Photography without Photoshop

[kkamin]

THIS is the Post Processing I think every photo needs. Calibration of these settings I do not consider Photoshop-ing and equate it to being in the dark room staring at a negative being projected onto a white piece of paper you are adjusting to produce a photograph.

I think the people who are refusing to acknowledge PP in their workflow are not shooting RAW because they would have to convert. They are shooting in camera, a JPEG, and are done with it. Their argument of wanting to get it right in camera and be more "pure" wouldn't make sense if they brought their image into a raw editor and had to choose a dozen settings to output their image--controlling exposure, white balance, tonal relationships, the camera profile, sharpness, saturation, clarity, etc. But maybe they are shooting raw and just opening it up in their raw editor and immediately saving it out as a jpeg. That would be weird.

From here you get into what I believe falls in the scope of Photoshop-ing. Adjustments such as dodging, burning, cloning, patching, even HDR and the Layers overlays such as the one in Dominantly's thread (which i'm now obsessed with doing to my blown-out skys).

So I suppose I think of Post-Processing to have two levels, RAW Processing and Photoshop-ing. So when I said I see the terms used interchangeably I was unclear in that I was referring to Photoshop-ing was being used to talk about RAW Processing*.

The line you are drawing in the sand between RAW editors and Photoshop doesn't exist. Everything you mentioned above, that happens in Photoshop: dodging, burning, cloning, patching are possible in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. And HDR in LR with a plugin. Layer overlay effects are possible in different ways in LR and ACR, more limited, but nonetheless possible. I prefer to do as much of these things in the RAW editor actally, since it is non-destructive and the program moves faster. Of course PS goes deeper into image editing, and my workflow often starts in a RAW editor and move to PS, but the amount of image manipulation possible in ACR or LR is substantial and is what you define at "Photoshopping".

I see why you see the RAW editor as first stop because if you shoot a RAW file you need to start in a RAW editor. But again, people often do everything in RAW editors, including heavy adjustments. And a lot of people will work with non-RAW files, TIFFs and JPEGs, inside ACR or LR.

Before RAW editors, people would do everything in Photoshop. All the things you do in your RAW editor are more or less possible in PS. If someone gave me a TIFF or JPEG to correct and clean-up, I would have a choice where I want to do my PP in: RAW editor or PS. Both equally effective.

I see what you are saying if you work in the way you do. But the two programs overlap each other in a gigantic way and a lot of it comes down to personal preference of how you want to work.

 

[mrmacedonian]

I see what you are saying if you work in the way you do. But the two programs overlap each other in a gigantic way and a lot of it comes down to personal preference of how you want to work.

Alright, well i'll concede the point then. I don't typically affect images in Photoshop in the way I do in a RAW processing program or plugin and vice versa. Settings that the camera uses to encode the JPEG are all absent in the RAW for me, so I don't consider calibrating those settings to what they are in the .jpeg sitting right next to it in the folder or adjusting them to more desirable levels as 'Photoshop-ing'. Once I get the picture through RAW Processing I save it as a .tiff and if needed then open it in Photoshop, etc.

My point was when I say the image was Post-Processed its referring to the RAW processing, and when I say the image has been Photoshop-ed then I referring to substantial changes to the composition such as removing objects, cloning, etc... I guess to be more concise, I consider RAW Processing as balancing what is already in the picture and Photoshop-ing as taking away or adding to it..

Just personal opinion then, I like clean cut lines, purposes, or functions and I suppose sometimes I draw them myself

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think most (new) people use the term "photoshopping" to mean post processing.
Like Jello, Band-Aid, Kleenex, etc...

 

[LokiZ]

Visegrips.... channel locks.... loctite....

When I hear the term photo-shopped I immediately think of something, say an image, that has been falsified. Hmm..... Probably due to the quality of the software and it's possibility for those really good with it to make the unbelievable, well... at least make them think or ponder whether or not if it might be real.

Post processing on the other hand should be along the lines of the professional sound tech. (in my opinion) If it is to be done successfully then the bulk of those viewing the image better not be able to tell that it has been done. just like the pro-sound tech you should not know he's back there.

So with that said the perfectly "processed" image is not about whether or not PP has been applied or how much has been applied, but rather about concealing whether or not it has been done and to what degree. If you have an image that the majority of those whose opinions you respect say nothing about you over processing or nothing about you needing to add a little more of a certain type of processing then you done good.

That of course only relates to the processing side of things. There still may be C&C dealing with the Composition of the piece, that of course is a whole different thread I am afraid.

Edit: Not asking or expecting all to agree here, just my take and my approach when it comes to purely basic photography. When it comes to the artsy or visually stylistic types, that for me crosses over from basic pp to effects ordered by customers for fulfilling a momentary whim on my part. Sure "Technically" it is still PP just not basic PP and well to me not expected to be transparent like basic PP. Again just me.

