Dont use use photo edit.

mad opportunity

mad opportunity

Messages
8
Edit My Images
Yes
Why does everyone use photoshop and other photo editing software? Can't the pictures we take be good enough straight from our cameras! And (while I am up here, on my soap box) wouldn't that make the photographer have to work a little bit harder to get the shot, therefore making him a BETTER photographer.. I would love to know what you think.
 
Photographers have always "tweeked" their images, whether by changing the development time to ajust contrast or burning and dodging.
With digital and photoshop/paint shop etc people now have more creativity at their finger tips.
In an ideal world all images would come out of camera perfect, but then I'd be driving a bugati as well, in the meantime I'll settle for a renault and photoshop.;)
 
Editing is a tool, the same as any tool it has it's uses, a lot of my images are SOOC but not all and I often I'll take a photo with a PP plan already in my head for what I want to do with the image

Matt
MWHCVT
 
swanseamale47 said:
Photographers have always "tweeked" their images, whether by changing the development time to ajust contrast or burning and dodging.
With digital and photoshop/paint shop etc people now have more creativity at their finger tips.
In an ideal world all images would come out of camera perfect, but then I'd be driving a bugati as well, in the meantime I'll settle for a renault and photoshop.;)
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true, photographers in one way or another have altered their pictures, but i don't agree about the bit were you said images coming out of camera perfect. No it's not the camera, it's the photographer that would be working the light and the position out, so he could try and get a better if not perfect picture. And that is were the talent is. Not in the camera or photoshop but in the photographer. Oh and his little helpers of course.
 
As you get better then your need to use PS to remove faults reduces. The FINAL image is the most important thing though so it does not matter if this has been tweaked in PS. My favourite B&W image taken digitally has whole chunks reduced to black with other areas having the contrast boosted.

"Straight from camera" is just a list of numbers, the RAW to IMAGE converter has many options and it all starts with this selection. If you shoot in JPG your camera (and therefore it's programmer) is just making these choices for you.
 
With film, you choose your film based on speed, tonality, contrast etc...you also have the opportunity to improve/change the image massively when developing, and again if printing.

With digital you only have one sensor, and the same variation cannot be achieved without post process manipulation.

Images have always been subject to retouching. Darkroom, or photoshop? Who cares, its the end result that count...
 
mad opportunity, I'm not a photojournalist and with that in mind I have no issues with editing my photographs.

I'm working harder to get them right 'in camera', but if a tweak (crop, contrast adjust, etc) is needed, then I'll tweak away.

As someone once said, I should add, "You can't polish a turd!"!

I'd like to see a few of your unedited photographs (not said with any sarcasm....)

Cheers.
 
I find the whole "focus on getting it right in camera" argument to be a load of hogwash, frankly.

Things you can get right in camera:
Composition
Lighting
Generic Camera settings

Things you get right in post processing:
Colours
Skin tones

Post processing won't make a poor image a great one and good composition won't make up for low contrast etc.

The two have never overlapped as one being able to completely replace the other for me. A digital sensor is designed to capture as much information in RAW as possible. You can shoot JPEG and let the camera decide what mathematically looks good, or post process and decide for yourself what looks good.

To me, shooting JPEG and not processing is the lazy option. Sure you can't just rely on photoshop to call yourself a photographer but no amount of photography skill can replace processing to get the same result.
 
mad opportunity said:
Why does everyone use photoshop and other photo editing software? Can't the pictures we take be good enough straight from our cameras! And (while I am up here, on my soap box) wouldn't that make the photographer have to work a little bit harder to get the shot, therefore making him a BETTER photographer.. I would love to know what you think.
Click to expand...

What about the times when you can't get it good enough in camera? I take a lot of dog pictures and there's times when the owners don't want to let there dogs off the leads. With a bit of PP to remove the lead on the images I stand more chance of making a sale and the customer gets a picture that they are happier with. I would rather photograph them off the lead and save this editing work but a sale with a bit of PP is better than no sale at all.
 
White Rose said:
Explain please. I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.
Click to expand...

because its a loaded question to which anyone wiht half a brain should know at least one of the possible answers.. including the OP .. if the OP knows the answer but starts a thread anyway aimed at getting everyone going over the subject then thats a troll..

