# Photography without Photoshop



## mdith4him (Feb 11, 2010)

Hi everyone,

Just looking for some opinions on this...I'm not sure exactly what I think about it, so I'm interested in your thoughts.

It seems like almost everyone on here has some type of photo editing software (Photoshop, etc.) and relies on it to make their images "pop" or fix problems.  Those editing programs can also do some fun stuff that a camera simply cannot (effects like making the photo look like an oil painting, pencil sketch, etc.).  I like seeing the fun effects and I think that kind of takes photography into another art form.  I love seeing how dull photos can be made bright and exciting, too.

My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?  I'm not talking about all the crazy effects you can do; I just mean things like fixing the sharpness, making an underexposed photo look brighter, or editing out distracting elements.

I don't have any of the fancy editing software myself and I'm wondering if it's something I should be saving up for if I really intend to churn out great looking pictures.  I look at photographs from famous phtographers before computers got involved and they look pretty good to me!

Curious as to your thoughts on this 

~Meredith


----------



## TiaS (Feb 11, 2010)

Post processing has always been done. As far as I understand there is quite abit of post processing that is done in the darkrooms with film photography. This is by no means a new thing that is only now because of computers. 

Some people feel that it is not pure photography if it has post-processing. I personally rely on it as I feel it is combining 2 art forms to make an image.

I use GIMP which is free and does about everything that Photoshop does.


----------



## bgaideski (Feb 11, 2010)

For a long time I didn't believe in PP of photos. It really can make a good photo great though.

I'm currently playing around and learning photoshop, but as a free solution I can recommend Picasa by google. It does all the basic fixing type stuff you may need to do, and is very simple to use.


----------



## Tulsa (Feb 11, 2010)

I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.


----------



## dancingsphinx22 (Feb 11, 2010)

You know, I've just started practicing with post processing myself. I'm very curious about this too and am interested to see what others say. 

Personally, I'm still a begginer, and I've been going at this with a "photojournalistic" approach - as in, I need to get this shot perfect right from the get go. 

But my pictures came out crappy (in my opinion) and I was really stressing myself out by practicing and trying to learn better technique. I wanted my pictures to be like the ones that inspired me to get a camera, and well, they were/are nowhere close. 

Then I started reading about post processing and realized that a lot of the beautiful pictures I see have been re-touched, and it made feel a little better. 

I admit, I still need practice, and I don't believe that one should rely solely on PP. But I believe some pictures could be truly great shots, but just need a little help getting there.

just my $.02 =)


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 11, 2010)

> My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?


I aspire to shoot so that I don't need to *FIX* photo in post.  But at the same time, I know that post processing is part of *MY* workflow to get the best images possible.  
To that end, I shoot RAW, which requires at least some post processing.  



> I don't have any of the fancy editing software myself and I'm wondering if it's something I should be saving up for if I really intend to churn out great looking pictures.


You don't need to go out and buy Photoshop for $700.  Elements does most of what Photoshop does (for photo editing) and is much less expensive.  There are even some good free programs (GIMP) not to mention the software that came bundled with your camera.



> I look at photographs from famous phtographers before computers got involved and they look pretty good to me!


As mentioned, that doesn't mean that photographers etc. didn't spend a lot of time & effort in post processing.  it's just that now they have moved out of the darkroom and onto the computer...the 'digital dark room'.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm no photographer right now... waiting on my first DSLR to arrive.  I do however do lots of photoshop because I do digital scrapbooking.  Maybe its the scrapbooker in me, but every photo I see thats of a person at least I feel the need to adjust something in, even if its just a little contrast, or playing with the levels or curves.  I think just about any photo could benefit from a little PP.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 11, 2010)

Tulsa said:


> I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.



I agree. I posted a similar thread a couple days ago. 
Although..it is very tempting when you see all the results of other peoples editing. 
I have used it and will use it a lot more i'm sure, but personally i hope to someday be able to get great shots that i wont feel the need to edit at all. 
I use Paint Shop Pro 7...simply because ive been using it way before i really got into photography so its what im used to.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 11, 2010)

> Post processing has always been done.


+1. Either on computer or in darkroom, some processing is done.
When I first went digital, I relied on the lab to do processing, and it was good enough but was relatively plane. When I got into processing my self, the product was nicer, studios were happy, and more importantly CLIENTS were happy.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 11, 2010)

A lot of people don't know or didn't realize that photo labs probably tweaked all the 35mm film shots that they have been getting developed over the last 20 or 30 years.  So some people are surprised when they need to do some tweaking to their digital photos.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

First of all, as has already been mentioned, PP has always been done in photography. As an example, I have a friend an art student who will spend hours in the dark room dodging and burning, using screens, etc. a single image. This, if taken in a digital world would be going beyond just curves etc. and yet still looks great. 

Secondly, I have found that (at least for me) when I post process an image and put time into it, I see my photograph more critically and I see what I wish I had done differently. If nothing else, putting time into the photo once it is taken is a great learning tool for future images. If once you take the picture you just leave it at that there is less focus on improvement. 



> I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.



With regards to the smoke pictures, (I'm thinking the ones with streams of smoke going from one side of the image to the other in some nifty color) that is easily done in camera. PP is not necessarily needed, though it may look like it has been heavily photoshopped. I can explain how to do it if you're curious. 
That being said, are smoke pictures still not  photography? even though they are often done in camera with a minimal amount of PS (no more PS than what you suggested)


----------



## ChasK (Feb 11, 2010)

Very little has changed since digital except the tools we use to manipulate photos.  Retouching, compositing, multi exposure, and just about every special effect I can think or has been done  with film.  Granted it's cheaper, and not nearly as messy as with a computer but  photo manipulation is not a new idea.  The grandfather of "workflow" IMHO was Ansel Adams.  He didn't achieve those fabulous results in the camera alone.  If that was the case he could've sent his film out anywhere to have it developed.  He had a very precise PP routine.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 11, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> Tulsa said:
> 
> 
> > I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.
> ...



I'm sorry but I disagree completely.  It's all about the finished Image, whatever it takes to get there.  If you start limiting tools where do you stop?  Should certain lenses be forbidden?  Do certain subjects not qualify as photographs?  I've seen a lot of photographs I don't like but they are still photographs.  From latin photography means "painting with light".  So the only the absence of light would disqualify a photograph?  And if you think the little bit of manipulation you've seen is disturbing, well, you aint seen nothin yet!


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

One other side note, I find it interesting that I have yet to hear a photographer who is serious about his work, and has been at this for a while (pretty much anything other than a newbie to photography) make the suggestion against Post Processing. 

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.


----------



## Felix0890 (Feb 11, 2010)

Hello "Photoshop vs. No Photoshop" thread.  I hadn't seen you in days!


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

yeah, this thread does come back quite a bit doesn't it.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 11, 2010)

> The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.


I've seen people with that opinion, who aren't new to photography....some are long time pros.   They are just new to (scared of) computers.  :er:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 11, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.


 
I see it as being caught up in the hype of elitism.
Purists are boring. :mrgreen:

The minute they crop, straighten, sharpen, or do anything to the image on a computer, they are hypocrits. 
Whatever. :er:


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

I suppose there are always outliers (particularly the group of which  you are speaking), even so, I stick by my original and unprovable hypothesis that those who are serious about their photography tend to actively PP their images.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 11, 2010)

Here's the tldr: Processing is not cheating. Period.  Believe that it is and you'll never break out of the mediocrity of the snapshot.


----------



## Joves (Feb 11, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.


 
 No not even close. Some of us have always tried to keep the having to manipulate the photos to a minimum. When I was developing and printing my own film many years ago, I hated having to do alot of work in post. Besides in film you tried to get it pretty much right when shot because of costs associated with lots of screw ups. What I find and have heard people say now is ah it OK I can photoshop that out or, fix that in post. I think I have got the image I wanted now if I only have to adjust levels and, maybe contrast. For many of us old timers it is a habit to try and get it right first and, not later.


