DSLRUsers.com

Hmm,

I have been thinking about it lately and I am wondering if I really need to learn photoshop before moving forward with my photography. Now, I don't want this to turn into a "how much is too much PP" thread... But I wonder what other people are REALLY getting out of their cameras (without the touchup).

Here is one of mine:



So I wonder, How does this compare with your "out of the camera" image?

The reason I ask is that whilst I don't think the above image is that bad (highlights are a little blown and skin tone not quite right (just)) it is NO WHERE NEAR as good as some baby/portraits I see on the web, which makes me ask the question, photography or photoshop?

I should also say that I don't believe photoshop is any substitute for good photography, just do we need to know it just as much these days?

Would love to hear and see other peoples examples.

Cheers,
W00DY

Interesting question Woody.

As I was thinking about this, I thought of an unusual exercise we could have a go at.
How about all those challenges we've had where no PP was allowed. I wonder what they would be like if the same people would re-work those photos with as much PP as they wish. It may go some way towards answering your question.

phillipb wrote:Interesting question Woody.

As I was thinking about this, I thought of an unusual exercise we could have a go at.
How about all those challenges we've had where no PP was allowed. I wonder what they would be like if the same people would re-work those photos with as much PP as they wish. It may go some way towards answering your question.

Hi Phillip,

I have not been involved in the challenges for a very long time but from what I remember you were able to just fix colour, exposure in PP before submitting, correct me if I am wrong.

And if what you say is correct, about NO PP in the challenges, then I am way behind the 8 ball after taking a quick glance at the last challenge website as I don't get anywhere near that type of colour from any of my shots (that is before PP).

I am not sure getting people to rework the shots would answer my question as I am interested in the UNWORKED shots, the ones straight out of the camera with no sharpening, no exposure compensation, nothing.

Cheers.

W00DY wrote:I am not sure getting people to rework the shots would answer my question as I am interested in the UNWORKED shots, the ones straight out of the camera with no sharpening, no exposure compensation, nothing.

Cheers.

If you're asking if you should learn photography of photoshop, I guess that exercise would give you an Idea where most of the work comes from when you see the finished product.

You're right about the pp on the comps, but if you shoot raw you have a bit more leeway on saturation etc before you convert to jpeg.

For what it's worth, my feeling is that as good as a photo can be straight out of the camera, it can always be improved by pp

phillipb wrote:
If you're asking if you should learn photography of photoshop, I guess that exercise would give you an Idea where most of the work comes from when you see the finished product.

You're right about the pp on the comps, but if you shoot raw you have a bit more leeway on saturation etc before you convert to jpeg.

For what it's worth, my feeling is that as good as a photo can be straight out of the camera, it can always be improved by pp

Ok, thinking about it I realise the title of this thread may be misleading or incorrect. What I really wanted to ask was how good are the images you are getting "straight out of the camera"?

Do you think you need to touch up all images you produce and if so by how much? Phillip, I think you have already answered this question

Is anyone wiling to post some "out of the camera" shots so others can gauge how they rate without the PP?

I think that is a great shot out of camera.

Digital SLRs tend to produce relatively unsaturated and unsharp images straight out of the camera.

My D70 images are always washed out, out of camera - that I said I shoot RAW with all image adjustments turned off and then get the look I want in PP.

IMO PP is virtually essential to a great image from a digital SLR, the same as darkroom work as to film.

i try to always shoot raw, but occasionally i shoot JPG (for candid shots, or when shooting for a client and they need shots back same day)

i make a point of never doing any more PP than unsharp mask / sharpening, and white balance. when i do this, i often batch process and apply the settings to whole batch rather than fiddling with them one by one.

having said that, i would also consider fiddiling with exposure compensation, if i needed to, but have never needed to. i try my hardest to get exposure spot on, in camera, by chimping a little.

to me, photography is all about catching the moment. i spend my time capturing moments, not fiddling with them afterwards.

of course, thats imho...

pippin88 wrote:I think that is a great shot out of camera.

Digital SLRs tend to produce relatively unsaturated and unsharp images straight out of the camera.

My D70 images are always washed out, out of camera - that I said I shoot RAW with all image adjustments turned off and then get the look I want in PP.

IMO PP is virtually essential to a great image from a digital SLR, the same as darkroom work as to film.

