View Full Version : To photoshop or not??
Lolabelle
25-Feb-08, 11:44
I really like to take photo's that you don't fiddle with, I do think the photoshop techniques are amazing. But other than resizing or cropping I would rather take a good photo in the first place.
What do you think?
No that I mean to criticise anyone who used the editing programs around, I think they are useful, but I'd like to take photo's that don't need it.
photo shop is good for people like me who are not very good with the camera.or a basic camera...some times we all need help ...lol
I really like to take photo's that you don't fiddle with, I do think the photoshop techniques are amazing. But other than resizing or cropping I would rather take a good photo in the first place.
What do you think?
No that I mean to criticise anyone who used the editing programs around, I think they are useful, but I'd like to take photo's that don't need it.
I think you are correct. Getting the best image possible into the camera first is priority. I'm a heavy user of photoshop, but only to put in my own artistic interpretation so to speak. Not to correct for badly exposed, or out of focus images.
To go one step further, I don't use any automatics on the camera, apart from autofocus. Even then, there still quite a few shots that I use manual focus. My main reasoning is that the automatics don't know what it is I am taking a picture of, or what I have in my minds eye. The camera has no clue as to weather I want to emphasis a highlight or shadow, so it's something I do in manual mode, no jpeg, raw only.
For me capturing the image on camera is only the first part of the "photographic" process. Image editing in the computer is the part that can transform the photo into a finished entity fit for viewing.
More often that not (unless you're very lucky) the chances of a scene being perfect in lighting and composition are rare. You may have a chance in a studio where you can control every aspect of the desired scene (including a photo friendly model who's totally tuned into what you want).
In reality some refinement is usually required (if not essential). Hence imaging editing software such as Adobe Photoshop (PS) and others.
I've never quite understood this anti PS mindset. What does it matter what it took to get a good image. You either like it or you don't. The equipment and process used to how it came to being should be irrelevant.
Like any software continual use are the key to understanding. PS can be very complex if you want it to be. It can also be (as should all well written software) straight forward on a certain editing level.
Show me any great modern photographer who isn't doing some sort of post-capture manipulation (even the film based ones).
In my opinion the ones who are very anti PS have probably tried it once (it can take years), got lost very quickly (everyone does at first), not spent the time and energy to learn it (laziness) and jumped on the purist - "only straight out the camera for me" brigade!! (there loss not mine).
The problem is that most cameras do huge amounts of processing on the pictures anyway! Saturation, sharpening, constrast. Most point and shoots go rather heavy on that lot.
By shooting RAW I get the image from the Camera with no adjustments. They I can process it to produce my own picture.
The only people who can truely claim to shooting straight out the camera are those that shoot slide (transparency) film. Even a print film has adjustments made when they print the photos.
And as for darkroom stuff..... phew! The editing and adjusting you can do in there is truely incredible. You surely didn't think that the likes of Ansel Adams and co produced unedited pictures?
Example of how photoshop is useful:
Original film scan:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4262/2ndfilm17qe8.jpg
Edited to remove scratches and dust:
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2148/anna1hm8.jpg
(the first picture is clearer because the compression is less)
Boozeburglar
25-Feb-08, 15:43
Short answer, do what you want!
The images you make in your camera are very basic, even the most advanced DSLR is limited relative to Photoshop or similar, in terms of the manipulations and enhancements available.
The result of all this post production potential is that you can work wonders with images that were ‘not quite there’; but you are always more limited with images that are further from ‘there’. (‘There’ being arbitrary; the desired result for the image maker.) It is certainly desirable to make an image as close to what you have in mind right there at source.
Lighting conditions are difficult to control, but most of the photography I am seeing on the .Org is landscape or similar, and there is usually no reason you cannot compose your image the way you desire if you and your subject are stationary.
Saying that, a lot of photographs only reveal themselves in the developing room, and the same is true of taking your images onto a larger viewing platform than that ickle screen on the back of your DSLR.
I think a lot of this debate stems from our view of photography as a documentary medium. Generally people look at a photograph as a representation of a reality that exists somewhere, as the bulk of photography has been used in this way historically. Only recently have the tools to use photography so easily in other ways become available to practically everyone in this society.
