The Art of Photography

Antibac

I've only gotten back into photography recently. Never had an slr before. However I've noticed alot rely on photoshop. Is there any who just take photos and use as is?Anyone think it takes the skill or enjoyment out of the picture if you have to edit it?

magicbastarder

i certainly find using photoshop quite tedious so the less work i have to put in, the better.

dirtyghettokid

it's best to try and get the best shot using your camera... but there's no harm in tweaking where needed in photoshop. a post production piece of software is needed for those like myself who shoot in raw anyway.

some are a bit OTT with photoshop... whereas others get awesome shots without the need of any editing afterwards.

shemwhistler

I could never get rid of Photoshop, as I must have one leg longer than the other, at least that's my excuse for crazy horizons.

I personally only use PS for;
- Straightening
- cropping
- levels
- sometimes a bit of hue/saturation.

These are a few minor tweaks that I find can improve on most of my original shots, on the one hand it would be nice to have the shot as is, on the other I want to present my stuff in the best light.

But there are some crazy cats here who shoot in film, surely they would be strong contenders for folks that are keeping the Art of Photography alive.

Though thinking about the film guys, aren't there techniques they can use in developing to achieve different results?

If so, have there always been PP practices for photography?

sineadw

Worms, can, open i shoot both. I also manipulate in both. There are a lot of PS techniques that are derived directly from darkroom ones, and anyone who's developed wet prints will tell you you rarely just print directly. Even your choice of film, paper and developer will all 'manipulate' the image, in much the same way as adding contrast, colour etc. And that's not going near filters, dodging, burning...

I don't tend to do much to my shots though. There's tweaking and then there's processing to the point that everything looks ridiculous. They're two very different things.

DaireQuinlan

A good set of guidelines would be something like the thomson reuter guidelines for editorial shots

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/archives/4327

I'd probably come down on the conservative side of this, I don't crop much or at all if I can help it, and I'd generally try and avoid any local adjustments (local dodging/burning or contrast adjustment) as much as possible (excepting dust spotting) .

jpb1974

Personally any editing I do is split as follows:

Fine Tuning & Correction - 80% of the time (exposure, contrast, white balance, dust removal etc)

Conversion to B+W - 15% of the time

Finding the Look - 5% of the time (simple things like de-saturating, warming up, split toning, a splash of vignaigrette)

Anything that finds it way to digital usually benefits from a little sharpening too.

So all in all.. I like to think I go gently.. and usually I like to think that it's whats in the photo that makes it look good as opposed to how the make-up has been applied.

jpb1974

Anyone think it takes the skill or enjoyment out of the picture if you have to edit it?

I think each to their own in this regard.

Personally I'm not bothered sitting in front of a computer for hours and hours, especially since I already do this for a living, but I know some people who love it... so good for them I say.

I remembering seeing a picture that I've liked where the person spent 8 hours working on it... now I thought she was a bit crazy... but she seemed to dig it. I just refuse to call what she presented a 'photo'. I'll use mostly any other word to describe it.. picture, image... just not photo.

sineadw

I must have put a good 5 hrs into that large format cabbage one I did last year. There's very little difference between it and the straight scan though. I wouldn't be too swayed by time - it only takes a second to wang a slider up to 95%

Anyone see war photographer, the film referenced in the films about photography thread? There's a great scene in it where he's talking to his printer about processing a print. Made me smile

humberklog

I think if you notice that people are using it then they're using it wrong.

Fajitas!

I do what needs to be done to get the photo I want.

Promac

There should probably be a sticky in this forum called something like "Before you go bashing photoshop..."

Sinead pretty much covered everything I'd have said here. I'll just add that if you shoot in JPEG then you're already editing/tweaking/sharpening/adjusting colours, contrast, brightness/etc. If you shoot in RAW then you'll need to do all that afterwards anyway. Then there's stuff like double-exposure, using IR film, tilt-shift lenses, etc - you can even get HDR effects by simply using lighting outdoors.

Adobe have gone the right way in moving their photographic tools into Lightroom. It helps remove some of the negative implications that people make.

magicbastarder

Fajitas! wrote: »

I do what needs to be done to get the photo I want.

i never had you down as cold blooded. *whatever* needs to be done?

