potentially stupid question...
Discussion
Right, first a disclaumer - I'm pretty pants at photography. My question may be stupid, but...
Quite often, I look on this forum, or hear elsewhere that loads of people seem to use pshop etc on all their photos, e.g rescuing bad exposures, dirty lenses etc etc. For me, the fun / challenge of getting something decent out of our 400D is by the button pressery, and it's really satisfying getting a good reult from the (luck?) skill of taking a good photo.
What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
Ta
G
Quite often, I look on this forum, or hear elsewhere that loads of people seem to use pshop etc on all their photos, e.g rescuing bad exposures, dirty lenses etc etc. For me, the fun / challenge of getting something decent out of our 400D is by the button pressery, and it's really satisfying getting a good reult from the (luck?) skill of taking a good photo.
What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
Ta
G
Graham E said:
Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
Ta
G
Install lightroom? Ta
G
Cameras, DSLRs in particular capture real tones, contrast etc. In most cases the human eye prefers slightly unrealistic images, extra contrast, increased saturation (see the Safari thread).
Nothing wrong with bumping up your levels and playing with curves on your images, it's something you can't get right in the camera.
1) Of course nobody intends to make mistakes when taking a photo, but it's impossible never to get anything wrong, and when you do get something wrong you might as well use the computer to correct it.
2) Some things you just can't do with the camera. For example, having fine control over contrast, saturation, colours and noise removal; merging multiple exposures; removing distracting objects; changing the aspect ratio.
2) Some things you just can't do with the camera. For example, having fine control over contrast, saturation, colours and noise removal; merging multiple exposures; removing distracting objects; changing the aspect ratio.
For me Photoshop isn't about rescuing a poorly taken photograph, but enhancing a well taken photograph to make it even better.
Digital cameras produce raw data, which can either be converted to jpg in camera, or in a program like Photoshop, where the user has control over how the raw data is processed.
If you allow your camera to convert the data to produce a jpg, you can almost guarantee that it won't have done the best job possible, and that all jpgs can benefit from some furhter adjustment.
Digital cameras produce raw data, which can either be converted to jpg in camera, or in a program like Photoshop, where the user has control over how the raw data is processed.
If you allow your camera to convert the data to produce a jpg, you can almost guarantee that it won't have done the best job possible, and that all jpgs can benefit from some furhter adjustment.
Graham E said:
Right, first a disclaumer - I'm pretty pants at photography. My question may be stupid, but...
Quite often, I look on this forum, or hear elsewhere that loads of people seem to use pshop etc on all their photos, e.g rescuing bad exposures, dirty lenses etc etc. For me, the fun / challenge of getting something decent out of our 400D is by the button pressery, and it's really satisfying getting a good reult from the (luck?) skill of taking a good photo.
What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
Ta
G
because on a whole people are lazy and sloppy. Also there is a big movement especially in the USA that all shots need processing, especially portraits to give plastic skin and other such sQuite often, I look on this forum, or hear elsewhere that loads of people seem to use pshop etc on all their photos, e.g rescuing bad exposures, dirty lenses etc etc. For me, the fun / challenge of getting something decent out of our 400D is by the button pressery, and it's really satisfying getting a good reult from the (luck?) skill of taking a good photo.
What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
Ta
G
teIts fair enough saying why not get the best shot straight away but I doubt its just me but how often does it look amazing on the rear view but soon as you get it home you notice its slightly out of focus or too light or dark. If it is a good shot is it not worth putting in the time to save it?
To the O/P
I work in the music industry (everything from orchestral to pop). How much of what you hear do you think is 'people getting it right in the first place' and how much is post processing?
I think you get the drift.
Also... how much time do you think most of us old enough to remember spent in the dark room trying to get the best out of a shot?
Photoshop is a breeze in comparison!
I work in the music industry (everything from orchestral to pop). How much of what you hear do you think is 'people getting it right in the first place' and how much is post processing?
I think you get the drift.
Also... how much time do you think most of us old enough to remember spent in the dark room trying to get the best out of a shot?
Photoshop is a breeze in comparison!
Graham E said:
Quite often, I look on this forum, or hear elsewhere that loads of people seem to use pshop etc on all their photos, e.g rescuing bad exposures, dirty lenses etc etc. For me, the fun / challenge of getting something decent out of our 400D is by the button pressery, and it's really satisfying getting a good reult from the (luck?) skill of taking a good photo.
What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
I think there's a difference between using PS to rescue something because you've made a mistake, such as getting the exposure wrong, and using PS to enhance a photograph because the camera has 'seen' something slightly different.What I was wondering was - since it's very rarely fun using photoshop in any instance, never mind batch processing loads of badly exposed shots, why do people not just take better photos in the first place, rather than aiming wrong then cropping to get the frame right? Am i missing a dark art? Is there way to make photoshop anything other than tedious?
But it was always thus. If you get the chance, check out a book and / or DVD called "The Genius of Photography" and see how many of the photographs were straight out of the camera...
Ansel Adams, for example, was forever trying to refine his prints in the darkroom to get the picture he wanted. Was it what the camera and film had recorded ? No, but he was of the view that the darkroom was at least as, if not more, important as the camera as part of the photographic process.
That said, I don't see the point of tweaking all my photos, just the ones I feel are worth the effort. Quite often it might just be a crop or a tweak of contrast / exposure, but some might warrant bigger changes to create a 'better' image.
All that said, I'm certainly an advocate of trying to get close to the picture I want in-camera, rather than spending too much time on the computer afterwards. To me it's an important part of the photographic process - to understand how to achieve the image I'm looking for.
Thanks for your views guys - I was interested as I personally see the "fun" of photography being in the shooting, not the editing. The overall gist seems not to be "take a crappy shot, then fix it", but rather "take a good shot and make it great" - which is a position I'm capable of understanding.
That said, I still take crappy pics, and I'm still unwilling to read the manual, so maybe I should be learning PS after all =)
That said, I still take crappy pics, and I'm still unwilling to read the manual, so maybe I should be learning PS after all =)
i try to only use it only to remove blemishes, such as dust or the odd power line ect. i dont change the colour blah blah. all of my flickr are "from camera" apart from the odd obvious edit.
I feel much more satisfaction from knowing that the final image has been taken with my knowledge and not through software. I do enjoy editing my photos tho.
Although i do dont mind it i do hate that so few images we see day to day are not edited.
I feel much more satisfaction from knowing that the final image has been taken with my knowledge and not through software. I do enjoy editing my photos tho.
Although i do dont mind it i do hate that so few images we see day to day are not edited.
olimeads said:
i try to only use it only to remove blemishes, such as dust or the odd power line ect. i dont change the colour blah blah. all of my flickr are "from camera" apart from the odd obvious edit.
I feel much more satisfaction from knowing that the final image has been taken with my knowledge and not through software. I do enjoy editing my photos tho.
Although i do dont mind it i do hate that so few images we see day to day are not edited.
photos have always been editted --I feel much more satisfaction from knowing that the final image has been taken with my knowledge and not through software. I do enjoy editing my photos tho.
Although i do dont mind it i do hate that so few images we see day to day are not edited.
I have a fantastic ancient book of pictures of Cornish shipwrecks from the 1800's -- the amount of enhancement and retouching would surprise you
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff