to Photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.

[gmarquez]

I respect the people who strive for AS SHOT

In digital photography at least, there is no such thing as "as shot"...so much processing goes on before you even get the RAW file (let alone the processed JPG file) that it's more of a philosophical question than a real question.

Even the printing process is an imprecise reproduction of what was "shot", and therefore we have varying levels of sharpening applied to printed pictures depending on size, media, etc.

Let's be clear here...the camera DOESN'T capture what your eye sees, it captures its interpretation of it. You can tease out a rough approximation of what you saw, you can go an artistic direction, or you can play the "as is" game...but none of those techniques will exactly capture "reality" .

 

[Ls3D]

That is a technicality IMO, I have digital shots I name 'as shot' because I just opened them and saved. Funny there is even a 'as shot' setting in my RAW importer.

So while I agree, sometime a vernacular has more than your meaning.

-Shea

 

[Bevel Heaven]

yes PP is good. But not too much peeps! I look at a lot of other people's photos posted here, it the ongoing theme seems to be over sharpened, over contrasty, over everything.

C'mon people, some shots have been expertly re-crafted in PP and look magnificant....... But it seems the vast majority are just fuzzy messes.

So my vote was YES but to add - please don;t over do it!

 

[Phil the Photographer]

hm.. very interesting!

 

[skieur]

yes PP is good. But not too much peeps! I look at a lot of other people's photos posted here, it the ongoing theme seems to be over sharpened, over contrasty, over everything.

C'mon people, some shots have been expertly re-crafted in PP and look magnificant....... But it seems the vast majority are just fuzzy messes.

So my vote was YES but to add - please don;t over do it!

I think most people should expect that like anything else postprocessing and Photoshop have their own learning curves and whether it is overdone or "expertly re-crafted" depends on where the photographer is in learning and experience using Photoshop.

I also find that some viewers incorrectly jump to the conclusion that a shot has been overly postprocessed just because there are bright, vibrant colours. My experience is that a photographer will often get such saturated colours in landscapes if he/she is shooting in a wet climate or an area that is subject to a lot of rain. I think of bright green and red earth in a few of my shots but the bright green was due to frequent fog and rain in the area, and the red earth was due to iron oxide.

skieur

 

[Iron Flatline]

Yes.

RAW convert
White Balance
Crop
Dodge/Burn
Saturate
Contrast
Curve color adjustments
B&W Convert
Selective sharpening
Spot/Heal/Clone
Sensor dirt or other distractions


... and that's just the minimum to get a decent image. Almost all of these are improvements I would have done one way or another in the dark room prior to Photoshop.

But I've never acquired the skill to assemble/collage or add/combine elements. Some people are great at it, I appreciate it as a creative choice, but it's not my particular hobby.

 

[monkeykoder]

But I've never acquired the skill to assemble/collage or add/combine elements. Some people are great at it, I appreciate it as a creative choice, but it's not my particular hobby.

I remember seeing some EXCELLENT combination work done with negatives in the darkroom when I was taking history of photography. Something like 100 negatives used in one scene to get the photograph that the artist was looking for it was gorgeous and there was no way he could have gotten all the models to the scene to actually take the photograph (much less having been able to get them in the semi-unclothed state that they were in)

 

[lifeafter2am]

To me, its all about replicating what I used to do in the darkroom. So as others have said: dodging, burning, contrast, brightness, etc...

It seems almost like there is a split, like the digital v film, now there are the PS v Non-PS. I don't care if you use a lot of photoshop to make a stunning image, it is still a stunning image.

Mokeykoder: Agreed completely. I also remember being shown and told about people doing this with negatives and such. So, really, there is not argument for this, other than it probably just makes it easier to do the work than using a darkroom.

 

[monkeykoder]

I would almost say it would be much more difficult to do well digitally you would be stuck with a lot more artifacts then again I'm neither experienced with darkroom or PS.

 

[Honeybee]

Well, I'm not so good a photoshop but I have used it. The thing is, is I personally don't like to see photos over done in pp. To me, if it's over-done in my eyes, than it doesn't make it a genuine picture. But everyone has their opinion on this. One person might think it's a wonderful picture even with all the added and what-not done to it in photoshop while the person sitting next to him may think it's a horrible picture. I think photoshop should be used to bring out some things that be lacking in the picture but when over done and looks like a painting I say it's not a picture. But hey...that's just my opinion. I've learned to be happy with what i produce and also that not everyone will see what i see.

do what makes you happy and satisfied with your work.

 

[monkeykoder]

Even if it looks like a painting I could still see it being art which IS what some people are after.

 

[Honeybee]

I agree. it is art. and like you said it's what some people are after.

 

[Emerana]

it should have been to post process or not cause not everyone uses photoshop.

 

[Alex_B]

To photoshop or not to photoshop, that is the question.


I personally only use photoshop for non-photograble effects (Example-Sepia or Grained effects)

But they are photograble, just use the right film and paper.

hence, if you call recolouring the sky in PS cheating, then sepia and grain in PS are also cheating

 

[Phil the Photographer]

Well, I'm not so good a photoshop but I have used it. The thing is, is I personally don't like to see photos over done in pp. To me, if it's over-done in my eyes, than it doesn't make it a genuine picture. But everyone has their opinion on this. One person might think it's a wonderful picture even with all the added and what-not done to it in photoshop while the person sitting next to him may think it's a horrible picture. I think photoshop should be used to bring out some things that be lacking in the picture but when over done and looks like a painting I say it's not a picture. But hey...that's just my opinion. I've learned to be happy with what i produce and also that not everyone will see what i see.

do what makes you happy and satisfied with your work.

________________________________________________________________

Exactly!