photoshop & photography

[-Super-Dave-]

What do you think of using photoshop for your pictures? I've pretty much only used it to resize pictures, particularly to send out emails and post a few pictures on TBH. Is learning to use photoshop a major part of photography, or best to stay away from it? Don't know whether to start using it or stay away and stick the shots I originally got, good or bad.

[AggieHunter]

I used to just cringe at the idea of editing pictures through photoshop. I had it in my mind that people were taking mediocre pictures and just jazzing them up w/ the program. What made me think otherwise is when I started taking pictues and playing with the program. Not sure who said it, but basically someone mentioned that using photoshop or other editing software gives you the ability to make a photo more closely resemble what you saw when it was taken. A little tweak here and there goes a long way. Yes you can go to the extreme and make some pictures off the wall or unrealistic, but at times thats art in itself.

[Wildman]

I hate any kind of treatment programs that give someone the ability to take grade photos and work them into something that folks say "Wow!" when they see the photo.

Of course I am joking.

I personally have moved over my edits to Lightroom 2 and only use Photoshop CS on things that are not in LR or are more difficult to use.

[Curtis32]

Personally I like seeing the photos that people on here produce. I don't really understand at what point a photograph quits being just that and becomes a picture as form of art I guess you could say. Everyone does touch ups on their photos don't they? I will take 40-50 pictures of the same thing like when I'm trying to do a still life and I may get lucky and like only one, maybe two. Once I get them on the computer I mess with the contrast, sharpness, the auto fix(which very rarely produces what I like), etc. At the rate the technology is going and with each new camera body that comes out you can do a lot of editing just in camera sometimes, I think.

Our local camera club here has a big stigma about it. They refer to it at "Digitally Altered" and actually have a category for that in the annual contest coming soon in October. I have tried to get a definition from them of exactly at what point does something become "digitally altered"?

I asked them that and the best answer I got was to my understanding, that if it was anything that couldn't be done to film in a lab, like with a 35 mm film or something like that. I don't quite understand that because..well..I never messed with anything like that. All I have ever really known was taking camera pictures with a digital camera. Sure I took pictures with a older technology 35 mm stuff years ago but I didn't know what the heck I was doing and I sure as heck didn't develop it myself! I sent it off at the local Wal-Mart and picked up my pictures later.

I really do enjoy photography now and I'm eager to learn more all the time. Some of the stuff I have seen now blows my mind. And I know the only way I will get better if through my own practice and seeing other peoples work. So don't get me wrong, I for one love looking at all photos and I am learning to appreciate the art of photography.

[Shane]

Using Photoshop or Lightroom or any other editing software is the equivalent of developing your own film prints in a darkroom. You have control over the final product, and you can tweak as much or little as you want to.

Keeping a pic as it is straight out of the camera is the equivalent of dropping your film off at a 1-hour photo lab. It's quick and generic, and you sometimes get great pics that way. But you could improve about 99.9% of them if you developed them yourself.

I think the objection to "photoshopping" a photograph originates with photojournalists. Obviously, a journalist shouldn't cut and paste things in a documentary-type photo to make it appear to be something that it wasn't for a news story. But photographs that are meant to be "pretty" and enjoyed just for the visual appeal are ALL art. Why would you not want to make them look as good as possible?

There is also some snobbery from the old film guys. I'm a flyfisherman, and there are lots of flyfishermen that exhibit the same kind of snobbery towards bait fisherman, hardware chunkers, etc.... It's a good thing it never happens in bowhunting, or else there might be an occasional traditional shooter that would look down upon compound shooters or something.

[cajuntec]

Sorry - I'm a complete, total, 100% amatuer when it comes to photography, so please forgive my ignorance on the subject. I also am not aspiring to become a photographer - I have too many other expensive hobbies already.

