How often do you photoshop?

[Amber_Cullen]

pretty much all of them, unless they're perfect SOOC which is rare, since I don't use my flash and rely on natural light sometime my pics come out dark, photoshopping them helps amazingly well to both brighten and fix unwanted things, such as cuts or food on the face (very common with kids). Here's an example:

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to the colloquial verb 'photoshop' rather than using the actual program photoshop. ('gimping' and 'to gimp' was a distant second but ultimately lost out by a number of years. Which is unfortunately because when most people call a photo 'shopped, chances are, it's been gimped.)

Original question should be "How often are your photos changed from the original by some sort of editing or workflow software."

 

[ksmattfish]

Original question should be "How often are your photos changed from the original by some sort of editing or workflow software."

Once again, every single time, because the originals are silver halide crystals suspended in emulsion or data files full of numbers, and those don't make for anything visually compelling. Digital cameras all create files of raw data that must be processed by software into a viewable image. This can be done with software in the camera or out.

Some folks seem to want to place some sort of significance in the choice of physical location where this processing occurs; they suggest in camera is better. The option to load the processing software of our choice into our cameras is right around the corner. Soon I will be using Adobe processing presets in my DSLRs. If I do my Photoshopping in camera does that make it different? What if I do it with the lights off?

A better question might be "To what degree do your finished photographs reflect reality?" That of course leads to a debate about perceptions of reality. The problem in photography is that people easily confuse "truth" with "realism", and they are not the same. Photographs are often very realistic looking, but that doesn't mean what they show is the truth. Give me a slide created with a simple, no frills, mechanical camera, and standardized E6 or K14 processing (suggesting that processing/printing manipulations aren't very likely), and I can make a very long list of ways the photo does not truthfully reflect the actual reality of the scene.

What is the photographer's goal? To create a photograph that accurately represents what the camera (and any processes or materials in the camera) is capable of recording? Or to create a photograph that accurately represents what the photographer sees and feels, and/or wishes to convey to the viewer?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Heck, Phase One did the opposite-- people liked the processing software that they had in their cameras so much that they brought it out as a raw converter software package.

 

[ksmattfish]

I've been using CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) in my Powershots for a year now. I love it. I can't wait until I can do the same with my DSLRs.

I also see wireless technology confusing the importance of physical location. The electronic devices of the future will work with our home super computers wirelessly. I'll take a photo out in the field, and in addition to writing it to the memory in my camera (purely for safety back up) the raw file will be sent to my computer at home (and/or the photo lab I use) where my software will begin processing it according to the parameters I set.

 

[ksmattfish]

Until the invention of panchromatic film in the 1920s it was pretty much impossible to get a decent rendering of the blue sky and the foreground in the same exposure. Almost every pre-1920s landscape photograph with clouds in the skies are created from at least 2 separate exposures. Significant manipulation of photographs during processing and printing has been standard since day one.

 

[rufus5150]

Original question should be "How often are your photos changed from the original by some sort of editing or workflow software."

I didn't mean (and I certainly don't side with the thought) that editing a photo is bad. Not at all as I'm a huge proponent of post-processing. My parenthetical retort was simply that people use the word 'photoshopped' as a verb and often when used as a verb, it's because the editing is blatantly obvious. Were I to see an original and a finished product that brought out an amazing image, I would generally compliment the post-processing skills. Were I to see the original and a hack job of dropping in an element from another photo, complete with different sourced lighting with a halo of the background from the other image, I (as would many other people) would refer to that as 'photoshopped' or "'shopped".

The initial remark was to simply clarify as people were jumping in with 'I use lightroom' when it was plainly obvious that the OP intended it as a verb rather than 'how often do you use photoshop'. The parenthetical was simply a (horribly failed?) attempt at a joke.

 

[DRoberts]

Everyone does some type of post processing.. Yes, even the film guys.
I usually do a levels adjustment (or curves), sharpening, and crop. If I have to go past that it is to apply a specific treatment for effect ie...B/W conversion.
If anything needs more than that, then its probably not a keeper. Alot of new photographer hobbiest (and I was one of them) try to use PP to turn a terrible shot into a keeper. I have learned that you can't do that. I only take my keepers to Photoshop to enhance, not to save.

 

[ljbad4life]

All of my pictures are processed through lightroom or aperture. mostly for minor corrections. Very few photos don't need anything corrected, but thereare a few.

 

[SlimPaul]

Never I use Aperture

 

[Chairman7w]

Well said.

If anything needs more than that, then its probably not a keeper. Alot of new photographer hobbiest (and I was one of them) try to use PP to turn a terrible shot into a keeper. I have learned that you can't do that. I only take my keepers to Photoshop to enhance, not to save.

 

[tsaraleksi]

I've been using CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) in my Powershots for a year now. I love it. I can't wait until I can do the same with my DSLRs.

I also see wireless technology confusing the importance of physical location. The electronic devices of the future will work with our home super computers wirelessly. I'll take a photo out in the field, and in addition to writing it to the memory in my camera (purely for safety back up) the raw file will be sent to my computer at home (and/or the photo lab I use) where my software will begin processing it according to the parameters I set.

To some extent they already have that-- major press agencies have wi-fi transmitters on the camera that transmits to a laptop in the press room, which sends the files back to the agencies via FTP where they are edited, toned, and put on the wire, often before the game even ends.

 

[m2v]

Once again, every single time, because the originals are silver halide crystals suspended in emulsion or data files full of numbers, and those don't make for anything visually compelling. Digital cameras all create files of raw data that must be processed by software into a viewable image. This can be done with software in the camera or out. ...quote]

Well said and what a relieve. This is exactly what i keep repeating in the photo forums i participated. How long will it take for all the folks to realize this???

 

[ksmattfish]

How long will it take for all the folks to realize this???

I'm guessing the debate over "purity" or the "authentic-ness" of photos will continue for some time, since it started the day after Niepce took the first photograph, and has continued for the last 184 years.

 

[m2v]

I'm guessing the debate over "purity" or the "authentic-ness" of photos will continue for some time, since it started the day after Niepce took the first photograph, and has continued for the last 184 years.

thanks, that's another relieve