Support NeoGAF

[borghe]

I know we look at pictures in magazines and constantly comment "oh THAT'S photoshopped" and similar, and we take general offense towards them making people (usually) more beautiful than they actually are. but how much do YOU photoshop?

Typically my workflow with CS2 involves opening up camera raw files which automatically opens the RAW dialog allowing you to tweak general settings of the picture, crop, level, reframe, etc, all before going into photoshop. generally I will make very few adjustments in here. once in photoshop though, all bets are off. touch up the sky a little, change saturation in a few spots, lighting, etc. I'm not saying I touch EVERY photo, and not saying the photos that are touched all receive A LOT of work. sometimes it might be nothing. sometimes it might just be adjusting the rotation to square things off.

anyway, really the question in general just is, how often do you photoshop a photgraph you take?

 

[Jado]

I recently got a Rebel XT and I'm finding that at the least I always need to go into PS and do some color correction.

 

[heavy liquid]

I usually only correct the levels (color, brightness, etc.) and touch up red eye if it's there. Like you, I'll also re-crop or adjust the rotation on a picture once in a while. Everything else I leave alone.

 

[pinkatrophe]

and we take general offense towards them making people (usually) more beautiful than they actually are. but how much do YOU photoshop?

We do?

Usually I adjust levels, curves, sharpening, and sometimes color balance and that's about it.

 

[Outcast2004]

My digital tends to shot things dark in indoor light so I'm really having to boost the mid tones and drop down the shadows.

 

[Lucky Forward]

I mostly shoot RAW with my 20D, so I really have to photoshop to some extent. If I were shooting JPEG the camera would automatically increase saturation, contrast and sharpness, but shooting RAW means I have to do that myself in post-processing.

My usual workflow is:

In Digital Photo Professional:
- Adjust brightness and color balance, if needed.

In Photoshop:
- Crop slightly, if needed (I always strive to perfect the composition in the viewfinder)
- Adjust contrast
- Fine-tune brightness
- Adjust saturation
- Use the clone tool to eliminate small distractions, dust spots on the sensor
- Dodge or burn where needed
- Sometimes use the gradient tool on an overly bright sky
- Apply Unsharp Mask (always the last step)

I have no problems with using Photoshop to tweak the image to make it represent the scene the way I remember it. I just try to do it very subtly, my goal being to have a beautiful photograph that still looks very natural. It's just like special effects in the movies--when it's done right, you don't even realize it's an effect.

P.S. I only went digital a year ago, so I'm still a newbie at Photoshop. I really know nothing about levels, curves, and layers. Still a lot to learn!

 

[jamesinclair]

I pride myself in not altering my photos in photoshop.

Heres a picture Im really happy with. Shown as taken, no edits done by me.

It was an incredible day.

 

[SickBoy]

Generally with my SLR:

- adjust contrast and exposure from RAW (Rawshooter essentials)
- crop
- unsharp mask

My camera generally leans to underexposure (nice not to blow highlights), less saturation and less in-camera sharpening than typical cameras, so a little RAW adjustment goes a long way.

As it stands, I think the "bright" mode (as opposed to its "natural" mode) produces what's probably a more "pleasing" look, but I prefer the more natural look I get doing the adjustments myself.

The nice thing is that although the RAW software included by Pentax sucks (I use Rawshooter Essentials), it gives you the option to apply many of the in-camera settings to RAW files... and after seeing them done in a variety of ways, I think I'm happy with the do-it-myself approach for "keeper" pics.

EDIT: So it's worth noting that "not doing anything" to a photograph doesn't necessarily say much. How a camera processes images is a big part of the mix. For example, if you see output from a lot of Kodak cameras (at least the older ones -- I haven't paid attention to Kodak for some time), you'll get a very pleasing, very saturated image... maybe a little overly so.

 

[Lucky Forward]

EDIT: So it's worth noting that "not doing anything" to a photograph doesn't necessarily say much. How a camera processes images is a big part of the mix.