----------



## mdith4him (Feb 11, 2010)

Felix0890 said:


> Hello "Photoshop vs. No Photoshop" thread.  I hadn't seen you in days!



haha, sorry :blushing:  I did a search and didn't find all that much.  At least it's not as ubiquitous as the "what type of camera/lens should I buy" threads...right?  



ChasK said:


> Very little has changed since digital except the tools we use to manipulate photos. Retouching, compositing, multi exposure, and just about every special effect I can think or has been done with film. Granted it's cheaper, and not nearly as messy as with a computer but photo manipulation is not a new idea. The grandfather of "workflow" IMHO was Ansel Adams. He didn't achieve those fabulous results in the camera alone. If that was the case he could've sent his film out anywhere to have it developed. He had a very precise PP routine.



Thanks for this!  I knew alterations/retouching could be done in a dark room (I took a photo class in high school), but I didn't know the amount of PP that could be done.



ChasK said:


> Natural_Disaster said:
> 
> 
> > Tulsa said:
> ...



I can kind of see both sides of this.  It seems to me more like the merging two art forms (photography and digital art).  I still think it's a photo...just with some extra added stuff thrown in.


Thanks for all the responses!


----------



## Felix0890 (Feb 11, 2010)

Every time this thread comes along, the general consensus towards the end is if you don't like it, don't do it.  Nobody's telling you one way is right or wrong.  Some love it, some hate it.  Just do what makes your funny bone tingle.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

Joves said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.
> ...



I don't get the "No not even close"

Maybe I left some out, but one thing I said was 





> I have found that (at least for me) when I post process an image and put time into it, I see my photograph more critically and I see what I wish I had done differently. If nothing else, putting time into the photo once it is taken is a great learning tool for future images. If once you take the picture you just leave it at that there is less focus on improvement.



Maybe I see things from a different side, but examining the shots afterwards and looking to see what mistakes I made are part of my reason for PP. Yes, I may try to correct some of them in post, but more than that I see what I missed in post, and take care to not have that happen again in the future. 

Besides, as has been and will be mentioned Post Processing is always done and has always been done. Getting it right in camera is great, because then when you PP it will be even better. 

Also, I have heard people say, Oh I will clean it up later... but I don't hear that much at all. 

Instead I hear a lot of people saying they want to have the picture be natural, almost as a cop-out because they don't want to put the time into it. (They're also the ones who won't clean up a flower or separate it from the bunch because that's not how it really is).


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 11, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.
> ...


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## skieur (Feb 11, 2010)

Beyond the other reasons for postprocessing, experts in the technical side have recognized that digital cameras do not replicate the scene the way it actually looks in either RAW or jpeg.

In Color Correction for Digital Photographers Ted Padova says very clearly that every digital photo requires colour correction with some requiring a greater amount than others.

Any photo tends to average out the scene from the brightest area to the darkest corner, from objects that blend in to those that visually stand out and from the palest shade to the brightest and most vibrant colour.
Our eyes tend to see differences within a scene that the camera makes disappear in its averaging of a scene.  We tend to see detail in a shadow area or highlight area that does not show up in the photo. We see a pale orange that ended up looking beige in the photo or dark red hair that ended up as brown.

In short, some of us also do postprocessing to bring the photo closer into line with what we saw with our eyes and to make it more "real".

skieur


----------



## jnm (Feb 11, 2010)

i used a trial version of photoshop to make a few panoramas, but other than that i just use the lightroom 3 beta.

as for now im not using photoshop or any other program like it.  mostly because i have neither the time nor the desire to learn it right now and i'm happy with my current results.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 11, 2010)

Post-processing is not used for "fixing" pictures; it's used for completing them.


----------



## DScience (Feb 11, 2010)

Tulsa said:


> I am anti photoshop when it gets past adjusting colors and cropping an image. There are multiple posts with photos I feel are more graphic design/artistic images, not a true photograph, an example would be the smoke pictures, cool, but not a photograph.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Feb 11, 2010)

I've come full circle on the question of PP and my feelings have evolved with each stage in my photography.

In the very beginning I didn't have a good grasp of the spectrum of PP, whether digital or in the darkroom.  Being a relative purist in most things I began photographing with the mindset that I was going to get the best shot possible in camera and avoid the need for PP.  At that stage I found the mindset helpful because it forced me to really learn exposure and manual control of my camera.  I wanted to get the perfect exposure in camera every time.

As I learned more about the RAW format I was using, I realized that this wasn't the most practical or realistic approach if I wanted to optimize my photography.  When shooting digital my mindset changed to that of getting the most useful information within my RAW file so that I could realize my visualization for that particular shot.  I would then use basic color, contrast, WB, etc to make the final image match my visualization.  I still try to get the crop and composition in camera because I don't care to do that in PP.

Now that I'm more interested in analog film I'm beginning to understand the extent to which images can be processed in the darkroom.  I have studied the process of the masters and I appreciate the extent to which many of them relied upon manipulation in the printing process to realize their images.

My entry into analog was the fully manual Polaroid 600SE.  Instant film isn't amenable to manipulation in the manner of other film so my goal when shooting with the 600SE was to nail the metering and get the perfect exposure with the first shot.  Although slightly misguided, this served as another exercise in learning exposure and was worth the effort.

Now when shooting film my goal is to get the best possible negative for realizing my vision for the image.  Not too different than shooting for the best RAW file in digital.  I'm only beginning to understand the extent to which the qualities of the negative can be manipulated in the development process.  Enlarging and printing adds a whole new layer of complexity.  The process of crafting an image is only beginning at the time of exposure.

All that being said, I have little interest in the highly processed images that blur the lines between photography and graphic/computer design.  That is a matter of taste and philosophy.  You have to decide where you stand, understanding that your beliefs will evolve as you grow as a photographer.

I will also agree that no amount of processing will FIX a bad picture.


----------



## DScience (Feb 11, 2010)

Joves said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.
> ...



It's not about getting the shot 'right'. It's about getting the shot, AMAZING.


----------



## icassell (Feb 11, 2010)

If you shoot in RAW, you essentially MUST do some PP, as the filters which are inserted in JPEG are not applied.  I see Photoshop as my digital answer to my old darkroom.  I rarely printed directly without some manipulation in the darkroom (except when I ran proofs), and I rarely can get an image today where I don't need to do at least a bit of tweaking in Photoshop.  That's me and I'm not speaking for everyone.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2010)

epp_b said:


> "Garbage in = garbage out."
> 
> "Look before you press the button."
> 
> ...


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 11, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> One other side note, I find it interesting that I have yet to hear a photographer who is serious about his work, and has been at this for a while (pretty much anything other than a newbie to photography) make the suggestion against Post Processing.



I have been in photography for the past twenty years ... now I know this is not that long (I knew many photographers that were doing this 20 years before I started), but I will put my two cents in ...

As other before me have posted ... post-processing had been done in the era of film.
When I managed a Photofinishing lab, there was almost NEVER a time where we would print a negative without some sort of correction.
When I was developing and printing my own film ... I would manipulate the negative development and also use filters/exposure to manipulate the print. Different types of paper also play a part in the final image.

Now ... I will say that there were those that did more radical things to the prints, such as multiple exposures, printing different color layers offset, exposing the paper from the back, extreme dodging and burning ... etc ... those we would call Photographic Artists, instead of Photographers.

There has always been the fight between straight shooters that do not make changes to the print to those that do.
Same as this argument about digital post-processing.

I shoot raw, and I use post-processing in the same way as if I was printing a negative on paper. I honestly do not like the extreme processing or the addition of fluffy filter affects.