Thanks for the comment re the image, good to now that the base image is acceptable.

jamesw wrote:i try to always shoot raw, but occasionally i shoot JPG (for candid shots, or when shooting for a client and they need shots back same day)

i make a point of never doing any more PP than unsharp mask / sharpening, and white balance. when i do this, i often batch process and apply the settings to whole batch rather than fiddling with them one by one.

having said that, i would also consider fiddiling with exposure compensation, if i needed to, but have never needed to. i try my hardest to get exposure spot on, in camera, by chimping a little.

to me, photography is all about catching the moment. i spend my time capturing moments, not fiddling with them afterwards.

of course, thats imho...

I used to shoot RAW, but since moving to the S5 I have been shooting JPEGS's (not many of the software apps handle the RAF file type from a Fuji). Thing is I find the S5 JPEG's great.

I too really only adjust basic settings, I have to admit to fixing exposure on most of my images. I find the sensor in the camera says the exposure is correct but it is usually under exposed a bit.

my thinking is learn photography and what makes a good photo. Cultivate the creativity and foundations as to what makes a fantastic photo, then use the camera first, then photoshop to achieve the final output.

Also what's essential is to not develop an ego and be extremely humble in your exploration There are a lot of talented people out there to be inspired by.

All I have to said have been mentioned above, so I will only make some more points here:

- Photoshop will not do any walking for you
- Photoshop cannot change the subject for you (to some extent)
- Photoshop is only a tool of trade for getting the best out of YOUR image and imagination


- YOU are the photographer, YOU are one who will take and make the photograph.


So in short, I will worry less about photoshop but to brush up the photographic techniques and skills. Or... simply become a photoshop artist, and stay away from the photographer title. At least, that is my POV.

This is a great question.

To me, the camera, lens, flash, photoshop, darkroom, film type, etc are all tools used to capture an image.

How you use these tools will depend on how you want to present the image.

I think the issue of "straight out of the camera" must be considered in the light of something as simple as the last settings you used on the camera. Forget to change the WB from flash for a sunlit shot? Does this mean you should not use any PP to adjust?

What happens if the colour version of the image didn't work as well as a B&W conversion (practical example is with a couple of the photos I posted of my newborn).

Basically, I try to consider the purpose of my image. If it is to capture a particular moment in an unadulterated way, then avoid or minimise PP work.

But, at the end of the day, PP (call it photoshop specifically or PP generally) starts the moment you choose lens, shutter speed, aperture, type of camera, film (if relevant), ISO, flash, etc.

Ignoring my ramblings above, does the question then come back to "global" versus "local" changes - ie, adjusting the curves of an image versus cloning out a part of an image?

I still stand by my assertion that it is determined by your objective of your image.

W00DY wrote:I am not sure getting people to rework the shots would answer my question as I am interested in the UNWORKED shots, the ones straight out of the camera with no sharpening, no exposure compensation, nothing.

Cheers.

Just a quick grab, straight out of the box. All manual settings/exposure

Lot's of good valid points and I hope my question was not taken the wrong way... By Photoshop I did just mean PP.

I also found it interesting that only Yi-P posted an unedited photo, which is what this thread was about, learning to see if your out of the camera shots were up to speed or if your skills were more based behind the computer (I mean no offense to anyone by that comment... and it doesn't matter where your skills are, it is just good to know).

So anyone else like to post some unedited shots?

Don't forget that PP can also take place IN the camera - it is not limited to Photoshop or other image editing apps.

The photographer can make significant adjustments to an image before taking it off the memory card.

All of those menu items are there so that exposure, colour, contrast and sharpening adjustments can be performed by software in the camera.

If comparing images "straight out of the camera", you need to be sure that you are comparing apples with apples.

Don't forget that PP can also take place IN the camera - it is not limited to Photoshop or other image editing apps.

The photographer can make significant adjustments to a JPEG image before taking it off the memory card.

All of those menu items are there so that exposure, colour, contrast and sharpening adjustments can be performed by software in the camera.

If comparing images "straight out of the camera", you need to be sure that you are comparing apples with apples.

like i said previously, all my photos are what i'd consider straight out of camera. that being:
-shoot raw
-apply sharpening, white balance changes, and enhance saturation
-convert to jpg

these are all 'straight out of camera'. in fact, i think all of these were shot straight to jpg... before i got NX.

W00DY wrote:Lot's of good valid points and I hope my question was not taken the wrong way... By Photoshop I did just mean PP.

I also found it interesting that only Yi-P posted an unedited photo, which is what this thread was about, learning to see if your out of the camera shots were up to speed or if your skills were more based behind the computer (I mean no offense to anyone by that comment... and it doesn't matter where your skills are, it is just good to know).

