picture manipulation

[Gem]

Well, I'm still getting used to my new EOS 20D, but already I'm feeling under pressure.

Where-ever I go, whoever I speak to, I always here about software like Photoshop, which will enable me to change just about anything I might not like about my photos.
Does everyone really do it? Does no-one worry about taking well composed photos anymore, that don't need to be changed? (by the way, I don't mean to offend anybody - this is just an amateur asking a silly question)

I know that my photos will only ever be for me and my friends and family, and they will never have to have the quality of photos for the commercial market, but I am already worrying about ever putting my photos on here in case people tell me to go and find another hobby, due to lack of creativity (am I sounding a little too paranoid here? ).

So, do you all use software to enhance, change, manipulate, lighten, darken...?

 

[HoboSyke]

I have never used PS on any of my photos on my EOS 20D.
I will start attempting that when I have fully sussed out my camera 1st..
Dont worry about posting pics on here. Everyone is super friendly and will offer their advice without demeaning you and your photos.

 

[SLOShooter]

Your going to get a whole range of replies to this sort of question because it delves into the "is it alright to digitally manipulate images" question.

I personally shoot in RAW and therefore must use some sort of software to get a printable image. I also manually manipulate every photo that comes out of my camera before considering them ready for print.

Sometimes all I do is white balance the images, and sometimes I go crazy and add tinting, vingetting, B&W conversion, exposure compensation, cropping, the list goes on and on.

The range spans from almost no adjustments to images that look nothing like the RAW files. IMO that's fine and I don't feel it desceptive to the viewer. Other's have different standards and opinions and they feel that no adjustments should be done whatsoever and if you didn't get the effect that you wanted in-camera than you should go back and reshoot it.

For me PhotoShop is as integral to the final image as the camera itself.

 

[darich]

I'm like SLOShooter - nearly always post process prints before printing. Some morethan others. It's a modern darkroom.
Other times you have no choice but to use an editing program even if it's just to crop something that was unavoidable at shooting.

Incidentally you mentioned "Does no-one worry about taking well composed photos anymore, that don't need to be changed" - No editing can re-arrange your composition so your composition still has to be good when taking the shot. Post processing can change colours, add removed small blemishes etc but the basic composition is set when shooting.

 

[ksmattfish]

... software like Photoshop, which will enable me to change just about anything I might not like about my photos.
Does everyone really do it? Does no-one worry about taking well composed photos anymore, that don't need to be changed?

You won't be able to change anything you don't like, just some things.

The idea that photos weren't manipulated before Adobe PS and digital cameras is a false notion. It was just done for you behind the closed doors of the photo lab where you couldn't see it going on. Lightening/darkening, color correction, and spotting are all standard services that come with printing at any good lab. They do it without asking you; you would have to specifically ask them not to do it if you wanted straight prints.

What is the difference between deciding to put a color corrective filter on your lens before the shot, and deciding you will take care of it in PS after the shot? Either way it's manipulation. To me the big difference is that with film I need a complete set of filters for every different sized lens, while with digital I have them all included in Adobe PS. Admittedly Adobe PS may cost as much as getting a complete set of filters for all of my lenses, but I don't have to carry it around.

It's always a good idea to take advantage of as much film area or pixels as possible, so cropping in camera is usually prefered, but if cropping after the shot is taken will improve the image, then I say go for it. Photographs have always been cropped long before cameras became electronic.

Digital photography offers a lot of new and powerful tools, and it does make some things easier. If you aren't going to take advantage of them, what's the point of shooting digital? Stick with film, it's great stuff.

 

[CDG]

The manipulation of the photo itself is an art in my opinion. Sure, you can slap a ton of filters into place and make something wierd, but it takes some skill and some feel to get it the way you want. Now I do most of my work with film, so every shot counts, as it costs me a given ammount of money. That means a good deal of my shots are "well composed', but I can condense a roll into a single photo by chopping things up and putting them together.

Digital darkroom opens up anew doorways, and allows you to truly push the boundries of what is and what isn't acceptable. If you have to stop and look at a photo you see, rather than breeze by it, you've done your job as a photographer.

Now a professionial does not always have the same creative leeway when they're on a job, but you can still "touch" images.

As for cropping, cropping is an artform within itself. I've had prints that I've been extremely displeased with. Before I took a class in photography, I tossed them aside and never looked at them again. When I took some of them to my art teacher, he laid 3x5 cards out on them and made them look pretty neat, just by cutting some stuff out of the picture.

I'm not a professional, I'm not a trained artist, but that is my opinion.:thumbup:

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Does no-one worry about taking well composed photos anymore, that don't need to be changed?

If you have a badly exposed+composed+unsharp photo, then no amount of photoshop is gonna correct it.

 

[thebeginning]

^ditto. also, remember that famous film photographers edited their photos in the darkroom alot (especially ansel adams), just not with as much ease (although to someone who's never used a computer, it's quite difficult, just as a first time darkroom user might find it complicated). so you cant really say that editing photos makes it so you dont have to compose and expose everything right in camera.