----------



## skieur (Feb 11, 2010)

To put it in very basic terms and keeping it KISS simple.

1. For pros, those that are on the leading edge of change and can adapt to it quickly will be the most successful. (This means quick learning and adaptation to new technology and new forms of photographic and artistic expression)  In this case it means among other things, learning postprocessing skills and using them.

2. Amateurs can do what they want, be as resistant to change and obsessed with old methods, old media, or old technology as they wish to be but they will be regarded as out of the mainstream and ignored by serious enthusiasts.

And by the way, this is coming from someone with half a century of experience in photography who still keeps ahead and adapts to new technology.

skieur


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print. 

You'll quit photography.


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 11, 2010)

How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap?  If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot"  If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"

Do you need to add PP? No.

Do you need high dollar soft if you choose to do PP? No.
Does it help?  Maybe, maybe not.

Here is another side of the PP coin.  Use a crap lens to the best of it's performance ability and there will be a whole heck of a greater chance that PP might help your image be it's best.  Now take a high dollar high quality piece of glass and use it to the best of it's performance ability.  Chances are the image will have a greater chance of standing alone.

Those that say it's you not the camera... ask them if they even have a kit lens.  Ask them if when they buy a new piece of glass if they find the cheapest piece that fits the focal range they are looking for.  Then ask them why not.  If it's them not the lens.  They could save a lot of money.  

I know a good piece of glass won't make the shot,  won't save the composition.  But with focus and how it reacts to light, well that can directly affect if minimal or no PP is required.

Mostly all just my opinions on the matter take it or leave it.


----------



## Mulewings~ (Feb 11, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print.
> 
> You'll quit photography.



You bet.

I once thought I was a purist, shooting and not editing.
Then I found out that even Ansel Adams used methods to Dodge and Burn...just like we can in any PP program.

Just photography without chemicals.

Look at it this way...it is 'greener' without the old darkroom!


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 11, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print.
> 
> You'll quit photography.



Actually it makes a big difference how you pull them from your camera... if your software utilizes the settings you manually set your camera to then it is no different then shooting jpg.

I think what you might have meant to say is: 

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg using software that ignores all camera settings both auto or manual and then just print the Raw file out in it's entirety.

Maybe?


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

why would  you then bother to  convert to jpg? it would make more sense in that case to print the jpg that you just converted to.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 11, 2010)

By photoshop I assume you mean post-editing.

Well, there is no such thing as non-edited image, especially from film photography.

All film photography go through dark room or some kind of processing. In the dark room, you need to decide how much you want to expose onto the photo paper(sorry I forgot all the terminology, it's been 6 years since I was in a dark room). You can do neat tricks on basic level such as blurring out scratches and what now and use selective exposure to compose images. The possibility is endless.

Even nowadays in digital cameras, different image processing software that are embedded in different cameras will result in different image qualities. Some people like Canon better, some like Nikon better, and many more. This is beyond just the hardware. So your image has already been through some kind of photoshop before you even download it onto your computer.

My personal guideline is, as long as it supports the image in a positive way.


----------



## skieur (Feb 11, 2010)

LokiZ said:


> How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"
> 
> Do you need to add PP? No.


 
Sure you do!  Perfect set-up does NOT equal perfect shot. You don't read posts.  Digital cameras do NOT perfectly replicate a scene.  Of course with a limited "eye". some photographers don't realize that basic fact.

Postprocessing IS REQUIRED to make that supposedly perfect setup to equal a perfect shot.

skieur


----------



## Shocknawe (Feb 11, 2010)

what the hell this looks like fun I'll add a couple pennys...I agree with some of the anti-pp comments mainly refering to the people that love to say "I'll fix that later" knowingly taking a half ass photo relying on PP- I've heard it before. I believe like many others that one should always strive for the "one shot one kill" photo, and if mistakes are made learn from them, adjust fire and shoot on. HOWEVER some of the statements made seem portray a bit of a arrogant image of themselves to that I say if you are "that good" post up some of your non-PP'ed images here and lets see your "perfection." More or less put your money/photos where your mouth is per se. Include complete exif data as well...not that I would question integrity or anything.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

Fact: RAW files contain NO sharpening. Enjoy no post processing when you consider that.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 11, 2010)

FACT: When a program makes the Raw file readable it has inherently provided post processing.


----------



## Felix0890 (Feb 11, 2010)

FACT: Photoshop makes you look cool.


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 11, 2010)

skieur said:


> LokiZ said:
> 
> 
> > How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"
> ...



I guess I'll start with I "usually' agree with the bulk of your posts.  Actually have taken away quite a bit from your work here.  Maybe that is due to my "untrained eye".  In  any case I do thank you for all the post I have taken away positive feedback from.  

I don't think the op was looking for wrong or right answer more a list of multiple opinions from us so as to form an opinion she/he could form on their own.  I could be wrong.  I don't read posts.

Yes, and digital audio to the "trained ear" is lacking what true analog can bring to the table. so your statement about digital cameras not being able to perfectly replicate the scene... My vocation being in electronics I can fully agree with you on that one.  That much is fact for sure.  but to define what all people will accept as guidelines for the perfect will never happen. 

So in ending... I would love to have a trained eye such as yours.  I honestly would.  Hell, I would even settle for better eyes that don't border legally blind without glasses.  But all we can give out is opinions as the OP requested.  Some how I believe that should you Skieur, weed out all you deem as untrained in the eye department... there would still be differing opinions on how much pp is deemed excessive or inadequate as to create the "prefect shot" 

Anyway start up the poll!  me and Skieur have our answers ready and poised to submit.  

My opinions stand firm as I am sure yours do also.  I respect you for that.  And I am sure that in the future I will find myself taking away positive feedback from you again Skieur, no harm done.

edited: "dang dislexia anyway!"


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 11, 2010)

Felix0890 said:


> FACT: Photoshop makes you look cool.



LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 11, 2010)

Fact: When an OP asks us if we usually use PP to make our photographs look good, I am pretty sure they are asking us about the PP that we can actually control not the automated PP created inside our cameras in fractions of a second.  

Ok so it's not a fact... I just like writing the word "fact" in front of what I type.  Makes me feel cool like an Apple user!


----------



## epp_b (Feb 12, 2010)

> LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?


Not possible.  Photoshop has more than one button.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 12, 2010)

epp_b said:


> > LOL, is photoshop made by Apple too?
> 
> 
> Not possible. Photoshop has more than one button.


Post of the day.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 12, 2010)

I didn't see this post yesterday. Has anyone mentioned that some one posted this exact same question last week...and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that...


----------



## skieur (Feb 12, 2010)

LokiZ said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > LokiZ said:
> ...


 
To simplify things, 

1. if you have a good "eye", then you recognize that PP is for more than just fixing mistakes and therefore necessary. 

2.  If you don't recognize that PP is necessary for more accurately depicting the scene, then you don't have a photographic "eye", since you don't "see" the differences between the camera shot and the view with your eyes.

 So, the "photographically blind" non-photoshop users would probably pick number 2, and the "picky" photoshop users would pick number 1.

So, the simple question is  NUMBER 1 or NUMBER 2??

skieur


----------



## mdith4him (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks again for all the posts guys!  LokiZ, you're right--I really just wanted to know what people do and what they don't do for PP, not an argument!

As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it?  It should have been fairly obvious by the subject of the thread what would be discussed and your "I've already seen this a million times" comments aren't helpful.  But last time I checked this was a _beginner's_ sub-forum and so I'm asking a _beginner's_ question.  Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).  

The rest of the poster's comments have made me rethink this issue entirely and I'll definitely add "Learn how to use a PP program" to my ever-increasing list of things to learn about photography!


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 12, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> Thanks again for all the posts guys! LokiZ, you're right--I really just wanted to know what people do and what they don't do for PP, not an argument!
> 
> As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it? It should have been fairly obvious by the subject of the thread what would be discussed and your "I've already seen this a million times" comments aren't helpful. But last time I checked this was a _beginner's_ sub-forum and so I'm asking a _beginner's_ question. Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).
> 
> The rest of the poster's comments have made me rethink this issue entirely and I'll definitely add "Learn how to use a PP program" to my ever-increasing list of things to learn about photography!


 
Because one day I'm hoping noobs will learn how to search.


----------



## mdith4him (Feb 12, 2010)

As noted previously, I *did *do a search for "photoshop" in the handy search box at the top of the page.  Apologies for not reading through 14 pages worth of results.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 12, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> As noted previously, I *did *do a search for "photoshop" in the handy search box at the top of the page. Apologies for not reading through 14 pages worth of results.


 
10 of which were probably "Is Photo Shop a crime", threads.


----------



## mdith4him (Feb 12, 2010)

Many of them looked more like "Photoshop Tips" and people asking how to do certain things in PS.


----------



## Casshew (Feb 12, 2010)

For all the cameras I've had, and all the photos I've take over the years, I can honestly say there was only a handful that were perfect, in my opinion just the way they were, straight from the camera.

I don't know if that makes me a lousy photographer :blushing:  but when it happens, it's an awesome feeling to look at your pic and say "I wouldn't do a thing to it" :thumbup:


----------



## kkamin (Feb 12, 2010)

You need a darkroom to print film negatives.  By virtue of the process you make corrections and creative adjustments in order to produce a print.

As many have already commented, digital PP is just an offspring of the chemical darkroom.  Everything you see in print (magazines and newspapers) has been touched (not bad touch).    

I suppose if you want to shoot jpegs and not post process, you could see it as analogous to shooting slide film or Polaroid.  But imo it doesn't make you more pure or natural; it is just another type of creative choice.  I think people who believe that there is an objective, more natural form of photography don't understand what photography is on a deeper level.  The camera is converting an infinite resolution, infinite color, temporal, three dimensional world into a very defined 2-D artifact.  Our brains recognize the symbols within photograph, but it is just a piece of paper or backlit LEDs on a display.  There is nothing natural about photography.  You are always creating illusion.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 12, 2010)

Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 12, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.



+1


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> Thanks again for all the posts guys! LokiZ, you're right--I really just wanted to know what people do and what they don't do for PP, not an argument!


 
Well, actually, you asked "My question is, as a photographer, *do you think it is necessary to use these programs* to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?" You did not ask what people do, or don't do. :er: 



> As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it?


 I hate responses like this, too. :er:




> Sorry if I didn't dig deep enough into the archives or search for the right key words (I did try).


 This is often a problem in getting the information you are looking for. Instead of using a brand name (Photoshop) had you searched for 'post processing' or 'editing' you would have found amazingly different results.



> The rest of the poster's comments have made me rethink this issue entirely and I'll definitely add "Learn how to use a PP program" to my ever-increasing list of things to learn about photography!


 
Cool, just remember, you are less of a photographer if you rely on photoshop to make your images better!





:lmao:


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 12, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> mdith4him said:
> 
> 
> > > As to posters like Village Idiot, if you're sick of this thread, why do you click on it?
> ...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2010)

Which responses, which post, what, where?


----------



## fast eddie (Feb 12, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?  I'm not talking about all the crazy effects you can do; I just mean things like fixing the sharpness, making an underexposed photo look brighter, or editing out distracting elements.



I think the big question we're all over looking is: as a Photoshop user, do you think it is necessary to use a camera to get great looking post processing or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use one anymore?


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 12, 2010)

Chuckle :thumbup: ^


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 12, 2010)

fast eddie said:


> I think the big question we're all over looking is: as a Photoshop user, do you think it is necessary to use a camera to get great looking post processing or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use one anymore?



I have seen images that I would have sworn were a photograph but were really done entirely through photoshop. 

That being said, I think there is a good reason that question has not been thought of here, because it's not something that people that typically frequent this forum would consider.


----------



## matfoster (Feb 12, 2010)

"..the less art there is in painting the more painting there is." Pablo Picasso.


----------



## dhilberg (Feb 12, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Another way to view it is what level of quality you're willing to accept from your pictures. A picture of the Christmas tree with the grandkids opening presents will be fine right out of the point & shoot camera and printed by Snap Fish or Walmart. A picture going to the cover of Arizona Highways might need a little more attention in every step of the process, including some quality time in Photo Shop.



Speaking of Arizona Highways, the latest issue features a Q&A session with a photographer by the name of Joel Grimes, and some of his work is also featured (including the cover shot).

Anyway, one of the questions the photo editor asks him is right on topic with this thread:



			
				Jeff Kida said:
			
		

> You do a lot of postproduction work with your digital images. What's your take on technology versus artistry?



His response (boldface added for emphasis):



			
				Joel Grimes said:
			
		

> We often put the cart before the horse. The cart is the technical process, and the horse is the creative process. The minute we let the cart pull the horse we become technicians, and that's boring. The argument that a photograph ceases to be a photograph if you apply too much postprocessing doesn't hold up because we all draw a different line as to when we have gone too far. I look at myself as an artist first, and I happen to use the photographic process to fulfill my vision as an artist. Where to draw that line is of little interest to me.* If you put the cart before the horse, you'll spend a lot of time talking about where that line is drawn*.



I really agree with what he has to say here. We all draw our own line as to when too much is too much. I'm not sure why this topic gets so much regular discussion. Photographers have been "creating" images since photography has existed. It's no different than a painter "creating" an image, or a sculptor "creating" his/her latest work, etc. It's all about the vision of the artist.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 12, 2010)

But, if you're riding in the cart, and you aren't attached to the horse you're going to have a problem in getting anywhere. 

Nobody on this forum would seriously say that the PP work is more important than the photo itself. Rather, the argument is that in the case of the cart and the horse, the two of them complement each other.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 13, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> But, if you're riding in the cart, and you aren't attached to the horse you're going to have a problem in getting anywhere.
> 
> Nobody on this forum would seriously say that the PP work is more important than the photo itself. Rather, the argument is that in the case of the cart and the horse, the two of them complement each other.



I think most people do put the cart before the horse, and the cart is why there are so many threads dedicated to camera bodies and lenses or technical skills like dragging shutters or color management.  It seems like most enthusiasts approach photography like a construction worker whereas photography is more like being the architect or artist.  Or people approach photography like a hammer and nail instead of a paint brush and canvas.    I understand that it is easy to feel ownership over what you are doing if you can define it--like learning how to use a polarizing filter or remove noise from an image.  Conversely, learning the creative applications of photography can be difficult to talk about and it is hard for a lot of people to feel that same sense of progression as when they learn concrete, technical skills.  But I feel photography is all art.  There is an underlying "why" to every shutter click.  And every technical skill related to photography is a tool to support that "why" and is not an end on to itself.  

This is the only art form I know where the *art aspect* is so ubiquitously ignored by its practicioners.  I believe if you view photography as a process of creation or as an art, a lot of these PP issues would vanish.  The camera isn't an objective recording device and never has been.  The raw, unprocessed images coming out of the camera are not objective recordings.  I agree with dhilberg in that you *create* photographs, and believe any creative photographer would agree too.

Joel Grimes, the person who made the horse and cart analogy, is a good example.  He is a portrait photographer, but he feels he is first and foremost an artist.  If you look at his images, they rise high above mediocrity;  you feel that his images are full of ideas, themes, motifs, and he posses a profound understanding of expression.  You don't see pictures of people standing on tie die bed sheets in his basement.  And I doubt be gets into equipment debates with anyone.

http://www.joelgrimes.com


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2010)

kkamin said:


> This is the only art form I know where the *art aspect* is so ubiquitously ignored by its practicioners. I believe if you view photography as a process of creation or as an art, a lot of these PP issues would vanish. The camera isn't an objective recording device and never has been. The raw, unprocessed images coming out of the camera are not objective recordings. I agree with dhilberg in that you *create* photographs, and believe any creative photographer would agree too.


