings of somewhere else or from a catalogue to make belief something was there when it wasn't. If it was there I recorded it at the spot. It's a matter of attitude and niche. You're in one niche, I'm in another.
It comes from stories where well-reknowned press photograpers made montages with PS to "get" the picture. Of course it's possible to do many things even the analogue way, but it's harder than using photoshop. Some media outlets don't even let you do anything else but cropping and make the picture lighter or darker. That's it. No adding of curves, no layers, no nothing. Of course there is a difference between that and what you do from the looks of it:
I like Photoshop because it's easier to make selections to apply adjustments to—like a simple levels or curves if I'm working in color. It also lets you work on images as if you had a certain filter on the camera. I know all of this is probably possible in Aperture, but I haven't taken the time to learn how to do it because it doesn't seem to allow masking like I like. I also think Photoshop's handling of Camera RAW files is akin to most of what is possible in Lightroom. I've used both, but I've used Photoshop way longer so I go with what I'm familiar with. I also don't like Aperture's workflow. I know it keeps the original intact, but it always feels unsafe to me because I'm not controlling it directly.
Thinking of Photoshop simply as a tool for manipulation—and thus a cheater's tool as you put it for some reason—comes from a holier than thou attitude. They're both tools. You could make crap with both! It all depends upon who is at the helm. Look at Uelsmann's photos. His manipulations would be simple to do in Photoshop, and yet he did it by sandwiching negatives and using multiple enlargers and masks. No one gets it completely right in camera either, not even Ansel Adams—he heavily processed his film to get the latitude from it that he wanted.
About the emphasis:
It does not stem from a "Holier than thou attitude". It stems from working in print as a journalist (and broadcast with both audio and video), working with press photographers, have them learn me the ropes. It comes from cases were the integrity of the photographer has been questioned simply because people could read (in the metadata) that the photo in question had been through PS. It comes from having the notion of what you're doing is "documenting". I don't use audio recordings of somewhere else or from a catalogue to make belief something was there when it wasn't. If it was there I recorded it at the spot. It's a matter of attitude and niche. You're in one niche, I'm in another.
It comes from stories where well-reknowned press photograpers made montages with PS to "get" the picture. Of course it's possible to do many things even the analogue way, but it's harder than using photoshop. Some media outlets don't even let you do anything else but cropping and make the picture lighter or darker. That's it. No adding of curves, no layers, no nothing. Of course there is a difference between that and what you do from the looks of it:
Good work.I've made this in Photoshop and I've made this in Photoshop. The first one is probably not possible in Aperture. The second one is. If not, it's possible with some grade 3-5 paper, a #5 filter, and some extra time with an unfocused version of the image printed over top. Instead I did it with Photoshop using a handy recipe of a B&W adjustment layer, a Levels adjustment layer, an Exposure adjustment layer, and an Unsharp Mask.
As mentioned, it depends what area you work in.Sometimes I like to play with my color images. Sometimes I don't. What difference does it make that I've cross-processed it in Photoshop or with chemicals and film?
Hence the difference.It's the final image that matters. We're making art here.
Because I don't make "art", I do photography (when I have to – I'm an audio guy first and foremost) and the good photographers I look up to are all press photographers, not "art" photographers/producers.It's not a technical exercise. Who cares if I lay a texture over my image to give it a different color? It's how I want it to look and it could be done in a darkroom if I really wanted to, but not in Aperture. So how can one make the argument that Aperture is a photographer's tool and Photoshop is not?