Photography without Photoshop

[DScience]

The people that say "I just want to capture it like it is, all natural" or some such variant are almost always people who are relatively new to photography.

No not even close. Some of us have always tried to keep the having to manipulate the photos to a minimum. When I was developing and printing my own film many years ago, I hated having to do alot of work in post. Besides in film you tried to get it pretty much right when shot because of costs associated with lots of screw ups. What I find and have heard people say now is ah it OK I can photoshop that out or, fix that in post. I think I have got the image I wanted now if I only have to adjust levels and, maybe contrast. For many of us old timers it is a habit to try and get it right first and, not later.

It's not about getting the shot 'right'. It's about getting the shot, AMAZING.

 

[icassell]

If you shoot in RAW, you essentially MUST do some PP, as the filters which are inserted in JPEG are not applied. I see Photoshop as my digital answer to my old darkroom. I rarely printed directly without some manipulation in the darkroom (except when I ran proofs), and I rarely can get an image today where I don't need to do at least a bit of tweaking in Photoshop. That's me and I'm not speaking for everyone.

 

[Derrel]

"Garbage in = garbage out."

"Look before you press the button."

+ other associated old sayings, including, "to each his own."

There are as many answers as there are questions. This thread comes up about once every thirty days, I'd guess. The answers fall into about six categories, give or take.

 

[dxqcanada]

One other side note, I find it interesting that I have yet to hear a photographer who is serious about his work, and has been at this for a while (pretty much anything other than a newbie to photography) make the suggestion against Post Processing.

I have been in photography for the past twenty years ... now I know this is not that long (I knew many photographers that were doing this 20 years before I started), but I will put my two cents in ...

As other before me have posted ... post-processing had been done in the era of film.
When I managed a Photofinishing lab, there was almost NEVER a time where we would print a negative without some sort of correction.
When I was developing and printing my own film ... I would manipulate the negative development and also use filters/exposure to manipulate the print. Different types of paper also play a part in the final image.

Now ... I will say that there were those that did more radical things to the prints, such as multiple exposures, printing different color layers offset, exposing the paper from the back, extreme dodging and burning ... etc ... those we would call Photographic Artists, instead of Photographers.

There has always been the fight between straight shooters that do not make changes to the print to those that do.
Same as this argument about digital post-processing.

I shoot raw, and I use post-processing in the same way as if I was printing a negative on paper. I honestly do not like the extreme processing or the addition of fluffy filter affects.

 

[skieur]

To put it in very basic terms and keeping it KISS simple.

1. For pros, those that are on the leading edge of change and can adapt to it quickly will be the most successful. (This means quick learning and adaptation to new technology and new forms of photographic and artistic expression) In this case it means among other things, learning postprocessing skills and using them.

2. Amateurs can do what they want, be as resistant to change and obsessed with old methods, old media, or old technology as they wish to be but they will be regarded as out of the mainstream and ignored by serious enthusiasts.

And by the way, this is coming from someone with half a century of experience in photography who still keeps ahead and adapts to new technology.

skieur

 

[DennyCrane]

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print.

You'll quit photography.

 

[LokiZ]

How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"

Do you need to add PP? No.

Do you need high dollar soft if you choose to do PP? No.
Does it help? Maybe, maybe not.

Here is another side of the PP coin. Use a crap lens to the best of it's performance ability and there will be a whole heck of a greater chance that PP might help your image be it's best. Now take a high dollar high quality piece of glass and use it to the best of it's performance ability. Chances are the image will have a greater chance of standing alone.

Those that say it's you not the camera... ask them if they even have a kit lens. Ask them if when they buy a new piece of glass if they find the cheapest piece that fits the focal range they are looking for. Then ask them why not. If it's them not the lens. They could save a lot of money.

I know a good piece of glass won't make the shot, won't save the composition. But with focus and how it reacts to light, well that can directly affect if minimal or no PP is required.

Mostly all just my opinions on the matter take it or leave it.

 

[Mulewings~]

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print.

You'll quit photography.

You bet.

I once thought I was a purist, shooting and not editing.
Then I found out that even Ansel Adams used methods to Dodge and Burn...just like we can in any PP program.

Just photography without chemicals.

Look at it this way...it is 'greener' without the old darkroom!

 

[LokiZ]

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg with no color temperature correction, no sharpening, no adjustments at all. Then print.

You'll quit photography.

Actually it makes a big difference how you pull them from your camera... if your software utilizes the settings you manually set your camera to then it is no different then shooting jpg.

I think what you might have meant to say is:

To anyone against post-processing, please shoot your next 100 pictures in RAW, convert directly to jpg using software that ignores all camera settings both auto or manual and then just print the Raw file out in it's entirety.

Maybe?

 

[NateWagner]

why would you then bother to convert to jpg? it would make more sense in that case to print the jpg that you just converted to.

 

[molested_cow]

By photoshop I assume you mean post-editing.

Well, there is no such thing as non-edited image, especially from film photography.

All film photography go through dark room or some kind of processing. In the dark room, you need to decide how much you want to expose onto the photo paper(sorry I forgot all the terminology, it's been 6 years since I was in a dark room). You can do neat tricks on basic level such as blurring out scratches and what now and use selective exposure to compose images. The possibility is endless.

Even nowadays in digital cameras, different image processing software that are embedded in different cameras will result in different image qualities. Some people like Canon better, some like Nikon better, and many more. This is beyond just the hardware. So your image has already been through some kind of photoshop before you even download it onto your computer.

My personal guideline is, as long as it supports the image in a positive way.

 

[skieur]

How did it come about that "snapshots" got such a bad rap? If you setup you lighting perfectly, setup your composition perfectly, focus perfectly. (whether or not you are on auto or manual) you then "snap" the shutter and your camera captures the "shot" If you remove that image straight from your camera as is you have your self one really good "snap"-"shot"

Do you need to add PP? No.

Sure you do! Perfect set-up does NOT equal perfect shot. You don't read posts. Digital cameras do NOT perfectly replicate a scene. Of course with a limited "eye". some photographers don't realize that basic fact.

Postprocessing IS REQUIRED to make that supposedly perfect setup to equal a perfect shot.

skieur

 

[Shocknawe]

what the hell this looks like fun I'll add a couple pennys...I agree with some of the anti-pp comments mainly refering to the people that love to say "I'll fix that later" knowingly taking a half ass photo relying on PP- I've heard it before. I believe like many others that one should always strive for the "one shot one kill" photo, and if mistakes are made learn from them, adjust fire and shoot on. HOWEVER some of the statements made seem portray a bit of a arrogant image of themselves to that I say if you are "that good" post up some of your non-PP'ed images here and lets see your "perfection." More or less put your money/photos where your mouth is per se. Include complete exif data as well...not that I would question integrity or anything.

 

[DennyCrane]

Fact: RAW files contain NO sharpening. Enjoy no post processing when you consider that.

 

[NateWagner]

FACT: When a program makes the Raw file readable it has inherently provided post processing.