Are your posted pics originals or photoshopped?

swag72

swag72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I ask this question as a newbie to the forum and constantly amazed at the superb photos that you all post. I have posted 2 photos, and they have been 100% untampered with.

I look at your photos and wonder how you manage to capture such fantastic shots - Are the majority edited, cropped, resized etc? Or are they posted just as they came out of the tin so to speak.

I look forward to your answers in my quest to improve :)
 
I think most people post a mixture of both. Most digital images at the very least will need a sharpen after being shrunk to web sizes, many will have had much more, from simple levels/curves adjustments, so full blown HDR treatments and every conceivable edit in between. People will often say what they have done, and if they don't are rarely offended if you ask if there is any pp [post processing] and if so, what.

HTH ;)
 
As I always shoot in RAW, there has to be some tweeking done (not least with the colour balance and sharpness).

Too many images are over cooked though (IMHO).
 
Agreed, I have most software packages on my laptop, we have them at work so I get a copy, however all I ever do is a quick sharpen, and to be honest I usually use Picassa for that, it's free from Google and if Andy Rouse recommends it then it's good enough for me :thumbs:

JumboBeef said:
Too many images are over cooked though (IMHO).
Click to expand...
 
With the exception of images which have been taken in order to test equipment, I think very few posted here will be unprocessed.

Look at it this way. The camera captures the data on the sensor and stores it. But you have to do something to turn that data into a picture. It's got to be processed. Either you process it yourself or you let the camera do it. Guess which is likely to give the best results?
 
yep,

post capture editing in a RAW editor then sometimes cropped or otherwise jiggered about.

I feel no shame.

The way I look at it is that RAW tinkering is like when I used to process my own films and anything after that is the same as when I used to print stuff in the darkroom at home.


People can get a bit sniffy about computer work these days and it really annoys me. It's no different and no less of a skill than darkroom work, it's just more accessible. Nobody whinges about the fact that ansel adams used to use unsharp masks and such like spending hours doing 'post-capture' work to create a print!
 
swag72 said:
I ask this question as a newbie to the forum and constantly amazed at the superb photos that you all post.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I thought exactly the same when I came here. I even questioned whether 'playing about in cs3' was cheating at all. Ghandi and StewartR have hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I wonder if I have to do more pp work than some. I might not get the exposure right. But shoot raw and it's amazing what you can do with it. I just tell myself that with more knowledge and more practice, I won't need to do some of the basic pp, and can concentrate more on the creativity.
 
Most of my shots on posted here are indoor setup shots where I have time to try and get as close to what I want to achieve with the camera.

I shoot all in RAW and change the white balance first due to the homemade lighting setup I have. Then minor tweaks to colour/brightness etc, as the shot dictates.
 
i would say 95% of mine are resized, sharpened and maybe colour auto adjusted on PS, nothing else though, i only ever change the RAW basics to, dont reallly muck about with the RAW itself
 
All mine get some sort of treatment along the way :)
 
From what I've seen, it's usually safe to assume that at least some PP has been done unless the poster stipulates the image is straight from camera.
 
I always shoot RAW so the minimum I will do is white balance (if necessary) a wee bit sharpening and maybe a crop. Sometime I do a bit more but generally too lazy :lol:
 
badgerbaiter said:
yup.. but then everyone does technically
the camera shoots in RAW, but you choose whether the camera turns it into a jpeg or your computer does.
Click to expand...

...so you are making decisions taking the photo :lol: Plus you must sharpen it too, surely?
 
I photoshop mine as I shoot raw and think if it's there, use it. I used to crop dodge and burn amongst others in the darkroom so what's the difference? it's just easier now.
Photoshopped and Proud. ;)
 
I pp mine, some will just be a re-size & sharpen others may need other work like dust spot removal healing, levels, curves saturation etc - the tools are available so why not use them.
 
I mostly tinker with cropping, contrast and brightness and the final bit is a sharpen. I will use all the processes that PSE6 provides if required. Chemical photography is different from Digital photography. The editing programs provide most of what we used to do in chemical photography but then goes on to do far more and IMHO easier and more convenient.
Paul
 
JumboBeef said:
...so you are making decisions taking the photo :lol: Plus you must sharpen it too, surely?
Click to expand...

tbh I'm a bit confused as to what you are getting at.

When you dont shoot in raw you set the sharpness, contrast, white balance etc in the camera. When you shoot in raw you do it on your computer instead. Its not exactly photoshopping
 
All my shots are edited to some degree or another. Some of them just have the white balance set then resized for web and sharpened, others have considerable work done to them.
 
Yep :) after resizing, a touch of sharpening, and this and that, I feel a bit more comfortable about posting my photos.
 
I shoot RAW then do minimal touching up of the shot before posting it online, not into doing too much with the end result just enough to get to what it looked like on the day.
 
I'm new to all this photo editing, and couldn't at first understand why people did it, until I started comparing my pics to others on forums, and then realised just how much you can enhance pics!

However, I feel some rely too much on the editing part instead of trying to take the best photo they can at the taking stage. All this ,for example, replacing skies because its not blue/cloudy or whatever enough does not appeal to me.
I'd rather go out when the weather is right so there's not much editing to be done. Pictures can be made worse sometimes and you can go on forever editing and changing pics if you want to and this can give me brainache.:lol: Mostly with mine I find the original is good with a bit of editing and thats it. JMO :thumbs: :D
 
I think it depends on the pic. A lot of mine are pretty much straight out of the camera with the occasional tweak in the RAW conversion. But then I spot the potential in others so really go to town and then I like to see just what can be done to make something visually appealing if not true to photography.

I think digital photography has widened what we think of as photography and so long as I find the end result visually appealing I'll happily use pp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top