to photoshop or not?

harleyrider · Feb 26, 2009

i have not been into photography for many years and just became interested again.i would like to know if anyone does not use photoshop,
Or does everyone use photoshop.i have a canon xt with the kit 18-55, 50mm 1.8 and a promaster 70-300 f4-5.6 macro.

Eldrich · Feb 26, 2009

Hi

I think the general answer you will get, and one that I myself agree with is that in digital photography, the camera already does some post processing itself. Its not like you can upload the pic from the camera and look at it and saw "this is pure, unprocessed" because the truth of it is that the camera makes many choices already in how to interpret the data from the sensor into an image. So you might as well be partially in control of that if its going to take place anyway.

That being said, the amount of control you put into it is entirely up to you. If you just want to adjust level curves, and sharpness, then it will add very little to your workflow and will give you considerable improvement over taking the pic as is. You can do this just fine with the canon software that comes with the camera. If you find yourself wanting to change the color of someones shirt in a pic because it detracts, or wanting to clone out some piece of trash in the forest, than perhaps you will need to get photoshop or something more.

demondrivemaster · Feb 26, 2009

i ahven't got photoshop so don't use it - however what i do find is that the more experienced photographers (i'm a newbie myself) are very critical of images that haven't been photoshopped

jordan! · Feb 26, 2009

I would definitely recommend owning it, even if you don't use it constantly. It's almost like lab processing vs. having your own dark room with film photography (or at least that's how I think about it). You can let the camera do the processing and stuff, and it will probably be fine, but eventually, you'll want to have full creative control over your work.

Eldrich · Feb 26, 2009

Yeah, its not that you'll have to use it on every shot, but when you do have a few shots that you like much more after processing you'll be happy that you had the ability to do it.

Village Idiot · Feb 26, 2009

I said you should always edit your images last week. This week I think I'll say you should never edit your images. Next week I'm probably going to say that you should edit some of your images all the time but not all of your images some of the time.

Overread · Feb 26, 2009

Firstly digital photos do need processing after they are taken - just like film photos did. The difference is that cameras can do a limited job of the processing internally - kind of like sending your photos to 1 hour film processing shops. You get a reasonable result back, but one knows you could do a lot better if you process the shot out of camera in your computer first.

However as important as editing is I don't recomend people to go out and buy a (something like) £500 program for editing - your paying a lot of money for a lot of features you won't be able to use (probably) for years unless your on a dedicated photography and editing course.

Much better to look at cheaper alternatives - photoshop elements, painshop pro, GIMP (free and very powerfull, but its unser interface makes it very hard to use for many). These programs will do the basics well - and are all you need when starting out. You can always upgrade your editing software at a later date, but in the early days that sort of money is best spent getting kit to help you get the shots - you can always edit a shot, but you can't take a shot you missed because you lacked that one bit of kit for it

Captain IK · Feb 26, 2009

When I switched from film to digital I promised myself I would not do much PP, because I was a "purist".
Well as time went on I realized you have little choice but to do some PP.
I use GIMP and Photoscape for my workflow and PP. Both are free and I understand GIMP is every bit as good as Photoshop..albeit not user friendly. There is a big learning curve with GIMP, but IMHO well worth it.

Mike_E · Feb 26, 2009

Try The Gimp, it's free.

GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program

You can Google gimp tutorials for instructions. You should also try utube for video on using it.

If you are asking if it's cheating to use software on you digital images, remember that if you take the data straight off the sensor it's only 1s and 0s so everything digital is processed to some extent. It's up to you how much you want to polish you photos.

happy shooting!

OK, so the Captain scooped me. However, you can try this freeware for RAW conversion and manipulation.. http://www.dphotojournal.com/download-free-software-raw-therapee/

harleyrider · Feb 26, 2009

thanks for your replays.
i just went to baseball spring tranning and took some action shots of players.the baseball caps at times put shade on there faces.but i did get some nice action shots with my 70-300.but the face is dark on some and was thinking i need to learn photoshop

Joves · Feb 26, 2009

I use Photoshop/CS and Nikons Capture NX. I was using it prior to shooting digital though for doing photochops and, not processing in the beginning.

lockwood81 · Feb 26, 2009

I shoot in RAW, so that the camera does no processing at all. Its little computer cannot match my desktop. So I use Lightroom to develop my photos. If something really needs work, then I will export it to Photoshop. Thats pretty much my workflow.

Fox Paw · Feb 26, 2009

"Much better to look at cheaper alternatives - photoshop elements, painshop pro, GIMP (free and very powerfull, but its unser interface makes it very hard to use for many)."

Agreed. I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro and I seldom want to do anything that I can't do. It's much cheaper than Photoshop.

Since I shoot in RAW, I've looked longingly at Lightroom. If I were to upgrade, I might pick Lightroom rather than Photoshop.

JerryPH · Feb 26, 2009

Me, I am now a fully converted LightRoom2 and PS CS3 (CS4 as soon as I can afford it) user. It really does handle 80% of your workflow and that other 20% is done in PS CS3 for me.

There are times you want to get deep into post prosessing, and other times that SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) are all that work, but no matter what, since I shoot only RAW (and 90% of the time 14-bit uncompressed RAW), I need LR to make mass exporting from RAW or TIFF to JPG a walk in the park.

Honestly, it took me MONTHS to get used to LR... I was a pure "CS3 only" kinda guy... now, I can get a lot more done, a lot faster, and without a drop in the quality of output that I want.

LR2+CS3= :lmao:

LarryD · Feb 26, 2009

You really came to the wrong place to ask a question like that...

Forums draw enthusiasts, hobbyists, and professionals..........and their interest is way off the scale, so most, possibly 99 percent, are going to do post processing..

However, the vast majority of digital photo shooters take their chip in and hand it to the guy/gal behind the counter and say "Double prints please", just like they have for decades.......