Photoshop and the like.

B

Barcode

Messages
59
Name
Louise
Edit My Images
Yes
I am fairly new to this photography lark, or at least the more technical / creative side, so bear with me.

But, to what extent do some of you rely on photoshop? I guess I can see the point in removing spots or whatever, but I can't see the point in applying all sorts of special effects since that detracts from the original photo. For me, I try to get as much possible "right" the first time, and don't want to spend ages faffing about on the computer.

I'm not sure what 'HDR' is, but I stumbled across one photo here where the user said they had used it and it seemed dreadfully artificial. I mean, I can see why it might look aesthetically pleasing, but then it diverges from what a photograph is supposed to be - at least for me, it does.

Am I being some sort of luddite, or do I really need to get to grips with these sorts of programs? Not trying to inflame opinions! Just trying to get to grips with all the new tools I'm discovering.
 
Barcode said:
I am fairly new to this photography lark, or at least the more technical / creative side, so bear with me.

But, to what extent do some of you rely on photoshop? I guess I can see the point in removing spots or whatever, but I can't see the point in applying all sorts of special effects since that detracts from the original photo. For me, I try to get as much possible "right" the first time, and don't want to spend ages faffing about on the computer.

I'm not sure what 'HDR' is, but I stumbled across one photo here where the user said they had used it and it seemed dreadfully artificial. I mean, I can see why it might look aesthetically pleasing, but then it diverges from what a photograph is supposed to be - at least for me, it does.

Am I being some sort of luddite, or do I really need to get to grips with these sorts of programs? Not trying to inflame opinions! Just trying to get to grips with all the new tools I'm discovering.
Click to expand...

Different people have different styles and some people are more adept/accept photoshop. I will quite happily remove a dustbin from a picture of a church or remove a zit because that is more pleasing. I have also been known to re-compose pictures, add arms, remove people etc I looked at a group shot recently for someone else where two people were blinking in separate shots so I moved one face from one shot and added it to the other. The RESULT was better than either of them.

HDR is different and a totally separate subject.

You sound like you will join the purists brigade and that is fine. For me it is about the final image not how you get there and I am quite happy to fix things post production if this is the only way. I too, though, would prefer to get it right in the original shot but this is not alway absolutely possible............. The camera never lies..... Photoshop does !

EDIT: an example http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88621&highlight=knutsford
 
I think a lot depends on what your doing, I mostly do weddings, they have to look "right" if that means removing a car (or dustbin) then we do it. You can't always choose the ideal spot or background for photographs so sometimes things are altered to suit. We are selling a finished product, we have to make it look the way the customer wants.
HDR, is a controversial subject even amongst those who do it, theres the "look natural" brigade, the "OTT" brigade, and somewhere in the middle it another group trying to get a ballance, thats all down to personal taste and artistic licence at the end of the day.
I look on Photoshop as a tool, it helps me do my job, yes you can do all kinds of special effects with it, but nobody says you have to, it's up to you. Wayne
 
Artistic licence being one aspect but I think to some extent, it’s also the same older question as how good are you in a dark room, or do you take them to a processing lab who also know how to do it.

I have many shots that are ott, but on the road to those images I've also learned that in camera processing would have ruined a few shots. Its like the more you know the more you can do ... but also, the more you know the more you know when and how to do less ...

I do shoot totally Raw nowadays but I remember feeling totally swamped by my lack of processing knowledge just to get back to the standards of my previous in-camera jpegs.
 
Photoshop is a tool, there to be used. Many factors can contrive against you whilst taking a shot which stop it being "perfect" - weather, light, camera shake, composition, kit etc.. Why not use photoshop to get back a little extra, such as sharpness, saturation or use it to crop? I totally agree that it's nice to strive to get it "right" in the camera, but it's the final finished product that counts, surely?
 
Barcode said:
I am fairly new to this photography lark, or at least the more technical / creative side, so bear with me.

But, to what extent do some of you rely on photoshop? I guess I can see the point in removing spots or whatever, but I can't see the point in applying all sorts of special effects since that detracts from the original photo. For me, I try to get as much possible "right" the first time, and don't want to spend ages faffing about on the computer.

I'm not sure what 'HDR' is, but I stumbled across one photo here where the user said they had used it and it seemed dreadfully artificial. I mean, I can see why it might look aesthetically pleasing, but then it diverges from what a photograph is supposed to be - at least for me, it does.

Am I being some sort of luddite, or do I really need to get to grips with these sorts of programs? Not trying to inflame opinions! Just trying to get to grips with all the new tools I'm discovering.
Click to expand...

I totally agree in theory, the only PP I really do is white balance and a bit of exposure compensation and disagree with too much editting. But when thinking about it people had alsorts of fiddles in the darkroom too so its just a different tool for doing the same job.