There is a place for photographs that document our surroundings, but most of us want to look at beautiful or challenging images, and these are what people would like to produce now they have the tools so readily at hand.
I know a few professional photographers. By this I mean people who are working full time as photographers and it is their main income. Not one of them is ‘anti PS’, etc., although I know a couple of them rarely use computers.
Do they make images that require absolutely nothing more than developing?
Absolutely, and a couple of them work exclusively in film for their bread and butter.
However, the images destined for copy are then scanned in and invariably manipulated by someone else before print, so what is the difference?
I have been using PS since before there were decent digital cameras, in my budget, and it is an amazing photographic tool. My work path when using PS was generally Nikon to slide to very expensive scanner to slow PC to painfully slow processing to disc to Kinkos.
The combination of faster computers, PS and a half decent wee digicam gives freedom to produce truly exceptional images on a low budget right there in your home, it is a revelation.
No one who is serious about photography should discount either the use of software to recreate effects that were previously used in the darkroom nor the benefit of setting your cam on manual now and then and learning how to use it, (and that includes using your viewfinder to compose shots rather than relaxing because you can crop them later).
Photography is a broad church and there is definitely room for all.
:)
If I would have the choice of to PS or not, PS would win it every time!
Almost all photographers I know do enhance their work with PS, even if its only the basic curves, sat and sharpening...
I use PS as a medium to express my creativity (I wish I could paint though).
When I have started to think more serious about photography about 3 years ago I felt the need to learn more about editing on the computer and so I got PS. I do confess I have barely scratched the surface of this complex program, but I have plenty of literature surrounding me to cover every question that creeps up.
If you see PS as a chore, you will probably never going to enjoy it.
As boozeburglar said, do as you like! Its up to oneself to make something good into something outstanding...
Lolabelle
26-Feb-08, 01:08
I think that my problem is that I enjoy taking photo's, but the hours of fiddling on the computer frustrates me. I can never seem to get anything right. I spend hours (that I haven't really got) only to never really be satisfied.
Maybe some of it is laziness, and some is not really having the time or patience to put into it.
But I do see where you are all coming from in the pro ps, and I'm not really anti, just rubbish at it myself :eek:.
Maybe I really need to make more time to practice. Ah well, one day.
Thanks for the info everyone, of course you have all given me food for thought, as usual.
Paula
There are some useful online PS tutorials to be had at: www.linda.com (http://www.linda.com)
Fairly reasonably priced if you want to buy some full access time. I think this is the most productive way of learning unfamiliar software.
grumpyhippo
26-Feb-08, 15:34
This is another site for PS tutorials....http://pstutorialsblog.com/free-video-tutorials-from-watch-and-learn-photoshop/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://pstutorialsblog.com/free-video-tutorials-from-watch-and-learn-photoshop/)
Each is quite short and covers one technique, even my attention span can handle them, and they're free!!!.
I think many people would think simple to use PS and cheating. However if you have tried PS work your self you would only know how hard it is to get the fantastic work you see. All models you see in books etc are PS work.
Boozeburglar
27-Feb-08, 13:23
All models you see in books etc are PS work.
Ahem...
Not quite mate.
:)
percy toboggan
27-Feb-08, 19:53
My initial instinct condemns 'doctored' photographs as fakes.
However , I'm not really a photo-purist and I'm far from an expert.
I'm actually thinking of investing in photoshop elements software...it will take me years to become anywhere near profficient, but it's a hobby...and a challenge. If I derive some fun and enjoyment from it I'm not too mithered what other folk think so as someone said....do what you want...they're only photos after all. (But, is photoshop the best s/w to buy?...I hear good things about Coral's paint shop-pro)
The camera I've recently bought (FujiS9600) is a pro-sumer model with RAW option...barely used as yet but to be honest it just stays on auto most of the time, just like the last one (Minolta Dimage Z1)
No contest....Photoshop everytime
Before and After!
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii302/Papamac1/fun/Picture1.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii302/Papamac1/fun/Image1.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.