Could you live without Photoshop or other PP software ?

NeilMc

NeilMc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
302
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
I see so much on here thats stunning, but its clearly had time spent on the post processing, I often wonder what the original image looked like before the titivating started.

Bit like seeing a beautiful woman and wondering what she looks like first thing in the morning with no make up on.

How many of your pics are 'out of the box' ? with just simple dark room style tweaks to brightness, contrast and crop ?
 
99.9% of my photos are straight out of iPhoto which only has very simple editing.

If I can't get it to my liking with simple changes then it goes in the bin. The 0.1% where I do more are still simple things like cloning out a small bird in the sky that I didn't want in the shot.
 
Most of mine are simple colour corrections, brightness, contrast and cropping, unless I want to create something, then yes I can live without photoshop, but not Lightroom.

:)
 
I dont have a choice, I cant work photoshop etc so if it needs more than resizing or sharpening then I'm snookered. I'm only just managing to get my head round fotomatix for hdr. I'd love to be able to use those programmes, but I think if I can work on decent shots out of the camera then I'll benefit later
 
i couldn't live without it. That's because the majority of my images are landscapes.. and i only use a polariser and a 10 stop, so i like to apply other filters in pp to bring out contrast in clouds etc.. the other issue is with my 5D MK1.. if there's a slight breeze anywhere within a 50 mile radius, then the 5D will soak up the dust bunnies like a good 'un :thumbs:

Apart from that, wide aperture shots of people rarely need anything doing to them and it's pretty much SOOC :thumbs:
 
Wot, no Photoshop? That would be as bad as in the 'old' days just sending your snaps to Boots. Yuk!
 
yes, i don't even own photoshop.


can't live without Lightroom though, but that's only for temperature, brightness, contrast and cropping.
 
For many years, I existed very happily with no computer, let alone photoshop (or similar.) Living as I now do in the 21st century, I would find it harder to unlearn than I did to accrue the basic PP skills I have now.
 
I shoot in RAW and my CS5 is a valuable tool, couldnt live without it to be 100% honest and lets face it mpst Photographers DO pp :D

Many claim they don't but They do! Its an integral part of Phpoography, far as I'm concerned

Les :thumbs:
 
99% of my shots are Jpeg SOOC and untouched with Photoshop. I have JASC Paint Shop Pro 7 which I normally use for cropping and resizing for putting on Flickr. I've spent hours setting the camera to give me the best output I can get. For the few really crucial shots (paid shots normally) I take them in RAW so I can tweak them if I need to, but that must be less than 200 shots out of 17,500 or so that have been taken with all my Canon cameras (the wife has been using my 550D for a while and her shots are included) I've had.
I could definitely live without it and IMHO some other people would benefit from having to do without it, they would have to make it the very best they can in camera insead of rescuing shots all the time. A friend of mine has to PP every shot as he always over-exposes and fixes, but I'm happy enough with my images and so are the people I shoot for whether in RAW or Jpeg.
 
I don't have Photoshop, but I use GIMP.

Nearly all of photos have constrast, brightness, saturation and sharpness changed in some way.

Crop them quite offen and sometimes clone items out that ditract from the photograph, for example a fire klaxon on a wall in a people group shot and a sign on a wall in another group shot.

But yeah, I could live without it.
 
Only people that don't understand what 'processing' is can think that they can do without it. Including the film shooters, because without any processing your camera's RAW data is unviewable, and so is your film.

Whether you send your film to a pro lab or Boots, or do it yourself it gets processed, and for digi shooters, whether you shoot RAW and batch in LR, PS, Aperture or anything else - it's processed. And if you shoot JPEG - it's processed in camera.;)

So; once you understand that processing is a necessary aspect of photography, you can choose how much you want to control that process. Whether that's dark room, camera settings or software.

I could live without the software on my PC, but I'd have to learn to tweak my camera software to achieve what I want. Personally I prefer to shoot, breathe, then process, having to predetermine a look in camera would work, but it's like tying an arm behind my back.:shrug:
 
One foot in both camps for this, taking on board what phil V has said that to an extent all photographs are processed to some degree.

I was/am quite happy to just take a photograph.

Having said that I love playing in CS5 (don't know what I am doing most of the time, (just got Scott Kelby book so that should improve (hopefully)))
 
I think we all *could*, but from the earliest days of photography there has always been a degree of post editing and to me tools like photoshop are just another tool in the armoury for getting the final product. I don't go overboard with PP, but I think colour correction is an essential part of the process, as is straitening, cloning out distractions, blemishes and so on - but i couldn't be bothered to do a sky replacement or anything like that.

a great photo is a great photo, but photoshop can enhance and sometimes with the best will in the world there is no way to frame a photograph without that bin, old lady or something else spoiling your composition in the background.
 