So anyone else like to post some unedited shots?

I'm happy to post, this shot is straight from camera, only resized (no sharpening etc) I'm still a little confused as to what your point is..
If I reshot this knowing I'd do no PP, I'd have upped the in camera sharpening and gone for a more saturated colour setting.

This shot is straight out of the camera (only resized and converted to JPEG):



I try to do this with all my shots and apply minimal PP (WB adjustment, cropping, resizing and sharpening). It is nice to know that I can "save" some shots that may not have been the best without PP, but you can't really make them into good shots if they weren't already good to start with.

This is what I did with the shot above:

jamesw wrote:these are all 'straight out of camera'. in fact, i think all of these were shot straight to jpg... before i got NX.

But isn't shooting in jpeg a form of post processing??

The RAW shot is white balance by the camera, the amount of sharpening is determined by the camera setting and the exposure level is also determined.

QED jpeg output = PP

The only way to compare unaltered images is to compare RAW images and mostly these images are flat and lacking in saturation. There is very little chance of ever getting images of the cyclist to look as good as those if the format is still in RAW.

MarkW wrote:

jamesw wrote:these are all 'straight out of camera'. in fact, i think all of these were shot straight to jpg... before i got NX.

But isn't shooting in jpeg a form of post processing??

i would not consider shooting in jpeg a form of post processing.

do you consider choosing your brand of film post processing? or deciding what iso to shoot at? or any of those finicky little details that?

if you are deciding what you want your photos to look like BEFORE you take a photo, how on earth can you possibly call that post processing? sure, the camera applies a jpeg algorithm to the RAW data AFTER the shot has been taken, but you decided on what the jpeg algorithm was going to be BEFORE you took the shot?

i think you made a veryyyy drastic oversimplification...

MarkW wrote:The only way to compare unaltered images is to compare RAW images and mostly these images are flat and lacking in saturation. There is very little chance of ever getting images of the cyclist to look as good as those if the format is still in RAW.

my images don't look flat because i use flashes / artificial light extensively. not because of any PP or any in camera settings. heck, the only setting i ever touched was saturation and i set that to enhanced.

as i mentioned in a previous post, i do very basic PP. the only reason i shoot RAW is a just in case measure. maybe i might have accidentally blown a highlight. or maybe i might have got the white balance wrong.

i am quite happy to consider those photos straight out of camera. they were onyl touched in photoshop to resize for web and put my naem on them. i consider them un-processed. i will stand by that.

jamesw wrote:as i mentioned in a previous post, i do very basic PP.

Either you PP which means you can't compare apples with apples, or you don't.

We must be talking in 2 different languages. You have your opinion and I have mine - lets leave it at that

I fail to see what is so intrinsically different in setting the camera to saturated colour and achieving the same result by using pp
If you prefer to do it in camera for the sake of less work after, then that's fair enough, but I don't think it gives the photographer any more kudos for doing that.
I prefer to do it after because it gives me greater control.
If however you are relying on pp to fix photos as opposed to improve them, then that's a different story.

phillipb wrote:I fail to see what is so intrinsically different in setting the camera to saturated colour and achieving the same result by using pp

i concur

phillipb wrote:If you prefer to do it in camera for the sake of less work after, then that's fair enough, but I don't think it gives the photographer any more kudos for doing that.
I prefer to do it after because it gives me greater control.

again, i completely agree. i am in the same catogory as yourself. i use raw for a little extra flexibility - not to improve my work - so to speak.

phillipb wrote:If however you are relying on pp to fix photos as opposed to improve them, then that's a different story.

again, 100% in agreeance.

MarkW wrote:

jamesw wrote:as i mentioned in a previous post, i do very basic PP.

Either you PP which means you can't compare apples with apples, or you don't.

We must be talking in 2 different languages. You have your opinion and I have mine - lets leave it at that

your opinion is wrong

Where is energypolice when we need him ?

To PP, or not to PP: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

A very interesting discussion guys, but what I enjoyed most is the sample images posted in the thread. And yes, we are talking in different languages for I believe the only way to compare and learn is to be perfectly franc with one another and disclose how a picture was taken in the first place and what treatment was done to it.

We all have seen some very beautiful pictures taken with inexpensive equipment; and conversely, poor images (I got more than my fair share of them) with expensive equipment. And the beauty of it is that we can turn a poor picture into a work of art with creativity flare and software. So there you have it... my five cents worth.

Agree with Phillip which is why I mentioned pursuing and developing creativity as a foundation, then building up on that.

I started out with the thinking it'll be fine as I can fix it in Photoshop and started to ignore all the basics such as what makes a good composition, gee angles are cool, learning about light, design elements, etc. With that sort of mentality, I built up an ego thinking I was going great guns until I started looking at other people's work and began learning from that.

Now I'm starting over again and going back to the fundamentals and learning about art history and influences to further develop a style.

Whether or not a person takes their work in Photoshop or other image editing software is their choice. Does it make them better or worse or do they deserve more credit for doing something in camera? That's subjective. If you can do something in your shot without having to add to fix it later, all the better - less work to be done. To say that a photographer doesn't deserve credit because they do PP in an external program is a tad arrogant in my books. I make this last comment not to protect myself.

Conversely, the masters of photography spent some time in the darkroom to process their photos. Does this mean that their work is less credible because what they achieved wasn't done in camera? Should we all just go back to point and shoot film cameras, take our film to a chemist to process and then critique on those instead?

Sorry I'll get off my soapbox now

PiroStitch wrote:Conversely, the masters of photography spent some time in the darkroom to process their photos. Does this mean that their work is less credible because what they achieved wasn't done in camera? Should we all just go back to point and shoot film cameras, take our film to a chemist to process and then critique on those instead?
:

this is a very interesting point and i often ponder it, while sitting on my couch...

i think there is a fundamental difference between darkroom and photoshop.

photoshop certainly has a lot of ethical implications that we as photographers need to consider. the exclusion and inclusion of subject matter is a very touchy subject. i am seeing more and more work (not on here) that people are putting out that i consider art, not photography. and is photoshop even art? heck i don't possess any of these answers, hence why i sit on the couch pondering them.

to me photography is all about capturing the moment - i'm sure i've said that before. thus any work that i will ever do in a raw editor, photoshop, or the darkroom must be in keeping with that particular moment.

the fact that i shoot bmx makes that even more important. adding to or taking things out of the scene detracts from the validity of photos.

i try to be as 'ethically strict' as possible with my photography...

heck i dont know.

jamesw wrote:i think there is a fundamental difference between darkroom and photoshop.

In the spirit of friendly conversation care to elaborate on where you think the difference(s) lie.

I think for the purpose of this discussion and to keep in perspective of the original post, we should stick to the type of pp that is designed to improve photos, not alter them (ie. no clone tools or erasers etc.) If you look at it that way then the analogy with the darkroom is a good one.

Alpha_7 wrote:

jamesw wrote:i think there is a fundamental difference between darkroom and photoshop.

In the spirit of friendly conversation care to elaborate on where you think the difference(s) lie.

"cut and paste"

jamesw wrote:

Alpha_7 wrote:

jamesw wrote:i think there is a fundamental difference between darkroom and photoshop.

In the spirit of friendly conversation care to elaborate on where you think the difference(s) lie.

"cut and paste"

Sorry mate, done that before in the darkroom not as easily mind you, But I think I still have a photo of my wife overlooking my young son as if from the sky while he was playing in the corner of the room. Done about 20 years ago.

phillipb wrote:I think for the purpose of this discussion and to keep in perspective of the original post, we should stick to the type of pp that is designed to improve photos, not alter them (ie. no clone tools or erasers etc.) If you look at it that way then the analogy with the darkroom is a good one.

In the case of film photography, a darkroom (or equivalent) was mandatory in order to "convert" the photographs to something that could be viewed. If we use that analogy, post processing is mandatory.

phillipb wrote:I think for the purpose of this discussion and to keep in perspective of the original post, we should stick to the type of pp that is designed to improve photos, not alter them (ie. no clone tools or erasers etc.) If you look at it that way then the analogy with the darkroom is a good one.

just posted what i wrote above before reading this.

yes having said that the analogy between say a raw editor and the darkroom is good.

however there are many features in photoshop that simply are not possible in a darkroom...

jamesw wrote:your opinion is wrong

Isn't great that small minded people just can't accept another's point of view. That they find it necessary to critique it.

Thank you James for your valued input - how much do I value your view of my opinion - nada

Interesting question
Unlike Pyro. I started out thinking that the image in camera was all.
I am slowly learning otherwise.
I came from a slide background. With Slides, you get what comes out of the camera, and that's that. (Yes I know it was possible to take a photo of the slide & play from there but...)
With negatives, there was always more scope for playing with the image, but I had always rejected that, not because I was a purist, but because I coudln't be bothered messing with all those chemicals
Digital is closer to negatives than slides, but allows much more scope for both recovery and creativity. As such it is a different medium to either
The final image is what is put in front of the viewer. The changes to the original start well before the camera shutter is released.
What camera. What lens. What film (in digital terms - ISO, W/B, Saturation etc) What composition. What lighting - natural, time of day, artificial, some mix - Any two photographers presented with the same scene will make different choices for some or all of these, and will end up with different images as a result. If some photoographer's choose to stop there fine. If others choose to modify the image further. That's fine too. At the end of the day, it's that image in front of the viewer that counts, not what happened to it along the way. Nor even what the original looked like. ( I am not talking about image as record here)
By way of example:
Straight out of the camera:

The same image after a few minutes in PP:

The same scene in camera as I realised almost immediately that I had forgotten to set WB:

If I knew enough about PP, I could probably get #1 all the way to #3, but I think they all have their merits.

Which is the best photo? the best record of the scene?
That's for the viewer to decide.

Please guys, don't stop keep posting those lovely images to prove your point.

Here's an example of pp for enhancement:

Straight out of the camera



Adjusted saturation, contrast sharpening and got rid of dust bunnies.

Wow, some serious dust bunnies.

jamesw wrote:however there are many features in photoshop that simply are not possible in a darkroom...

Care to name them?

I'm of the opinion that there are things one can do in a darkroom that are not possible in Photoshop in fact - Photograms, for instance.

MarkW wrote:

jamesw wrote:your opinion is wrong

Isn't great that small minded people just can't accept another's point of view. That they find it necessary to critique it.

Thank you James for your valued input - how much do I value your view of my opinion - nada

Both of you: please do not resort to personal attacks of any kind. Discuss the idea; discussion of the individual is way out of line.

FWIW, opinions are never right, nor wrong: that's why they're opinions, and those of each person here need to be respected. Please feel free to disagree with those of another, but your disagreement does not make the other person wrong, nor your's right. It simply means that they're different.

Gary - as a photogram is an image made without a camera would not a photogram be both possible and viable on a computer. Darkroom=computer

sirhc55 wrote:Gary - as a photogram is an image made without a camera would not a photogram be both possible and viable on a computer. Darkroom=computer

Not really Chris, you can create something on a computer which resembles a photogram, but you need light-sensitive material and light to make a real photogram.

But Phillip, do we live in a ”real” world

Actually the photocopier would probably be closer to it then a computer except that it makes a positive not a negative.

gstark wrote:

MarkW wrote:

jamesw wrote:your opinion is wrong

Isn't great that small minded people just can't accept another's point of view. That they find it necessary to critique it.

Thank you James for your valued input - how much do I value your view of my opinion - nada

Both of you: please do not resort to personal attacks of any kind. Discuss the idea; discussion of the individual is way out of line.

FWIW, opinions are never right, nor wrong: that's why they're opinions, and those of each person here need to be respected. Please feel free to disagree with those of another, but your disagreement does not make the other person wrong, nor your's right. It simply means that they're different.

guys, ever heard of sarcasm? seriously?

Sarcasm is very hard to detect on a written forum, particular when you don't know the person or their sense of humour.

oh well, im not losing any sleep over it.

Some good conversation there guys, and some very good points of view.

Just to clarify a few things... I don't think there is anything wrong with PP, I don't think a photographer is better if they get a more useable image out of the camera, if someone was to change the image in photoshop then that is fine.

I think Alpha asked what was the point... There isn't one really, I just sometimes like to see what people are getting out of the camera and not out of PP, again nothing wrong with PP, I do it all the time, just good to see the other side. The not so saturated, the not so sharpened, the not so curve adjusted images.

Anyway if anyone feels like posting more pics great, I like the idea of posting a before and after pic, it really shows what can be done in and out of the camera.

Cheers,

jamesw wrote:your opinion is wrong

jamesw wrote:guys, ever heard of sarcasm? seriously?

Yes, I'm sure more than a few of us are familiar with sarcasm - and that isn't it.

A sarcastic remark in that context might be something like; "Oh you're absolutely correct! How could I have missed that? I will go away and rethink my whole approach to photography!"

But saying something like "You're wrong" isn't sarcasm.

Look it up.

I'm sure you know how.

Cheers