That's a point worth emphasizing...if you're not shooting RAW, then the camera is already tweaking your image to some degree.

 

[Futureman]

Photoshop is the digital darkroom. I know it's just a term thrown around sometimes, but it's true. Just as the darkroom is essential when dealing with film, Photoshop (or some other equivalent) is essential with digital photography. Digital SLRs intentionally do not sharpen the photos in camera, it is a required step in post-processing. The point is, the photographer is given the flexibility to decide how little or how much sharpening is added. Adjusting levels and color adjustment is almost always necessary as well.

 

[mrkgoo]

Funny, there's this strange stigma that photographs are records of reality...that they represent the real world, and conseuqently, any 'touching up' or modification of photos can be seen as 'modifying reality', and thus creating a poor representation.

However, people that are concerned with these things fail to realise that everything in teh world, this 'reality', has to be perceived. Be it by focussing light on a retina, or on a digital sensor. Whatever the perception, it is altered anyway. Your eyes and brain do much to modify the incoming information to make it comprehensible.

Modifying photos be it in post production or by teh use of filters should never be regarded as 'cheating' if the purpose is to make a pleasing picture. Or even if it is to represent reality...because reality through our eyes is not necessairly as pure.

 

[imastalker co.]

don't photoshop my stuff what so ever.

although on occasion i'll boost the contrast a bit.

i don't have anything against photoshopping personally, it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

[jamesinclair]

That's a point worth emphasizing...if you're not shooting RAW, then the camera is already tweaking your image to some degree.

Thats true, but thats unavoidable.

I mostly take pictures of places, not people, and so want my pictures to reflect what I see.

Thats not to say I take scenery pictures. Just of locations.

 

[sprsk]

i do whatever i could do in the dark room.

 

[Timbuktu]

I've no problem with photoshop, as long as you're honest about it. It is about the image at the end and photoshop is a tool in the same way you camera is. I don't really believe in photographic truth anyway, so not doing any photoshop whatsoever isn't necessarily closer to reality. Choosing when to take a picture, of what, composing the shot and all that is already a layer of interpretation so I don't see what you produce in photoshop/darkroom as another layer so much as an extension of the same one. To me it's how much control you exert on/with a photograph and it's ok as long as you acknowledge that and do not feign honesty.

edit: nighttrain, I'm a bit surprised that your completely photoshop free, although i think you've mentioned it before. That's just because your photography (at least what you've shown us) are mostly staged, taken at specific shoots with models and all fairly carefully composed. So I would have thought you would use photoshop to get them to look exactly how you want them, it's not like they're not embedded with fiction already. And your photos are quite saturated, is that because of a firmware on the camera?

 

[eeyore the donkey]

never used adobe photoshop (pc too old)...my question is do they give that airbrushed look to models (like in playboy, maxim, fhm, etc) using photoshop or some expensive professional software? could i take a photo with a high quality 6mp digi camera and airbrush it to look like in those magazines?

 

[Futureman]

never used adobe photoshop (pc too old)...my question is do they give that airbrushed look to models (like in playboy, maxim, fhm, etc) using photoshop or some expensive professional software? could i take a photo with a high quality 6mp digi camera and airbrush it to look like in those magazines?

Photoshop is that "expensive professional software."

 

[imastalker co.]

And your photos are quite saturated, is that because of a firmware on the camera?

well, i do boost the contrast on occasion, but im guessing you're reffering to colors?

 

[aoi tsuki]

never used adobe photoshop (pc too old)...my question is do they give that airbrushed look to models (like in playboy, maxim, fhm, etc) using photoshop or some expensive professional software? could i take a photo with a high quality 6mp digi camera and airbrush it to look like in those magazines?

You've also got to into account hair stylists, make up artists, the lighting, location, and props among other things. There's usually more to it than a pro cam and a copy of Photoshop.