Photoshop - Evil tool or Digi darkroom neccesity
Discussion
Just been over to Silverstone this morning for to take a few snaps of the HSCC racing. Now in the process of "processing" (saturation, sharpening, cropping etc) which has prompted a few questions.
I've been using PS for years, mainly for web graphics and general image cropping / resizing. Since I took the pluge back in March into dSLR terratory (300D), I'm now using PS for photo processing too.
So, my question (as a relative newbie); should I rely on PS or should I fiddle more with the camera's settings? Granted you need a half decent photo to begin with. Or perhaps I'm being naive expecting to snap-away and simply "develop" the best ones straight from the camera (as you generally do with film camera's).
A classic example is that I always find the images from the 300D are a little flat, nothing that a quick saturation tweak can't sort in PS.
For reference:
1. I'm shooting in JPEG (highest res)
2. I'm using my own parameter settings of; contrast +1, sharpness +2, saturation +2,color tone 0
3. Alternate between cloudy and sunny (for outdoors shots)
So, back to the title of the thread; Is PS all part of the digital darkroom (ie images MUST be fettled with between the capture and print stage), or is it just an evil tool that we shouldn't really use (aside from cropping and resizing and special effects).
The floor is open...
Thanks for listening
Steve
I've been using PS for years, mainly for web graphics and general image cropping / resizing. Since I took the pluge back in March into dSLR terratory (300D), I'm now using PS for photo processing too.
So, my question (as a relative newbie); should I rely on PS or should I fiddle more with the camera's settings? Granted you need a half decent photo to begin with. Or perhaps I'm being naive expecting to snap-away and simply "develop" the best ones straight from the camera (as you generally do with film camera's).
A classic example is that I always find the images from the 300D are a little flat, nothing that a quick saturation tweak can't sort in PS.
For reference:
1. I'm shooting in JPEG (highest res)
2. I'm using my own parameter settings of; contrast +1, sharpness +2, saturation +2,color tone 0
3. Alternate between cloudy and sunny (for outdoors shots)
So, back to the title of the thread; Is PS all part of the digital darkroom (ie images MUST be fettled with between the capture and print stage), or is it just an evil tool that we shouldn't really use (aside from cropping and resizing and special effects).
The floor is open...
Thanks for listening
Steve
Photoghraphy is so many things but it original intention was to capture an image. Once the shutter has gone off that part of time is lost for ever. But you have a hard copy to help you remember.
I think that so long as your photoghraph helps you remember that particular image or moment in time, then it doesn't matter how much fettling you do with it.
Is it possible that the camera is the only instrument that can capture time?.
I think that so long as your photoghraph helps you remember that particular image or moment in time, then it doesn't matter how much fettling you do with it.
Is it possible that the camera is the only instrument that can capture time?.
Ooh, thats rather philsophical (sp). Good point though, if you argue that I'm using it soley to serve a purpose (as you say, capture that moment), then you're right, it doesn't matter.
Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that a good photographer should be able to get most (if not all) the parameters right then the shutter goes down. Whereas I'm probably getting 50% or so and compensating the rest in PS.
I sometimes feel that using PS is cheating. Sounds a bit harsh though, if you get my point.
Steve
>> Edited by fatsteve on Saturday 16th October 17:11
Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that a good photographer should be able to get most (if not all) the parameters right then the shutter goes down. Whereas I'm probably getting 50% or so and compensating the rest in PS.
I sometimes feel that using PS is cheating. Sounds a bit harsh though, if you get my point.
Steve
>> Edited by fatsteve on Saturday 16th October 17:11
Like i said Steve, photoghraphy is so many things to different people. Technique being one of them for some more than others.
For me the finished product is more about the way it makes me feel.
When someone walks up those stairs and says "tonight Mathew i will be...", i don't think oh thats cr@p, they sound nothing like them. Instead my first reaction is normally - they are a good/bad singer.
It's exactly the same with photography. I normally think - ooh! thats good!, not "fake!" , too blurred, too bright etc although these things usually come afterwards.
For me the finished product is more about the way it makes me feel.
When someone walks up those stairs and says "tonight Mathew i will be...", i don't think oh thats cr@p, they sound nothing like them. Instead my first reaction is normally - they are a good/bad singer.
It's exactly the same with photography. I normally think - ooh! thats good!, not "fake!" , too blurred, too bright etc although these things usually come afterwards.
Speaking as someone who spends several hours a day in Photoshop on average, I would say that its a brilliant tool, and an essential part of photography. In my opinion, it is almost impossible to get a picture from a digital camera that cannot be improved in PS. This is partly down to how I setup my camera (or other peoples cameras if they are taking photos that I will later have to deal with). I find that much better results are achieved if you get the camera to do as little modification to the file as possible - although I do shoot in JPEG, which is a compromise for time/filesize. Specifically, I always set the contrast to its lowest setting to try and avoid losing detail in the shadows, and particularly the highlights. It is always possible to increase contast later , but it is not possible to decrease it if you have lost some of the information in the first place. The same goes for sharpening - each photo requires a different amount, so why apply a bulk (and unsophistcated) sharpening effect in the camera?
Of course it's important to make sure that ypu take the picture as well as possible in the first place, as any serious work on exposure and colour castes will inevitably lead to some loss of quality.
Some people think it's all cheating, but really most of what you can do can also be done in a darkroom, it just makes the job quicker, easier and less messy.
Great program!
Of course it's important to make sure that ypu take the picture as well as possible in the first place, as any serious work on exposure and colour castes will inevitably lead to some loss of quality.
Some people think it's all cheating, but really most of what you can do can also be done in a darkroom, it just makes the job quicker, easier and less messy.
Great program!
David / Bilko
Thanks for you comments. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way knocking PS, as you say it is a phenomenal tool and I love using it. I've always wondered if processing digi-camera images is the norm, clearly you are saying it is.
The flip side of the coin is the I wasted a lot of time last week playing around with ICC / ICM trying to get my monitor, 300D and Epson 2100 in sync. My conclusion was get the monitor + printer in sync, and iron out any issues between monitor+camera with PS. This seems to work great. I also have a CP-330 which I can print direct from the camera, which I guess spawns many of the questions about processing the image before printing.
As I say, I'm fairly new to all this and love it bits. I think my only issue (being a techy) is that I'm looking for black and white (excuse the pun) answers when in fact photography as a whole is highly subjective.
Steve
Thanks for you comments. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way knocking PS, as you say it is a phenomenal tool and I love using it. I've always wondered if processing digi-camera images is the norm, clearly you are saying it is.
The flip side of the coin is the I wasted a lot of time last week playing around with ICC / ICM trying to get my monitor, 300D and Epson 2100 in sync. My conclusion was get the monitor + printer in sync, and iron out any issues between monitor+camera with PS. This seems to work great. I also have a CP-330 which I can print direct from the camera, which I guess spawns many of the questions about processing the image before printing.
As I say, I'm fairly new to all this and love it bits. I think my only issue (being a techy) is that I'm looking for black and white (excuse the pun) answers when in fact photography as a whole is highly subjective.
Steve
Digital + PS allows me to get the results - and more - than I tried to get with film but never quite did. It also allows infinite creativity: I've found that a start image that's unremarkable can sometimes have a stunner lurking within it: you just have to spot it. And if you don't like the result, you just Undo and try something else.
After 25 years of taking photos, I now have ONE which I feel is satsifying enough to be framed and on the wall. Which says it all really!
After 25 years of taking photos, I now have ONE which I feel is satsifying enough to be framed and on the wall. Which says it all really!
Personally I limit the use of the myriad of facilities on the camera except for the basics. I then do first stage processing in Nikon Capture 4 and final tidying up of an image in PS.
What you are doing in PS is very similar to what a skilled processor/printer can do with film so I dont regard it as an abuse of the art, just a different way of achieing a satisfactory result
What you are doing in PS is very similar to what a skilled processor/printer can do with film so I dont regard it as an abuse of the art, just a different way of achieing a satisfactory result
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff