how good a photographer are you without photoshop [ or other software]

[stevie wonder]

[No message]

 

[Daisy AU]

stevie wonder wrote:

I would say I'm and "advanced snap-shooter"

 

[JamesRL]

Irrelevent.



I don't have photoshop, I only use the ViewNX2 that works with my Nikon and comes free.

But even in the film days, printing images involved some choices. Ansel Adams spent far more time in the darkroom(his photoshop) than he did shooting.

Most of the stuff I admire has been worked in photoshop, to enhance the image, not distort it. And since you can do many of those things in camera anyway (brightness, contrast etc), it really is irrelevent.

 

[Aspenz]

If 10 is what I deem as the absolute height of photography, I'd say with CNX2 I range from 4-8, with few photos I'd actually call 8, and probably a 4-7 without.

 

[003tvd]

I've always been a believer in getting it right in the camera. Composition, lighting, exposure, lens choice are in my head before the shot is taken. I use the minimum PP I can. I find PP much more time-consuming than analyzing the shooting setting for a few minutes first. I suspect this comes from originally shooting slide film, where not much manipulation was practical. It was also expensive to take 6 shots to keep 1.

 

[Red5TX]

Irrelevant question. JPEG shooters allow their camera to make processing decisions. Raw shooters do it themselves. But both are still making a choice and all photos have been processed at the time of final output. Potato potahto.

I have a friend (who is a very good photographer) who thinks post processing is somehow illegitimate, yet he loves to use the built-in HDR setting on his 5DIII. Very weird thinking.

 

[zackiedawg]

Red5TX wrote:

Irrelevant question.

I agree the question is irrelevant - photography is about the entire process the photographer uses to achieve their results - be it right from the camera or post processed.

JPEG shooters allow their camera to make processing decisions. Raw shooters do it themselves.

This I disagree with - JPG shooters don't have to 'allow their camera to make processing decisions' - the photographer simply uses the tools available on the camera to execute the processing internally to their instructions...the metering, under/overexposure, white balance, framing, depth of field, color fidelity, contrast, sharpness, and saturation are all controllable by the photographer so the camera processes the way YOU tell it to. The camera does not make the decisions for you. RAW shooters simply make those processing decisions at the computer instead of at the camera. Nothing is wrong with either method, and neither is a less-legitimate photographer.

But both are still making a choice and all photos have been processed at the time of final output. Potato potahto.

True again!

 

[Bobo Hodls]

You can shoot for the visual, or you can shoot for the medium and further develop in post.

You can take photographs, or you can make photographs.

I enjoy whatever it takes to create an expression that I find rewarding. Sometimes that only involves pressing the shutter button. Sometimes it takes additional effort in the field and/or in the digital darkroom, for after all no camera does justice to what our organic visual circuitry reveals to us.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

 

[JamesRL]

I did shot slides as well for many years, and you are still making decisions, based on the brand of film (I used Kodachrome for portraits, Ektachrome or Fujichrome for landscape) and the film speed. You also choose to expose as metered or modify your exposure. Those same things come into play when setting up your digital camera for a shot.

I do try to do the cropping and exposure in camera, but I do tweak some of my shots in ViewNX to bring out shadows or detail in highlights, the same way I dodged and burned in the darkroom on B&W prints. I certainly post many "snapshot" type pictures to FB straight from the camera, but when my friend the gallery owner wants me to put stuff on her wall, I spend the time to do the tweaks.

 

[jrtrent]

I wouldn't say I'm a good photographer with or without computer manipulation of my images. I like to take snapshots of family events, day trips with friends, etc., and if I get an image that is reasonably natural-looking and without too many image quality annoyances, I'm happy. Some cameras require more post-processing work than others. For example, with a Pentax W20 I had to underexpose and set contrast to minimum just to protect highlights from blowing out; this then needed to be fixed later at the computer. A Fujifilm S200EXR did a nice job of protecting highlights at normal exposures in EXR DR mode, but shadows often came out too dark and needed a bit of a lift later. My Samsung GX-1S, after some experimentation with contrast, saturation, and sharpness controls, takes pretty good pictures under a wide variety of lighting conditions without any further help from me. The same is true of the Olympus E-450 so long as auto-gradation is activated. Like 003tvd, I like to keep post-processing to a minimum, and, also like 003tvd, this may be rooted in the fact that almost all of my pre-digital shooting was on slide film and viewed by projection or back-lit viewer, never printed. I prefer the idea that once I press the shutter release, my part in the processing of the picture is over.

 

[AnthonyL]

without software I can't do anything with my photos

 

[JTC111]

Red5TX wrote:

Irrelevant question.

Agreed. The end result is what counts. How one gets there doesn't make a damn bit of difference. And as far as I'm concerned, mastering Photoshop is every bit as difficult as mastering the use of a camera. The subtext of OP's question, whether intended or not, seeks to illegitimize the use of post-processing. But the premise doesn't hold up well against a simple logic test.