 
This is one of the funny things I find here. The "I want to be a photographer, because I like taking pictures" sensability. I have yet to see anyone come here and say, "I am looking for a new hobby, I think I'll be an artist." In my time here, I have gotten the sense that people feel, to be a photographer, all you need is a camera. Creativity, talent and even a grasp of the language of "art" is rarely considered to be a part of the equation. The majority that come here are simply going to learn how to take better snapshots. Repeatedly you see people use techniques simply because they can, like selective color, or vignetting, for example. They aren't thinking about whether the particular technique works for a given image or not, they do it because they want to.

My favorite thread _ever, _is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."

:er:


----------



## kkamin (Feb 13, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> This is one of the funny things I find here. The "I want to be a photographer, because I like taking pictures" sensability. I have yet to see anyone come here and say, "I am looking for a new hobby, I think I'll be an artist." In my time here, I have gotten the sense that people feel, to be a photographer, all you need is a camera. Creativity, talent and even a grasp of the language of "art" is rarely considered to be a part of the equation. The majority that come here are simply going to learn how to take better snapshots. Repeatedly you see people use techniques simply because they can, like selective color, or vignetting, for example. They aren't thinking about whether the particular technique works for a given image or not, they do it because they want to.
> 
> My favorite thread _ever, _is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."
> 
> :er:



I don't think there is anything wrong with taking up photography as a hobby or being an enthusiast.  Everyone takes pictures and I can see how a lot of people want to get better at it.  I have hobbies that I know I will never master, either because I don't have the time or aptitude, but do them because I enjoy them.  I'm not judging people who want to pursue photography short of being an expert at it.

But I find it somewhat ironic that the creative side of photography is ignored for most.  For the casual shooter, photography can be pictures of your kids growing up.  For the enthusiast it can be pictures of ducks in your backyard or of classic cars.  But photography can also be Man Ray, Robert Frank, Richard Avedon, and Cindy Sherman.  It can express the feelings and attitudes of a culture.  It can capture beauty in a unique way and as profound as any art form.  It can inspire social change.  The creative forces at play in great works, are identical in the enthusiasts work.  But more often than not, they are not being harnessed or recognized.  For the photographer who isn't addressing the creative side of photography is creating somewhat arbitrary works--they are not in full control of their image making.

The reason I am saying this is, is that I am restating my belief that if photography is viewed as a subjective process of creation, a completely creative endeavor, the PP question would be a non-question.

I suppose if paintings could somehow be created in 1/500th of a second or music could be scored and recorded in that time, there would be similar issues in those mediums.


----------



## Proteus617 (Feb 13, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> My favorite thread _ever, _is the one with the opening "I decided that I need a hobby and I thought photography would be best..."
> :er:



Hey guys!  I think I need a hobby and decided to take up oil painting.  I bought a neat oil painting machine.  It's the XJ3000, paid $973 dollars for it at Best Buy, do you think I got a deal?  So, I went outside, pointed it at a duck (I set the big "mode" knob to "duck").  I pushed the button, and it painted a picture of a duck!  But my picture of a duck sucks!  It doesn't even look like a duck.  I really like your picture of a duck.  What mode did you use?  Maybe I should save up for the XJ4000.


----------



## matfoster (Feb 13, 2010)

maybe you had it set on moorhen (?). the icons are quite similar on the 3000.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2010)

@kkamin, There is nothing wrong with anybody taking up photography as a hobby. I didn't mean to imply that. I just relate it too how C&C is taken and given, as an observation.

I have a few hobbies myself. Glass blowing, Ceramics, Kite design and building, Painting (oil), Wood: carving and constructed sculpture, and a few others. The thing is that they are all related to art.


----------



## chameloeonv8 (Feb 13, 2010)

My philosophy is to take the best picture you can, and not rely on programs like photoshop to fix your pictures because you couldn't get the best shot. I do believe though, that for certain photo's (ie wedding pics, or other formal events) people like some photo editing to the pictures. 
I myself have photoshop cs4 and i try to keep my photo editing to a minimum. I always feel more proud of my work when I know the shot is amazing because of the way it was taken, not because of how talented I am at photo editing.
That's just the way i see photography.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 13, 2010)

The argument isn't that the shot would be amazing because of the PP work, it's that the combination of the two produced an amazing result. The photograph is good, maybe even great, and the processing kicks it up the extra notch. 

It's kind of like the presentation in cooking. You make something that tastes great on it's own, but if you take that extra step and present it nicely it can look and taste even better.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Feb 14, 2010)

Quick Clarification:

Are people considering all PP as "photoshop-ing"? I mean when I open up the RAW in adobe's Camera RAW 5.6 or Lightroom and manage the settings such as White Balance, Brightness, Contrast, Clarity, Saturation, etc.. are you saying affecting those settings at all is considered Photoshop-ing and is considered weaknesses in the photographer's skill? As far as those two programs are concerned they do not bring over any photo information with the .raw so its essential to set them.

I see the threat entitled "Photography without Photoshop" and then people refer to PP, which I've always taken as Post Processing. I may be wrong but I don't consider Post Processing synonymous with Photoshop, which I associate with edits such as removing parts of the photograph entirely (commonly via Clone Utility, etc.)

I just want to clarify this because I see both terms being thrown into a discussion interchangeably while I don't feel they are


----------



## LagunaLab (Feb 14, 2010)

My personal preference is to stick to cropping and maybe a slight bit of exposure compensation in PP. I use iPhoto btw.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 14, 2010)

Photoshop is post processing.  What do you think it is, preproduction?    The OP is referring to the type of PP done in raw editors and in PS.  The two types of programs share many of the same capabilities but are just executed differently.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 14, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> Quick Clarification:
> 
> Are people considering all PP as "photoshop-ing"? I mean when I open up the RAW in adobe's Camera RAW 5.6 or Lightroom and manage the settings such as White Balance, Brightness, Contrast, Clarity, Saturation, etc.. are you saying affecting those settings at all is considered Photoshop-ing and is considered weaknesses in the photographer's skill? As far as those two programs are concerned they do not bring over any photo information with the .raw so its essential to set them.
> 
> ...



Yes, PP does mean Post Processing. 

Photoshop is a form of Post processing (thus, anytime you refer to photoshop you are inherently referring to post processing). However, as you stated PP does not necessarily mean PS.

That being said, many times PS is used for PP in other areas, such as burn/dodge and sharpening (still done much better in PS than in lightroom etc.). 

Photoshop is often to PP, what google is to websearch. There are different programs and methods to both, but PS, and google are the most well known of their fields.


----------



## nemopaice (Feb 14, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> One other side note, I find it interesting that I have yet to hear a photographer who is serious about his work, and has been at this for a while (pretty much anything other than a newbie to photography) make the suggestion against Post Processing.
> 
> The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.



Yea, I'm no professional, but I have been shooting off and on for more than two decades. I have a couple friends that have been shooting professionally for twice as long. So I can just share my views on it and what they have said to me in the past.

The best photographers in the world will do some sort of post work. You can spend all the time in the world on a shot and make it perfect, and still something may go wrong. The perfect frame, the one the client is sure to take, may have a spot in it from dust, a fly, gnat, anything. Maybe the spot is over the face of someone? you never know. Are you going to call up the model, or agency, or what have you, and say, "sorry, I got the shot, but there is a tiny problem. I know it will cost more money, but we need to get him/her back in to reshoot."?  That would be career suicide. 