I've been wanting to use a good photo editing program in the hopes of "cleaning up" some pictures I have... but I'm not sure if they will do that. I've got a few pics of deer from my game cam that it appears as if the deer is shaking it's head - the body is perfectly captured, but the antlers are a blur of lines. I'm pretty sure I'm looking at the same bucks that are in other pictures, but I'd like to confirm that.

I also would like the ability to just "clean up" some images - red eye stuff, lighting, etc...

Any suggestions on what to buy / use?

All the best,
Glenn

[Shane]

Glenn, you can't fix motion blur or out of focus pics with any kind of software. You can make most other things look better (contrast, color saturation, sharpening, etc...).

Adobe Photoshop Elements is a relatively inexpensive program. There are some good freeware ones too, like GIMP, PhotoFiltre, etc... Those will probably do everything you are wanting to do.

[cajuntec]

Thanks!
All the best,
Glenn

[Curtis32]

Photo Elements is what I use right now and I like it a lot. It also made it a little easier to catalog all my pictures and helps me search for them and find them faster. It took me a little while to get used to it but I picked up on it pretty fast and I like it a lot.

[GUER03]

As a freelance photographer for a few wire agencies we MUST clean up our images before we send them in to our editors. Mainly because when I ftp them they go straight out on the wire instantly and there is no time for anyone to clean them up for me. they have to be ready for pick up from any media outlet including all the major ones.

So every image I send in I crop, check white balance, color saturation, darks/lights, sharpness, and caption. Now I do know that some photogs out there don't do all that and it's very obvious when they don't because usually the white balance is off. The older film guys do look down on cleaning up your shots but hey that'll just give me a better chance of having my images picked up!

A camera is not going to capture what the human eye can see just like mentioned by Aggiehunter. Even a $5000 camera cannot match what you're eye can see so the cleaning up only makes the image much like what we see.

Like with everything else to each their own but I wouldn't show an image until it looked as good as it could possibly look.

I cull, crop and caption all my images in Photo Mechanic, then all my cleaning up is done in Photoshop CS3. I have Lightroom 2 but I can fly through PS since I've used it for so long so I just dance with who brung me.

[bowfishin fool]

im learning cs4 and its amazing!
i can really ring something out and make it pop the way i want, and thats a type of photog. most professionals nowadays use it period.
because you dont always get the perfect shot, or you want to jazz something up doesnt make you any better or worse a a photographer.
so i think photoshop or any software is perfectly acceptable!

[Hawg]

“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” - Ansel Adams

As stated, a camera isn't going to capture what the eye sees. And I haven't invested nearly as much money into my equipment as most of the guys here, but I do invest time and energy in getting the shot. Why would I not want the image that I produce to be the best that it can be? So, I'll need to often make some adjustments.

Albert, what is your turn-around time on your photos, from shooting to submitting to the wire agencies? Do the agencies want the photos within a certain time after the event? Or do you just submit them whenever you're ready?

[Shane]

I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams would have LOVED Photoshop. He was a master in the darkroom.

[GUER03]

Albert, what is your turn-around time on your photos, from shooting to submitting to the wire agencies? Do the agencies want the photos within a certain time after the event? Or do you just submit them whenever you're ready?

Well if it's a football or hockey or basketball game I get them around 15-20 at the half. Then I need to have another 20 or so uploaded within an hour after the game ends so about 30-40 by the end of the night. I have another 48 hours to get them around 20-30 more depending on how big the even is so a total of 60-80ish. However I also submit to 2-3 wire agencies so you can double that in that same time period.

It's a lot of work but I have a system down that allows me to fly through the process. Another thing that helps me tremendously is I mark/lock all the images in my camera during the 'chimping' process that I feel I are good enough to submit. That way when they are ingested into my computer they are marked and I can look at those right away.

Hope this helps.

[-Super-Dave-]

Well that clears up that! I'll give it a shot with new upcoming photos. Do you all save your orinigals after editing or trash 'em? Has anyone ever worked with ACDSee Pro 2.5?