Reading mode: Light Dark

Is photoshop necessary?

Go to last post
MPA1 said:
No, it isn't!

I am a photographer, not a digital imaging technician. I do not wish to become a digital imaging technician and nor do I see the need to be one.
Click to expand...
I'm a photographer too...however, post-processing "is" a crucial part of the digital realm...and any serious photog certainly needs to learn it well.

Digital images require post-production....raw, straight out of camera shots just arn't perfect...they lack mid-range dynamics and require certain steps to "develop" them.

At least now, we get to control every aspect of the developing stage...instead of sending off the slides or negatives off to some dude in a lab.

Todays photographer needs to be both the shooter and processing lab - that's just the way it is. To ignore (or fight) this fact is kinda redundant and an unwillingness to accept things as they really are.

I've been shooting for 40 years, and I've never taken a single digital image that didn't require post-processing. I'm not saying that one has to use Photoshop CS5, but some decent editing programme, and the ability to use it well...is an absolute must...IF one wants exceptional quality end results.

Resistance is futile ;)

KEV
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life
 
Hawaiian Punch said:
It is essential if you want to pull the finest version of your capture available.
Click to expand...
.. which is basically the goal of any professional photographer - especially if they charge for the use of their images.

Because producing the best images possible - so as people will want to use them more - will be an essential part of their business.

So even if they don't need to use it for every image they produce, having it available and knowing what all they can do with it, is basically essential for any professional photographer working today... who wants to be working tomorrow too.

--
Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ampimage.com
http://www.ashleymorrison.com
 
Ashley Morrison Photography said:
Hawaiian Punch said:
It is essential if you want to pull the finest version of your capture available.
Click to expand...
.. which is basically the goal of any professional photographer - especially if they charge for the use of their images.
Click to expand...
Ashley, you are so right....and I'm always amazed when people say stuff like "IF" you want to pull the finest version of your capture available"

It doesn't matter if I'm making any money from an image, or not...the goal is always to get the best possible end result - period.

I simply can't imagine operating any other way.

I'll never understand the kind of mentality....that sometimes it's OK to accept 2nd best or less than optimal results. That would be akin to me starting one of my marathon road races...with the mindset that I was just going to run mediocre or not very good that day.

What's the point?

KEV
 
I agree entirely.

For me, Aperture and Nik Plug-ins are what I need. I shoot 95% of my stuff in RAW anyway so unless some PP is done I can't even use it!

As I said earlier, if I need the capabilities of PS to remove whole people or something without it looking like they were ever there, it is more efficient to outsource that to someone who is a technician and knows PS inside out.

I do think some people have PS because they think they ought to not because they really have to.
KEVZPHOTOS said:
MPA1 said:
No, it isn't!

I am a photographer, not a digital imaging technician. I do not wish to become a digital imaging technician and nor do I see the need to be one.
Click to expand...
I'm a photographer too...however, post-processing "is" a crucial part of the digital realm...and any serious photog certainly needs to learn it well.

Digital images require post-production....raw, straight out of camera shots just arn't perfect...they lack mid-range dynamics and require certain steps to "develop" them.

At least now, we get to control every aspect of the developing stage...instead of sending off the slides or negatives off to some dude in a lab.

Todays photographer needs to be both the shooter and processing lab - that's just the way it is. To ignore (or fight) this fact is kinda redundant and an unwillingness to accept things as they really are.

I've been shooting for 40 years, and I've never taken a single digital image that didn't require post-processing. I'm not saying that one has to use Photoshop CS5, but some decent editing programme, and the ability to use it well...is an absolute must...IF one wants exceptional quality end results.

Resistance is futile ;)

KEV
Click to expand...
 
KPH said:
Firstly with film you have a larger dynamic range enabling you to capture more shadow detail with less blown highlights.
Click to expand...
Yes, with NEGATIVE film yes. But have you ever tried Velvia, for instance? It was unquestionably THE most widely used and loved slide film by professional landscape and nature photographers. Anything above Zone VII left you with some clear, transparent film, and as for shadow detail below Zone III... well, there was some if you looked really hard on a bright light table, but... good luck trying to print it! So, that left you with 5 (FIVE) stops of usable dynamic range. And if you knew how to shoot it with good technique (incl. filters etc.), you could still produce outstanding results.
KPH said:
Secondly a dslr is designed so you can either set it up to give you sharp, vivid photos straight from the camera, i.e jpg, or you can set it up so you can get better results doing the pp after on the computer, i.e raw.
Click to expand...
I disagree. JPEG isn't just for 'vivid' photos. There are specific 'Picture Styles' for just about any result you may be after. It's PP done in-camera, if you will. Just like there used to be (still is, actually) a different film stock for each purpose, e.g. Velvia, Provia, Astia.
KPH said:
Surely if you decide to shoot raw or even jpg with all settings tuned to zero and opt to use photoshop or whatever to get the best result possible from your digital file then isn't that the more professional way to do it?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. That's just the way that lets you put off some of the choices till after the fact. But if you're willing to make all choices before tripping the shutter, you can get equally beautiful results shooting JPEGs. Just like it used to be when you shot slide film.

Marco.
 