Fajitas!

Except fake film borders.

**** that ****.

humberklog

Antibac wrote: »

I've only gotten back into photography recently. Never had an slr before. However I've noticed alot rely on photoshop. Is there any who just take photos and use as is?Anyone think it takes the skill or enjoyment out of the picture if you have to edit it?

Outta pure curiosity: do you have any pics you'd like to display yourself? Had a quick gander through your previous posts and am lacking...eh...a bit of meat to the bones (to your argument, as it were).

Antibac

I don't as am just getting back into it and mainly using it for taking pics of my baby daughter. Where my question comes from is the multitude of magazines I've seen all seem to have sections on it? I'm neither for or against just a curiosity question is all.

ThOnda

Isn't photography the process to produce picture (either physical object or displayed data)? Who cares how, it is important why and how does that look.
And for lazy me, LightRoom presets are devil-send :pac:

Promac

The same magazines 20 years ago were all about dodging, burning, cropping with the enlarger, using colour filters on camera and enlarger, and all the stuff mentioned previously. A lot of people back then just sent prints off to the lab (and some still do) - the digital equivalent is letting the camera make your jpegs for you. Some people, maybe with a little more cash or better access to equipment, used to develop their own prints in a darkroom and were interested in the different techniques available to produce different effects or fix up photographs that were important but needed work and those techniques were all talked about in the magazines. The same thing applies now with digital processing on computer - it's just a lot more accessible.

thebaz

i prefer to rely on what is actually shot - I do a small amount of cropping , sometimes a little levels , but i find too much ps tedious and undoing the reality of the moment - some great photographers had little time for darkroom effects - so yeah shooting the moment as is , is best to me - personally, I'm doing more and more film , which kills the need for photoshop

Antibac

It's nice to see people are using the likes of photoshop to get the best from their pictures. From the few I've talked to about photography 1 or 2 have said awh well I can photshop it. They weren't to bothered about the actual photo. Alot only use it to tweak a photo. As a Previous poster said if you know it's been used it's overdone.

Simian!

Does anyone have a good example of a before and after photo that was processed in photoshop (or similar editing package)?

Would like to see how much of an improvement people on here are getting with post-production.

oshead

Sticky Romance wrote: »

Does anyone have a good example of a before and after photo that was processed in photoshop (or similar editing package)?

Would like to see how much of an improvement people on here are getting with post-production.

There's a whole thread full of em here....

Promac

Sticky Romance wrote: »

Does anyone have a good example of a before and after photo that was processed in photoshop (or similar editing package)?

Would like to see how much of an improvement people on here are getting with post-production.

The first pic here is the RAW file just straight converted into JPEG. The second is with white-balance and some toning. Nothing major done here, just the same stuff the camera would do while creating a jpeg. Some people would prefer the original. I'm colour blind so I like the extra-vivid stuff.

RAW:


JPEG:

dinneenp

@Promac: Is the first photo what it'd look like if you just shot in jpg?
And how much time did you need to spend to get the 2nd photo?

dinneenp

I use Picasa 3 (free and good for photo organising on my laptop) for editing- mainly:
cropping
convert to B&W (it's not the best tool for this)
straightening
slight colour edit- saturisation etc.

goldseeker

Check for example deviantart.com almost all photos retouched with Photoshop or lightroom
That’s why they look so good
Nothing wrong to PP photo if you know what you want to achieve.
Camera inside is processing your photo anyway, nothing wrong to do something more with external processing application if you think cameras did not do the right job.

Promac

dinneenp wrote: »

@Promac: Is the first photo what it'd look like if you just shot in jpg?
And how much time did you need to spend to get the 2nd photo?

The first photo is just what the raw file looks like. If I shot in jpeg it would look more like the second one. And it took about 15 seconds to produce the second one in lightroom - literally. All I did was change the white balance from 4000 to 5500, increased the blacks (like increasing the contrast) and then added a little sharpening. Then it was just export to jpeg and we're done.