My point is that you never know what will happen regardless of the steps you take to insure nothing will. If you are a professional and your entire livelihood is dependent on your work, it has to be spot on. Even if you are relatively new and want to pursue a career in photography, you will need to build a good reputation and want to have not just good, but great shots. It doesn't matter how good you are, nobody is perfect. You need some type of way to do post processing.

I read the thread and agree that some people to push the envelope when it comes to PP, but that doesn't make it a bad thing, because there is a demand for those types of images. But PP can also be as simple as basic WB correction, or blemish removal (most widely used by pros working in the entertainment and magazine industry), etc. etc. 

I would like to say that the only ones not needing to do any PP is photojournalists, but I can't even say that. One might take a great shot, but because he maybe saw it at the last second and had to hurry to catch the shot, got more in the image than he needed to. He may crop the image. 

People who do landscapes and or macro, would probably need to do the least amount of post work, but a couple of long time pros I have had the pleasure of talking with at one point or another admit to doing a small amount of post work, albeit just color saturation or vibrance, crop, etc. 

I remember one of the most popular images taken at war time was a black and white picture with a little girl standing in a red dress. I can't remember who took it or the title of the image, maybe someone here will know, but that picture would not have been without post processing. And it touched the hearts of many. 

Having been so long winded and saying all this, you don't need much. Picasa, Gimp, Cinepaint, iPhoto, are all great for minor adjustments. Unless you need to do some detailed involved PP, things like PS CS4, etc. aren't needed. Some people get things like CS4 that never will use any function that they couldn't use in Gimp or Picasa. It's like people that spend $2,000+ on a camera and a few more thousand on a lens or two, but don't bother switching out there camera strap that says NIKON D(whatever), or Canon 1D mark (whatever). Knowing how uncomfortable they are, they just like the status of showing people they have it. 

I'd say don't get into software like that unless you have a genuine need for it. But as far as a need for some type of PP, from the professional photographers I know and the ones I read about, they do it.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 14, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Just looking for some opinions on this...I'm not sure exactly what I think about it, so I'm interested in your thoughts.
> 
> ...



Having followed this thread for about a week, and getting sucked into the argument (like everyone else) I though it might be nice to answer your questions.

Fancy editing software is something you should be saving up for.  I would buy Lightroom and Photoshop.  That's about a thousand dollars depending where you buy etc.. . If you can't get both get Photoshop.  But don't get lazy.  You should never ever say "I can fix that in Photoshop."  While it is usually true it will make you lazy.  Photoshop is best used for enhancing photographs and the occasional fix.  Every single photographer in history enhanced their photographs.  So don't get caught up in that phony "purist" argument.  That just someone who is either too broke to buy or too lazy to learn the software.  Because if they could, they would.  With maybe a few exceptions.

Here's how I use Photoshop.
step 1 batch rename with a 4 letter description
step 2 batch crop for proofs, this also adds copyright info
step 3 tweak color and retouch purchased prints.

It's all really simple stuff, but none of my customers want the pimples,  wrinkles, or age spots, no matter how natural or realistic they are.  Sometimes I also do a little color enhancement on the eyes, and take off a stray hair or two.  I do some skin smoothing but not too much, I really don't like the fake skin look you see so much of.  I also do a lot of compositing, putting two or more photographs together, in Photoshop.

I also do oil paintings with Corel Photo Paint and pencil sketches in Photoshop.  I use Lumapix for School Yearbooks, Memory Books and Wedding Albums.  And I still use an old copy of Corel Draw for some vector based work now and then.  

Do I think it necessary to use these programs?  Absolutely, PP or post processing is necessary to achieve the results I want.  Even at the highest res. and perfect exposure the files look a little fuzzy and muddy, if nothing else just a little sharpening does wonders.  Plus from a professional point of view I have to offer my customers something they can't buy anywhere else, or do themselves.  I they can do it by their self, they don't need me.  If it's the same stuff they can by anywhere then it becomes a bidding war so who ever is willing to work for nothing  usually wins.   But most importantly it's necessary to produce the results I want that cannot be done in the camera alone.  

I'm about to add Lightroom to my workflow as with the newer version I can see some benefit for my proofing and backup steps.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 14, 2010)

I think a lot of people might be unaware of how "unfinished" an image can be coming out of the camera.  I really think, almost anyone's images of people coming out of a high-resolution D-SLR look like a$$.  The D-SLR sensor is very unforgiving compared to the soft, organic quality of film emulsion.  Digital sensors reveals every little skin blemish like it was the Grand Canyon.  Images usually lack proper color balance, exposure, contrast and saturation coming out of the camera too.  You don't really notice until you fix it.  Then you say, "Holy crap, my photo did look like $hit!"

Take a look at Amy Dresser's retouching portfolio.  All the images she is retouching are shot by *commercial professionals*.  If you hover over some of the images you can see the 'before' and 'after' (this starts at the third image down). The most striking thing to me is how "unfinished" the images look before PP.  And these are shoots where there are art directors, hair stylists, make-up artist, photo assistants, etc.

AMY DRESSER || PORTFOLIO

You want images to be about the subject, not about glaring distrations within a photo.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 14, 2010)

Fantastic link, kkamin!


----------



## Mendoza (Feb 14, 2010)

mdith4him said:


> My question is, as a photographer, do you think it is necessary to use these programs to get a great looking photograph or are you wanting to improve your skills enough to not need to use it anymore?


It's a great question.
In the 5+ years I've been using Photoshop for post-processing, I've also developed the bad habit of sometimes taking shots and thinking: "Well it's not going to turn out, but I'll fix it later."  This is one area where the ease of digital turns into a liability.  I'm paying less attention to the subject and the shot if I'm allowing too much room for error.  It's a bit like taking more shots of a subject than you could ultimately want or need, just because you can.  With film the limited length of a roll meant one was a bit more selective before depressing the shutter.
The obvious remedy is to try and get everything perfect from the beginning, but even a perfectly captured image can be fine-tuned afterward.  The goal in my mind is to limit, as much as possible, the amount of post-processing and refinement necessary to satisfy the intentions of the photographer.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 15, 2010)

Mendoza said:


> The obvious remedy is to try and get everything perfect from the beginning, but even a perfectly captured image can be fine-tuned afterward.  The goal in my mind is to limit, as much as possible, the amount of post-processing and refinement necessary to satisfy the intentions of the photographer.



Very well said!


----------



## mrmacedonian (Feb 15, 2010)

kkamin said:


> Photoshop is post processing.  What do you think it is, preproduction?



Haha, I suppose I need to clarify my request for clarification? fail andrej..

I didn't mean Photoshop _isn't_ Post Processing, I simple consider them levels or degrees in a Post Processing flow. What I mean: Anyone taking a photo and opening up the RAW needs to adjust certain settings, considering -- at least with canon + camera raw 5.6 -- doesn't import the settings used to make the JPEG (if you shoot RAW +JPEG, as I do). I look at the JPEG and the RAW and they sometimes look nothing alike. THIS is the Post Processing I think every photo needs. Calibration of these settings I do not consider Photoshop-ing and equate it to being in the dark room staring at a negative being projected onto a white piece of paper you are adjusting to produce a photograph.

From here you get into what I believe falls in the scope of Photoshop-ing. Adjustments such as dodging, burning, cloning, patching, even HDR and the Layers overlays such as the one in Dominantly's thread (which i'm now obsessed with doing to my blown-out skys).

So I suppose I think of Post-Processing to have two levels, RAW Processing and Photoshop-ing. So when I said I see the terms used interchangeably I was unclear in that I was referring to Photoshop-ing was being used to talk about RAW Processing*. I do not think that Photoshop-ing should be used as a crutch to improve photos. I was just concerned people around talking about how they never PP aren't talking about not processing their RAW files. Thats why I was trying to bring to the attention of individuals that the thread is speaking of Photoshop in the latter sense.

*While I do understand that the Camera Raw 5.6 plugin functions through Photoshop, it is mutually exclusive. i.e. You can not use filters, layer, tools, etc in the RAW editor, simple calibrate the RAW and export it to Photoshop.. thus progressing from the RAW Processing level to the Photoshop-ing level.

Hopefully that clarifies what I meant..


----------



## kkamin (Feb 15, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> THIS is the Post Processing I think every photo needs. Calibration of these settings I do not consider Photoshop-ing and equate it to being in the dark room staring at a negative being projected onto a white piece of paper you are adjusting to produce a photograph.



I think the people who are refusing to acknowledge PP in their workflow are not shooting RAW because they would have to convert.  They are shooting in camera, a JPEG, and are done with it.  Their argument of wanting to get it right in camera and be more "pure" wouldn't make sense if they brought their image into a raw editor and had to choose a dozen settings to output their image--controlling exposure, white balance, tonal relationships, the camera profile, sharpness, saturation, clarity, etc.  But maybe they are shooting raw and just opening it up in their raw editor and immediately saving it out as a jpeg.  That would be weird.



mrmacedonian said:


> From here you get into what I believe falls in the scope of Photoshop-ing. Adjustments such as dodging, burning, cloning, patching, even HDR and the Layers overlays such as the one in Dominantly's thread (which i'm now obsessed with doing to my blown-out skys).
> 
> So I suppose I think of Post-Processing to have two levels, RAW Processing and Photoshop-ing. So when I said I see the terms used interchangeably I was unclear in that I was referring to Photoshop-ing was being used to talk about RAW Processing*.



The line you are drawing in the sand between RAW editors and Photoshop doesn't exist.  Everything you mentioned above, that happens in Photoshop: dodging, burning, cloning, patching are possible in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.  And HDR in LR with a plugin.  Layer overlay effects are possible in different ways in LR and ACR, more limited, but nonetheless possible.  I prefer to do as much of these things in the RAW editor actally, since it is non-destructive and the program moves faster.  Of course PS goes deeper into image editing, and my workflow often starts in a RAW editor and move to PS, but the amount of image manipulation possible in ACR or LR is substantial and is what you define at "Photoshopping".

I see why you see the RAW editor as first stop because if you shoot a RAW file you need to start in a RAW editor.  But again, people often do everything in RAW editors, including heavy adjustments.  And a lot of people will work with non-RAW files, TIFFs and JPEGs, inside ACR or LR.

Before RAW editors, people would do everything in Photoshop.  All the things you do in your RAW editor are more or less possible in PS.  If someone gave me a TIFF or JPEG to correct and clean-up, I would have a choice where I want to do my PP in: RAW editor or PS.  Both equally effective.  

I see what you are saying if you work in the way you do.  But the two programs overlap each other in a *gigantic way* and a lot of it comes down to personal preference of how you want to work.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Feb 15, 2010)

kkamin said:


> I see what you are saying if you work in the way you do.  But the two programs overlap each other in a *gigantic way* and a lot of it comes down to personal preference of how you want to work.



Alright, well i'll concede the point then. I don't typically affect images in Photoshop in the way I do in a RAW processing program or plugin and vice versa. Settings that the camera uses to encode the JPEG are all absent in the RAW for me, so I don't consider calibrating those settings to what they are in the .jpeg sitting right next to it in the folder or adjusting them to more desirable levels as 'Photoshop-ing'. Once I get the picture through RAW Processing I save it as a .tiff and if needed then open it in Photoshop, etc.

My point was when I say the image was Post-Processed its referring to the RAW processing, and when I say the image has been Photoshop-ed then I referring to substantial changes to the composition such as removing objects, cloning, etc... I guess to be more concise, I consider RAW Processing as balancing what is already in the picture and Photoshop-ing as taking away or adding to it..

Just personal opinion then, I like clean cut lines, purposes, or functions and I suppose sometimes I draw them myself


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 15, 2010)

I think most (new) people use the term "photoshopping" to mean post processing. 
Like Jello, Band-Aid, Kleenex, etc...


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 16, 2010)

Visegrips.... channel locks.... loctite....  

When I hear the term photo-shopped I immediately think of something, say an image, that has been falsified.  Hmm..... Probably due to the quality of the software and it's possibility for those really good with it to make the unbelievable, well... at least make them think or ponder whether or not if it might be real.

Post processing on the other hand should be along the lines of the professional sound tech. (in my opinion) If it is to be done successfully then the bulk of those viewing the image better not be able to tell that it has been done.  just like the pro-sound tech you should not know he's back there.

So with that said the perfectly "processed" image is not about whether or not PP has been applied or how much has been applied, but rather about concealing whether or not it has been done and to what degree.  If you have an image that the majority of those whose opinions you respect say nothing about you over processing or nothing about you needing to add a little more of a certain type of processing then you done good.  

That of course only relates to the processing side of things.  There still may be C&C dealing with the Composition of the piece, that of course is a whole different thread I am afraid.

Edit: Not asking or expecting all to agree here, just my take and my approach when it comes to purely basic photography.  When it comes to the artsy or visually stylistic types, that for me crosses over from basic pp to effects ordered by customers for fulfilling a momentary whim on my part.  Sure "Technically" it is still PP just not basic PP and well to me not expected to be transparent like basic PP.  Again just me.


----------



## Alter_Ego (Feb 17, 2010)

Photoshop > Gimp. Whoever said that gimp can do whatever photoshop can do is lying because they dont have photoshop.

Nothing published in this day and age is not edited lol. So everything looks so glamours and gorgeous, personally it makes dull look a lot better then what it really is.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 17, 2010)

The argument is not what program is better than the other.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 17, 2010)

Who says you need Photoshop, this image is SOOC not editing no Photoshop what so ever!


http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...51833355719_1224199349_30375955_7607528_n.jpg


and if you believe that I have a bridge in New York for sale.


----------



## Janthony13 (Feb 17, 2010)

Hmm... I am a beginner but I tend to dislike when I need to use photoshop for "compositional reasons". i.e., there was something in the image I had to delete, or I had to rotate my image because I couldnt get the lines straight. I will even go as far as saying that gross changes in contrast, color manipulation, and brightness are things that I feel should be "on me" to get correct when shooting. Minor photoshoping like removing my flim camera's dust specs on my images, cropping, or touching up tiny imperfections, I tend to feel "OK" about doing. But what do I know, Im a beginner... and I also like to keep the image as "raw" as possible when it comes to photo editing... after all Im not shooting for a magazine and I'm not graphic designer. Happy shooting!


----------



## ChasK (Feb 17, 2010)

I believe it has been said several times, with Lightroom you can keep your raw file and a modified tiff or jpeg too.  I think the real beauty in that is you can revisit your older files after software improvements have been made and reprocess your files for a better result.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 17, 2010)

Janthony13 said:


> Hmm... I am a beginner but I tend to dislike when I need to use photoshop for "compositional reasons". i.e., there was something in the image I had to delete, or I had to rotate my image because I couldnt get the lines straight. I will even go as far as saying that gross changes in contrast, color manipulation, and brightness are things that I feel should be "on me" to get correct when shooting. Minor photoshoping like removing my flim camera's dust specs on my images, cropping, or touching up tiny imperfections, I tend to feel "OK" about doing. But what do I know, Im a beginner... and I also like to keep the image as "raw" as possible when it comes to photo editing... after all Im not shooting for a magazine and I'm not graphic designer. Happy shooting!



I think you should explore your options while you are a beginner and not make any concrete rules for yourself.  A lot of people feel the capturing part of the picture process is only half way to producing a final image.  Images coming out of the camera don't usually look right.  The way the camera captures tonal ranges doesn't match up to human vision quite right.  White balance usually needs to be adjusted.  Images coming out of the camera are not sharp enough.  The same principles applied in the film days too.  Negatives needed to be given instructions on what to do.  In the darkroom, at the most basic level, you would have to control cropping, exposure, contrast and color balance in order to produce an image.  

