Photoshop and your Images

irish147

When you take a photo, do you photoshop your images for hours? I know some people over photoshop a image....

daycent

Here we go................



Well, some people do and some people don't....

Ideally, you want to get it as "right" as possible in camera.

Even if you don't "photoshop" your images, they have been photoshopped by the software in the camera already.

Some things aren't possible to achieve in camera.

It can be justified in many situations, but not in say, photojournalism and the like, where accuracy and realism are fundamental.

Etc. etc. It's all been said before many, many times

stabo

Around 20mins is the most ive spent on a single photograph,fairly crap at PS to be honest. Not a fan of the over shopped pics tho.

mrboswell

Get the exposure right in camera, colour/tone correction and sharpen.
Job done.

Thecageyone

There's a difference between processing/tweaking an image and what some call 'photoshopping'

I prefer lightroom. And rarely spend more than 10-15 minutes on one image.

Eirebear

It entirely depends what you want from your image really.

What you call "Over Photoshop" is usually a sign of someone not really knowing what theyre doing.

If i'm shooting for a project or series, i usually have an idea of how i want to process and present them before i even press the shutter button.
This means that i can set up the shot to maximise the use i will get out of it during processing, and of course to minimise the effort needed in proccessing.

If i'm just out shooting stuff for a bit of fun, i tend to find that all i want is general tonal,colour balance adjustments and in these cases i experiment with settings etc to see what i can do with the camera.

There are many, many approaches to photography, or indeed, image making. Dont let the poor HDR's and oversaturated sunsets you see put you off.

Photoshop cant make a bad image good - but it sure as hell can make a good image bad.

*Bad and Good are illustrative terms only, as photography is an extremely subjective medium.

K_user

As daycent has already pointed out, what most people don't know is that your average Jpeg has already had the "photoshop" treatment. Each camera is set up to take a photograph in a certain way, the little chip in it is pre-programmed to process the image automatically. Its no different than sending a roll of film to a one hour print service - instant results.

The problem is that the word "photoshop" has become identified with the removal of realism from an image.

For the most part that isn't the case.

When taking "snap-shots" I use Jpeg, its quick, its easy and you rarely have to do anything to them afterwards.

When I'm being more "serious", I use RAW. These require post-processing in some sort of ACR converter. On average I spend the longest on the first of a series. Checking the white-balance, highlights, shadows etc. Then the rest can be sorted through quite quickly using the same sort of settings. Once finished in the ACR, I check levels, contrast, a little sharpening and if needed some cloning out of dust spots or blemishes. And apart from that last part, all of those could be done by automatically by the camera if I wanted. But I prefer the control on the final image - least then I can accept the mistakes as mine.

To someone who has never looked at photoshop that sounds like alot. But its not. Its just moving a few sliders from left to right, and eye balling the colours until they look as close to what they should be. Thats to say that the whites are white, the greens are green and every colour in-between doesn't look like an old pair of socks.

All told, maybe 5 mins on the first of a group, less than two on the rest.

CabanSail

I have adopted the Guy Gowan workflow now and use it for all shots, other than the rare exception where I need something instantly and then use the Camera Jpeg.

I do NOT get it right in camera and do not even try. What I do now is try to get it right for the workflow, which means a constant White Balance and +1EV as much as possible. Photo's are adjusted in a RAW Converter to the correct WB & changed to being under exposed to bring back the highlight detail. They are then processed by using a Photoshop Droplet which runs through all the default actions and outputs a PSD which, in most cases, is ready to go. Longest step here has been the RAW adjustments.

If I really want to work on a photo it could take up to 15 mins if being really complex.

challengemaster

Meh, I do what's needed.

Why are people so hung up about what everyone else does with their photos?

Eirebear

challengemaster wrote: »

Meh, I do what's needed.

Why are people so hung up about what everyone else does with their photos?

I think its something we all go through, especially in the early stages of taking photographs.

I know i went through the initial stage of doing way too much with my images, and then realising that if i took my time over the actual shooting process the results were much better - that led to the "Photoshop isnt photography" opinion, before then realising that if i actually sat down and learned what theprogramme could do for me then it was a powerful tool, and then finally onto the stage of "of course i use Photoshop, thats what its for..."

JayEnnis

CabanSail wrote: »

I have adopted the Guy Gowan workflow now and use it for all shots, other than the rare exception where I need something instantly and then use the Camera Jpeg.

I do NOT get it right in camera and do not even try. What I do now is try to get it right for the workflow, which means a constant White Balance and +1EV as much as possible. Photo's are adjusted in a RAW Converter to the correct WB & changed to being under exposed to bring back the highlight detail. They are then processed by using a Photoshop Droplet which runs through all the default actions and outputs a PSD which, in most cases, is ready to go. Longest step here has been the RAW adjustments.

If I really want to work on a photo it could take up to 15 mins if being really complex.

Do you overexpose to capture more detail (Isn't the right hand side of the histogram where most detail is stored?) I'm curious about this.

daycent

JayEnnis wrote: »

Do you overexpose to capture more detail (Isn't the right hand side of the histogram where most detail is stored?) I'm curious about this.

You're meant to expose to the right alright (of the histogram) to maximise detail and minimise noise.

That's another thing about the necessities of PP> The crappy dynamic range of the sensors in our overpriced DSLR's! Usually have to aim for an exposure in the "middle", and boost the shadows and recover the highlights. Can't do that 'in camera'......... not enough anyway.

JayEnnis

daycent wrote: »

You're meant to expose to the right alright (of the histogram) to maximise detail and minimise noise.

That's another thing about the necessities of PP> The crappy dynamic range of the sensors in our overpriced DSLR's! Usually have to aim for an exposure in the "middle", and boost the shadows and recover the highlights. Can't do that 'in camera'......... not enough anyway.

That's what I meant, then you have to tone down the exposure, recover the highlights and up the blacks. I've noticed how much digital sensors lack after shooting more film lately.

daycent

JayEnnis wrote: »

I've noticed how much digital sensors lack after shooting more film lately.

So I hear! I'll have to try it sometime... Do disposable cameras developed in your local pharmacy count as shooting film I wonder??! (I've never done that either come to think of it....)

JayEnnis

Yeah you can expose the sky and subject fairly well without blowing anything out. The film in the the disposables probably wouldn't be as good as a stand alone film but you can pick up a film body dirt cheap nowadays (I have 4 film bodies and one digital, 3 were free and I paid €25 for a nikon f90)