For example:
Mr. Smith consistently produces photographs right out of the camera that are very good and applies no post-processing because he feels the work should be done in the camera. For comparison's sake, let's say his photographs would routinely score 8 on a 1-10 scale.
Mr. Jones consistently produces photographs out of the camera that would routinely score 7 on a 1-10 scale. However, after applying post-processing, the same photographs score 9.

Mr. Smith is better with the camera but his end results are of inferior quality. And if someone is looking to buy an image to frame and hang in their home, all other things being equal, they're going to purchase Mr. Jones' work.

 

[Draek]

Err... as good as I am with it? strange question. How good a writer are you without chocolate? makes as much sense.

 

[gardenersassistant]

zackiedawg wrote:

Red5TX wrote:

JPEG shooters allow their camera to make processing decisions. Raw shooters do it themselves.

JPG shooters don't have to 'allow their camera to make processing decisions'

True ...

- the photographer simply uses the tools available on the camera to execute the processing internally to their instructions...the metering, under/overexposure, white balance, framing, depth of field, color fidelity, contrast, sharpness, and saturation are all controllable by the photographer so the camera processes the way YOU tell it to. The camera does not make the decisions for you. RAW shooters simply make those processing decisions at the computer instead of at the camera. Nothing is wrong with either method, and neither is a less-legitimate photographer.

... but this suggests that JPEG shooters don't or can't post process their images. When I was using a Canon S3 and later a Canon SX10is I couldn't use RAW, but I post processed every image (every image that I kept that is). And for the first year or so of using my Panasonic G3, prior to switching to RAW, I shot JPEG and post processed. In preparation for post processing, for all three cameras I turned down various settings such as contrast, sharpness and saturation to the minimum so as to try to minimise the amount of changes the JPEG engine made to the image. leaving me the maximum latitude as to the processing.

 

[happysnapper64]

I am fairly happy not to use PP, as I am generaly happy with what comes out of the camera....for the time being!! I intend to do a little printing of some shots, about 12x15 or so. I will see after that if my images are good enough. At the moment, my main PP consists of a little contrast tweaking, & cropping.

 

[zackiedawg]

gardenersassistant wrote:

... but this suggests that JPEG shooters don't or can't post process their images.

Not by intention - Post processing is a decision unto itself, regardless of the shooting format. I just meant to imply that shooting RAW by its nature requires some level of post processing whereas JPG does not require it - and that settings made in camera allow processing control over the end result, as opposed to the inference that anyone shooting JPG is simply letting a camera make all settings and decisions.

I shoot mostly JPG myself, and rarely post process. But I do also post process some JPGs, and I do also shoot and process RAW on occasion. I use whatever method works best for me for any given scenario, makes me happiest, and allows me to best enjoy photography.

 

[tko]

How good of a driver are you with no wheels?

Post processing is one of the most important skills you can learn as photographer. Period.

How good a golfer are you using one club?

If you think the lighting, time of day, and setting is always going to be perfect, you should restrict yourself to studio shots only

How good a craftman are using using only a hammer?

Is the purpose of photography is to capture exactly the camera saw, or what you mind saw?

You can be a button pusher, or an artist. Your choice. It's a given that people asking this type of a guestion don't have the skills to use Photoshop, and somehow feel that people who do are "cheating." Right. Do yourself a favor, and elevate your work.

 

[Mark B.]

zackiedawg wrote:

Red5TX wrote:

Irrelevant question.

I agree the question is irrelevant - photography is about the entire process the photographer uses to achieve their results - be it right from the camera or post processed.

JPEG shooters allow their camera to make processing decisions. Raw shooters do it themselves.

This I disagree with - JPG shooters don't have to 'allow their camera to make processing decisions' - the photographer simply uses the tools available on the camera to execute the processing internally to their instructions...the metering, under/overexposure, white balance, framing, depth of field, color fidelity, contrast, sharpness, and saturation are all controllable by the photographer so the camera processes the way YOU tell it to. The camera does not make the decisions for you. RAW shooters simply make those processing decisions at the computer instead of at the camera.

Not quite. Metering, i.e. exposure still has to be captured correctly. Anyone using raw to routinely fix bad exposure isn't doing it right. Framing and depth of field are also done at the time the image is captured. Of course images can be cropped but that can be done whether raw or jpg.

Mark

 

[gardenersassistant]

zackiedawg wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

... but this suggests that JPEG shooters don't or can't post process their images.

Not by intention - Post processing is a decision unto itself, regardless of the shooting format. I just meant to imply that shooting RAW by its nature requires some level of post processing whereas JPG does not require it - and that settings made in camera allow processing control over the end result, as opposed to the inference that anyone shooting JPG is simply letting a camera make all settings and decisions.

Got it. Agreed.

I use whatever method works best for me for any given scenario, makes me happiest, and allows me to best enjoy photography.

Excellent approach!

 

[bosjohn21]

stevie wonder wrote:

you cannot diviorce post processing from the image chain it will happen to a greater or lesser extent it cannot be avoided. there is pp done in your camera before you even open the image.