1) using photo edit software is no different to editing at the development part of film

2) when shooting from the hip (so to speak) you simnply dont have time to setup composition correctly or some other things.. I am a sports photogrpaher and simply dont have time to do a lot before or soemtimes after i take the shot.. thus i try to get it as right as possible but cant always be the case.. i am guessing news photogrpahers and other photogrpahers have the same problem..

I refuse to believe the the OP thinks we all spend half an hr shooting plant pots...he must realise what a big world it is and how everyhting cant be exact...

plus a 2 minute search would have found his answers...

plus i have the nose :)

hows that? :)
 
Wasn't Photoshop originally meant to replicate on the computer what could be done in a darkroom? Found this on Wikipedia for 'Dodging and burning'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning

This line from the page is quite interesting...

Ansel Adams elevated dodging and burning to an art form. Many of his famous prints were manipulated in the darkroom with these two techniques. Adams wrote a comprehensive book on producing prints called The Print (Adams 1995), which features dodging and burning prominently, in the context of his Zone System.
Click to expand...

Now, forgive me if I'm much mistaken here, but I don't recall anyone calling Ansel Adams a slouch in the photography department... :shrug:
 
Digital photography is a package to me. Camera tweaking and pc tweaking just like darkroom tweaking with film.
 
The 'get it right in camera' mantra is usually expounded by people who have no real understanding of the photographic process, or bitterly resent having to make the effort to come to terms with image editing software.

Ansel Adams probably spent more time than anyone who ever lived trying to arrive at the perfect exposure, yet he often spent many days in the darkroom dodging, burning and manipulating a single print to get the result he wanted. The man is rightly revered by most people for his landscape work, but he was a master of darkroom technique and were he alive today, you can rest assured he'd be a master of digital editing too.

What matters is your final image - not how you achieve it, and sensible photographers use all the tools at their disposal to that end.
 
CT said:
or bitterly resent having to make the effort to come to terms with image editing software.
Click to expand...

That`ll be me then..........:D



CT said:
What matters is your final image - not how you achieve it, and sensible photographers use all the tools at their disposal to that end.
Click to expand...

I now realise that 95% of my stuff needs post processing, keeping that processing down to a minimum is my aim.
 
mad opportunity said:
Why does everyone use photoshop and other photo editing software? Can't the pictures we take be good enough straight from our cameras! And (while I am up here, on my soap box) wouldn't that make the photographer have to work a little bit harder to get the shot, therefore making him a BETTER photographer.. I would love to know what you think.
Click to expand...

I used to think exactly the same as you, however once a photo has been taken and looked at on a computer screen there may be something in the photo to ruin it. There could be a post -dustbin- person or whatever not noticed when taking the shot. Without editing it can ruin a picture but with a little erasing can make all the different. Yes some photos have been over edited in my opinion and gone too far. It all depends on what can be done to improve a picture yet without distorting the image too far.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
That`ll be me then..........:D

I now realise that 95% of my stuff needs post processing, keeping that processing down to a minimum is my aim.
Click to expand...

LOL. You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by making the effort Ade. (y)
 
CT said:
LOL. You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by making the effort Ade. (y)
Click to expand...

Yeah I know mate, but you know it bores the pants off me. I also think that I, for one, start to process to much because it seems the norm, the thing to do. Sometimes I find a quick 2 minute process is as good as a 2 day one. If you know what I mean............:thinking:

Also, I am now far more ready to dump crap photos, if it is crap, then it is crap, processing may get it slightly above crap, but i`d rather go and have another go. Wildlife only I hasten to add.........(y)
 
fracster said:
Yeah I know mate, but you know it bores the pants off me. I also think that I, for one, start to process to much because it seems the norm, the thing to do. Sometimes I find a quick 2 minute process is as good as a 2 day one. If you know what I mean............:thinking:

Also, I am now far more ready to dump crap photos, if it is crap, then it is crap, processing may get it slightly above crap, but i`d rather go and have another go. Wildlife only I hasten to add.........(y)
Click to expand...

