Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Photoshop a Necessity?

Go to last post
Suit yourself, but the standard image processing parameters in camera are designed to give the best results for "typical" images. The tone curve and all other paramemters are pre-set, so they may work OK for some scenes, but they will be pretty poor for others.

Shoot RAW and you have the option to pick the best curve and saturaton for a given shot after the event. Its not about "fixing" mistakes. The only mistake you can make in a RAW image is to blow highlights, lose shadows or misfocus. None of that can be "fixed" after the event. That does not mean the resulting picture is ideal. It means the CCD has captured the maximum information from the scene, which you can then adjust to get the best final output.

Noone is forcing you to. If you dont want to learn photoshop or any RAW tools then thats entirely up to you. Noone is forcing you to. But turning ones unwillingness to do something new into a virtue simply demonstrates lack of understanding.
MR The Guy said:
MR The Guy said:
When people speak of post-processing (PP), is this really
necessary?
Click to expand...
I rarely 'tweak' anything. If a picture needs tweaking I made a
mistake while taking it. What sucks about digital photography is
the need to 'sharpen'. But I use a program called ImageMagick,
together with what's called a 'bash script' and I do all
'sharpening' automatically, and all I ever look at is the finished
picture. I spend all day staring at computer screens and the last
thing I want to do with my hobby is waste hours staring at a
screen. I would rather go outside and get another picture than open
a program that uses a GUI to 'tweak' my photos. If you go to the
library and look at the books on digital manipulation you'll see
that the results end up looking fake. My opinion, others will think
I'm insane.
I will never buy Photoshop. I've never even broke the seal on the
CD-ROM that came with my camera. I guess if you shoot JPEG, then
sharpening is done in-camera so to answer your question all PP can
be done in camera, or automated if you shoot RAW. Go out and shoot
pictures and get better at that instead of staring at a computer
screen. The advantage of digital photography is your variable cost
in shooting additional pictures if one doesn't look good is zero.
If you shoot RAW, you can in a lot of cases 'fix' mistakes you made
in your setting.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
 
I don't wish to come across as condescending, but this is the question I always ask when people ask me if they really need photoshop.

Basically, think about it this way: When (or if) you shot film, how did you get the prints? You take the pics to the lab and give them a few bucks, and they "process" your film.

You may not have realized it, but your film was "adjusted" for the best exposure and contrast etc.

Now you shoot your digital pics "for free", meaning you can click all you want and view them without paying anything. Where did this free lunch come from? Well, you basically switched from a negative / transparency to a sort of digital polaroid. Pay the premium for a camera and a memory card and a computer, and you can shoot for eternity.

JPG capture, if sent straight to a printer, can look absolutely fantastic if you mind your camera settings and possibly perform a slight levels or contrast adjustment in ANY photo editing program.

However if you're a professional, you weren't the guy going to the 1 hr photo lab with your Kodak Gold film, you were going to the pro lab with your Portra or Astia etc... And to get THAT level of quality from a digital camera, you probably DO need software as good as Adobe Photoshop.

I'm sorry, it's that simple. You ARE the photo lab now, so you can either do your own 1 hr processing, or you can make your own pro lab. It's your choice. If you're mostly just putting pics in a family album, nobody will ever notice the difference. But if you're trying to sell images or exhibit them etc. then you might want to invest in a good digital "photo lab"

--
Take care,



http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com
 
countg said:
Hey JensR,

Yes, I've been involved in digital photography from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Why did you say this a few days ago at the Canon Forum then?

"I'm getting ready to jump from film into digital. Which means I'm moving away from Pentax and will probably go with Canon. I've been considering carefully the D200 and the 30D."

You won't be welcome here if you continue trolling.
 
Jens said:

I'd even go so far to say that art has to develop, not maintain its status quo. Without change, "art" becomes "state of art" - (r)evolution is what defines art.

And I'll peek out of my lurker's perch to say.......Well put.

!

D
 
Here is what I would say about photoshop. Here are two versions of the same photo, the first just converted from RAW with the camera default settings, resized, and that's it; and the second PPed moderately (just tone curves and sharpening) with photoshop:





The first one is a good photo, but the second is a better one. And the reason is that with the second, I used the (computerized) development tools available to me. I didn't create a good photo out of nothing, but rather, took a photo that was already technically proficient, and took care with the effect that I was trying to achieve, the quality of the color, the levels of the highlights and shadows. I didn't paint on it or merge multiple photos to create something new (although I've been known to do those things on occasion). I simply did what I would do in a darkroom if I were still shooting film. I used the best techniques I knew to generate the best photo I could.

That said, I'm not against using photoshop's extensive photomanipulation capabilities to do things like this:



I don't think it's any less "photographic." But even if that's not your thing, there's no reason not to use photo-enhancement software to get the most out of your pictures.
 
Despite the possibly less-than-honourable intentions of the OP, this turned out to be an interesting and well commented upon thread.
 
Your example of PP is interesting but using PP so much the picture does not represent the reality but just some fake reality (but person looking that processed picture without knowning background information thinks - wow, what a light captured!). I'm using RAW workflow mainly to correct bad exposure and to increase sharpness etc however not so much to make it fake.
 
Cameras dont capture anything close to reality. Film and CCDs are a very poor approximation to the colours and tones and contrasts our eyes see.

Capturing the EMOTION you felt when you saw the scene is surely closer to the TRUTH than colour fidelity since a photograph will never do justice to the real world.

Using words like "fake" etc is adding an innapporpriate layer of moralism to an artform. We are not talking about phorensic photography here, or reportage, we are talking about making a nice print of something that grabs us. Is every Monet a "fake"?
vari001 said:
Your example of PP is interesting but using PP so much the picture
does not represent the reality but just some fake reality (but
person looking that processed picture without knowning background
information thinks - wow, what a light captured!). I'm using RAW
workflow mainly to correct bad exposure and to increase sharpness
etc however not so much to make it fake.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
 
Steve,

I think you are right on with your post. But...
*isteve said:
Cameras dont capture anything close to reality. Film and CCDs are a
very poor approximation to the colours and tones and contrasts our
eyes see.
Click to expand...
This is implying our eyes see reality, which they not really can.

The eye's lens creates a projection of "reality" on the retina/sensor.
This light is picked up by sensor cells/elements.
Transmitted through electric circuits/nerves.
To our post-processor, the brain.

After post processing, the new information is transmitted again to other sections of the brain that deal with understanding, interpreting and storing and by all that, changing again, the information.

We cannot see a true reality, we can only see our reality. I think this is fundamental to understand. Before this gets to philosophical, I'll leave it to the reader to make up her/his own mind about it.

Cheers
Jens

--
'LBA knows no bounds, and seeks no justification...' (Jim King, 2005)
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index.html - Photography, Tech and Geek stuff :}
'Why is everyone answering rhetorical questions?' (Me, 2005)
 
Sometimes what the "photographer's eye" sees needs to be captured with the utmost fidelity. Other times, the "photographer's eye" tries to re-create that which the scene inspired, perhaps something more elusive or ephemeral.

It may be the difference between "Yes! That's exactly what I saw!" versus "Yes! That's exactly what I felt!"
 
Perhaps my main idea was lost in your reply due to that it was put into the brackets. Thus, somebody looking at that processed image gets amazed about the light (what a lucky guy!, what a moment he/she got!), however it is fake as there was no sky like this. So the border betwee true and fake picture is fuzzy and with PP one might use a kind of doping to get a better result. The question is perhaps to what the picture is pretending, if cleary processed (e.g. pink tint everywhere) then it ok, but occasions when it's given as an excellent shot at an excellent moment but actually not, then it's fooling the audience. It's like doping in the sport.

No Monet's impressionism is not fake, it's an art, but that picture with improved light is not pretending to be artistic but realistic, thus fooling me/you.
*isteve said:
Capturing the EMOTION you felt when you saw the scene is surely
closer to the TRUTH than colour fidelity since a photograph will
never do justice to the real world.

Using words like "fake" etc is adding an innapporpriate layer of
moralism to an artform. We are not talking about phorensic
photography here, or reportage, we are talking about making a nice
print of something that grabs us. Is every Monet a "fake"?
vari001 said:
Your example of PP is interesting but using PP so much the picture
does not represent the reality but just some fake reality (but
person looking that processed picture without knowning background
information thinks - wow, what a light captured!). I'm using RAW
workflow mainly to correct bad exposure and to increase sharpness
etc however not so much to make it fake.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
Click to expand...
 
Darren M said:
I wish I hadn't wasted my time.
Click to expand...
Thankfully this space on the internet is viewed by others, and they are benefited by your (and others') posts. Not a waste.
 
vari001 said:
Perhaps my main idea was lost in your reply due to that it was put
into the brackets. Thus, somebody looking at that processed image
gets amazed about the light (what a lucky guy!, what a moment
he/she got!), however it is fake as there was no sky like this. So
the border betwee true and fake picture is fuzzy and with PP one
might use a kind of doping to get a better result. The question is
perhaps to what the picture is pretending, if cleary processed
(e.g. pink tint everywhere) then it ok, but occasions when it's
given as an excellent shot at an excellent moment but actually not,
then it's fooling the audience. It's like doping in the sport.

