Is it all how you photoshop?

[Reyna]

I was just looking at the pictures posted in the professional gallery and they are all so freakin' awesome. They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right? I mean, I know a lot of it has to do with getting a good picture, but I have snapped some good pictures but they don't look as wonderful as those in the professional gallery. There is just a huge difference.

 

[choudhrysaab]

depends on people's likings ... so you may prefer "photoshoped" pictures but someone else may prefer original shot. and i personally don't think post processing really makes a picture. if its a good shot then it'll sell on its own without any touch ups done but a lil bit of fixing does make things better a bit (not talking about a huge make over).

 

[Overread]

There is always a big move in photography to attribute a "great shot" to either the actual taking of the shot or the editing of said shot.

The truth of the matter (in most cases) is that its neither one nor the other - its both together. Working in good lighting, with the right gear, the right settings and the right composition nails the shot in camera. Then editing that shot with the right tools and methods to bring out from the image what the photographer wants.

Good editing can sometimes makeup for a poorer shot and a fantastic shot incamera might need less editing to perfect - but both are still very key components to getting those outstanding shots.

 

[benhasajeep]

There is always a big move in photography to attribute a "great shot" to either the actual taking of the shot or the editing of said shot.

The truth of the matter (in most cases) is that its neither one nor the other - its both together. Working in good lighting, with the right gear, the right settings and the right composition nails the shot in camera. Then editing that shot with the right tools and methods to bring out from the image what the photographer wants.

Good editing can sometimes makeup for a poorer shot and a fantastic shot incamera might need less editing to perfect - but both are still very key components to getting those outstanding shots.

Even with film in the dark room you could still manipulate shots to achieve a better print. You can do more with photoshop and quicker. But even with film the prints were not as "pure" as some make it out to be. Obviously you can co alot with photoshop you can't do with film. But with basic fixes and such. It's really not that much different in terms of "pure" photography.

It is best to get as good a shot as you can without having to manipulate it. Just makes things go easier.

 

[Samanax]

I was just looking at the pictures posted in the professional gallery and they are all so freakin' awesome. They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right?

No, not necessarily.

I mean, I know a lot of it has to do with getting a good picture, but I have snapped some good pictures but they don't look as wonderful as those in the professional gallery.

I think you sort of stated why your pictures aren't as wonderful as the ones in the Professional Gallery...professionals never just "snap" pictures. A lot of what goes into making a good/great shot has to do with all the prep work that goes on before the shot is taken.

There is just a huge difference.

Good photographers have a good idea in their head of how they want the shot to turn out. They try to control everything leading up to the shot to ensure that the shot turns out like what they envisioned. A lot of that has to do with knowing their equipment, setting up the lighting equipment properly and knowing how to pose models. Nothing is left to chance. A lot of work goes into getting the shot just right.

 

[inTempus]

depends on people's likings ... so you may prefer "photoshoped" pictures but someone else may prefer original shot. and i personally don't think post processing really makes a picture. if its a good shot then it'll sell on its own without any touch ups done but a lil bit of fixing does make things better a bit (not talking about a huge make over).

...and I view things differently. I believe the original capture is a rough draft and it's made into something remarkable with some editing. I'm not saying a bunch (it depends on what you're trying to create), but almost every picture I've seen could benefit from vibrance adjustments, saturation adjustments, sharpening, to even WB correction, and other basic tweaks.

I can honestly say that I don't have a single picture I show to others that hasn't been edited in some way.

 

[choudhrysaab]

Tim my question then is ... can a bad picture be turned into a perfect shot just by doing some post processing? i mean something that was horrible to begin with ... wrong WB etc. and just touch up everything and all of a sudden you have a shot that makes people drop their jaws.

in that case it wouldn't be the photographer or his/her equipment that did the job, it'll be the post processing software that should get the award.

 

[rufus5150]

They HAVE to do a ton of photoshopping right?

I would say that the distinction of a professional is knowing the correct amount of image manipulation to apply. Sometimes that's a lot. Sometimes that's not much at all.

"Getting it right in camera" is a badge of honor for the hobbyist. For the professional, "getting it right in camera" means less time in post workflow and more time doing jobs.

 

[inTempus]

Tim my question then is ... can a bad picture be turned into a perfect shot just by doing some post processing? i mean something that was horrible to begin with ... wrong WB etc. and just touch up everything and all of a sudden you have a shot that makes people drop their jaws.

in that case it wouldn't be the photographer or his/her equipment that did the job, it'll be the post processing software that should get the award.

Generally speaking, without massive editing, I would say no.

But don't discount the amazing abilities of Photoshop Wizards.

Example:

I would say these were probably a pretty bland images before Photoshop was involved.

Spring.Summer.Fall.Winter.And. by ~Ytzeek on deviantART

Connection by ~gnusi on deviantART

childhood memories by ~kuncendorfs on deviantART

...just as examples.

 

[Dao]

Tim my question then is ... can a bad picture be turned into a perfect shot just by doing some post processing? i mean something that was horrible to begin with ... wrong WB etc. and just touch up everything and all of a sudden you have a shot that makes people drop their jaws.

in that case it wouldn't be the photographer or his/her equipment that did the job, it'll be the post processing software that should get the award.

Photo editing can bring a photo to life. Just like a artist can bring a white paper to award winning painting. As we all know, the end result is what matters.

Of course, in most situation, a well exposed and focus photo will be a lot easy to work with. However, someone maybe able to turn an underexposed or out of focus photo into a masterpiece.

I remember when I was kid in the art class, the teacher draw a random line(s) on the blackboard and we need to complete the picture with the line(s). So a boring line(s) may turn into something good.

Anyway, take a look at this thread as well if you haven't

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...allery/145542-photos-beginer-cameraphone.html

This is how one of our member turn his cell phone photos into something very interesting with PP.

 

[inTempus]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...allery/145542-photos-beginer-cameraphone.html

This is how one of our member turn his cell phone photos into something very interesting with PP.

Outstanding example.

 

[choudhrysaab]

damn ... those are so good pictures and i can't believe those were taken with a cameraphone.

i think i should start learning more about photoshop :blushing:

 

[bigtwinky]

Its not ALL about the photoshop. To get that amazing professional touch to them, there is an amount of photoshop, but I say its ALL about the photography and skill BEFORE putting it in photoshop.

If you don't have a good base to start on with, its that much harder, longer and sometimes impossible to get a professional image.

 

[itznfb]

as others have said. it's both.
some make masterpieces right from the camera. some start with a great base image as bigtwinky said and do some nice post processing to finish it off. some may take a crappy snapshot and turn it into something great as shown in Dao's and tharmsen's examples.

i think childhood memories the last one in tharmsen's examples was a great example because you really have no idea what the original photo looked like. the original could contain a horrific amount of camera shake and you would never know by the type of post processing applied.

 

[Reyna]

i think i should start learning more about photoshop :blushing:

Ditto! This is why I asked this question!!