Well I don't spend much time at all on an individual image usually - levels tweak and sharpen - sometimes wb adjustment and that's it. If I spend substantially longer than that then I've either cocked up or there's something about the image that requires more work. I'll only undertake that sort of work if the image is worth it and it's not going to look obviously manipulated when it's done - otherwise I bite the bullet and consign it to the bin - tough as that is sometimes.
 
mad opportunity said:
Why does everyone use photoshop and other photo editing software? Can't the pictures we take be good enough straight from our cameras! And (while I am up here, on my soap box) wouldn't that make the photographer have to work a little bit harder to get the shot, therefore making him a BETTER photographer.. I would love to know what you think.
Click to expand...

course even if you were good enough to get it absolutely right in camera - which i somehow doubt , the files that come out of a DSLR are massive so you'd still need a photo editing program to resize them for internet use etc
 
CT said:
Well I don't spend much time at all on an individual image usually - levels tweak and sharpen - sometimes wb adjustment and that's it. If I spend substantially longer than that then I've either cocked up or there's something about the image that requires more work. I'll only undertake that sort of work if the image is worth it and it's not going to look obviously manipulated when it's done - otherwise I bite the bullet and consign it to the bin - tough as that is sometimes.
Click to expand...


Yep, got one of the female peregrine coming in with a pigeon, I was set up for an flight shot and the thoughtless begger came in low. Blown to hell.....real shame, but it was a binner.
 
mad opportunity said:
Yeah that's true, photographers in one way or another have altered their pictures, but i don't agree about the bit were you said images coming out of camera perfect. No it's not the camera, it's the photographer that would be working the light and the position out, so he could try and get a better if not perfect picture. And that is were the talent is. Not in the camera or photoshop but in the photographer. Oh and his little helpers of course.
Click to expand...

Same thing in a way, the camera merely captures what I see. :)
 
KIPAX said:
because its a loaded question to which anyone wiht half a brain should know at least one of the possible answers.. including the OP .. if the OP knows the answer but starts a thread anyway aimed at getting everyone going over the subject then thats a troll..

1) using photo edit software is no different to editing at the development part of film

2) when shooting from the hip (so to speak) you simnply dont have time to setup composition correctly or some other things.. I am a sports photogrpaher and simply dont have time to do a lot before or soemtimes after i take the shot.. thus i try to get it as right as possible but cant always be the case.. i am guessing news photogrpahers and other photogrpahers have the same problem..

I refuse to believe the the OP thinks we all spend half an hr shooting plant pots...he must realise what a big world it is and how everyhting cant be exact...

plus a 2 minute search would have found his answers...

plus i have the nose :)

hows that? :)
Click to expand...

A comprehensive defence of your position. I disagree with your conclusion about the OP's motives, though. Personally I find nothing offensive about trying to stimulate discussion on a forum.

Incidentally, I shoot raw and post process every single digital image that I use. I'm certainly not averse to a spot of PhotoShop.
 
White Rose said:
A comprehensive defence of your position. I disagree with your conclusion about the OP's motives, though. Personally I find nothing offensive about trying to stimulate discussion on a forum.

Incidentally, I shoot raw and post process every single digital image that I use. I'm certainly not averse to a spot of PhotoShop.
Click to expand...

I could see how it could be seen as Troll post, especially for someone's first few posts on a forum. :shrug:


Sports, and maybe Landscape photographers aside, most sectors of pro photography have used post processing extensively. The image that most of us aspire to, or have aspired to emulate or better, have for the most part have had post processing applied. Therefore it was virtually impossible to emulate in camera. The mention of Ansel Adams earlier

I was really surprised when I visited a few photo retoucher sites a few years ago and saw the quality of the images the retouchers were supplied with. :eek: They send to print what we think we should be getting, and in the vast majority of cases are impossible straight out of the camera. And it was always been done, it's not something that has suddenly started with Digital and Photoshop, it is just now that it is more accessible to everyone, not just the few that had/have darkrooms. :shrug:
 
I do wonder how many of the sanctimonious `I don't have to edit because I'm a genius` tendency have any sharpening/saturation/contrast dialled into their cameras? How many of them have the camera profile set to `neutral`? And if any of them are aware that one side effect of jpeg compression is to soften images, which is why virtually all images will benefit from a touch of sharpening? Why is any in-camera adjustment acceptable, but post production work not?

PP, if you have the ability to use it properly, offers far more finesse and will usually result in a better final image.

And isn't that the point?

To me, there are three distinct phases in photography: visualising the shot, taking the shot, and preparing the shot for viewing. All are essential to get the best result, and any photographer worthy of the name will know how to do post-production work, whether in a wet darkroom or on a computer.
 
