Is everybody using Photo Editing software ?

the pose looks like she is popping a squat.

I don't think the pose is flattering without the chair.
 
What % of professional photos you see in magazines and books were not fixed or made better by software ?
The % that were not edited in post processing is effectively, ZERO.

Photos made as RAW data files require post processing to be used. At a minimum each photo that will be used in a magazine or book must be color corrected and sharpened.

Photos made as JPEG image files are processed by software in the camera before they are ever seen by anyone. Because they have already been edited (and are limited to an 8-bit depth), JPEG image files have little editing headroom, so few professional photographers use JPEG.
 
mrpenquin- Your 1st shot is the better than any of these other attempts to fix the picture. In most cases a little tweaking is necessary, but a lot of people try to over do it. Stick with what you like ! You should crop out that outlet on the left though.
 
Last edited:
Yes, everybody is using photo editing software....and there's not a damned thing you can do about it!

:lmao:
 
I prefer schwettylen's full edit best. I think first the poses are awkward compared to the crop, you are cutting off feet (and almost her head) in the first and in the second her right shoulder looks like she has a left hand attached because you cut it at the elbow.
You can always crop after the shot and eliminate body parts but its much harder to reattach limbs once the shot is taken.
I believe most have over done the head shot with too much luminance/smoothing to its max.
Just my opinion
Keep shooting as practice will only help you improve.
 
I am a little late to this party, but here is my take on this. It took about 10 minutes using CS5 and OnOne Phototools 2. I mainly just set the color contrast and removed the color cast. patched a few blemishes and the power outlet on the wall. I also dodged the shadows on the face and eyes, brightened the eyes slightly ( couldn't do much with a small pic before it got all distorted ), have a glow and blur to the skin, and sharpened the hair ( just a tad too much I think ) and dress. I posted the original first for comparison.

1) Original
DSC_1208.jpg


2) Edit
Edited.jpg


Also, I agree with all the critiques. The pose wouldn't be bad if it was a different setting/chair etc. Also, shouldn't have cut the feet off. The model is gorgeous though and this are very easy things to overcome on your next shoot. I would also either adjust whitebalance when shooting, or learn how to tweak it in photoshop.
 
Yes, they are all edited.

There are some crazy a$$ edits in here. Sometimes less is more, and when doing and edit like this, break up the photo into different layers for different parts of the photo. If you are looking to give some new software a whirl, I would highly recommend downloading a free trial of Nik's Viveza 2. It would make editing these photos a dream.
 
If you are looking to give some new software a whirl, I would highly recommend downloading a free trial of Nik's Viveza 2. It would make editing these photos a dream.


I agree. I have been learning to use the "Collection" package of NIK software.
I am excited to try out their B&W portion of the package...
 
Gave it a shot...

Original then POST

Unfortunately small "JPGs" limit the amount of editing you can do to a photo before you run into problems. Once you get some good editing software, take your pictures in RAW then that will enable you to produce some fabulous shots!

DSC_1208.jpg
gfeyreba.jpg
 
What % of professional photos you see in magazines and books were not fixed or made better by software ?
The % that were not edited in post processing is effectively, ZERO.

This isn't entirely true. Graphis still publishes a good deal a work that isn't retouched in this way.
 
I hope you do not mind I edit one of your photos, let me know what you think
Here is your pic
DSC.jpg


And here is mine
fotoforoeditada.jpg
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top