Do you always use software?

[Goldcoin79]

I am new to photography and have been learning lots on this forum and other sites. One thing I have picked up on is that it seems when a photographer takes a picture, even though it may be a great picture they still seem to use some sort of software to make adjustments to the picture. Do most people use software to adjust all there pictures in some way or do you ever just take a picture and make no adjustments to it?

 

[tirediron]

I (and I'm sure all serious photographers) make at least some adjustments to our images. It could be something as simple as leveling the image or cropping for print, but even the most skilled shooter can't produce a perfect image out of the camera every time.

 

[KmH]

A lot of people let the camera do most of the work.

The JPEG photo file type is edited in the camera. JPEG was designed to be a finished, ready-to-print file type.

The image sensor records either 12-bit depth (4096) or 14-bit (16,384) depth image data files, which are Raw file type image data files that have to be converted to something we humans can see.

When a camera is set to JPEG, that conversion is done right in the camera. First the JPEG conversion software throws out about 80% of the color information the camera developed, so the image file only has an 8-bit (256) color depth.
Then the cameras image processing software does a number of adjustments (edits) - sharpening, contrast, saturation. Most cameras have some very crude controls that allow the photographer to select how much, or how little, those in-the-camera adjustments are.
Lastly JPEG locks the image pixels into Minimum Coded Units (MCU's) that are 8x8 pixel, 8x16 pixel, or 16x16 pixel blocks.
With JPEG bit depth reduced to just 8-bits (256), and the conversion to MCUs, JPEGs have little, if any, editing headroom left once the conversion to JPEG has been done.

 

[spacefuzz]

Like KMH mentioned, many photographers who want to get the most out of their image shoot in RAW. Then they HAVE to do post processes for sharpening, contrast, saturation, white balance, etc or the image wont look like they wanted it to. But it provides more flexability than jpeg.

 

[Designer]

As with most things, it all depends upon the individual. Some people like to do a lot of post processing, and some prefer only minimal PP, or none at all other than what is accomplished in the camera.

You might decide to give it a shot someday, but you don't have to in order to enjoy the hobby.

PP is either another way to enjoy the hobby or it is done to produce results that a professional requires.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

For me not always. I don't use software when i shoot with any of these:

 

[fjrabon]

I try to get a feel for what has to be right in the camera and what is best (or at least can be) left to PP. For instance, you can't fix focus or DOF in PP (well, without it looking cheesy at least). Lighting is a real PITA to fix in PP, to the extent it can be done at all. You cant add more to the picture in PP, and you can't make your subject be positioned differently in PP. So that's what I focus on when shooting, those things first and foremost. Doesn't matter how awesome you are at PP if your focus is off and your lighting was crappy, you're going to have a crappy image. Also I try to remember that you can't fix 100% blown out highlights and you want to avoid lighting shadows if possible, so I watch the histogram to make sure that important parts of the shot aren't too far in either direction.

Secondarily I will think about how to get the best contrast and color I can out of the camera if all the above concerns are satisfied. (ie if I can get a good DOF using f/1.8 or f/2.2, I'll use f/2.2 for the increase in sharpness, saturation and contrast). But contrast and color can be fixed easily enough most of the time in PP if you shoot RAW. So, its almost never a major worry, and most of the time I dont get far enough down the checklist of things I consider before I think about how to coax more color or contrast. I try to think about them more and more, but thats more of an ideal than anything particularly practical on most shots.

In fact there are some shots I take knowing that it won't look particularly good in the camera, but will look better in post. That's the very nature of ETTR shooting with a histogram.

 

[WilliamDSLR]

I always use Adobe Photoshop. Currently on the CS3 version (so a bit behind, but it does what I need).

I always adjust some things on my photos, whether it's lighting, some contrasting or perhaps I want to create a good black or white picture. I always feel (no matter how good the photo is), there can always be slight adjustments that make it better. When editing, it's the small changes that can make the big difference!

 

[unpopular]

Every digital photographer uses software, either installed on the computer or in the camera. Every b/w film photographer also processes their film, just like digital photographers some film photographers are either uninformed or lazy and just go by how the engineers have determined the film should be processed, while others adjust film processing according to conditions.

It just depends on how involved you want to be.

 

[fjrabon]

Yes, I think that's a very important point. There really isn't such a thing as "getting it right straight out of the camera" it's really only "the standard processing methods (be they digital or film) are good enough for me." If you don't do anything to your photos, they've still been processed, just by an automatic algorithm instead of you.

Every digital photographer uses software, either installed on the computer or in the camera. Every b/w film photographer also processes their film, just like digital photographers some film photographers are either uninformed or lazy and just go by how the engineers have determined the film should be processed, while others adjust film processing according to conditions.

It just depends on how involved you want to be.

 

[JClishe]

One point that hasn't been mentioned is if you shoot in RAW, you must process it if you want to share it. You can't do anything with a RAW file; You can't print it, email it to your friends, post it on Facebook, etc.

As others have said, the entire point of shooting in RAW to begin with is for the benefit of post processing, but like I said, if you're shooting RAW than "using software" is a necessity even if you simply want to share the photo.

 

[Goldcoin79]

Thanks for your comments it has cleared a few things up for me.

 

[johngalliano032]

I heard of some photographer didnt use software adjust there photo, but software can help photographer!

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

How can you not use software if you shoot RAW?

 

[480sparky41 41]

If you shoot digital, you MUST use software.

To begin with, your digital camera will not work without it. The shutter may get actuated, the aperture close & reopen, and light falls on the sensor. But EVERYTHING after that requires software.