Like I mentioned before, the camera isn't capturing reality.  There isn't a more "pure" form of photography.  You are taking a three dimensional world seen through the eyes and brain of the human with all its dynamic systems of perception and are bringing it to a static 2-D state.  Images straight out of the camera are like watching deleted scenes on a DVD, when they didn't color correct the film or exposure.

Cameras really aren't meant to be the finish line for taking a picture.  The only reason this idea exists is because you can shoot digital now and just dump the images from your camera on to your computer.  Even if you took that same memory card to Target to make prints, their computers would make corrections and adjustments to your photographs, without you knowing it.

I understand your wanting to get it right as much as possible in camera.   I think most people strive to do that.  But I feel, even in the best of situations, you still are only capturing wet clay.  It still need to be shaped a little and hardened.  If you don't want to process your images, to each their own.  But I would give it a chance.  The biggest reason being that it is a lot of fun once you get the hang of it.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 17, 2010)

somehow this seems appropriate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtGt_XzBEbI]YouTube - a shortfilm for Dove, questioning natural beauty - Evolution[/ame]


----------



## kkamin (Feb 17, 2010)

ChasK said:


> somehow this seems appropriate
> 
> YouTube - a shortfilm for Dove, questioning natural beauty - Evolution



This is just demonstrating beauty retouching and takes images to an extreme place.  I think this is what is turning off people to the idea of PP.  I think this discussion is centered on more moderate uses of image editing software.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 17, 2010)

This should sum things up nicely.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 17, 2010)

Just to stay on topic, I think the OP was asking what PP photographers do, not the "to photoshop or not to photoshop" question.  

As a portrait photographer I know my customers don't want the cold hard truth, that may be what police or evidence photographers want, but most people when having a portrait made want a portrait that looks like what they think they look like.  Kinda like the self visualization from The Matrix.

So what PP and software you use would depend on what your use of the final image will be.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 17, 2010)

No, the question was, in fact, whether to PP or not... posing the question whether you should strive to create pictures that do not need post processing.


----------



## anmar (Feb 17, 2010)

At times, I wish I didn't have photoshop. In a way it, makes me lazy as a photographer. Im guilty from time to time as Im sure many are of taking short cuts knowing I can fix them later in PS. However, I do try to capture the best picture I can In camera. If the pictures I take at any given shoot turn out without much if any editing in post that totally makes my day.

The three programs I use are CS4, Photomatix Pro and iPhoto 

Anthony
Austin Area Photo


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 17, 2010)

kkamin said:


> Take a look at Amy Dresser's retouching portfolio. All the images she is retouching are shot by *commercial professionals*. If you hover over some of the images you can see the 'before' and 'after' (this starts at the third image down). The most striking thing to me is how "unfinished" the images look before PP. And these are shoots where there are art directors, hair stylists, make-up artist, photo assistants, etc.
> 
> AMY DRESSER || PORTFOLIO
> 
> You want images to be about the subject, not about glaring distrations within a photo.


 
I just want to have this re-iterated.
One of the shots, of the woman with the towel on her head, with tassels...one of the tassel strings was longer than the rest. It was cloned out. It's not about laziness. It would have taken longer to stop the shoot to trim the tassel. It still can be said, even with so many eyes on a pro shoot like that, things will be missed. Photoshop is not evil. It's a tool.


----------



## kkamin (Feb 18, 2010)

anmar said:


> At times, I wish I didn't have photoshop. In a way it, makes me lazy as a photographer. Im guilty from time to time as Im sure many are of taking short cuts knowing I can fix them later in PS. However, I do try to capture the best picture I can In camera. If the pictures I take at any given shoot turn out without much if any editing in post that totally makes my day.
> 
> The three programs I use are CS4, Photomatix Pro and iPhoto
> 
> ...



I personally don't feel this way.  If anything, Photoshop has made me a better in-camera photographer.  I've spent countless hours in post fixing things that could have been corrected easily during the shoot.  PS has made me more aware of what the camera is seeing.  Example: If I see flyaway hairs and just let it go, that means another 15 minutes for me in post.  If the subject is slightly extending past the background paper I'll move them, rather than trying to mask it out later with a paint brush.

I agree with Bitter Jeweler's point too.  I had a flamenco dancer shoot where we could not find a vibrant red dress in time.  We did find a magenta colored dress.  Instead of canceling the shoot, we shot with the ugly a$$ magenta dress, but I was able to very easily shift the hue to a red in post.

I don't understand why so many people thing PS or post processing is this bad thing.  It's been around since the first microsecond of photography.  And everything, everything you see published is post processed.  And every time you go to the kiosk and order prints from your local printer, they are post processing your photos too.


----------



## anmar (Feb 18, 2010)

kkamin said:


> I don't understand why so many people thing PS or post processing is this bad thing.  It's been around since the first microsecond of photography.  And everything, everything you see published is post processed.  And every time you go to the kiosk and order prints from your local printer, they are post processing your photos too.



I should clarify. I'm not referring to getting your images ready for print, that absolutely needs post processing. I'm talking about things like, waiting for people in the background to get out of the way of your shot. There are times the wife and kids would be nagging at me and I think, "What the hell, it's just one guy off in the distance. I'll just clone him out later." 

btw
"I shoot with a disposable Dora the Explorer camera" That's hilarious!

Anthony
Canon 40D
Austin Area Photo


----------



## erichards (Feb 18, 2010)

I just try and shoot the best image I can hoping for no PP but if I have to I get to see everything that i can fix the next time around.
I use Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom (for bigger batches of photos)


----------



## Mulewings~ (Feb 18, 2010)

When we were kids we drew with pencils and had erasers to fix our mistakes.

Photoshop and a computer allows everyone to be creative, and why not?

I say have fun with it and use it.


----------



## NateWagner (Feb 21, 2010)

lmar0985 said:


> I don't think photoshop is needed.  The skill is in taking the actual picture not what you can do with it afterward.  If you have the ability to take a really good picture and not touch it up with photoshop then you are a true photographer.  If anything the presentation is the most important.  What kind of album you keep all your photos in.  I recommend checking out Photo Books | Try photo book software or create online | SmileBooks  It is amazing.  I have made so many albums and use them as my portfolio for jobs.  It is really a great website.



^ Makes me chuckle


----------



## kkamin (Feb 21, 2010)

lmar0985 said:


> I don't think photoshop is needed.  The skill is in taking the actual picture not what you can do with it afterward.  If you have the ability to take a really good picture and not touch it up with photoshop then you are a true photographer.  If anything the presentation is the most important.  What kind of album you keep all your photos in.  I recommend checking out Photo Books | Try photo book software or create online | SmileBooks  It is amazing.  I have made so many albums and use them as my portfolio for jobs.  It is really a great website.



I want photography without spam.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 21, 2010)

lmar0985 said:


> I don't think photoshop is needed.  The skill is in taking the actual picture not what you can do with it afterward.  If you have the ability to take a really good picture and not touch it up with photoshop then you are a true photographer.  If anything the presentation is the most important.  What kind of album you keep all your photos in.  I recommend checking out [LINK ERASED]  It is amazing.  I have made so many albums and use them as my portfolio for jobs.  It is really a great website.


Heh, nice try. I guess those hacks over at National Geographic are not true photographers.


----------



## ChasK (Feb 22, 2010)

lmar0985 said:


> If anything the presentation is the most important.



That's why I use Photoshop.   Your post brings up another question.  If a set is built for a photograph, like so many are for portraits and particularly advertising, who is the artist?  The photographer or the set designer, or the set builder?  Or would you just say I don't need not stinking set!  I can take pictures without it.


----------