Personally I subscribe to KISS, and try to get everything right in camera
 
Barcode said:
..., but then it diverges from what a photograph is supposed to be - at least for me, it does.
Click to expand...
I think that's the key point. You have a clear idea of what a photograph is supposed to be, and you have a clear idea what is right and wrong, so you can get it "right" in the camera. A lof of people have an entirely different view of what a photo is supposed to be. For some people taking pictures is not much more than gathering raw material; for them the creative process starts in Photoshop.

Horses for courses. No right or wrong... etc.
 
Yeah, thanks for the differing opinions :)

I can certainly see the point of eliminating distracting objects and cropping, and it seems a subjective issue as to where adding various effects etc becomes too much. Maybe I'm just saying this as I'm yet to get to grips with photoshop ;)
 
I have two loves - photography and photoshop.

I love to take pics, and I like to mess with them. However, my angle is that either a pic should be raw, or very clearly shopped - ie stylised.

That's how I see it, anyway - thus my set of graphic novel work.

I think if you adjust subtly in Tatty Chop you're lying - cloning and the like.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I think a lot depends on what your doing, I mostly do weddings, they have to look "right" if that means removing a car (or dustbin) then we do it.
Click to expand...

LOL - that's been happening for years before photoshop. When I got married 24 years ago, one of our wedding photo's as we got out the car had an esso petrol station sign behind it. The photographer manipulated the print so it was removed.

Photoshop just makes it easier to do what photographers have always done in the darkroom.
 
I went to see an exhibition last week (and very good it was too) where the 13 final prints had spent over a year in production supporting a 10 day shoot. This was fine art stuff, wasn't to my tastes really, but it was beyond good.

PS. The photographer was an award winning documentary photographer before she moved to fine art, so shows people can swing both ways.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Inevitably I think you’ll find like I did, that although you can adjust almost everything and cater for the biggest disaster or stimulate a winner just as you want it ... You come back to getting it right in camera first, because that is the only way to get the 'best' out of it afterwards.
Click to expand...

This is certainly the main factor as far as making a great photo is concerned. It's about getting it right as far as is reasonably possibly. As most have said it's not always possible so cropping and minor editing can be used to improve a photo in PS in the same way you might in a traditional dark room.

You really need to consider what it is you're trying to achieve with the photo or your photography in general. If you want first time perfection you may have to say to yourself that perhaps you'll need to revisit a site to photograph it in more ideal conditions rather than tweaking in PS.

Moving on from that there's the question of whether you photo is a piece of art and adding effects to create a certain look may be desirable and even define your own style. Some effects simply can't be acheived at capture so it's back to good old photoshop.

The MOST important thing is to produce images YOU are happy with and ENJOYED creating however you do it. As for peoples comments be they positive or negative all I can say is everyone's entitled to an opinion. :)
 
Barcode said:
For me, I try to get as much possible "right" the first time, and don't want to spend ages faffing about on the computer.

yes i know exactly what you mean , personally i'd rather watch paint dry or grass grow than sit at a keyboard trying to push pixels around..

Am I being some sort of luddite

no far from it as it far as i'm concerned.


or do I really need to get to grips with these sorts of programs?

i dont think so .

if you enjoy taking photos that is all that matters , i'd say dont get hung up about editing photos if your not happy to do it.

i did and more than once it lead to me not wanting to pick up a camera simply because of having to then deal with said photos , it also lead to me being very close to packing photography up altogether at 1 point .
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I am welded to the p.c most of the day for my 'job' (if you can call thesis-writing that ...), so the last thing I want to do in my free time is come back to it and get to grips with another program. I guess for me, the line is fairly clear-cut between what constitutes a photograph and what constitutes an artwork, but of course, appreciate it's different for others.
 
I think a lot of people have the misconception that no modification of images went on in the days of ''film'', but I can assure you they did, in much the same way as using PS now but the enhancements were physically done in the darkroom. I see nothing wrong with using PS to enhance or remove areas of an image (as long as it is not a news image). HDR I would agree can be overdone but when used with moderation can be a brilliant addition to the photographer tools...(y)
 
kissfoto said:
I think a lot of people have the misconception that no modification of images went on in the days of ''film'', but I can assure you they did,
Click to expand...

yes very true .
i know only too well about darkroom trickery ,i used to do it myself ( not very well )
 
I like to take photographs and i like to use Photoshop. It is nice to be able to get the shot
straight out the camera but for many it isnt always possible. When you use a camera, you
capture an image, Photoshop allows you to manipulate that image to how you like it. Both
are just tools to get that finished image.

Years back i was a member of a camera club and it was all down to darkroom techniques.
If you didnt have darkroom facilities you were pretty much screwed in their comps. The
only difference i see between altering an image in a darkroom and a program like Photoshop
is that it's much easier and much better in Photoshop....
 
The way I see it modification has always happened - if you did a portrait of the king you'd better make sure he looked handsome - etc.

Isn't that why Ollie Cromwell requested he be painted "Warts and all"?
 
Rob_W said:
The
only difference i see between altering an image in a darkroom and a program like Photoshop
is that it's much easier and much better in Photoshop....
Click to expand...

Not always easier or better, as always (with both techniques) it is the skill of the person who uses them that makes the differance between a successful image and a failure....(y)
 
You know, I'm a young un (well, under thirty ...), and I'm really not familiar with darkroom techniques - it's always been digital for me. But I do see the point. Believe it or not, I did not know you could majorly manipulate images in the darkroom ...
 
Barcode said:
You know, I'm a young un (well, under thirty ...), and I'm really not familiar with darkroom techniques - it's always been digital for me. But I do see the point. Believe it or not, I did not know you could majorly manipulate images in the darkroom ...
Click to expand...

A skill full darkroom worker could reproduce many of the things you can do in PS, in fact they invented the ideas....it was just a lot more difficult..(y)
 
I come from the days of film - you find a spot set yourself up and take the shot or two different angles, different exposures.
Basically because dispite all your experience, all the calculations you don't know what's on the film.

Having taken the shots you send them off for processing and then the only thing you can rely on for the effect you wanted is the negative.
(Because the labs have kindly rebalance all you shots to an average light level, colours, everything apart from cropping it!)

Now you look at the pics and the negative and find the one you want to print.
Back to the printer and explain how you want your picture presented.

Then you wait a week to find that he has cropped it to 16x12 when you wanted a full-frame because the edges were key to the look.
Another week goes by ... now the coulors aren't what you wanted ..... arrrrrg.

Times change:
Enter the digital camera ... it's taken a long time but the quality is getting there, I was told that you need 30Mp for the same grain size as ISO 100 film. Having said that I have got good normal sized prints (7x5) from 3mp.

So now on your camera you can see what you are getting you can play with settings - big bonus you can dump what you don't want.

Inhouse - DIY - processing - big benifit
Photoshop has been a real benifit for me now I can subtly correct and change my images to what I want.
I don't have to try to explain to a third party. I can change it or leave as I like.

I am not heavily into the creative side but I have played and I find it relaxing and you do get some fun images.

Finally.
As you and many others have said - concentrate on taking good pictures in the camera - you will always have a better result than trying to fix a bad picture.

My recommendation would be for Photoshop Elements (It's not expensive for what you get).
I have used it for what I do for 3 or 4 years and haven't hit the bounderies yet.
 
My dad used to develop his own pix, and loved having fun with them. As he pointed out; it ain't called "Photo shop" for nothing.
 
Barcode said:
I am fairly new to this photography lark, or at least the more technical / creative side, so bear with me.

But, to what extent do some of you rely on photoshop? I guess I can see the point in removing spots or whatever, but I can't see the point in applying all sorts of special effects since that detracts from the original photo. For me, I try to get as much possible "right" the first time, and don't want to spend ages faffing about on the computer.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised then to what Ansel Adams did from his original negatives to print those brilliant photos of his. With the same "purist" logic applied to the film photography, the photographer work should really stop at producing a negative as all the prints from negatives can be produced without much "faffling about". Then what is all that darkroom tips and tricks like dodging, burning, dying, selectively developing, masking etc? I'd say they have a direct analogy in manipulating the image to achive final result (print) similar to what you can use Photoshop for.

I personally say then why not? The process of photography for me is best expressed by what Ansel Adams said in his books - you visualise what you want to achieve and produce and then aim your skills with the camera, printing etc to realise this visualisation in final image.
 
I find it weird, in this digital age we live in, we can shoot 1000s of images but find ourselves trying to fix and save every one of them - surely we should not just snap more! and hope! hehe
 
To make normal adjustments in photoshop including processing from raw...removing any lens distortion, correcing perspective distortion, adjusting contrast, shading and burning in or dodging and spotting blemishes + a bit of sharpening. Takes far less time than it took me in the days of in wet processing and printing. ... and You only have to do it once.

We had to put up with any lens distortion in those days, but perspective distortion could be controlled by camera movements. The others with the exception of sharpening were par for the course. A skilled worker could even sharpen by making an un sharp mask...this is where the name for the digital version comes from.

No one turned a hair about any of the wet versons of these things ... so why should they now care about the digital equivalents?
 
Well personally I'm a big fan of Tatty Chop.

I do stuff like this:



The only real things in it are the picture in the middle, the cigarette and the ashtray (as per caption).

I don't see a problem with using it it so heavily - I'd like to flatten myself with it being an art in itself - but it's where the subtle changes come in that I have a problem with - removing the nawty thing in the background particularly - I think that in such a case it's your job as a photographer to take a good pic in the first place (one of the reasons that I'm so into Tatty Chop).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top