Last edited:
i always thought why do you need to process photos,
isnt what comes out of camera more accurate, than a processed one,
now i have tried to understand photography, i realise it is a very impotant element, in the whole scheme of photography,
when i put a photo through photoshop, i always say to missus without telling her which is which...which one is best and she has come down 100% on the processed photos side,
 
wallyboy said:
i always thought why do you need to process photos,
isnt what comes out of camera more accurate, than a processed one,
now i have tried to understand photography, i realise it is a very impotant element, in the whole scheme of photography,
when i put a photo through photoshop, i always say to missus without telling her which is which...which one is best and she has come down 100% on the processed photos side,
Click to expand...

if you are shooting jpegs some processing is done in camera , while if you are shooting raw some processing is essential anyway

PP is an essential part of photography so long as you dont go to far - you do see any examples of what could have been a good shot spolit by overcooking the PP
 
wallyboy said:
i always thought why do you need to process photos,
isnt what comes out of camera more accurate, than a processed one,
now i have tried to understand photography, i realise it is a very impotant element, in the whole scheme of photography,
when i put a photo through photoshop, i always say to missus without telling her which is which...which one is best and she has come down 100% on the processed photos side,
Click to expand...
The shot processed in camera has Mr Nikon or Mr Canon (etc) idea of what grass/sky/skin etc should look like, compare the exact same shot on different makes and you'll see different pictures, one may have more contrast, another will have a better colours, yet a third will reproduce a better skin tone, which is more accurate? By editing the shot yourself (with a callibrated monitor) you choose what the colours you saw looked like, not mr canon/nikon etc.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The shot processed in camera has Mr Nikon or Mr Canon (etc) idea of what grass/sky/skin etc should look like, compare the exact same shot on different makes and you'll see different pictures, one may have more contrast, another will have a better colours, yet a third will reproduce a better skin tone, which is more accurate? By editing the shot yourself (with a callibrated monitor) you choose what the colours you saw looked like, not mr canon/nikon etc.
Click to expand...

So, which sofware?
 
big soft moose said:
if you are shooting jpegs some processing is done in camera , while if you are shooting raw some processing is essential anyway

PP is an essential part of photography so long as you dont go to far - you do see any examples of what could have been a good shot spolit by overcooking the PP
Click to expand...
i am realising that now
swanseamale47 said:
The shot processed in camera has Mr Nikon or Mr Canon (etc) idea of what grass/sky/skin etc should look like, compare the exact same shot on different makes and you'll see different pictures, one may have more contrast, another will have a better colours, yet a third will reproduce a better skin tone, which is more accurate? By editing the shot yourself (with a callibrated monitor) you choose what the colours you saw looked like, not mr canon/nikon etc.
Click to expand...

its amazing how flat some photos are coming out of camera
 
cam1986 said:
So, which sofware?
Click to expand...

Photoshop is considered the image editing standard, but lightroom or paint shop pro are both pretty good, any software that lets you ajust the colours contrast sharpness the way you want it will do the job.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The shot processed in camera has Mr Nikon or Mr Canon (etc) idea of what grass/sky/skin etc should look like, compare the exact same shot on different makes and you'll see different pictures, one may have more contrast, another will have a better colours, yet a third will reproduce a better skin tone, which is more accurate? By editing the shot yourself (with a callibrated monitor) you choose what the colours you saw looked like, not mr canon/nikon etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
I shoot with a 4/3 sensor which is considered noisier in low light than most. Even so I shoot in raw, normally exposing to the right and have all noise reduction settings set to off (in case they still affect raw). I prefer to use my quadcore processor to selectively remove noise from an image than whatever carte blanche settings my camera firmware designer chose.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Photoshop is considered the image editing standard, but lightroom or paint shop pro are both pretty good, any software that lets you ajust the colours contrast sharpness the way you want it will do the job.
Click to expand...

Photoshop is beyond my price range. As i am looking for a Nikon now i will try Lightroom. Got to find a camera first!
 
cam1986 said:
Photoshop is beyond my price range. As i am looking for a Nikon now i will try Lightroom. Got to find a camera first!
Click to expand...

photoshop elements is about 50 quid (cheaper than light room) - that said LR is probably better if you are going to do lots of raw conversion (tho there is a raw plug in for PSE)

if money is a real concern its also worth checking out GIMP (careful how you google for that ;) ) and/or irfanview both of which are free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top