Why Photoshop Sucks
Well, it doesn’t actually suck, but I am constantly annoyed by the number of people who believe that mastering Photoshop is the gateway to better pictures. They rush to find the latest plugins that will perform some kind of magic and read tons of books from the latest Photoshop masters on how to improve otherwise boring photos.
Too often I see requests on how to salvage a photo in various forums. In my opinion, it is simply not possible to salvage a photo. It is possible to improve a photo, but if you feel the need to salvage it the truth is your photo simply sucks.
One of the key differences between true pros and amateurs is pros understand that some of their photos suck, and live with it. Rather than trying to bring back a photo from the dead, they focus on improving their skills so they don’t need to worry about it the next time.
Another difference is pro photographers will not waste their time taking a photo of something with the hope that they will be able to salvage the photo later. Sure, a stray pole or piece of garbage is easy to clone out. However, if the lighting isn’t right or the view just not that interesting, they won’t bother with the shot. One thing I have found out is understanding when not to take a picture is just as important as understanding when to take one.
So the next time you look at a picture and are hoping that you can ‘save’ it, just give up and let it go. Instead, consider why the picture sucks. What could you have done better? That way, the next time you will be able to improve. In this way, you will find yourself slowly getting better as a photographer, rather than spending hours in vain rescuing a photo and remaining in mediocrity.
No related posts.
Tags: editing, opinion, photography, photoshop
Random question: I am just starting my blog, but how did you start gaining readership? was it just natural? I mean how did people start finding you?
I am not always after the best photo in the world since I am not selling them! I am normally looking for the story behind the photo . . . but I agree. . . Photoshop isn’t for making bad photos better, they make good ones a little better!
If a photographer does not plan to sell the photos – it really does not matter how much they use the Photoshop and for which photos. To the “pros” a photo might look like it sucks because it does not comply with the current pro standard of photos but if the “non-pro” believes that it’s a great photo with or without photoshop then it is a great photo no matter what anyone says. I say if you only keep the perfect photos and limit the use of photoshop then you are in danger of eventually reaching and staying in mediocrity as definitions of “perfect” photos change.
Well-said! Although, I am with Mon@rch in that I take photos mostly for documentation and blogging, and a poorly-lit photograph of a rare bird is better than none at all.
On a similar vein, I get slightly irritated when people ask what camera they need to buy to make photographs as good as mine (not that mine are all that, but anyways).
And what you say in the last two paragraphs definitely rings true for me – I take /many/ fewer photos now than I did when I got my first dSLR.
I couldn’t agree more. Though it works also the other way around: you can be limited by your gear and try to compensate by using whatever software tool may help (RAW developers, HDR&bitmap editors etc).
John, I think what draws me to this website is the quality of some of the posts and this man’s unmatched knowledge of macro photography and particularly the MP-E65. For example, I am a psychologist and MP-E65 fanatic and the article “Zen and the art of the MP-E65″ was so impressive that I started thinking of using this lens as part of anxiety management. It might be wishful thinking but it gives you the idea of the quality of some of the posts.
Wow! Thanks for the comment Dean. I never realized that anyone enjoyed that post, though it was one of my favorites to write. There are certainly many better macro and insect photographers out there, but I still appreciated the comment.
great conversation, nice site.
A good photo is a good photo… whether it’s journalistic, commercial or personal. We all want them to look good, yes? We all want sell what’s in the photo whether it’s a person, a story or brand. We all have what satisfies us, but I must say, that even personal photos look much better after some work in GIMP or PS.
Also, it seems in my line of work, there is more work logos and graphics for web sites than photos. So there’s a lot more application for graphics imaging software.
i agree. when i was in high school i took a class on photography, and we were required to learn how to “fix” our photos with photoshop. i flat out told my teacher i wasnt going to use it. i think it ruins work. if your photo is bad then its bad. you can fix it. you live with it. you learn from that, not try and make it better by using software. i enjoyed your post (:
photoshop does sucks, big time.
it’s not intuitive. it’s big.
it has got useless filters and effects.
the gui is lame, lots of impractical ui stuff,
the gradient tool for example.
it’s expensive.
it’s slow.
it has useless vector stuff in it.