Do you always use software?

[yerlem]

Here in Europe they're passing laws & generally taking action (they've begun in the UK) which prevent beauty-product-related pictures to be adjusted.
Meaning: if you sell anti-aging creams, you don't smooth out wrinkles with "clarity" (of what-have-you) in Photoshop to sell more products.
Then again: every image is somehow modified by software (at least the one which makes jpgs out of RAW), so I wonder how these laws will cope with this reality.

It all began with this:
http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/LOreal-UK-ads-banned-for-retouched-photos-/2XlY1H3qDCfxFvENq6ZZU$/

It is one thing to have minor modifications done to the photo itself, and a very different one to airbrush the **** out of someone's skin to make them look as a cyborg/perfect human, when you are trying to sell a skin product!
I'm surprised this didn't start before... It is going to be hard to control, though...everything is false advertisement!

 

[daarksun]

When I was a kid I use to watch my father do some amazing things in the darkroom. sharpen, contrast, exposure time, remove people (long as process). I have even watched him create a color photograph from a black and white using food coloring. Now he zips through the same stuff in photoshop.

If your shooting as a hobby you may never need to touch an image. I find it hard to imagine, especially if the contrast or brightness is off a little on what could be a perfect photograph, but it's just okay right out of the camera. The user an the camera are seldome perfect. Why shoot anything in black and white with the digital camera when you can shoot in color and convert to black and white in the software and have both images? why settle for almost great when a few adjustments would make the photograph so much better. Why take an awesome image a bride with a zip on her cheek? Wouldn't she love the image more if you cloned away the zit in a an image that will be seen by all her friends and family? there are more reasons to use software than not.

I find that working with the photos in the software can be as much fun as taking the shots. Many use the excuse they don't touch their photos because they shoot great already. But it's really the lack of want to learn new software that can be as big a ***** as learning the camera itself. Many people here are using four, five or six different types of software to get different things they need.

 

[dxqcanada]

I have never printed a Negative without making some adjustment (contrast, processing time, paper type ... etc).
When I was shooting large format manipulating the development time was common ... even roll film users utilize different chemistry to change the aspects of the negative.

So with Digital ... it is the same, just easier.

Exposing the film/sensor is just the first step in the process of imaging ... not the last.

 

[chuasam]

If I'm shooting film - no edit
If I'm shooting digital - software...always

 

[sovietdoc]

I always shoot RAW, so I have to use software one way or another.

 

[unpopular]

with your negligent exposure techniques described earlier, i'm tempted to call CPS - camera protective services.

 

[mugfaker]

If I'm shooting film - no edit
If I'm shooting digital - software...always

I have yet to meet any photographer who did not edit their images. The camera produces the image and when it is cropped or printed it is effectively edited. The software used in film photography to control the camera exposure or the darkroom activity is extremely powerful and effective. Its called the brain!
I believe the questioner was referring to editing software, and to a degree I think most do, but in much the same way that a film photographer frames the picture in the camera,notably when using something like Kodachrome( do they still make that?) or other transparency film, there is no reason why the same principle cannot be applied. the camera card is then taken for printing at a shop. The camera user doesn't in those circumstances need to own any editing software. The result may not satisfy the enthusiast, but the result should be, and often is satisfactory to the "man in the street."

 

[LShooter]

Unless I am just playing around or trying to create a certain look, I really try to limit my post processing. I have too often seen an image that was great in-camera, which was ruined, rather than improved by overprocessing. Again though, it depends if you're trying to create a look that your camera is not capable of creating in-camera.

 

[unpopular]

I don't think it is wise to avoid post processing simply due to a lack of post processing skill. Post exposure processing is, and always has been a vital step in communicating within the limits of the medium.

 

[jowensphoto]

I don't think it is wise to avoid post processing simply due to a lack of post processing skill. Post exposure processing is, and always has been a vital step in communicating within the limits of the medium.

And the only way to get better is to practice! I don't believe that shooting and processing are separate; a RAW file is well... raw. It needs to be cooked before being served.

 

[rlemert]

I don't think it is wise to avoid post processing simply due to a lack of post processing skill. Post exposure processing is, and always has been a vital step in communicating within the limits of the medium.

I am not completely clueless, but I am still learning this whole post-processing thing. Even I, though, can see the improvement in some of my pictures when I sharpen the image or adjust my brightness levels.

 

[Basalt]

Even if you're shooting film there are still adjustments being made - someone - even if it's a processing machine makes judgements about the correct level of exposure etc for the print so it's still essentially an edited image ( for that matter, we don't see the image our retinas record either - our brains edit everything ). We're also editing the image in the choices we make in aperture, exposure and iso settings.

I think portrait software such as found on the banners on this forum is just plain cheating unless you're simply running off a vanity album for someone.

 

[Netskimmer]

with your negligent exposure techniques described earlier, i'm tempted to call CPS - camera protective services.

 

[Goldcoin79]

It is correct that I was asking about post processing software. I am aware that software is in cameras and many other electronic devices as I work in electronics. When I started out I worked mainly on circuit boards but as the years have gone on I have had to get more and more involved with software.

I think what I have got from what you have all said is that most pictures have some sort of post processing to either make them look a certain way, crop or just sharpen and make it look that much better. On the other side I see little point in using software to totally change the picture because someone can't take a good picture and has to relie on software.

I have just got into photography over the last few months and my bridge camera only shoots in jpeg so my editing will be limited, but then so far I find it an achievement when I take a picture and get what I want and feel the picture looks good before doing any editing. Maybe I will get more into sharpening my pictures up with software in the future but for now I am just learning how take take better picture.

Thanks to all who participated.

James