Examine - The left image (before) is entirely in-camera, with one softbox to increase visibility in the natural lighting at dusk. The right image (after) is a photoshop edit that has a filter added and the contrast is increased. In your opinion, which one looks better?

I started learning how to shoot on an SLR, process film, and print in 1993. The techniques really blew me away in terms of just how much the visual moment frozen in time can be altered from what the eye was actually seeing in the instant the shutter snapped. I got more into video though and sort of let my still imagery education drift into sleep, thus my skills behind the lens are not as advanced as they could and should be here in 2010. Don't get me wrong, I am a very capable photographer...but being the computer nerd I am, I readily admit that my skill in digital editing, manipulation, enhancement or whatever you want to call it, is top notch and surpasses what I can do behind the lens. The rub here is that some do not see what we do as an "art" unless everything is done in-camera.

I submit this though: if a photog shoots a scene with all sorts of filters and reflectors, specialty lenses, and a lighting rig that could hang over a Broadway stage, how is that different from what is done in any step of post-shoot editing (process/print manipulation, photoshop, etc.) ???

very impressive =)

Thanks Omar, glad someone actually came into the forums...the echo from the silence was killing my ears, lol. Which picture do you prefer though, the before or the after?

I prefer the "after" shot. Visually better on the eye's. Very nice work!
I think it all comes down to the budget in the end. Equipment costs $$ and so does photoshop! Many busy photographers don't have time to do photoshop so they give to it their team to work on. Do as much as you can live while doing the shoot. filters, reflectors, lenses and lighting rigs and get the shot as close to perect as you can. Then do the post photoshop work to a good quality photo.
I do think photoshop is an art.
How long did this edit take you?

Thanks for chiming in Cory! I have been in education for the past 9 or so years, so I always get great educational discounts on software (not so much on certain hardware though). The edit only took about 20-30 minutes because there is really not a whole lot done to it...literally just a Cooling Filter (80) at about 25% and contrast and vibrance knocked up a bit. It took longer to get the text of my company the way I wanted than it did to edit the pic, lol.

Well then in this case you saved hundreds and even thousands. Good job!

Thanks Cory, that means a lot coming from you cause your work is awesome.