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

[Greiver]

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...

I threw up in my mouth.

 

[SCraig]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

 

[kathyt]

I mainly use Lightroom and occasionally will use Photoshop. I shoot RAW 80% and JPEG 20% of the time. The 20 percent is my personal stuff.

 

[Greiver]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

I'm surprised by how much I like that program.

 

[480sparky]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

I'm surprised by how much I like that program.

I got it, and never considered PS again.

 

[SCraig]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

I'm surprised by how much I like that program.

I got it, and never considered PS again.

I got an upgrade of Corel Paintshop Pro for something like $50. Used it for a long time until I got Capture NX2. I still use it for a few things that NX2 doesn't do, but not a lot.

I got DxO Optics 7 on sale for something like $79. Used it for a while, still use it for some things, but still preferred NX2.

I got Corel AfterShot on sale for something like $29. Used it for a while, but once again went back to NX2.

I got Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 bundled for something like $300. I used Lightroom for about 30 minutes and deleted it from my computer. I used Photoshop for a while but preferred NX2 so I went back to it.

I've tried the other stuff. I still have it and could use it if I wanted to. I use NX2 by choice for 90% of my editing because it works well and it does what I want a lot easier than many of the alternatives.

 

[peter27]

There is, of course, processing with film but it seems misleading to say the least to refer to raw files as a form of digital negative. Producing a good negative involves a darkroom procedure which is important, but what happens beforehand (as the film is exposed to light) is far more critical than it is with digital. A lot can be done in post to compensate for less than ideal exposure when working with raw files and a program like PS. It's not that nothing can be done in the darkroom to improve or optimise the quality of the print from a negative (and this work can also be done with a program like PS once the negative has been scanned), but there is less scope, far less room for manoeuvre. It is also true that during development it is possible to make adjustments for over- and underexposure in order to influence the quality of the resulting negatives, but you have to be aware of the exposure variances beforehand.

So it seems to me that it's not that good images can't be captured by a DSLR, but more that a shift towards PP has occured over the last few years, and for many people the skills you can employ with a computer program now outweigh the need for good camera practice when producing images. With film the balance between camera and darkroom (traditional or digital) remains more or less constant.

 

[tirediron]

...So it seems to me that it's not that good images can't be captured by a DSLR, but more that a shift towards PP has occured over the last few years, and for many people the skills you can employ with a computer program now outweigh the need for good camera practice when producing images. With film the balance between camera and darkroom (traditional or digital) remains more or less constant.

I think a large part of the shift is due to the fact that the "digital darkroom" is something everyone can have in their home; in the film days, a home darkroom required space, money, specialized equipment, chemicals... even though you could set up a darkroom almost anywhere with enough effort, a GOOD darkroom wasn't something most photographers had or had access to. Now with virtually every household in the modern world having at least one computer and with the proliferation of inexpensive and free editing software, as well as all the automated routines (in the form of "actions") everyone can have their own darkroom.

 

[Tailgunner]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

Interesting, I'm not sure about digital editing as of yet but I'm going to check out NX2 for the interest of science.

Now with virtually every household in the modern world having at least one computer and with the proliferation of inexpensive and free editing software, as well as all the automated routines (in the form of "actions") everyone can have their own darkroom.

hum...I knew I was forgetting something...next on my list is a Computer


My 5yr. old laptop finally crash a while back and just haven't given much thought to replacing it.

 

[Greiver]

I have Photoshop but seldom use it. I prefer Nikon Capture NX2.

I'm surprised by how much I like that program.

I got it, and never considered PS again.

I am finding myself not opening up PS as much now.

Also, I'd like to add to this discussion that IMO it's perfectly fine to use PS to enhance a good picture to make it look better and/or fix any issues that may have come up but I personally hate it when a fauxtographer takes a crappy pic and then takes to make it look decent by overusing PS to try and hide the incompetence.

 

[EIngerson]

You will never see one of my photos until it's been through some form of photoshop.