Should I photoshop to have good photos?

[TheOtherOne]

After I take a shot I always photoshop them. You know change the colors and make it cinematic style and so.... Recently I have noticed that there is no need to do that. But I am confused. I dont know if have to photoshop them or not.
Please someone tell me when do I have to photoshop them.
and the main question is: should I photoshop to have good photos?

also I have a

[jdepould]

Some photos are good straight out of the camera, depending on what kind of camera you're using, a little sharpening, contrast might be all that's necessary or maybe more. Some people like to create what I like to call photoshop art, which is less photo and more digital graphic art, some of it is good, some of it stinks. Photoshop is like a very potent spice, you have to be careful how you use it. Everybody has different taste too.

When I do post-processing I usually try to make my edits as transparent as possible. I don't want people to look at my image and think "oh, he must have used xyz photoshop filter there."

[Nicole]

Yup, I agree with jdepould. Some photos are good, even great straight out of the camera. Sometimes photoshop is helpful for little things, sometimes for big things. But if there's no reason to use photoshop, isn't that a good thing? It means that you got it right the first time around. And I fully agree with the statement of "photoshop art". It's something that can be good or bad, but there's nothing wrong with experimenting with it.

[waffles]

Maybe I'm just a tradionalist, but I don't photoshop anything of mine except for cropping. I'd rather get the picture right all by myself then rely on a program to fix it for me.

But then again, I'm not selling them or anything so the only person I have to please is myself.

[wulf]

The main advantages of getting the photo right "in camera" are that it saves time on post-processing and that some qualities (eg. sharp focus) are difficult to apply convincingly at a later stage.

However, when you think of the amount of time and skill a film photographer would invest in their darkroom, I think post-processing can't really be called "untraditional"; if anything, photography used to involve much more work after the shutter was pressed.

Wulf

[katkero]

Originally Posted by waffles

Maybe I'm just a tradionalist, but I don't photoshop anything of mine except for cropping. I'd rather get the picture right all by myself then rely on a program to fix it for me.

But then again, I'm not selling them or anything so the only person I have to please is myself.

I'm with Waffles here. I don't crop or photoshop my photos and learn from my mistakes. I think it's challenging to get it right the first time.

[mdwsta4]

2nd. i don't even have photoshop. granted, you can do so many amazing things with it, but too many people go overboard. i'm not a graphics designer, i'm a photographer. if you're taking photographs, you should be concentrating on what you're doing while you're taking the photo, not what you'll need to do when you're behind the computer.

Originally Posted by waffles

Maybe I'm just a tradionalist, but I don't photoshop anything of mine except for cropping. I'd rather get the picture right all by myself then rely on a program to fix it for me.

But then again, I'm not selling them or anything so the only person I have to please is myself.

[lizziebelle]

I find that I like the photos that have been messed with the least a lot better than the ones that have been heavily processed. I don't like the trend of obviously Photoshopped pictures that is popular on Flickr. If a photo needs more than a little tweaking, maybe it wasn't that good to begin with (IMO).

[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.

[Amigone201]

Well, I usually use Photoshop on people pictures. Skin smoothing, getting rid of acne, that sort of thing. No matter how good a camera you have, or how good the initial shot was, people aren't going to look as good until after you've given them a little of your time.

I also use it for making all kinds of crazy composite pictures. I.e. putting my friend's head on Hugh Hefner, or making someone ride a kangaroo