Do the majority of today's Digital Photographers use Photoshop?

[Tailgunner]

I've been viewing countless images and it seems that a large percentage of them was edited using photoshop or similar software? Is this the norm among digital photographers? Is it difficult to capture a truly good picture using a modern DSLR without editing?


Thanks

 

[ronlane]

I would say that yes it is the norm. When you shoot in raw, you need to do at least a little bit of editing on them (sharpening, maybe tweak the white balance, maybe a few spot healing or removal).

 

[amolitor]

It depends on what you mean by "good".

You can certainly get a superb and important news photograph straight out of the camera, since the content is what matters. Get it in focus, put the content in the frame in a good spot, and you've got the shot. This is probably also true for other areas where content is all that really matters -- snapshots of your kids or whatever.

For other things, well, you can generally improve an image with some post processing. This has been true essentially since the beginning of photography, although the things people felt would improve the photograph has certainly evolved. If the "image" as an image matters even a little, you can generally make it better according to whatever tastes are currently in play, by doing some work on it after the shutter has been released.

 

[orb9220]

Do you have something against processing?
As shooting jpegs the camera makes those decisions on how to process.
And may not always be right.

Sure you can shoot a good picture. But you are allowing the camera to process the image how it is programmed to give results and only for jpeg. All cameras when shooting raw need some post. As all film also needed darkroom work. And the photographers decisions how to produce the final print.

So ask the same for film shooters. Of course they do their post processing in the darkroom.
Where digital does it in front of the computer.

There are those that shoot SOOC jpegs and are happy in doing so. But limitations of jpegs in tough lighting situations or not optimal conditions means less keepers. Also having to make settings to jpeg elements in camera for desired effect.

So either the camera is affecting final results or you are latter outside the camera.
.

 

[gregtallica]

It's not "that" difficult to capture a "truly great" image on a modern DSLR, even though that entire sentence is subjective.

There are just so many options available to you with digital software to help you improve the way you want your image to be seen, that many photographers wish to add more post-proccesing.

The idea behind it hasn't changed, either, the tools have just become more available and more simple to use. Post processing image manipulation has been available for, I'd assume, since the early days of photographs. You can manipulate film in the dark room just as you can in photoshop or lightroom (to an obvious extent).

I think it's just a matter of an artist using all the available tools to perfect their vision of the final outcome.

 

[KmH]

Image editing, both pre and post process, has always been a part of doing photography.

Different film brands render color differently. Film negative development could be varied by using a variety of chemicals, temperatures, and other development methods.
The same goes for B&W and contrast instead of color.
Ansel Adamas re-printed many of his iconic images as he became aware of of developed new dark room print techniques.

Various other darkroom print making techniques have been digitized into the image editing software used today.

 

[Derrel]

It's gotten to the point today that when I look at images on the web, I find myself appalled by the degree of over-saturation and clownish color that is now possible with just a few clicks. In some fields, ridiculous degrees of over-saturation and contrast and clarity have become the norm. It's....weird. With the typical way of shooting RAW images being a very flat,low-contrast capture with an almost linear tone curve and weak, pallid color, post-capture processing of each and every image, just to make a halfway decent image, has become the norm.

Here's an interesting camera, one that shoots JPEG images that are probably better than those from any other camera. Not too surprising, since its developers, FujiFilm, have decades in "image" rendering expertise as film and paper makers, and have also produced some specialty sensors, like the new X-Trans sensor the x100s uses.

Strobist: In-Depth: The New Fujifilm X100s

What's so special about this camera is that very serious-serious guys, like David Hobby and Nick Devlin, are both so impressed with the JPEGs that they're not bothering to even shoot RAW images. But then again...the x100s offers **incredible** amounts of custom, in-camera JPEG parameter adjustment.

 

[cynicaster]

It's gotten to the point today that when I look at images on the web, I find myself appalled by the degree of over-saturation and clownish color that is now possible with just a few clicks. In some fields, ridiculous degrees of over-saturation and contrast and clarity have become the norm.

Speaking of clownish images, I’m anxiously awaiting the day that HDR usurps selective color at the top of the podium in the Hopelessly Unhip Photo Olympics. Regime change is nigh.

 

[tirediron]

It's no more difficult to capture a great digital image in the camera than it was to capture a great film image. Then, as now, virtually every image needed some degree of ehancement, whether it was a simple level & crop, or some basic dodging and burning, but at the end of day no image is ever as good straight out of the camera as it can be with some enhancements.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't do much post processing, I usually shoot Raw and print sometimes directly from the media card (well, indirectly as I put the card in the computer first...). I shoot film and have done some B&W darkroom work, sometimes I've cranked out prints from the same roll after determining the exposure time, other times I've done dodging and burning to individual prints, it just depends on a number of variables.

My style is probably more journalistic as I've done sports; you have to learn how to get good photos in-camera. But I usually do about the same thing if it's a photo I'm using for another purpose - with some I've done a good bit of adjusting and others I've printed myself straight out of the camera. If I get a proper exposure and get the shot framed and composed the way I want there often isn't anything else that I need to do but have the film developed or get the photos off the media card and print.