Probably if I shoot jpeg and tweak the settings in camera, but I like having the digital negative and versatiliy of shooting in raw so I can develop the photos myself. I do believe in getting it right in camera though as much as possible.
 
The point of photography is the final image, isn't it? So using every tool in the box to get the best result surely makes sense.

Virtually every shot I take is Photoshopped, even if it's just a basic crop-and-sharpen.
 
Half the fun for me is figuring out how to post process the image.

As has been said above, digital post processing is the equivalent of a home darkroom/different film types. The data always has to be processed into a final image and I enjoy doing that as much as taking the photo in the first place.

If I were a press 'tog or a sports 'tog, I'd be figuring out how to get the camera to do my processing for me with custom profiles...
 
Let me see.
A. in camera jpeg 8 bits and Mr Canon/Mr Nikons (etc) processing with limited ajustment.

B. Photoshop with 16 bit and my unlimited choice of processing..... er B for me. :)
 
Any one who has developed a film and made a print, knows that processing is essential.

It is a question of how much you leave to automation ( in camera processing) or to a paid operator "boots" and the like, who with the help,of electronics selectively process each frame. Or send you work to a pro lab, who offer the full range of manual correction.

Each of these routes provide a level of processing at a given price range.

So with Photoshop (full version) or elements. Or any other of the popular processing programs. You get the level of processing options that you pay for.. .except perhaps with Gimp which is a free sort of "photoshop" but which needs it own learning curve.

Only the in camera Jpeg offers the sort of minimal service, that used to be provided by the bottom end high street film processor. This is simply accepting the minimum automated processing standard available. It is not something to be aspired to.

But can be highly convenient.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Only the in camera Jpeg offers the sort of minimal service, that used to be provided by the bottom end high street film processor. This is simply accepting the minimum automated processing standard available. It is not something to be aspired to.
Click to expand...

It may not be to some. If the camera gets the exposure, colour etc,. correct then why change it. Some people are happy to get the shot to be pretty much how it was and their aspirations lie in getting interesting subjects/good composition etc,.
 
ernesto said:
It may not be to some. If the camera gets the exposure, colour etc,. correct then why change it. Some people are happy to get the shot to be pretty much how it was and their aspirations lie in getting interesting subjects/good composition etc,.
Click to expand...

That is why manufacturers provide the Jpeg option, with full automation.

It is what suits a majority of users.

In the past very few camera users printed or developed their work.

Most professionals did (or could) and most serious amateur photographers did.
Those who could not, would not have thought themselve photographers.
 
Luckily that has all changed with onset of digital and no cost implications around developing photos (which would have been part of the reason why pro and serious amateur developed)

You missed the point though and it is not for you to decide what should be aspired to by others...
 
NeilMc said:
I see so much on here thats stunning, but its clearly had time spent on the post processing, I often wonder what the original image looked like before the titivating started.

Bit like seeing a beautiful woman and wondering what she looks like first thing in the morning with no make up on.

How many of your pics are 'out of the box' ? with just simple dark room style tweaks to brightness, contrast and crop ?
Click to expand...

Most of those stunning shots look stunning because, as you say, the photographer has spent time first of all learning, and then applying, editing skills as well as learning how to use a camera. But first they 'got it right in the camera', which we all try to do. Problem is, some people think that this is where it ends, and are able to see some sort of merit in not knowing how to edit digital files. This is weird. Do they also only shoot at a fixed shutter speed, or use just one aperture or ISO? And if not, why not? Why do some people get smug about not knowing how to edit?

If people want to be 'natural', they should live in trees and eat things that are still wriggling.
 
jon ryan said:
Most of those stunning shots look stunning because, as you say, the photographer has spent time first of all learning, and then applying, editing skills as well as learning how to use a camera. But first they 'got it right in the camera', which we all try to do. Problem is, some people think that this is where it ends, and are able to see some sort of merit in not knowing how to edit digital files. This is weird. Do they also only shoot at a fixed shutter speed, or use just one aperture or ISO? And if not, why not? Why do some people get smug about not knowing how to edit?

If people want to be 'natural', they should live in trees and eat things that are still wriggling.
Click to expand...

in a word, Luddite.
 
As a rule I DON'T ever do any p&p other than add watermarks of one form or another. But when I do "have a play" I usually end up liking what I've done but as I only do photography for fun (and been at it for about 12months) I guess I will start to do more p&p :-)



Rob
 
It's all part of the work flow for me, i always aim to nail exposure in camera but everything goes through lightroom and/or PS....especially shooting raw. I would be lost without them.
Back in the film days the lab 'colour corrected' our pics and we were none the wiser, now we have a bit more to do ourselves!
 
First you nail it in the camera, then you complete it. Either in the darkroom or the computer. Stopping at the camera stage means the job isn't finished. I can think of a number of activities where the final bit is the best and makes it all worthwhile. Photography is among them. :naughty:
 
I think post processing is a relatively new thing digitally so is open to interpretation on whether the extra creative possibilities are an advantage or disadvantage, in truth a mixture of both, that's why personally I don't love Photoshop too much and prefer Lightroom. I don't think photography is anywhere near complete when you press the shutter, there is a lot more to do afterwards especially if you have your own look that's unique. I'm personally trying to develop a 'style' in the way I process the images so they all look similar, still I'm no professional photographer and see it more of a hobby and good thing to do creatively for fun.
 
I always shoot RAW and up until a couple of weeks ago I would have said "all" of my photographs require some tweaking in PP, contrast and sharpening.

I then purchased a Helios 135mm manual lens off a member of this forum and was surprised to find how good my results are straight from the camera. Apart from, cropping, resizing, and converting to jpeg or tiff, I do nothing. Best £20 I ever spent. ;)
 
ernesto said:
Luckily that has all changed with onset of digital and no cost implications around developing photos (which would have been part of the reason why pro and serious amateur developed)

You missed the point though and it is not for you to decide what should be aspired to by others...
Click to expand...

Cost was never a factor. there is and was, simply no other way to get the result and quality you want. High street processsing was always the cheapest way.

Of course I do not decide what others aspire to. Aspiration is always personal.

However it is reasonable to comment that there are different levels of aspiration.
 
symmetricalOCD said:
I think post processing is a relatively new thing digitally so is open to interpretation on whether the extra creative possibilities are an advantage or disadvantage, in truth a mixture of both, that's why personally I don't love Photoshop too much and prefer Lightroom. I don't think photography is anywhere near complete when you press the shutter, there is a lot more to do afterwards especially if you have your own look that's unique. I'm personally trying to develop a 'style' in the way I process the images so they all look similar, still I'm no professional photographer and see it more of a hobby and good thing to do creatively for fun.
Click to expand...

Photoshop is hardly new, It was devised for the film industry, before the advent of amateur digital photography. Still only a tiny part of the whole of photoshop is relevant to still photography.

I rarely use Photoshop to go beyond what was normal in a wet lab.

Burning and dodging (Same)
Cropping (same)
cloning blemishes ( equivalent to spotting and knifing)
changing contrast (same)
Selecting tones (same)
Correcting verticals ( during enlargement or done in technical camera)
Developing to a set gamma (same)

Adjusting colour (done in printing)
Sharpening ( done with an unsharp mask) (professional)

Creating multiple images, panoramas and 3D were all done in the 1800's

The one massive advantage of Digital manipulation is that it can be a once only process, and all further copies can be reproduced identically. In the wet darkroom you were back to square one with each print.

The time saved is immense.
 
duplicate
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Photoshop is hardly new, It was devised for the film industry, before the advent of amateur digital photography. Still only a tiny part of the whole of photoshop is relevant to still photography.

I rarely use Photoshop to go beyond what was normal in a wet lab.

Burning and dodging (Same)
Cropping (same)
cloning blemishes ( equivalent to spotting and knifing)
changing contrast (same)
Selecting tones (same)
Correcting verticals ( during enlargement or done in technical camera)
Developing to a set gamma (same)

Adjusting colour (done in printing)
Sharpening ( done with an unsharp mask) (professional)

Creating multiple images, panoramas and 3D were all done in the 1800's

The one massive advantage of Digital manipulation is that it can be a once only process, and all further copies can be reproduced identically. In the wet darkroom you were back to square one with each print.

The time saved is immense.
Click to expand...

I like that you are disciplined in that way, good point about the panoramas in the 1800's. I'd love to have a go at some darkroom manipulation one day. I know most photographers don't over use it but for example HDR can be sick worthy for both colour and taste lol it's and acquired taste, some HDR actually hurt my eyes which can't be good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top