Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
correct photoshop is a pixel editor unlike raw editors.. i cant move objects around in a photo, add objects to a photo ,substitute skies or extract images from one back ground and put them in another.
but i can edit globally or locally color,saturation,contrast,brightness ,sharpening and some light duty cloning out of spots.
i can also use topaz or nik software products incorporated into nx2's menu
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?
Have you ever done any darkroom developing of film yourself?
There are techniques in the dark room for improving imagery.
Photoshop is no different. It is a tool.
Clients who've paid me over the years would not have agreed with you.
I can see casual point and shooters not wanting to post process. It's just too much effort for the degree of interest. I know a lot of p&s folks who have a hard time even taking the pictures off the card. Any further work is simply too much trouble. It's kind of like the fast food approach to photography - instant and easy. Remember how popular polaroids were?
I do find it surprising when I hear from people who sell their work, let's say a somewhat average or mediocre portrait or action photographer who don't want to touch the jpegs after they come out of camera. But I think a lot of those franchise photo businesses do just that. They are sometimes run by ppl who really don't know photography at all. A pro photojournalist friend of mine was looking at buying a school photography franchise with an established clientele. When he talked with the retiring owners he found out they simply set the camera at one setting (like f8 and 1/100 sec) and never changed it. No processing was used. And they shot 100s of children's school pictures. I would guess places like Sears, JCPennys, etc... take a similar approach.
I would guess places like Sears, JCPennys, etc... take a similar approach.
They do.
That's why, even though I loved photography, could never bring myself up to work in one of those places.
My guess was that it will instantly kill any creativity and love for photo... at the end, it did get killed, but for other reasons
I try hard to keep my pics SOOC and do very little post processing. Not that I don't believe in post processing per say, but I don't have the patience for it and don't want to mess with it if I did..........
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?
Gotta go with the post processing. I suspect you will not find many photographers who wouldn't use any available tool to create their vision.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
— Ansel Adams
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
— Ansel Adams
Last edited by dpi-vic; 09-05-2010 at 09:43 AM..
Reason: quote added
Not every photographer, particularly those who only take photos as a hobby, knows what goes into taking a good picture.
I took two pictures at night, outside. One picture could be "adjusted" to get what I was shooting, but the other one? Didn't turn out at all, even after trying to play with it.
It was a deer--I remembered that photo very well, because I was probably 50 feet away from it, if that. All you could see was its eyes, because of the reflected light. None of the rest of it came out.
If you are a purist thats perfectly fine and I respect that,
I don't because unless the purist's photograph is taken in a controlled setting, where they can constrain the light values within the useful range of either film or paper the ability to express the complete tonal range of a scene is impossible which will lead to either blown out highlights or detailess shadows. This is why successful purist photographers don't exist outside of studios, if at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