No Monet's impressionism is not fake, it's an art, but that picture
with improved light is not pretending to be artistic but realistic,
thus fooling me/you.
Click to expand...
But, as I said above, by this criteria Ansel Adam's photos are a "fake" because of the extensive post processing in development and printing that "fool" the audiance!

--
Ed Hannon
http://www.pbase.com/edhannon
 
vari001 said:
but that picture
with improved light is not pretending to be artistic but realistic,
thus fooling me/you.
Click to expand...
How would you know what it pretends to be? Does this also mean that when Ansel Adams increased or lowered contrast in a certain area the resulting image became less realistic to the viewer. I know some see Adams as an artist but his images are regarded as being highly realistic.

If an image affects you then it means that it is realistic enough to touch you emotionally and your emotions are not controlled by your intellect but it is your intellect you use to determine if an image look artistic or realistic.

You are of course free to "overrule" your emotions with your intellect but then you are the one fooling yourself. You can't blame the photographer for that.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
For various and interesting reasons, the 'photograph' has long borne the - unnecessary? - burden of accurately reflecting "reality" to the extent that, as we have witnessed here, some grow concerned that post-processing manipulations "fool" the viewer.

While this continues to be a concern for newspapers, say, who frown on any kind of enhancement, I wonder whether "digital imaging" will one day outpace "photography" such that camera-initiated images will not be treated much differently than any other type of computer-generated image.

Does it matter whether that "light" was truly there or not? Perhaps, but maybe what we're hearing are the last gasps of the film-era purists, slowly being replaced by digital artists who operate in a subtly-but-distinctly different context (and medium).

Images inspired by reality rather than an attempt to faithfully record, perhaps?

(Note: I say this as someone who is probably best classified as being a "purist")
 
I couldn't have said it better.

Les
*isteve said:
Capturing the EMOTION you felt when you saw the scene is surely
closer to the TRUTH than colour fidelity since a photograph will
never do justice to the real world.

Using words like "fake" etc is adding an innapporpriate layer of
moralism to an artform. We are not talking about phorensic
photography here, or reportage, we are talking about making a nice
print of something that grabs us. Is every Monet a "fake"?
vari001 said:
Your example of PP is interesting but using PP so much the picture
does not represent the reality but just some fake reality (but
person looking that processed picture without knowning background
information thinks - wow, what a light captured!). I'm using RAW
workflow mainly to correct bad exposure and to increase sharpness
etc however not so much to make it fake.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
Click to expand...
 
vari001 said:
Perhaps my main idea was lost in your reply due to that it was put
into the brackets. Thus, somebody looking at that processed image
gets amazed about the light (what a lucky guy!, what a moment
he/she got!), however it is fake as there was no sky like this. So
the border betwee true and fake picture is fuzzy and with PP one
might use a kind of doping to get a better result. The question is
perhaps to what the picture is pretending, if cleary processed
(e.g. pink tint everywhere) then it ok, but occasions when it's
given as an excellent shot at an excellent moment but actually not,
then it's fooling the audience. It's like doping in the sport.

No Monet's impressionism is not fake, it's an art, but that picture
with improved light is not pretending to be artistic but realistic,
thus fooling me/you.
Click to expand...
Then by your criteria, almost every picture published in a magazine, even national geographic, is a massive fraud. This is especially true of lansdcape art. The amount of manipulation done by old art-photo pros is immense and the talent was is making it LOOK realistic.

Me I actually like the fantasy look. If you look at romantic painter's version of the countryside, it is HUGELY exaggerated - but thats what the customers WANTED at the time. I dont try and make my pics look realistic, I like them to look dramatic and exciting. This one was taken on the most boring grey drizzly day. I met one pro with a Panoflex who gave up in disgust. I shot nealy 200 frames of boring, wet, overcast architecture because I knew that dull diffused light is a really good starting point for PP.



Fake- of COURSE its fake. Noone would take a second look at the original.
And how much more fake can you get than black and white?

But let me turn it around. I see lots of incredible sights but the light/colour/contrast just does not work in film. The picture looks bland, 2 dimensional and washed out. However I can manipulate it to look at least something like as exciting as the scene I saw. Does that make it a fake?
vari001 said:
*isteve said:
Capturing the EMOTION you felt when you saw the scene is surely
closer to the TRUTH than colour fidelity since a photograph will
never do justice to the real world.

Using words like "fake" etc is adding an innapporpriate layer of
moralism to an artform. We are not talking about phorensic
photography here, or reportage, we are talking about making a nice
print of something that grabs us. Is every Monet a "fake"?
vari001 said:
Your example of PP is interesting but using PP so much the picture
does not represent the reality but just some fake reality (but
person looking that processed picture without knowning background
information thinks - wow, what a light captured!). I'm using RAW
workflow mainly to correct bad exposure and to increase sharpness
etc however not so much to make it fake.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top