--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer

Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds . Franklin
 
They always used Kodachrome from its beginings to late in the film age, when E-6 films got very good. The thing you're missing is that they had MASTER printers who knew precisely how to go from 'chrome to printing plate. This is why their color usually looked miles better than anyone else's. Those guys later became drum scanning masters and PP wizards when scanned film was used. What they did from the Twenties on was masterful post-processing.
--
http://www.artisticlens.com
http://www.artisticlens.com/blog
 
marco1974 said:
marco1974 said:
Firstly with film you have a larger dynamic range enabling you to capture more shadow detail with less blown highlights.
Click to expand...
Yes, with NEGATIVE film yes. But have you ever tried Velvia, for instance? It was unquestionably THE most widely used and loved slide film by professional landscape and nature photographers. Anything above Zone VII left you with some clear, transparent film, and as for shadow detail below Zone III... well, there was some if you looked really hard on a bright light table, but... good luck trying to print it! So, that left you with 5 (FIVE) stops of usable dynamic range. And if you knew how to shoot it with good technique (incl. filters etc.), you could still produce outstanding results.
Click to expand...
As you say, "you could still produce outstanding results" Thats as long as the lighting is just right or you have a bucket load of filters or a different roll of film for each picture style you want.
marco1974 said:
marco1974 said:
Secondly a dslr is designed so you can either set it up to give you sharp, vivid photos straight from the camera, i.e jpg, or you can set it up so you can get better results doing the pp after on the computer, i.e raw.
Click to expand...
I disagree. JPEG isn't just for 'vivid' photos. There are specific 'Picture Styles' for just about any result you may be after. It's PP done in-camera, if you will. Just like there used to be (still is, actually) a different film stock for each purpose, e.g. Velvia, Provia, Astia.
Click to expand...
Did I say a jpeg was just for vivid photos, no I didn't!!!

So what happens if you want different picture styles for the same picture. It's obvious you can set the camera for different styles but you have much more flexebility if you chose what style you want with pp.
marco1974 said:
marco1974 said:
Surely if you decide to shoot raw or even jpg with all settings tuned to zero and opt to use photoshop or whatever to get the best result possible from your digital file then isn't that the more professional way to do it?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. That's just the way that lets you put off some of the choices till after the fact. But if you're willing to make all choices before tripping the shutter, you can get equally beautiful results shooting JPEGs. Just like it used to be when you shot slide film.
Click to expand...
So you think the software provided in the camera can do an equaly good job at processing the raw file to how you want the end result to look compared to Photoshop. You think that the white Balance is going to be spot on under all cicumstances or you have time to do custom white balance every time you take a photo.

Please don't be so narrow minded and realise you have a choice. If you don't wish to explore the benefits of PP that is up to you but don't try and say there are no benefits. Photoshop has been used for many years and I'm sure at least 90% of all photos you see have been post processed in some way.
marco1974 said:
Marco.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/kphphotography
http://www.surreyphoto.co.uk
 
Haven't shot weddings since the Eighties (VPS III, Koni-Omega 6x7s). Forgive a crude old man, but does this guy leave the bride's zits on? We didn't. The lab guys would 'photoshop' them out. We also used diffusion (on-camera or darkroom) extensively. The lab dudes would dodge, burn, vignette, etc. In a modern wedding business, you either need to shoot film and use a good lab or you need serious editing software.
--
http://www.artisticlens.com
http://www.artisticlens.com/blog
 
Yes, he won't take out the zits. I am the photoshop guy. I use it extensively. My partner says he doesn't need it. I disagree, but wanted to put it out there for feedback. Photoshop, elements or any other editing program, he won't use beyond the most basic stuff, rotate, crop, brightness.

Anyway, thanks to all for the feedback. I know what I need to do.
--

--
TJ
pBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/a3guy
I love this Forum!!!
 
Hi Tom, you have some nice images in you wedding gallery but I just thought I would point out that the method used to resize some of the images has left them very blocky and poor quality. I'm sure if they were resized differently with less compression they would look a lot better.
Tom Judd said:
Yes, he won't take out the zits. I am the photoshop guy. I use it extensively. My partner says he doesn't need it. I disagree, but wanted to put it out there for feedback. Photoshop, elements or any other editing program, he won't use beyond the most basic stuff, rotate, crop, brightness.

Anyway, thanks to all for the feedback. I know what I need to do.
--

--
TJ
pBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/a3guy
I love this Forum!!!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/kphphotography
http://www.surreyphoto.co.uk
 
Yes, why shoot if not to always produce your finest effort?

It amuses me to read questions like the OP stated. I've been shooting professionally for over 30 years, digital since 1998. No matter what digital body I've used, I get possibly one shot out of 100 that doesn't need some sort of editing. All images improve with a levels/sharpening adjustment at minimum.
 
Chato said:
No hard feelings, but if you DO read the piece through, he's shooting this area in Summer with digital, and in Winter with film...
Click to expand...
Not really Dave...he did that once in 2003. There is no evidence that he continued that "experiment"...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
“...photography for and of itself – photographs taken
from the world as it is – are misunderstood as a
collection of random observations and lucky moments...
Paul Graham
 
chuxter said:
Chato said:
No hard feelings, but if you DO read the piece through, he's shooting this area in Summer with digital, and in Winter with film...
Click to expand...
Not really Dave...he did that once in 2003. There is no evidence that he continued that "experiment"...
Click to expand...
Sounded to me that this was his regular routine. He loved digital, but respect the greater DR of film. And film DOES have a greater DR compared to BOTH digital and slides. Not that I'm going back to film... :)

But I answered a statement that 100 percent of National Geographic pre digital was shot in slides. You also want to make that claim? :)

Dave
 
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