Edit: I also use picasa sometimes as I like the interface and prefer the way it does printing. You can do most of what lightroom does in picasa these days but lightroom gives you more control and better workflow.

stick girl

Back in the day when pro photographers shot film, one had to know what they were doing to get the image they wanted. sure you could manipulate with filters, and certainly with neg film in the darkroom, but if you were shooting transparency, god help you if you didn't know what you were doing. Seems to me that (forgive me for being a purist here)the advent of digital photography and photoshop allowed many a crappy shooter into the pro game. It enabled folks with little knowledge of their camera and lighting techniques, to ''fix'' the image later. Now I'm not anti photoshop. It has it's place for sure, and as 100% of my commercial work is shot digitally, it is a necessary component. ESPECIALLY since digital cameras are forever playing catch up to the sharpness and quality of film cameras. So, use photoshop in moderation, and honor the integrity of your image. if it's a crap shot, it's always going to be a crap shot and no amount of computer work is going to make it better. So, in conclusion, learn your craft!

Simian!

oshead wrote: »

There's a whole thread full of em here....

Promac wrote: »

The first pic here is the RAW file just straight converted into JPEG. The second is with white-balance and some toning....

Thanks guys. There are some truly awful photos in that thread - really shows the worst of what can happen to photos using editing software. I'd have to agree with stick girl though. I think PS etc. should be used very sparingly, otherwise the integrity of the original image is gone and it's not the same photo anymore.

Some of the photos on the same thread are pretty impressive though. There seem to a few where the crispness of the image has improved (like the beach one from ballyman on the first page) - I'd be interested in learning how to do that. The layered exposure shots seem to give the best results.

magnumlady

dinneenp wrote: »

I use Picasa 3 (free and good for photo organising on my laptop) for editing- mainly:
cropping
convert to B&W (it's not the best tool for this)
straightening
slight colour edit- saturisation etc.

I use this as well. I tried photoshop but didn't have the time or the patience to get the hang of it.

melekalikimaka

i'm not mad on processing, I use lightroom presets a bit now, out of laziness... rarely get into nitty gritty ps stuff, twas a phase more than anything for me, i think once yoou mash out a a good wack of film, photoshop feels sinful

af_thefragile

I find the pictures come out quite flat looking straight out of my camera. The colours look all washed out and such. So I use photoshop for bringing back the colours into the picture and sometimes just playing around to see what I get. Along with cropping and straightening.

After all if every image looked just how we'ld see it with our eyes, if we were there, it'ld get a bit boring. Now I try to keep the colours natural and real like for most landscape/nature pics as the content itself is quite interesting and doesn't need any additional enhancement. Though for most other images, colours add mood and make the image a lot more interesting. Which is why most professional photographs and even movies are all colour corrected/graded to make the image more interesting. And this is something I'm learning to do lately.

dinneenp

Promac wrote: »

The first photo is just what the raw file looks like. If I shot in jpeg it would look more like the second one. And it took about 15 seconds to produce the second one in lightroom - literally. All I did was change the white balance from 4000 to 5500, increased the blacks (like increasing the contrast) and then added a little sharpening. Then it was just export to jpeg and we're done.

Edit: I also use picasa sometimes as I like the interface and prefer the way it does printing. You can do most of what lightroom does in picasa these days but lightroom gives you more control and better workflow.

How easy is Lightroom to learn/get used to?
I've been meaning to get more advanced than Picasa 3 for a while but haven't gotten around to it.
From what I've heard the presets are very good too.

jpb1974

How easy is Lightroom to learn/get used to?

Very simple to use.

Loads of tutorials available online e.g. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lightroom+3+tutorial+for+beginners&aq=2&oq=lightroom

Loads of free presets out there e.g. http://www.presetsheaven.com/

30 day free trial available for download @ https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

Promac

dinneenp wrote: »

How easy is Lightroom to learn/get used to?
I've been meaning to get more advanced than Picasa 3 for a while but haven't gotten around to it.
From what I've heard the presets are very good too.

It's not a massive amount more complicated than picasa. It's very good though - all the bits of photoshop that you'd generally use for photo touch-up work without all the bloat and price-tag.

To be honest, if you had to rely on picasa then you'd do alright - lightroom just does it all a good bit better.

jpb1974

10 Tips to Improve Lightroom’s Speed and Performance Without Additional Hardware

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-to-improve-lightrooms-speed-and-performance-without-additional-hardware

gbee

Antibac wrote: »

Never had an slr before.

What were you doing previously?

Antibac

Just used a point and click digital camera.

gbee

Antibac wrote: »

Just used a point and click digital camera.

So it is a basics question then?

To start with, the DSLR picture can produce a raw file that is intended to go to photoshop or other 'developing' software. The concept is the same as shooting colour print film [\negatives] and the photo processor will adjust to make the prints bright and sparkly, even if you've made a mess of the initial exposure.

With the exception of transparency film processing, there was always secondary or post developing, it was a two stage process, film dev and print making.

I usually have my camera set to RAW and play around to get what I like.

However, on site at functions, parties and Santa photo shoots, it's in jpg and all manual settings with a bit more saturation and sharpening to give a nice sparkling print with NO Post Processing whatsoever. I'll often be using the direct print button ...

Antibac

Thanks gbee tells me what it should be used for! Kinda what I thinkingLot seem to take any old picture and say awh well ill just use photoshop

dinneenp

Promac wrote: »

It's not a massive amount more complicated than picasa. It's very good though - all the bits of photoshop that you'd generally use for photo touch-up work without all the bloat and price-tag.

To be honest, if you had to rely on picasa then you'd do alright - lightroom just does it all a good bit better.

One more question (sorry if sidetracking):
I looked at Lightroom 3 last night (and downloaded Topaz B&W Effects).
I also have Picasa 3.
Will I end up with duplicate libraries/back up of my photos? Just wondering when I backup my photos in Picasa 3 or Lightroom 3 will they be going to seperate locations?


Nice review of it here which outlines some features and how to use them.

Promac

You don't have to make any copies of photos but they will have different catalogue files. These aren't that big so there's not an issue with having multiple catalogues. In fact, it's good to have different catalogue files if you have a lot of images - weddings, for example, would have their own catalogue. Lightroom will prompt you to backup your catalogue files but it's only the catalogue file, not the photos themselves.

You'll want to pick one or the other to create backups of your actual photos. I'm sure there's a setting for it in both applications.

dinneenp

Promac wrote: »

You don't have to make any copies of photos but they will have different catalogue files. These aren't that big so there's not an issue with having multiple catalogues. In fact, it's good to have different catalogue files if you have a lot of images - weddings, for example, would have their own catalogue. Lightroom will prompt you to backup your catalogue files but it's only the catalogue file, not the photos themselves.

You'll want to pick one or the other to create backups of your actual photos. I'm sure there's a setting for it in both applications.

thanks for the info. I've been playing around with it a bit tonight.
I have a fair few questions already, don't want to sidetrack this thread with them though...
Just two last questions if ye don't mind-
what happens when I'm finished adjusting my photo? Do I have the option of what I want to do with it- e.g. override the original, save to same photo with new name?
is there nay way that I can compare my original photo with my new one that I've made edits to?

Thanks,
Pa.

Promac

On the Library tab there's an Export button. This'll give you various options for creating a finished jpeg. The image in lightroom isn't so much an "original" as a workspace for that image. It's like a PSD file from photoshop - it maintains a list of all changes you made with any labels, tags, whatever.

I keep folders called Uploads, Prints, Facebook, etc and then just export to whichever I need to. Uploads will have a resize during the export, same with facebook but smaller edges. Prints won't be sized but might have a little sharpening, etc. These can all be done in batches too which is dead handy.

And there's a before and after view so you can see how you've changed an image. Just select an image, go to the Develop tab, make some changes and then look for the button directly below the image that looks like "Y | Y". If you don't see it press T to bring up the toolbar.

Feel free to start a lightroom q&a thread in the workshop. I'll be happy to join in.

For the benefit of anyone wondering how it all looks, here's a screenshot of the image from earlier in before and after view:

dinneenp

@Promac: thanks again. I will indeed open a thread when I've some questions build up.