Reading mode: Light Dark

Just say no to Photoshop

Go to last post
Yes, really.

All of those items you mention are subjective. You really have no idea of what I have in mind until I show you my final vision. I may choose to under/over expose, choose a certain DOF, ISO etc etc for certain reasons knowing what I will do with it in photoshop.

Anyway, its academic. I'll gladly tell anyone who cares what my processing is just as I would have shared what contrast filter I used when I printed B&W stuff. If it matters.

Digichrome
MeMine said:
Digichrome:
RE: "Looking at a raw digital file (especially if its a "RAW" file)
tells you little about the skills of the photographer. "

Really?
So, washed out, too dark, blurry, noisy, funny colors, odd focus
point, etc. images tell you nothing about the photographers
understanding of exposure, focus, DOF, lighting, ISO, white
balance, etc.
In that case, I rest my case.

M.M.
Click to expand...
--
Once Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and Cibachrome.
Now.....Digichrome!
---
My photography page with a link to my gallery:
http://www.sinknet.net/photography-frame.htm
My Photosig page:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=21173
 
I don't use photoshop (or other software at all) I frame,crop and shoot with the camera. Call me a purist, but I like it that way. 90% of all editing are done with Irfanview (!). You can see the result here:

http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

J.
 
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.

M.M.
 
I thought I would mention that I very much enjoyed some of your images - two landscapes especially: the one with the Church caught in the light between two clouds and the one (called "Postcard" I think) with the strong warm foreground vegetation contrasted with the cool water background.

Gerald

( http://homepage.mac.com/gcarter )
Jón Ragnarsson said:
I don't use photoshop (or other software at all) I frame,crop and
shoot with the camera. Call me a purist, but I like it that way.
90% of all editing are done with Irfanview (!). You can see the
result here:

http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

J.
Click to expand...
--

P.S.

As for the photoshop debate, I'm not going to join it - I do what I please. I do note, however, in the description of the photograph if "digital processing" involves more than contrast adjustments, white balance adjustments or dust retouching (for scanned film or the DSLR).

If people show images that are "out of the camera", good for them but I don't think any the less or more for them, the presented image is all I worry about and if it takes some Photoshop processing to get there, so be it!
 
Me Mine said:
MeMine wrote:
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.
Click to expand...
Although Jons photos are quite nice I couldn't help wondering how much nicer they could be with some moderate and normal editing...(levels, contrast and unsharp mask)...

He uses Irfanview with has these basic tools...

This post didn't confirm anything though cause real pros use an editor (not a "stinking" one) on almost every photo they sell...don't fool your self...

Editing is a big part of digital photography so get used to it and learn it...

If you want to see unprocessed photos look at the samples Phil puts on this site at DPreview...

We are not here to "sell" are particular cameras but to show our photogaphy and editing is a part of the process...always has been and always will be...

Bob

http://www.pbase.com/mofongo
 
Nicely put Bob.

I can tell by looking at your site that you've got the "finishing" skills to match your shooting. Very nice.

No digital camera can produce that kind of (consistant) quality straight from the camera. I think a lot of folks think of the raw camera output like a transparency when its really more like a "negative".

Those of you refusing to do any post-processing are short-changing yourselves.

Digichrome
Bob S said:
Mofongo said:
MeMine wrote:
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.
Click to expand...
Although Jons photos are quite nice I couldn't help wondering how
much nicer they could be with some moderate and normal
editing...(levels, contrast and unsharp mask)...

He uses Irfanview with has these basic tools...

This post didn't confirm anything though cause real pros use an
editor (not a "stinking" one) on almost every photo they
sell...don't fool your self...

Editing is a big part of digital photography so get used to it and
learn it...

If you want to see unprocessed photos look at the samples Phil puts
on this site at DPreview...

We are not here to "sell" are particular cameras but to show our
photogaphy and editing is a part of the process...always has been
and always will be...

Bob

http://www.pbase.com/mofongo
Click to expand...
--
Once Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and Cibachrome.
Now.....Digichrome!
---
My photography page with a link to my gallery:
http://www.sinknet.net/photography-frame.htm
My Photosig page:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=21173
 
--- real unedited digital photos looks like a pea-soup or a think dense smog.

Even your camera will process the RAW files so you can actually see them.

I might say that I am displeased with over editing and introducing elements that were not in the frame and rearranging compositions in PS etc - but enhancement is necessary.
 
Photography has always included darkroom work (except maybe Polaroids). To now think it has no place in photography is way too limiting. Some of these forums do serious battle over which camera is best - so that might call for untouched shots (what does unretouched mean anyways?). But for potd entries, I don't think skipping the darkroom step is going to be very smart.

Happy snappin'
 
Jon when I was back in the darkroom, I did all kinds of corrections, color and black and white. I just visited your gallery and found some very nice compositions but in general they all could be vastly improved with the use of an editor. Your black and white images are a good example. In the old wet darkroom days negatives that would print like those images on normal contrast paper would all be redone on a hard contrast paper. As they stand they are muddy and dull where they could be made tp pop in a few seconds using an editor and just increasing contrast. You would be proud of the results. Try it!

Howie

http://www.pbase.com/howier galleries

ps you can visit my galleries and take some shots at me too! :)
Jón Ragnarsson said:
MeMine said:
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.

