how many software optimations do you do?
Discussion
Select from levels, curves, colour balance (my compact tends to be a bit blue) - then if using online, resizing and sharpening.
With serious stuff shooting RAW there could also be highlight/shadow recovery and layer blending.
The image the camera records is often just the beginning - just as it was with film. Digital just makes it more accessible.
With serious stuff shooting RAW there could also be highlight/shadow recovery and layer blending.
The image the camera records is often just the beginning - just as it was with film. Digital just makes it more accessible.
I'm doing a bit more than I used to, a nagging voice suggests that I shouldn't, but then it seems to be the norm, and there seems little point using something that will allow me to optimise stuff and then not use it. Depending on the images, though, I very often do nothing more than use the in-camera jpg, fiddle with levels, contrast and saturation, re-size and sharpen. If it's something more challenging, I usually faff about for ages, achieve little and give up.
On iPhone I usually just press the magic wand button and maybe crop/straighten.
When I import anything into Lightroom I have an import preset, that does most of my usual changes, boost contrast etc, then anything else depends on both the photo and what I am doing with it. Very occasionally I will take something in to Photoshop for more work.
When I import anything into Lightroom I have an import preset, that does most of my usual changes, boost contrast etc, then anything else depends on both the photo and what I am doing with it. Very occasionally I will take something in to Photoshop for more work.
I have Lightroom but virtually never use it. If I'm shooting still life I might well shoot 30 or more pictures, but it's only the last one that gets processed, the rest are deleted. I always shoot tethered.
I do quite a lot of PS though, Camera Raw for the basic stuff, then I may well change the table top and the background which will involve blend modes and masking, then there will be quite a bit of healing brush and maybe some cloning.
I do quite a lot of PS though, Camera Raw for the basic stuff, then I may well change the table top and the background which will involve blend modes and masking, then there will be quite a bit of healing brush and maybe some cloning.
I think one of the best uses of Photoshop is to remove distracting elements from pictures where you weren't able to control what was in the vicinity of the subject. When people are there they probably won't even see the (for instance) telephone pole that's in front of the old church you are photographing, but in the still picture it will be very obvious. By removing the pole in PS you are simply showing what the viewer would have seen had they been there.
IOW you are telling a lie in order to tell the truth.
IOW you are telling a lie in order to tell the truth.
droopsnoot said:
I always feel that in playing around in software, I'm just compensating for not getting it spot on when taking the photo. Probably unrealistic.
It's not always possible nor practical to get things spot on when you're trying to capture a moment which may only be fleeting e.g. a fast moving object or the light failing rapidly at sundown.Ultimately what everyone sees is the end result, not how may filters you may have had stacked on the front in order to achieve the same result you could with the sliders in Lightroom. Therefore I've no issue with adjustments to colour balance, shadow levels and spot removal etc in post-processing in order to enrich the final result.
Where I do draw the line is compositing in objects which couldn't possibly have been there in order to make the scene (head swapping between group shots excepted). No issue with it being described as art but I'm not comfortable with it being described as a photograph. :/
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff