Reading mode: Light Dark

Post-production use it or don't use it.

Go to last post
That's a strange question. Not sure if you meant something else.

People use a lot of different versions of Photoshop. I upgraded to PS CS4 at the start of this year. I was using CS2 before that. I skipped CS3. It wasn't too long ago I was still using Photoshop 6. So people are using a variety of versions.

To make it more confusing there is also Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Lightroom. Although when people say Photoshop they usually do not mean either of these programs.
--
Mike Dawson
 
--
Mike Dawson
 
I had used CS2 for years & held off on installing CS3 on my home machine despite using it at work
CS4 has some big advantages, especially if you clone

I got it because it was supposed to work better with a 64 bit system, but I hardly ever use that version as I want to use legacy filters which are incompatible

fortunately most will work with the 32 bit version (though not Genuine Fractals ...grrrr)
the new clone stamp gives a preview of the cloned area which is very useful

there is also a Refine Edge (which was in CS3, but seems to work even better with CS4) that is very useful
both are great programs that you will likely never outgrow
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
 
bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:
I can't imagine why it would be different where you work, but am not
surprised by you saying so. What's the difference between vivid,
high contrast and high sharpening JPG settings and Neutral, low
contrast and sharpening settings in the camera? Either one contains
sharpening and color enhancements. :)
Click to expand...
I think the problem comes in when you set only one image in post to
those settings.

There was a story about a guy who reset the white balance on an image
taken at sunset. He used neon or some other white balance to
'enhance' the image. He was fired when it was found out. I think that
is what the local paper is saying. Setting whit ebalance to correct
color cast is okay. Resetting white balance to make it 'better' is
the no-no.
Click to expand...
Ethics in journalism is the issue. Someone at your paper has gone OTT with concerns about fraud. "News" isn't art, it's about reporting "facts" and not "embellishing" the story or staging a story. Sharpening an image doesn't alter the factual content of an image. It's not the same as taking photos of 2 people and then inserting one of them into the other's photo to show that those 2 people were together, when they were not. :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Before (JPEG right out of camera)
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
1/160s f/9.0 at 24.0mm iso200



After:



("Pseudo HDR" in Photomatix from single RAW exposure, then to CS# for a bit of dodging and burning, color adjustment using LAB color space, Sharpening and noise reduction in Noise Ninja, and some other things that I've since forgotten about.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
bikinchris said:
Post sharpening is a no-no where I work.
Click to expand...
Uh, dodging, burning, curves, noise reduction, etc are not allowed? What a silly organization. No insult meant, but I simply don't get it - and I made a damn good living as a sports photographer a million years ago. Even then, the PRINT was what got published - darkroom manipulations and all.

Color correction to make it
bikinchris said:
appear correct is fine, but to enhance it, that's no good.
Thankfully, NR is a no brainer for the D3.
When I shoot 'sporttraits' for myself, anything short of moving the
ball is fair.
Kerry Pierce said:
bikinchris said:
Most of what i shoot is sports, so I do next to nothing to them. It's
considered unethical. All i can do for sports is a little contrast
and correct color.
Click to expand...
What is unethical about PP, especially color correction, NR,
sharpening, etc?

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
RBFresno said:
("Pseudo HDR" in Photomatix from single RAW exposure, then to CS# for
a bit of dodging and burning, color adjustment using LAB color space,
Sharpening and noise reduction in Noise Ninja, and some other things
that I've since forgotten about.
Click to expand...
I"m sorry but your "after" is a poor example of good photo developing. Ugh. And not a very interesting photo, before or after. Trees without leaves without snow.
 
RedFox88 said:
RBFresno said:
("Pseudo HDR" in Photomatix from single RAW exposure, then to CS# for
a bit of dodging and burning, color adjustment using LAB color space,
Sharpening and noise reduction in Noise Ninja, and some other things
that I've since forgotten about.
Click to expand...
I"m sorry but your "after" is a poor example of good photo
developing. Ugh. And not a very interesting photo, before or after.
Trees without leaves without snow.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone care what you think? Where is your web site? Where are your photos that put everyone else to shame? Where is your example of post processing that demonstrates anything of significance?

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Brianks239 said:
Any one have samples before Post and after Post?
Click to expand...
The one on the bottom is jpg straight out of camera, and on top is the RAW one I converted using ACR, and then photoshoped. My overall goal was to create a low contrast image. Just about all my edits on this one were done using different Adjustment Layers w/Masks so that I have detailed control over which edits I want to perform where in the image.

 
Would you care to give some objective reasons why this isn't a good example? I happen to think it's a great example. And I think that trees without leaves are far more interesting than trees with them!
 
mstamper77 said:
Would you care to give some objective reasons why this isn't a good
example? I happen to think it's a great example. And I think that
trees without leaves are far more interesting than trees with them!
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that good of an example because it's an more of an artists interpretation, not so much of a correction of what the scene truly looked like.

That said, I do think the image is appealing, but many around here don't like the plastic look.
 
Hmmm, seems like creating "artists' interpretations" is one of the best reasons to post-process. If one is like me and can't draw worth a cr*p, then you can just let the camera do the drawing and do the "painting" in pp.
 
Well if you want to create something surreal like that, PP is a given. I agree 100% with you that it's a good reason. I just thought this thread was more about making corrections within the boundaries of what most photographers consider normal.

I'm like you, can't draw worth a poo. But I do enjoy making corrections using my pen tablet for my macro stuff. That's about the closest I get to drawing.
mstamper77 said:
Hmmm, seems like creating "artists' interpretations" is one of the
best reasons to post-process. If one is like me and can't draw worth
a cr*p, then you can just let the camera do the drawing and do the
"painting" in pp.
Click to expand...
 
The camera offers a paltry amount of image control and it has a lousy interface for sorting through and selecting those few settings. Getting the critical settings right is enough work when trying to do creative work in the field. Post processing is the reward time where I get to work on the raw material and make image choices with far better tools and without pressure. Give me some nice tunes, a beverage, a fast computer and a calibrated 30" display over farting around while I'm shooting or living with what the camera disgorges.

Out of camera jpegs are for utility use.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT
 
I'm a student so free = good to me. Dispite student discount i can't afford Photoshop so its 'GIMP' for me (A photoshop clone that does pritty much what photoshop does, layers etc but won't support RAW), and today some chaps off here pointed me toward 'Raw Therapee' which has now sorted my RAW dilemma so many thanks there.

Original D2h JPEG



Cropped JPEG no other post prosessing



Cropped and brightened with extra contrast



--
'Perfection is a flaw in itself'
 
I would not dream of not using it. PSE6.
Brianks239 said:
How many people use it or don't use it? If so what is your choice of
software?
Click to expand...
--
Chuck Currey
 
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