photoshop photography

[lako16]

hey guys well i was wondering if photographers use programs such as photoshop to adjust their images before selling/publishing them??? Is it not allowed by the people they sell the rights to or photographers just dont do it??? Or is there a difference from what kind of pictures you can use it on or not??? I know it may seem like a really stupid question but i really dont know the answer. I hope photographers dont use these programs cause it seems really hard. Thanks!!!

 

[Mgw189]

Yes we do and so should you. The images coming off of a dSLR need some basic improvements like sharpening and saturation boost in the least. But yes most photographers are using Photoshop these days.

 

[tirediron]

Every photographer will run her/his images through a post-processing application such as Photoshop. No image is ever as good as it could be coming out of the camera; just like in the days of the wet darkroom, you can burn, dodge, colour-correct, etc to get the best possible final product.

 

[TheUndisputed]

Photoshop is a MUST. There are always attributes of a photograph that could be enhanced a little bit. I have friends who do edit their RAW's before print, and some who don't. I will also tell you that the one's who do have a MUCH larger clientele, and more people are attracted to their work.

The ones who don't, aren't doing that well.

 

[lako16]

well i do i have a program like picasa that i edit the lighting and sharping etc. in but what kinds of things could u do more in photoshop that you cant do in programs like picasa

 

[TheUndisputed]

well i do i have a program like picasa that i edit the lighting and sharping etc. in but what kinds of things could u do more in photoshop that you cant do in programs like picasa

Let me show you:


BEFORE PHOTOSHOP

AFTER PHOTOSHOP

You can do ANYTHING in photoshop. Courtesy of DornonPhotography.Com for the picture.

 

[lako16]

I was also wondering how much time you have to take out of your personal life and dedicate to photography to get better and improve

 

[gsgary]

Your not allowed to do too much in photoshop for newspaper work

 

[dmatsui]

I was also wondering how much time you have to take out of your personal life and dedicate to photography to get better and improve

It would sound as if your suggesting that like with piano you should set a target number of hours to photograph a day. I believe that you shouldnt think like that. If you really enjoy photography you'll end up spending allot of time on it instinctively and you'll naturally improve over time. Time spent on photography doesnt only involve taking pictures, it also involves reading books, viewing other photos as well as critiqueing them, editting your images in photoshop.
It may just be me but i find that photography is my personal life. Though to be honest with you i'm not sure what wouldnt be considerded ones personal life.
Therefore the more time one spends on photography, the better one will get.

 

[ANDS!]

Photoshop is hardly a "must". Several photographers can and DO go without any post work.

 

[TheUndisputed]

Photoshop is hardly a "must". Several photographers can and DO go without any post work.

Sounds like the words of a P*ssed off photographer that cant afford photoshop. I have never in my life heard a photographer "do without" photoshop.

I will give you credit. You are right, somewhat. SOME photographers can take fairly good shots and get by just fine without Photoshop. HOWEVER, even THOSE shots can be enhanced 10x in Photoshop. Photoshop can do nothing but make an image better if you know how to use it.

Take the image set I posted above. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get that same shot, even if it were in the direct sunlight. The picture looks great without the photoshop work. However, Let's say you wanted the dramatization of the sun being in the photograph. You change your angle, and shoot. Bam, all the sudden you have either too much exposure from the sun and the car is under exposed, or the car shows up great and you aren't getting the results from the sun that you want. SO, Photoshop allows you to add what ever you want into a photograph, where your camera is lacking.

You can't sit here and dis photoshop. Every credible professional photographer uses it.

 

[Mgw189]

Take the image set I posted above. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get that same shot, even if it were in the direct sunlight. The picture looks great without the photoshop work. However, Let's say you wanted the dramatization of the sun being in the photograph. You change your angle, and shoot. Bam, all the sudden you have either too much exposure from the sun and the car is under exposed, or the car shows up great and you aren't getting the results from the sun that you want. SO, Photoshop allows you to add what ever you want into a photograph, where your camera is lacking.

You can't sit here and dis photoshop. Every credible professional photographer uses it.

And that is where it becomes graphic art and not photography. Photography in and of itself is recording an image onto a medium of some sort be it digital or film or what have you. Once you start adding elements into a photo that arent there you are not talking photography anymore.

The problem I have with right now is that people use photoshop to "fix" and issue with a photograph because they dont have the skill to achieve the look they desire through using the tools of a photographer.

 

[TheUndisputed]

And that is where it becomes graphic art and not photography. Photography in and of itself is recording an image onto a medium of some sort be it digital or film or what have you. Once you start adding elements into a photo that arent there you are not talking photography anymore.

The problem I have with right now is that people use photoshop to "fix" and issue with a photograph because they dont have the skill to achieve the look they desire through using the tools of a photographer.

You are talking my ballgame now. I am a graphic artist. Graphic art is the act of drawing, painting, or print making. Technically, Photography is graphic art. Photography is an art form, and it is graphic, as it is visual. So, you can't escape the classification no matter which way you turn.

Secondly, there are things you are capable of doing in photoshop that you just can't do with a camera, bottom line. I know this, because I have been using photoshop for 10 years. With a camera, to get one effect, sometimes you sacrifice another. With photoshop, it allows you to add all desired effects into one photograph.

Photoshop is without a doubt irreplacable. That is a fact, not an opinion. There also is no denying that. This is coming from the mouth of someone who has very extensive experience in the program, as well as that many years dealing with professional photographers for the medium for my work.

ALL credible professionals use photoshop. There are just too many factors that a camera can't cover, that the program can.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Sounds like the words of a P*ssed off photographer that cant afford photoshop. I have never in my life heard a photographer "do without" photoshop.

His statements were hardly the words of someone who's pissed off. Stating a fact does not mean that someone's got a bad attitude.'

Take the image set I posted above. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get that same shot, even if it were in the direct sunlight. The picture looks great without the photoshop work. However, Let's say you wanted the dramatization of the sun being in the photograph. You change your angle, and shoot. Bam, all the sudden you have either too much exposure from the sun and the car is under exposed, or the car shows up great and you aren't getting the results from the sun that you want. SO, Photoshop allows you to add what ever you want into a photograph, where your camera is lacking.

Frankly I think that photo looks terrible with the sunburst effect added, so your argument is null in that respect.

Yes I agree that PP software is a great tool, and being low on experience, I do use it quite a bit to bring out color and enhance sharpness.

But like ANDS! said, it's not NECESSARY for a good photo. That's all he was trying to say.

You can't sit here and dis photoshop. Every credible professional photographer uses it.

Where did he 'dis' the program? I didn't see that.

 

[TheUndisputed]

His statements were hardly the words of someone who's pissed off. Stating a fact does not mean that someone's got a bad attitude.'

Only someone who has never used photoshop and doesn't understand it, would make such a comment.

Frankly I think that photo looks terrible with the sunburst effect added, so your argument is null in that respect.

Your opinion of the photograph does not make my point invalid. I stated you cant get the same effect with a camera, and you can't. Therefore, my argument is valid and still stands. Nice try.

Yes I agree that PP software is a great tool, and being low on experience, I do use it quite a bit to bring out color and enhance sharpness.

But like ANDS! said, it's not NECESSARY for a good photo. That's all he was trying to say.

Where did he 'dis' the program? I didn't see that.

Ok, let me rephrase, not dissing. He was demeaning the credibility of the usefulness of the program.

And stated once, I will state a thousand times. ALL CREDIBLE photographers use it.