 

[Alter_Ego]

Photoshop > Gimp. Whoever said that gimp can do whatever photoshop can do is lying because they dont have photoshop.

Nothing published in this day and age is not edited lol. So everything looks so glamours and gorgeous, personally it makes dull look a lot better then what it really is.

 

[DennyCrane]

The argument is not what program is better than the other.

 

[ChasK]

Who says you need Photoshop, this image is SOOC not editing no Photoshop what so ever!


http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...51833355719_1224199349_30375955_7607528_n.jpg


and if you believe that I have a bridge in New York for sale.

 

[Janthony13]

Hmm... I am a beginner but I tend to dislike when I need to use photoshop for "compositional reasons". i.e., there was something in the image I had to delete, or I had to rotate my image because I couldnt get the lines straight. I will even go as far as saying that gross changes in contrast, color manipulation, and brightness are things that I feel should be "on me" to get correct when shooting. Minor photoshoping like removing my flim camera's dust specs on my images, cropping, or touching up tiny imperfections, I tend to feel "OK" about doing. But what do I know, Im a beginner... and I also like to keep the image as "raw" as possible when it comes to photo editing... after all Im not shooting for a magazine and I'm not graphic designer. Happy shooting!

 

[ChasK]

I believe it has been said several times, with Lightroom you can keep your raw file and a modified tiff or jpeg too. I think the real beauty in that is you can revisit your older files after software improvements have been made and reprocess your files for a better result.

 

[kkamin]

Hmm... I am a beginner but I tend to dislike when I need to use photoshop for "compositional reasons". i.e., there was something in the image I had to delete, or I had to rotate my image because I couldnt get the lines straight. I will even go as far as saying that gross changes in contrast, color manipulation, and brightness are things that I feel should be "on me" to get correct when shooting. Minor photoshoping like removing my flim camera's dust specs on my images, cropping, or touching up tiny imperfections, I tend to feel "OK" about doing. But what do I know, Im a beginner... and I also like to keep the image as "raw" as possible when it comes to photo editing... after all Im not shooting for a magazine and I'm not graphic designer. Happy shooting!

I think you should explore your options while you are a beginner and not make any concrete rules for yourself. A lot of people feel the capturing part of the picture process is only half way to producing a final image. Images coming out of the camera don't usually look right. The way the camera captures tonal ranges doesn't match up to human vision quite right. White balance usually needs to be adjusted. Images coming out of the camera are not sharp enough. The same principles applied in the film days too. Negatives needed to be given instructions on what to do. In the darkroom, at the most basic level, you would have to control cropping, exposure, contrast and color balance in order to produce an image.

Like I mentioned before, the camera isn't capturing reality. There isn't a more "pure" form of photography. You are taking a three dimensional world seen through the eyes and brain of the human with all its dynamic systems of perception and are bringing it to a static 2-D state. Images straight out of the camera are like watching deleted scenes on a DVD, when they didn't color correct the film or exposure.

Cameras really aren't meant to be the finish line for taking a picture. The only reason this idea exists is because you can shoot digital now and just dump the images from your camera on to your computer. Even if you took that same memory card to Target to make prints, their computers would make corrections and adjustments to your photographs, without you knowing it.

I understand your wanting to get it right as much as possible in camera. I think most people strive to do that. But I feel, even in the best of situations, you still are only capturing wet clay. It still need to be shaped a little and hardened. If you don't want to process your images, to each their own. But I would give it a chance. The biggest reason being that it is a lot of fun once you get the hang of it.

 

[ChasK]

somehow this seems appropriate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtGt_XzBEbI]YouTube - a shortfilm for Dove, questioning natural beauty - Evolution[/ame]

 

[kkamin]

somehow this seems appropriate

YouTube - a shortfilm for Dove, questioning natural beauty - Evolution

This is just demonstrating beauty retouching and takes images to an extreme place. I think this is what is turning off people to the idea of PP. I think this discussion is centered on more moderate uses of image editing software.

 

[DennyCrane]

This should sum things up nicely.

 

[ChasK]

Just to stay on topic, I think the OP was asking what PP photographers do, not the "to photoshop or not to photoshop" question.

As a portrait photographer I know my customers don't want the cold hard truth, that may be what police or evidence photographers want, but most people when having a portrait made want a portrait that looks like what they think they look like. Kinda like the self visualization from The Matrix.

So what PP and software you use would depend on what your use of the final image will be.

 

[DennyCrane]

No, the question was, in fact, whether to PP or not... posing the question whether you should strive to create pictures that do not need post processing.