M.M.
Click to expand...
Yes, as somebody said, some photos could use some balancing, but
I'm just too lazy or much of an purist :)

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
Click to expand...
 
On second thought, just applying levels or autolevels in photoshop would make a fantastic difference. Only a few seconds.

Howie
http://www.pbase.conm/howier My Galleries
Jón Ragnarsson said:
MeMine said:
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.

M.M.
Click to expand...
Yes, as somebody said, some photos could use some balancing, but
I'm just too lazy or much of an purist :)

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
Click to expand...
 
Well, I am a lazy git. :)

But I do recall using high contrast paper to save a dull shot in the old chemical darkroom, it did wonders for many photos.
Hmm... does PSP have autolevels?
Thanks for the tips :)

J.
howie rosenberg said:
Howie
http://www.pbase.conm/howier My Galleries
Jón Ragnarsson said:
MeMine said:
Jón Ragnarsson:
There are some rather impressive shots in your gallery.
Thanks for confirming that real pros don't need no stinking editor.

M.M.
Click to expand...
Yes, as somebody said, some photos could use some balancing, but
I'm just too lazy or much of an purist :)

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
 
Manipulation is part of the creative process. I do that with burning, dodging, bleaching and a host of other little tweaks in my dark room.
Photoshop is just better.
Rinus of calgary
 
I wake up and walk onto the street naked and unshaved just so that people know what my girlfriend has to put up with. That way they can all make a fair comparison of my RAW quality. Am I honest?

No. I never let my girlfriend out into the street until she has her hair done, makeup perfect and her nicest little black dress because I dont want anyone to think I have no taste......

OK, hyperbole is fun:) Please....no offence intended. In truth she makes me dress up every day....and she looks a whole lot better than me.

Steve
Rinus said:
Manipulation is part of the creative process. I do that with
burning, dodging, bleaching and a host of other little tweaks in my
dark room.
Photoshop is just better.
Rinus of calgary
Click to expand...
 
Jón Ragnarsson said:
Well, I am a lazy git. :)
But I do recall using high contrast paper to save a dull shot in
the old chemical darkroom, it did wonders for many photos.
Hmm... does PSP have autolevels?
Click to expand...
If you hurry you can get a copy of PS Elements 2.0 from http://www.amazon.com for under $50, maybe way under.

I'm impressed at what some of the simple routines such as Auto Level can do with very little effort.

As someone who shot slide film for 35 years and had no opportunity to edit (in the wet darkroom - I used to tilt the projector and crop with a piece of cardboard) I've come lately to the editing process. It just does what the camera can't and what I had in mind all along ;o)

--
bob
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
pictures from Thailand, Myanmar(Burma), and Nepal
 
Before y'all get too excited about Photoshop doing the quick'n'dirty fix for ya:

I recently got handed a thick stack of prints, all of which had a terrible yellow cast.
The answer was: "I just ran it through Auto-levels in Photoshop".

The moral of the story:

Don't trust the machine, ever. You can't trust your eyes either, unless you use a color-matched monitor (as I do) and/or run a test printout.

M.M.
 
MeMine

Quick and dirty is never the way. If you can't trust your eyes what can you trust? The only way to really keep your monitor up to snuff, it appears, requires some rather expensive hardware. in lieu of that I make use of test prints like in my darkroom days and generally bring them outside to view them in sunligh tthere is a fluerescent available which has a high enough color ttemp to simulate sunlight but they are hard yo find). I still have to trust my eyes, however, but that's OK 'cause I make prints for me.

I certainly agree that using tools such as Auto Levels does not give the best results. Levels is always the first adjustment I make in photoshop but I never use autolevels.

Howie

http://www.pbase.com/howier My Galleries
MeMine said:
Before y'all get too excited about Photoshop doing the
quick'n'dirty fix for ya:
I recently got handed a thick stack of prints, all of which had a
terrible yellow cast.
The answer was: "I just ran it through Auto-levels in Photoshop".

The moral of the story:
Don't trust the machine, ever. You can't trust your eyes either,
unless you use a color-matched monitor (as I do) and/or run a test
printout.

M.M.
Click to expand...
 
its just like womens make-up, it can be really beatifull when its applyed well and in small dozes, but a woman with to much make-up usually looks like a prostitute.

in very many cases some very interesting photos have been done with image manipulation, and some totally missed shots have been repaired. But the sad fact is that almost the majority of shots are by hovvyphotographers who are to eager to get much effect. Most landscapes look like they are taken out of a bad tourist brouchure with hideous amounts of extra saturation added. And in many cases people have been doing repairs "by hand" wich areclearly seen.

But some hobby photographers ad extra saturation to normal film-shots to etc.etc.
 
MeMine said:
The moral of the story:
Don't trust the machine, ever. You can't trust your eyes either,
unless you use a color-matched monitor (as I do) and/or run a test
printout.

M.M.
Click to expand...
Particularly when I've scanned older negatives I pop autocolor in PS7 to see what it thinks the color balance should look like. About 60% of the time I disagree and do my own color balance. But for 40% it looks very good indeed and saves time.

Gene

--
http://www.NorthernJourney.com/
 
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