Photoshop, how much do you rely on it?
Discussion
Its come to my attention recently that i rely on photoshop a hell of a lot. If I ever have a really great image then people always seem to ask me, did you photoshop it? I have to say yes because i tweak every single image. Im starting to feel now like i shouldn't. How many people on here rely on photoshop? Almost as if it is the other half of the process. And if not all of your images then what estimated percentage would you say you edit?
Its just for general interest really because im curious to see if i use it almost too much.
Cheers
Leighton
Its just for general interest really because im curious to see if i use it almost too much.
Cheers
Leighton
agent006 said:
Jack Blag said:
Nobody would blame Gordon Ramsay if he added some salt to a dish, he's only trying to improve the taste.
Make sure you've got all the salt in your dish before you press the shutter.Martin.
I don't see anything wrong with a little tweakery here and there. Extraordinary effects can be achieved, also.
I also use it (WB, sat, levels/curves and crop) to 'enhance' my images (I need to, tho!! D)). You're very lucky (extremely talented) if everything in shot is perfect and you don't need to. I never have been.
Scott
I also use it (WB, sat, levels/curves and crop) to 'enhance' my images (I need to, tho!! D)). You're very lucky (extremely talented) if everything in shot is perfect and you don't need to. I never have been.
Scott
Jenx said:
That's a very naive attitude... no camera has the sophisticated sharpening software built in that can match Photoshop, and the same goes lots of other settings. I have all my camera settings set to 0 and do it with a PC and PS.
Martin.
No, THAT'S a naive atitude. Martin.
And I'm glad some of the other posters seem to agree.
Most of my cameras use a molecular based image capture system. you may have heard of it; it's called film. I don't find I miss having software in my camera and I don't think I'd take better pictures if I had it.
I'm sure no-one would think all the great pre-DSLR photographers are no longer relevant because they didn't use digital. They were great because they a had developed an eye for a shot.
As for this obsession with unsharp masking everything I just don't get it. If your image isn't sharp enough for you then use a tripod, focus more accurately or buy a better lens than the rubbish one that comes bundled with most DSLRs.
I do own a DSLR (only use it for work) and have been known to adjust levels, dodge and burn and crop in Photoshop as I lack a darkroom. To me anything more is only relevant to commercial photography because the image starts to become a computer creation and not a photograph.
BTW: I'm graphic designer and have spent more hours using photoshop than most airline pilots have spent in the air. I choose to not manipulate my shots. You have to decide what you want to create - a great photograph (which is done with a camera) or a great digitally manipulated image (which is done on a compter). Good photographs are rarer.
Personally I like blurry.
Edited by bobfrance on Saturday 29th March 18:34
bobfrance said:
Jenx said:
That's a very naive attitude... no camera has the sophisticated sharpening software built in that can match Photoshop, and the same goes lots of other settings. I have all my camera settings set to 0 and do it with a PC and PS.
Martin.
No, THAT'S a naive atitude. Martin.
bobfrance said:
As for this obsession with unsharp masking everything I just don't get it. If your image isn't sharp enough for you then use a tripod, focus more accurately or buy a better lens than the rubbish one that comes bundled with most DSLRs.
There's a big difference between digital sharpening and sharp focus.bobfrance said:
You have to decide what you want to create - a great photograph (which is done with a camera) or a great digitally manipulated image (which is done on a compter). Good photographs are rarer.
I try to create what I saw.bobfrance said:
Personally I like blurry.
Then there's no hope for you 
Martin.
bobfrance said:
Jenx said:
That's a very naive attitude... no camera has the sophisticated sharpening software built in that can match Photoshop, and the same goes lots of other settings. I have all my camera settings set to 0 and do it with a PC and PS.
Martin.
No, THAT'S a naive atitude. Martin.
And I'm glad some of the other posters seem to agree.
I can't see where Martin suggested doing more than adjusting levels and dodging/burning? I don't know whether you are saying it's ok to do that with film in the dark room, but not digital on a PC?
No-one so far on this thread has suggested that every image requires substantial editing, so I'm not sure what you are railing against.
As for the comment about unsharp mask, for someone so experienced in photoshop I'm really struggling to understand that. I have one of the best and most expensive (for the focal length) and highest quality lenses Nikon make, and ALL my images benefit from a bit of sharpening, tripod or otherwise.
So what should I do? Bin it all and buy a Hassleblad body, phase one back and Leica glass? You're paying I take it?
Edited by _dobbo_ on Saturday 29th March 19:33
I'm sure I read something somewhere that said previously you chose the type of film, how to process it and how to print it in the darkroom. These days those decisions are made later, sitting in front of a computer. It is possible to change an image out of all recognition, or just to tweak it a little.
When you had to physically cut and paste transparencies together, or even paint directly onto the film to make changes, then it was easier to differentiate subtle improvement from large-scale manipulation. Now it's possible to do much more with ease and it would be undetectable, but is that always desirable?
The general perception of a photograph as being essentially truthful hasn't caught up with this yet. I suspect we'd like to keep some reality to images too, otherwise everybody would be adding Caribbean skies to their holiday snaps from Blackpool.
On the subject of sharpening, I thought that the design of sensors introduced a slight lack of sharpness and that the sharpening stage (provided it's not overdone) simply corrects this. Even the stuff from the 'Blad/Carl Zeiss/Phase One outfit still needs a bit.
When you had to physically cut and paste transparencies together, or even paint directly onto the film to make changes, then it was easier to differentiate subtle improvement from large-scale manipulation. Now it's possible to do much more with ease and it would be undetectable, but is that always desirable?
The general perception of a photograph as being essentially truthful hasn't caught up with this yet. I suspect we'd like to keep some reality to images too, otherwise everybody would be adding Caribbean skies to their holiday snaps from Blackpool.
On the subject of sharpening, I thought that the design of sensors introduced a slight lack of sharpness and that the sharpening stage (provided it's not overdone) simply corrects this. Even the stuff from the 'Blad/Carl Zeiss/Phase One outfit still needs a bit.
NailOnHead 
Jenx said:
There's a big difference between digital sharpening and sharp focus..
Indeed. Digital sharpening adds no extra information to the image (i.e. it doesn't really make it sharper). USM further increases contrast in existing areas of contrast. The name comes from a reprographic technique used in printing from way before computers came along.Sharp focus/a sharp lens actually resolves more information within an image (in digital this is limited by the resolution/size on the sensor).
Jenx said:
I try to create what I saw.
I concede you are actually correct on this. A camera reders what it received through the lens. By altering it on the computer you are perhaps attempting to make it into what your brain recalls of the scene. Although to be fair I suspect you are just trying to make the image more saturated and punchy.But let's not get started on phonomenology and how the eye/brain actually works. A photograph is completely unlike what an eye actually sees.
Jenx said:
bobfrance said:
Personally I like blurry.
Then there's no hope for you Martin.
Anyway, let's agree to disagree.
My advice to the OP is - The more practiced you are the more you will get to know your camera and how it sees the world. This makes you more discerning and you will find you can see when a shot doesn't really work and you will forgo pressing the shutter. Consequently you will take more good shots and less bad ones.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff