Should I photoshop to have good photos?

[photoaddiction]

I asked a professional photographer this same question, and his reply was that ALL professionals use photoshop. So are you documenting personal history or are you trying to take professional photos?

[private]

Beauty, just like a good photograph is in the eye of the beholder. So, when you are photoshopping your photos, pay attn to what you are doing to "make them better". If you are just sharpening and or changing the contract and brightness, you prob do not need to use photoshop you should work on your camera settings. But if its the lens that is not giving you the effect that you want, photoshop is waaay cheaper than a new camera lens. But, shhhh, don't tell my husband, lol

If you want to add an artistic flare, by making it look like a painting, or a drawing for example - by all means use photoshop or any other software out there.

[coplan]

I'm not sure you should be thinking about it as photoshop vs. no-photoshop. You should have in your mind how you want the photo to look. If you can do it in the camera, so be it. But if you have to tweak a little in photoshop to get it perfect, you shouldn't condemn yourself. Personally, I use it as a measure of my skill with my camera. I aim to get perfect white balancing, and perfect exposure right in the camera. If I don't have to tweak anything in Photoshop...then I know I'm doing well.

I shoot in RAW, btw...so technically I have to pull everything into photoshop to convert. But you get the point.

[Tiberius]

I think the best way to deal with photoshopping photographs is to see Photoshop as a way of finishing the photo. I like to get most of the work done in camera. Mostly what I do in Photoshop is to crop, straighten a wonkly horizon, correct colour and give the picture a bit of kick (which involves duplicating the layer, setting the blend mode to "overlay" or "softlight" and then running a high pass filter). other than that, I generally do very little.

[Rattail]

I used to (in the 1980's) think of photography as being separate from darkroom work. I would do the wedding, creative shots, etc, and take them to a lab for printing. I would ask them to lighten, darken, change contrast a bit, but that's it I believed that to be the norm. In October 2007 I bought a DSLR and my beliefs were the same. Camera work and computer work were two different art forms.

However, since getting more photography again, I am now of two minds. On the one hand, I believe that my photos should be as I intended them to be. Because I am not a pro, I need to do a little bit of post-processing from time to time (darken, lighten, contrast etc) but I use Picasa for this because it's simple to use!

However, on the flip side: my camera skills still need a LOT of development (no pun intended!), so my photos are not always as I had intended, and usually they are the ones that I can't take again. It's times like these, that I wish I knew how to use a powerful program like PS. I think it is a good tool for compensating for the skills that I lack. I especially like creative photography (not graphic design, or graphic art, but actual photography) and PS would help a lot here.

B.t.w. I am currently working though some literature I got on the 'net to teach myself PS. It's rather daunting.

[Imed]

Hi
Well..it depends on the picture..is it good enough without "lifting" or not.
Of course, it would be great if u came out from your camera with a good picture that doesn't need anything else (except maybe cropping/framing/signature)..but it's not very often

Plus: if u r using RAW files, you'll surely need a software (Lightroom or other), so u don't really have the choice

Hope it hepled

Regards

[lonelyjew]

I'm sort of in the same place as you otherone. The conclusion I came to is do what you want and for me that often is post processing. Let's face it, the kit lens just isn't great. It doesn't do justice to colors or contrast and often can use sharpening. I usually at least do this basic work on it. If I really care to I get around the aperture and dof limitations and blurr the background a bit. At first I thought of it as cheating but it's not, it's both making up for the lens limitations and teaching me better composition. Do what you want and get your pictures to look as you would like them to. There is nothing wrong with post processing so long as it isn't used for something like news.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by lonelyjew

There is nothing wrong with post processing so long as it isn't used for something like news.

Excellent point! If you're trying to become a photo journalist, you can pretty much ignore everything in this thread.

[BOGDOGMAX]

I would like to point out that if you are not shooting in RAW, then your camera is most likely "processing" your shots anyway. With white balance correction, sharpness, contrast, saturation etc... based on which mode you have selected on your camera. So the hi-tech camera is "cheating" for you anyway.

[wulf]

As I said above (gosh - this thread is a blast from the past!), it is useful to be able to get good shots in-camera. For example, at an event I was at on Saturday, I wanted to be able to share my best shots with minimal delay so I didn't want to rely on post-processing. I was pleased with the results (the only processed on is the second version of the group shot), such as this one:



However, I am not sure there are any that wouldn't benefit from a bit more work. I probably won't find time for it with these photos but I think that, in most cases, I could create a tweaked version that looks as natural on its own but would be the preferred option for the majority of viewers.

Get your shots as good as you can in camera... and then learn to make them better in the digital darkroom.

Wulf