Seriously???? manual and photoshop

P

Philx1979

Suspended / Banned
Messages
987
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I cant believe in this day and age when everyone is pretty much using digital that people are still moaning about using photoshop on thier images, in the last week or so i have chatted to a couple of photographers, one guy went on how wrong it was to even use photoshop on any images and he choses to shoot all day long in jpeg, thats fine if chooses to work that way, but he spoke about photoshop like it should be banned?

One guy i chatted to even suggusted that people should give up photography if they cant shoot pictures in manual? So i guess people like David Noton should give up then cos he shoots in Aperture mode?

It does annoy me a little bit because these people seem to think they are a better photographer because they dont use photoshop and shoot in manual.
I unfortunately shoot in Aperture mode 80% of the time and use photoshop on ALL my images purely because i prefer to actually concentrate on getting the image and worry about sharpening, cropping, contrast and minor things back at home.

And on a last note you should have seen the horror on the guys face who says he doesn`t use any sharpening AT ALL and shoots in jpeg straight out the camera until i showed him his sharpening settings in camera were turned up. Dont bleat about being a purist and shooting manual and not using photoshop when you didnt even know you had a sharpening setting in camera! lol

I dont think i could have got this result on this picture without photoshop, guess i`m a poor photographer lol Oh and it was shot using Aperture mode
6110247806_d4a4d1febb.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well anyone using a camera is already producing pictures which have been manipulated by their choice of camera, choice of lens, even the choice of which pictures to take.

And take in JPEGs they are subject to the tonal, contrast and sharpness settings which may be preset in the camera.

Best choice? - Ignore them and go on taking and producing the kind of pictures YOU want.

.
 
From pressing the shutter to printing is an individual process tailored to each photographer, for those purists cough/snigger/point and laugh....who don't photoshop and shoot in jpeg and don't change factory presets should credit there work to the camera manufacturer.
 
Quite nice to read this actually, i always use photoshop, but iv often wondered how much other people used it. Im new to photography so im still alittle unsure what you all mean about shooting in Jpeg mode?
 
John_G said:
Quite nice to read this actually, i always use photoshop, but iv often wondered how much other people used it. Im new to photography so im still alittle unsure what you all mean about shooting in Jpeg mode?
Click to expand...

Jpeg has in camera adjustments to saturation, contrast, sharpening etc which is basically in camera photo shopping :D
 
Jpeg mode means shooting straight to a .jpg file. most people on here shoot RAW image files which gives greater editing potential in programs like photoshop.

I find it funny that people seem to forget that when processing a negative you could crop, dodge, burn and many other manipulation techniques but then they frown upon it if its done on a computer.
 
So when shooting in jpeg, the camera is just doing the basic editing for you?
 
John_G said:
So when shooting in jpeg, the camera is just doing the basic editing for you?
Click to expand...

yeah basically - which is why pro's who need results fast sometimes still use jpeg

but the camera basic processing is more primitative than that available in photshop/lightroom etc so you get better control if you shoot in raw (so long as you have the time and energy to do all the processing yourself)
 
John_G said:
So when shooting in jpeg, the camera is just doing the basic editing for you?
Click to expand...

yep, the camera will have default settings applied to the jpegs in each picture style. you can adjust these settings yourself to manipulate the image to suit your own tastes though, which is a very basic form of digital editing.

if you shoot using the raw format the camera will save the image with no in camera editing applied to it and it gives you a flat starting image to begin with.

for example: if you set your camera to shoot raw+jpeg and set your picture style with high contrast/high saturation levels then the equivalent raw image will look pretty dull and flat. you would have to use your own choice of software to edit that raw image to how you want it to look. it is more work but ultimately gives you FAR more control over the look of you finished work.
 
that said it does depend on what you are doing in photoshop - if you are creating impossible images merging multiple files (and introducing dragons, meercats, sharks and explosions - see "how would you edit this photo" in the post processing forum) then yes thats 'cheating' though i'd prefer to see it as an artistic expression

on the other hand if you are just processing an imge to look its best then thats no more 'cheating' than for example using a wide apperture to blur the background.
 
big soft moose said:
yeah basically - which is why pro's who need results fast sometimes still use jpeg

but the camera basic processing is more primitative than that available in photshop/lightroom etc so you get better control if you shoot in raw (so long as you have the time and energy to do all the processing yourself)
Click to expand...

good point, there are also a few portrait photographers i've heard of who prefer to shoot jpeg. so it's a case of whatever works for the individual at the end of the day.
 
lexie said:
good point, there are also a few portrait photographers i've heard of who prefer to shoot jpeg. so it's a case of whatever works for the individual at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, it's quite common for studio photographers to shoot jpeg as all the lighting is artificially set up anyway so raw would be a waste really.

As for using photoshop, it's about the photograph not the camera. ;)
 
lexie said:
good point, there are also a few portrait photographers i've heard of who prefer to shoot jpeg. so it's a case of whatever works for the individual at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Yep - I shot a wedding in jpeg on monday (thats a hi risk occupation because its much more possible to recover screw ups in raw) basically because it was a freebie and i've better things to do than raw conversion on 500 plus images for nowt

If i was getting paid for weddings I'd definitely shoot raw.
 
End result is all that matters. Especially if it put the bread on the family table.
 
fabs said:
From what I can gather, it's quite common for studio photographers to shoot jpeg as all the lighting is artificially set up anyway so raw would be a waste really.

As for using photoshop, it's about the photograph not the camera. ;)
Click to expand...

one of the photographers i had read about is wedding/portrait photographer jessica claire, some of her work is incredible and she shot jpeg only for years.

here's a post from her blog showing the difference in her jpegs sooc compared to edited raw files:


http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/catID/10/postID/409/I-have-a-little-secret
 
big soft moose said:
Yep - I shot a wedding in jpeg on monday (thats a hi risk occupation because its much more possible to recover screw ups in raw) basically because it was a freebie and i've better things to do than raw conversion on 500 plus images for nowt

If i was getting paid for weddings I'd definitely shoot raw.
Click to expand...

you lucky man, i've just seconded for the second time on friday. but i shoot raw and the main shoots jpeg! i have to go through and convert my raw files before i give them to her to do her thing, i had thought about going jpeg and bracketing everything to cover my arse. it wouldn't be long in bumping up the shutter count though, the noise would probably get on peoples nerves and i would have an insane number of shots to hand over.
 
while i agree that jpeg does have a place , i'm not sure that that blog adds much evidence - most of those photos are strictly mediocre both before and after , and while its true that she's recovered detail etc she could have acheived far more with less by thinking more about composition etc before firing the shutter

Like with the beach shots , why the heck is she shooting straight into the sun with the grooms face in the shade anyway.
 
It really depends on what you are shooting. When shooting sport I try to get it right in camera because it'll be too difficult or time consuming to edit 800+ photos.
However, I've been shooting using light recently. One shot was 22 layers, a shot last night used 6 and was deliberately shot that way. I couldn't have got the shot any other way, well I could but the cost would have been prohibitive.
Horse for courses. Photoshop or editing is just another tool to get the image. I don't see it as any different to using filters, changing lenses etc.
 
To me avoiding photo editting seems like much better advice to a new photographer than someone with a decent amount of experience.

Increasingly I'v seen inexpereinced users claim that nothing beyond pointing the camera in vaguely the right direction is important with the real work being the post processing.
 
As I see it, it's all about the end result. Whether you choose to do no PP or loads of PP, surely if you're happy with the end picture, then who cares??
 
Photofinishing has always existed and so in a lot of ways photoshop isn't new. However my view is that if more than 10% of the finished image is down to photoshop we ought to be describing it as something other than photography.

As a Pro getting the image as close to perfect in camera is essential. Otherwise we either become too expensive or we work for peanuts.

As for manual exposure. I've said it before - it's complete nonsense. The skill is in getting the right exposure, whatever metering method or camera mode you use is completely unimportant.

The viewer doesn't care whether you shoot manual or program or Canon or iPhone. Do you think they're impressed by a nearly image shot in manual rather than a perfect image shot in Program.

All of these modes require photographer intervention to make the most of them. A duff image with no thought is as bad shot in p as it is in m.
 
I find it rather arrogant of some people who seem to think that the only way to take photographs is their way. Choose the way that works best for you.

The Photoshop is cheating argument in something I just don't waste my time with these days. I've found that the people who usually complain the loudest about it are people who know very little about photography and can't be conviced that dodging and burning went on in the darkroom.

The last time I had that argument was with a female colleague who was ranting on about how I darkened a sky to add some extra mood to a photo. She claimed it was cheating and misleading. I said I was only enhancing what was already there.

She stuck to her guns, so I pointed out that she was wearing make-up and surely that was cheating.

Apparently that was different :bang:
 
you neglected a couple of key rules in arguing with women there

rule one : she's always right
rule two : if she's wrong refer to rule one
 
big soft moose said:
you neglected a couple of key rules in arguing with women there

rule one : she's always right
rule two : if she's wrong refer to rule one
Click to expand...

But I did remember the most important one:
rule three: Run away quickly!
 
I'll always strive to achieve the best photo I can in-camera, and I'm always happy when I don't do much with it in photoshop. On a side note, I've been shooting manual now for about a year, I got myself into the habit over a period of time, and now it just works for me. I do use the other modes at times. You should always be open to whatever technique works! The photoshop vs darkroom is an age old debate now isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top