photo shop or no photo shop

Comment

Comment by Robert Davis on November 12, 2012 at 8:46am

@ Louis, your answer is not only succinct but very realistic. What a lot of people don't understand is that the labs of yore did pretty much the same thing then as we do now in PS; lighten, darken, fix the color, crop, burn and dodge. So yes, we use PS, but then if we were only using the Jpeg setting in our cameras (not RAW) we'd be allowing the engineers who wrote the software for the camera to post process our images - basically the same thing (kinda sort of) as using PS. One of the things most people are not aware of is that the image on the cameras screen is a jpeg even when we photograph strictly in RAW, and it's an 8 bit image, yup there's another electronic image set of processing protocols to deal with. I'll ditto your comment ... "The power of PS is only limited by your imagination."

Comment by Louis Pescevic on November 11, 2012 at 10:16pm

Did you ever take a great picture? Then you find something in it you wanted to take out or add to make it a better picture. Something like red eye, hair was messy, stain on someone shirt or you want to remove some from a picture so you could use it in a greeting card. Like a great shot of the dog but the house was a mess things of that nature or your photo was to under exposed. Photo shop has many uses, graphic art, restoring old photos, it power is only limited by your imagination. Once you learn the tools you will understand it power.

Comment by Robert Davis on November 8, 2011 at 10:30pm

To use or not use Photoshop . . . Hmnn. I use Photoshop everyday and I teach it at the college. One could say I'm a nerd for PS when it comes to processing images. If ansel were alive he'd be 100% digital and using PS. I believe if one is serious about photography, PS is merely another tool in the arsenal of goodies we need.

PS I love all your comments. Wahoo!

Comment by CameraClicker on May 16, 2011 at 7:08am

If work in Photoshop is done well, in enhances the image.  If done poorly it detracts.  Most photo contests are about creating a compelling picture that resonates with the judge more than the other images.  I don't see why it should be a problem in a competition as long as it is the photographer's work.  There are some contests that specify they want unedited photos but there are only a few of them.  Some of the magazines run contests and many of the images at the "emerging professional" level have exceptional photos that could not be achieved without some form of editing software or exotic darkroom work.

 

I suppose you could argue that some people do not have Photoshop, but you could use GIMP, which is a free download, and everyone here already has access to the Internet and a computer.  Photoshop Elements is pretty reasonably priced if you shop around, you can purchase it for less than the cost of a 77mm circular polarizer filter.  Even full Photoshop CS5 is less than many lenses. 

 

It is just another tool, like a specialty lens, strobe light, reflector, tripod, enlarger, filters, etc.  There are lots of bits and pieces used in photography.  Surely you would not object to the use of them to create a picture for a contest?

 

I have a problem with manipulating a photo by post processing to create misleading evidence.  But I have the same problem with manipulating the picture in the camera by selective cropping, contrived camera angles, and other techniques to get the image to appear a particular way and suggest a circumstance that is not accurate.  That is an entirely separate topic since photo competitions are about judging the photo, not judging the subject of the photo.

 

Comment by CameraClicker on May 11, 2011 at 5:14pm

The files are on a machine at my office.  Some time I will put a whole page together for my web page.  For now, here is a link to a thread, here, that has a discussion and example.  http://www.picturesocial.com/forum/topics/can-anyone-tell-me-how-to...

Comment by Gary Vernon on May 11, 2011 at 3:37pm

Hi Sarah,

naa i'm not upset lol

It's just that this question gets asked so many times it should be a non issue nowadays ha ha.

Photography is a visual art form and merges seamlessly with digital art sometimes.

A lot of people get confused with the term 'photo-shopping' which is bit dated, if your camera didn't come with a raw editor there is 'Gimp' you can download for free or there are trial downloads of Adobe Elelments or CS5 which you can use if you switch image quality on your cam to raw.

Shooting this way will give you far more latitude than your camera software is capable of especially with white balance and exposure.

There are plenty of books on the subject and lots of hepl on the net.

I see Camera clicker has joined this group, if you ask him to post some examples of the benefits of shooting raw i'm sure he will :-)

 

Comment by Gary Vernon on May 11, 2011 at 2:13pm

Sarah like many other people i shoot in Raw format because otherwise the camera compress's the image into an 8 bit jpeg.

The Raw editor is used to give a satisfactory white balance to the image and when passed as a .tiff file into CS5 i can adjust the tone curve more accurately.

I use USM (sharpening) in CS5 to adjust amount and radius depending on output media and resolution of the image.

Editing is not about applying cheesy cheap looking filters to images, it's just part of the process involved in photography and always has been since the days of the darkroom.