Should I photoshop to have good photos?

[inkista]

I tend not to post-process very much, but then I also shoot QTVR-cubics, which require a ton of post-processing.

I think that not only the quality of what you did in camera, but also your intent with the finished photo decides whether or not you need to dink with it and to what extend you're going to dink with it.

If you took the photo, envisioning what digital cross-processing was going to do, or you were working in infrared, or you took several exposures with the intent of stitching/HDR/stacking, or you shot RAW because you knew you weren't going to nail the exposure or white balance in camera, or you intended to composite several images together, then post-processing is definitely the order of the day.

If you got what you wanted in camera, then it depends on whether you were going for realistic photojournalism, or a particular artistic vision that relies on post-processing. I personally hate oversaturated pictures, but if someone wants candy apple colors, that's their choice.

The thing for me (personal philsophy, may not fit everyone) is that "saving it in post" should never be the object. Post processing should be more of a polishing process. It's like painting/detailing a car. You should make sure that the car's already got a sound engine and body work before you go there. Or, as Ansel Adams put it in musical, the negative is your score; the print is your performance. Spending time trying to polish a turd isn't worth it. I'd rather dump the file and reshoot.

But if you're a pro out there selling stuff, you'd definitely want the car on the showroom to be detailed.

[BOGDOGMAX]

Many interesting shots of buildings are now being posted, and enjoyed, because we can stamp out power lines.

[Dotita]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

The question of whether you need to photoshop your photos in order to create good images is a somewhat personal decision.

I, for example, feel I do need to photoshop my photos in order for them to be good. I shoot RAW, so without processing my photos through Photoshop, Nikon Capture, or some other photo manipulation program my photos "out of camera" aren't worth looking at. They're incomplete. If you're happy with the JPGs your camera creates then you don't need to photoshop them.

When I first started shooting I was pretty happy with the way the JPGs looked out of the camera, but I eventually got the point where I wanted more control over the final image than was available through my camera's menu. I stopped letting the camera make all the decisions about white balance, contrast, and saturation. There's an analogy here between shooting Manual vs. Auto and shooting RAW vs. JPG. In manual and RAW you make the decisions. In Auto and JPG the camera makes the decisions.

As far as non-RAW adjustments, then I still think that's a personal choice. I've found that with photoshop I can rescue a lot of images that might have otherwise been scrapped. I can also get much closer to my creative vision by applying some post processing techniques, rather than relying on camera technique alone.

Lastly, I don't think there's anything wrong with using photoshop, any more than it would be for photographers to apply post processing effects in a wet darkroom. I also very gladly tell people that all of my photos are Photoshopped.

Do what works for you, and don't worry too much about what others think about your techniques.

Very Nicely said. I couldn´t have said it better.
I mean I strongly agree with you. Specially when you say "I eventually got the point where I wanted more control over the final image..."
That is exactly why I photoshop all my pictures, even if is just some saturation or croping. But I´ve also been surprised with SOME (I mean like 10 out of 3000) that come out the camara just the way I wanted. And then I keep the original and start messing with the image with some cool ovarlays or cross-process...

[rstran]

The world changes every day. Cameras are much more advanced, so is software. IMHO the camera takes the picture as best it can, under the direction of its' captain. We then use software to take it the rest of the way. The human eye is much more advanced than a camera lense, and I find that the photo I shot was not the scene my eye saw. Hopefully, with or without (rarely) software, I get get to the place in my minds eye when I pressed the shutter.......

[Dotita]

Nice blast from the past you´ve brought to me!! I really thank you. It has made me realize a thing or two. And I want to mention a follow-up of my experience in this matter.

When I first posted, I´ve just gotten my camara, and thought that if I read a lot, and try to comprehend what the TIP was trying to transmit I would be able to take good pictures. And so I went, shooting everything, looooottss of times per thing... trying to apply all that I´ve been reading... but all I got left of it (looking back) is a bunch of space used in my external Hdd.

Lately.. (last couple of months) I´ve been really comprehending the tips I´ve been reading.. But through practice and understanding the subject... That´s my focus... for example, instead a picture of "a" mug... I try to make it a picture of "this" mug.. (hope you are in facebook click here)

I´m taking better pictures as time goes by, so I´m not taking 3000 pics any more, and the good ones are more than 75% of the whole shoot. But I still postprocess quite a lot.. less than before... Does that mean I´ve become a better photographer??? I don´t know ... but I´m getting better pics right out the camera.

I guess what I want to say is... as you said.. the better pics you command your camera to get... the better results you will get wheather you photoshop or not.

So, since the adjustments are almost just for styling the pic, I use Lightroom.. Love it!
Paulina.

[Paul 92]

I guess I'm not sure what everybody means by "getting it right" out of the camera. And I really do not understand these attitudes toward computer software as if its cheating or something. I started in art school learning photography in the darkroom and believe me, traditional photography never ended at the camera capture.
Ansel Adams spent most of his time "touching up" his photographs in the darkroom and if he had not, they would not have been Ansel Adams photographs. He revolutionized photography with his new techniques and it would not be the same without him. So don't get too attached to "traditionalism" or "getting it right" just from the camera. Many times your just sticking to old and outdated technology or averting techniques that could really improve your work. Its not cheating as some of you evidently believe. Technology and the advance of it makes our art better and takes it further.
While I agree, there are many captures that do not need a lot of touch up and there is certainly a difference between using these tools for touch up and relying on them for fixing your bad photos. Its really about your technique. Some photography does not require such intense attention to detail but for Ansel, his technique required that he go way beyond what was captured on film to bring out all the nuance of what he captured. "Getting it right" right out of the camera was just not a part of what he did. Not because something was not done right in the capture but because the technique was pre-visualized for the specific image and getting the camera part right is only the first step in that process.
Respectfully if you want to stick with in camera processes only, please do not think your a traditionalist in doing this as most of the great photographers of the early 20th century, like Adams, made all their own prints in the darkroom through painstaking post processes. Do not pass on the chance to improve your work and bring it to new heights because you have an aversion to technology and/or computer software. I believe you're missing out if you do not even take the opportunity to check out what these programs can do for your workflow and your photography.
Paul

LifePics: Create Anything, Print Anywhere

[nickbedford]

My question is: Why should the use of Photoshop or Lightroom adjustments mean you don't need to get it right in the camera?

If you think that, then you have a lot to learn about why they're used in the real world.

[Indigo November]

Wow, this is old...

And the bumper only has 2 posts.

Hmm...

[Biomech]

I use lightroom, I try and get it right in the camera, but to not use shop and risk ruining what would be a fantastic photo is just silly. I don't like the overboard stuff, the over processed photos - infact most "HDR" just looks aweful. I use lightroom generally to recrop (my shots are slightly bigger that the OVF) if needed, pull out some detail, save some highlights and as I shoot RAW I do tweak a little. I save PShop for when I want to "make" a picture or want to do some harsh dodging and burning, cloning, removal etc.





I actually completely reshaped my twisted face recently as it was going into a magazine :P

When you shoot a lot, post processing becomes a pain in the ass - which is why most people strive to get it right in the camera. (at least for production work).

[APhotoSchool]

Even if a photo is great straight out of the camera, assuming you are shooting in RAW mode, it will generally need at the very least some sharpening applied. I don't edit photos to alter reality, but I do like to add more contrast and bring out the detail more. It's not alway's necessary, but it does make a difference on even your best "straight from the camera" shots.