To Photoshop or Not to Photoshop! That is the question!!! (processing, adjustment)

[sharpie1234]

Ok, so i know many folks like to "post process" their pictures...

i'm NOT one of those people. I believe that it's the photographers responsibility to take a good picture (color, composition, contrast, etc.) right off the bat. anything else done afterward might still produce 'art' and a nice thing to look at, but to me, it loses some of its 'value' and 'real-ness'

what are your thoughts people?

[Design7]

Frankly, for most snapshots the jpeg straight out of the camera should do. However, as photography serves as more of an artistic expression for you, Photoshop and similar programs become your darkroom. Ansel Adams would spend countless hours in the darkroom getting his photos to look the way he envisioned. Photoshop and programs like Lightroom serves that purpose today.

Here is a good example of how post editing can create a more artistically pleasing photo:
Here is the original raw photo opened up in Adobe Lightroom

http://stylepeterson.com/newark/post-processing.jpg (broken link)

Here is the same photo after I completed my editing:

http://stylepeterson.com/newark/branch-brook-park-1.jpg (broken link)

While cameras can generally give good results using default settings, many times you must do a bit of tweaking to create a more realistic photo or one that matches your artistic vision. That is the purpose of Photoshop, Lightroom and similar programs.

[atlantagreg30127]

I don't believe in excessively altering a photo, but I almost always adjust the brightness/contrast and sometimes the highlight brightness in my shots. While you can and should do the proper camera adjustments, sometimes on the fly you just can't take the time to custom-adjust each photo, so tweaking is needed later. Especially since right now, sensors still don't quite match what the human eye sees in terms of dynamic range, etc.

[PA2UK]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

Ok, so i know many folks like to "post process" their pictures...

i'm NOT one of those people. I believe that it's the photographers responsibility to take a good picture (color, composition, contrast, etc.) right off the bat. anything else done afterward might still produce 'art' and a nice thing to look at, but to me, it loses some of its 'value' and 'real-ness'

what are your thoughts people?

Post processing is a part of photography, always has been even with film and always will be. Even just the simple act of developing the film is considered post processing - there are many different ways to alter the development of a negative with different development processes.

Yes, it's important to take a good photograph in camera because post processing can't and shouldn't make up for poor shooting. But post processing does NOT have to mean making an image look unrealistic and it is definitely not a term that applies purely to digital format. But particularly if you shoot in RAW, every image will need at least some basic sharpening and contrast boost. If you shoot in JPG, the camera is auto applying post processing for you.

[Design7]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

I don't believe in excessively altering a photo, but I almost always adjust the brightness/contrast and sometimes the highlight brightness in my shots. While you can and should do the proper camera adjustments, sometimes on the fly you just can't take the time to custom-adjust each photo, so tweaking is needed later. Especially since right now, sensors still don't quite match what the human eye sees in terms of dynamic range, etc.

Good photography at the artistic level was always a combination of camera and darkroom theatrics. Even Henri-Cartier Bresson, known for capturing the perfect moment in his images, relied heavily on the skills of an expert developer-printer who was himself a true artist of his craft. If we simply want a record of an event the camera will do the job. However, elevating a photo to the level of art may require the skill to make it so after the photo is captured. That may not always mean Photoshop, it may mean adjusting levels and curves or saturation to create an effect that pleases our eye. A camera is 2 dimensional so it will always interpret a 3 dimensional scene imperfectly. Helping the camera to interpret a little better is what the software is for.

This image required only a bit of sharpening and curves enhancement. Otherwise it is very close to what the camera saw. Just after a sandstorm in Phoenix, AZ

http://stylepeterson.com/phoenix-arizona/after-phoenix-dust-storm.jpg (broken link)

[sharpie1234]

Originally Posted by PA2UK

Post processing is a part of photography, always has been even with film and always will be. Even just the simple act of developing the film is considered post processing - there are many different ways to alter the development of a negative with different development processes.

Yes, it's important to take a good photograph in camera because post processing can't and shouldn't make up for poor shooting. But post processing does NOT have to mean making an image look unrealistic and it is definitely not a term that applies purely to digital format. But particularly if you shoot in RAW, every image will need at least some basic sharpening and contrast boost. If you shoot in JPG, the camera is auto applying post processing for you.

I didn't know that.
thanks!

[kdog]

Originally Posted by PA2UK

Post processing is a part of photography, always has been even with film and always will be. Even just the simple act of developing the film is considered post processing - there are many different ways to alter the development of a negative with different development processes.

Yes, it's important to take a good photograph in camera because post processing can't and shouldn't make up for poor shooting. But post processing does NOT have to mean making an image look unrealistic and it is definitely not a term that applies purely to digital format. But particularly if you shoot in RAW, every image will need at least some basic sharpening and contrast boost. If you shoot in JPG, the camera is auto applying post processing for you.

Yup.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

Ok, so i know many folks like to "post process" their pictures...

i'm NOT one of those people. I believe that it's the photographers responsibility to take a good picture (color, composition, contrast, etc.) right off the bat. anything else done afterward might still produce 'art' and a nice thing to look at, but to me, it loses some of its 'value' and 'real-ness'

what are your thoughts people?

Nothing personal, but that's sort of silly.

Back in the day when film ran the world, you didn't just walk into a darkroom set a piece of paper under the enlarger and voila you had a perfect print. Instead photographers spent hours burning and dodging, using different developers to bring out the inherent qualities in a photograph, nothing different for those who use photoshop.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Design7

Even Henri-Cartier Bresson, known for capturing the perfect moment in his images, relied heavily on the skills of an expert developer-printer who was himself a true artist of his craft.

Should we even begin to discuss Ansel Adams and printing?

[raven302]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Nothing personal, but that's sort of silly.

Back in the day when film ran the world, you didn't just walk into a darkroom set a piece of paper under the enlarger and voila you had a perfect print. Instead photographers spent hours burning and dodging, using different developers to bring out the inherent qualities in a photograph, nothing different for those who use photoshop.

Exactly,

If you are a purist thats perfectly fine and I respect that, but in my eyes it's leaving part of the artistic process out. No one will ever agree on the subject ITS ART, if photography has fine lines and rules never to be broken I quit... However, there are some people that will not like your RAW images and will question if you do know how to process or use a computer for that matter. No offense. While I am still learning and going through an HDR phase I cant explain, I enjoy the works of all types.

"I believe that it's the photographers responsibility to take a good picture (color, composition, contrast, etc.)"

The art hasnt changed, merely the way it's developed. Photoshop has allowed the altering physically for good and bad. Photoshop is MERELY one tool. Lightroom, Aperature, Photomatix, HDR Darkroom, Neat Image, Noise Ninja, on and on.

Limit a painter to one brush or color, boring?