It's possible, not realisitically with every photo, but I guess you just have to learn how to do it and get good at it to be able to get some good photos directly out of the camera.

 

[Derrel]

It's gotten to the point today that when I look at images on the web, I find myself appalled by the degree of over-saturation and clownish color that is now possible with just a few clicks. In some fields, ridiculous degrees of over-saturation and contrast and clarity have become the norm.

Speaking of clownish images, I’m anxiously awaiting the day that HDR usurps selective color at the top of the podium in the Hopelessly Unhip Photo Olympics. Regime change is nigh.

I dunno...selective color still has many fans in The Academy!!!

See this one! lol: 500px / Photo "Help" by Uro? Florjan?i?

It's earned a 98.8 score...

 

[bhop]

It's gotten to the point today that when I look at images on the web, I find myself appalled by the degree of over-saturation and clownish color that is now possible with just a few clicks. In some fields, ridiculous degrees of over-saturation and contrast and clarity have become the norm. It's....weird. With the typical way of shooting RAW images being a very flat,low-contrast capture with an almost linear tone curve and weak, pallid color, post-capture processing of each and every image, just to make a halfway decent image, has become the norm.

Here's an interesting camera, one that shoots JPEG images that are probably better than those from any other camera. Not too surprising, since its developers, FujiFilm, have decades in "image" rendering expertise as film and paper makers, and have also produced some specialty sensors, like the new X-Trans sensor the x100s uses.

Strobist: In-Depth: The New Fujifilm X100s

What's so special about this camera is that very serious-serious guys, like David Hobby and Nick Devlin, are both so impressed with the JPEGs that they're not bothering to even shoot RAW images. But then again...the x100s offers **incredible** amounts of custom, in-camera JPEG parameter adjustment.

I'm not so serious, but I don't shoot raw on my x100 either. The jpgs it puts out are so gooooooood...

 

[Tailgunner]

Do you have something against processing?
As shooting jpegs the camera makes those decisions on how to process.
And may not always be right.

Sure you can shoot a good picture. But you are allowing the camera to process the image how it is programmed to give results and only for jpeg. All cameras when shooting raw need some post. As all film also needed darkroom work. And the photographers decisions how to produce the final print.

So ask the same for film shooters. Of course they do their post processing in the darkroom.
Where digital does it in front of the computer.

There are those that shoot SOOC jpegs and are happy in doing so. But limitations of jpegs in tough lighting situations or not optimal conditions means less keepers. Also having to make settings to jpeg elements in camera for desired effect.

So either the camera is affecting final results or you are latter outside the camera.
.

Is this a hot button topic for photographers?


Anyhow, Film and Digital seem to differ greatly when it comes to Post Processing, digital directly manipulates the image after the photo has been taken...the term photoshopped comes to mind. It just seems that one is capturing a moment in time and directly manipulating the image after the fact is diluting the moment? Is it real or is it Memorex? I don't deny the images turn out great and are in them selves works of art, I'm just tryin to decide whether or not I consider them photography or Photoshopped. I have much to learn about the subject.

 

[jowensphoto]

Do you have something against processing?
As shooting jpegs the camera makes those decisions on how to process.
And may not always be right.

Sure you can shoot a good picture. But you are allowing the camera to process the image how it is programmed to give results and only for jpeg. All cameras when shooting raw need some post. As all film also needed darkroom work. And the photographers decisions how to produce the final print.

So ask the same for film shooters. Of course they do their post processing in the darkroom.
Where digital does it in front of the computer.

There are those that shoot SOOC jpegs and are happy in doing so. But limitations of jpegs in tough lighting situations or not optimal conditions means less keepers. Also having to make settings to jpeg elements in camera for desired effect.

So either the camera is affecting final results or you are latter outside the camera.
.

Is this a hot button topic for photographers?


Anyhow, Film and Digital seem to differ greatly when it comes to Post Processing, digital directly manipulates the image after the photo has been taken...the term photoshopped comes to mind. It just seems that one is capturing a moment in time and directly manipulating the image after the fact is diluting the moment? Is it real or is it Memorex? I don't deny the images turn out great and are in them selves works of art, I'm just tryin to decide whether or not I consider them photography or Photoshopped. I have much to learn about the subject.

Is this a hot button topic for photographers?
In a word, yes.


digital directly manipulates the image after the photo has been taken
Film was also manipulated : 18 Old-Timey Photos You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped | Cracked.com <-- extreme examples, but "Photoshopping" was around loooong before Adobe introduced us to Photoshop.

 

[table1349]

Is this a hot button topic for photographers?


Anyhow, Film and Digital seem to differ greatly when it comes to Post Processing, digital directly manipulates the image after the photo has been taken...the term photoshopped comes to mind. It just seems that one is capturing a moment in time and directly manipulating the image after the fact is diluting the moment? Is it real or is it Memorex? I don't deny the images turn out great and are in them selves works of art, I'm just tryin to decide whether or not I consider them photography or Photoshopped. I have much to learn about the subject.

You have never worked in a dark room have you? The big difference between digital and film post processing is that with digital anyone with a computer and the right software can post process. With film you had to have a darkroom. Digital is quicker and in some respects easier, but the same thing can be done to film.