Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Enhance photo

  1. #1

    Default Enhance photo

    Is it a Must to enhance a photo from DSLR via photoshop ? My friend said a DSLR photo w/o the enhancement from photoshop is a bad photo .

  2. #2

    Default

    Photoshop can only help in repairing some of faults in photography, but nothing beats a well-exposed, well composed photo.

    Of course photoshop can also be helpful in creating special effects, adding colour tones etc
    Last edited by Banana; 6th June 2005 at 10:30 PM.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    256

    Default

    i shoot in adobeRGB, so every shot of mine has to be edited, be it for print or screen.

    but then again, im a PS fanatic (even simply for enhancing a picture, not correcting mistakes). else i'd have just shot in a different colour mode i guess.

  4. #4
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default

    Well, most pro-series DSLRs require rather large amount of post-processing..
    eat. drink. shoot

  5. #5
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default

    Not all image can looks good straight out off the camera, sometime need to adjust the curve or level a little bit here and there.

    How much to enhance is up to individual. For me, most of the time I donít adjust it unless is necessary, I prefer to get it right when making the exposure.

    Some of my Punggol landscape pictures in the gallery are untouched uncroped, just downsize and post it.

  6. #6

    Default

    I see , so means that a dslr user w/o a pc can't ever take a good photo straight away from camera .

  7. #7

    Default

    and even a proffesional photographer with D2X or mark 2 has to use photoshop to enhance their photo .

  8. #8

    Default

    I heard somewhere that images fresh out from DSLR is soft by default, because of the anti-aliasing filter. Therefore need at least to apply some level of USM in PS.

    pls correct me if i'm wrong!
    Last edited by behyx; 6th June 2005 at 11:27 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'm very disapointed that photoshop is a compalsory step for DSLR

  10. #10
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default

    I shoot wedding for living, 99% of my shots are straight go to prints without PS (why 99%? I need to use PS to add font for cover photo ), I prefer to get it right on site, and make sure is usable.




    Behyx, some people turn off camera sharpen, prefer to apply USM in photoshop, how much USM depand you output size, so if you output is web, downsize first and apply USM.

    Hope this help.

  11. #11
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heroyui
    I see , so means that a dslr user w/o a pc can't ever take a good photo straight away from camera .
    Can, like others have said, a good photo required a good exposure and a good composition. PS only allows you to sharpen up the tones a little.

    For pro-series bodies, the sensors are usually very sensitive and capture a lot of detail, and tend to be less sharp. Consumer series bodies usually have some post-processing done by the camera.
    For me, my 1D Mark II usually requires a fair bit of post-processing after shooting as images are not that sharp.
    eat. drink. shoot

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heroyui
    I'm very disapointed that photoshop is a compalsory step for DSLR
    actually u cannot compare something analog and digital. The former being film is of course much simplier when taking photo. Because there is absolutely no digital interference anywhere between the subject and the film, therefore the deciding factor is only the lens and film types.

    However for digital, there's a CCD/CMOS which is the most crucial part, and because it being a digital device, it can mimic film BUT can never be as 'true' as it is. It's just like many audiophile says vinyl is much superior to CD.. It's the same logic behind.

    Also, unless you take a perfectly correct exposure of your liking in your photograph using film, otherwise the lab will still do correction to your exposure during printing, which is similar to us using photoshop!

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by behyx
    actually u cannot compare something analog and digital. The former being film is of course much simplier when taking photo. Because there is absolutely no digital interference anywhere between the subject and the film, therefore the deciding factor is only the lens and film types.

    However for digital, there's a CCD/CMOS which is the most crucial part, and because it being a digital device, it can mimic film BUT can never be as 'true' as it is. It's just like many audiophile says vinyl is much superior to CD.. It's the same logic behind.

    Also, unless you take a perfectly correct exposure of your liking in your photograph using film, otherwise the lab will still do correction to your exposure during printing, which is similar to us using photoshop!
    I seldom need to enhance photo by using a consumer digicam , but i heard every DSLR user said photo come out from DSLR MUST enhance via photoshop

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by +evenstar
    Can, like others have said, a good photo required a good exposure and a good composition. PS only allows you to sharpen up the tones a little.

    For pro-series bodies, the sensors are usually very sensitive and capture a lot of detail, and tend to be less sharp. Consumer series bodies usually have some post-processing done by the camera.
    For me, my 1D Mark II usually requires a fair bit of post-processing after shooting as images are not that sharp.
    i thought more detail = sharper = more noise ; less detail = blur = less noise ..
    Pls correct me if i'm wrong
    Last edited by heroyui; 6th June 2005 at 11:57 PM.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heroyui
    i thought more detail = sharper = more noise ; less detail = blur = less noise ..
    Pls correct me if i'm wrong
    he meant more details in the shadow portions, i think! And it doesn't contribute to sharpness.

    well anyway don't worry it's not such a big problem to do some PS after shooting with your DSLR! Things ain't always perfect in this world!

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by behyx
    However for digital, there's a CCD/CMOS which is the most crucial part, and because it being a digital device, it can mimic film BUT can never be as 'true' as it is. It's just like many audiophile says vinyl is much superior to CD.. It's the same logic behind.
    Yes, the comparison with audiophile "logic" is striking. In particular since a CCD is an analog device.

    With (negative) film, you either spend a lot of time in the darkroom, or you hand the work over to a photofinisher (or a minilab) who may or may not deliver pictures acceptable to your taste.

    With digital image files, you either spend a lot of time at the computer, or you hand the work over to a photofinisher (or a minilab) who may or may not deliver pictures acceptable to your taste.

    And the difference is ... ?

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf
    Yes, the comparison with audiophile "logic" is striking. In particular since a CCD is an analog device.

    With (negative) film, you either spend a lot of time in the darkroom, or you hand the work over to a photofinisher (or a minilab) who may or may not deliver pictures acceptable to your taste.

    With digital image files, you either spend a lot of time at the computer, or you hand the work over to a photofinisher (or a minilab) who may or may not deliver pictures acceptable to your taste.

    And the difference is ... ?
    Well i think it's more of preference already. 'to each his own'.

    Some people prefer spending hours in a darkroom developing photos and find trills in doing it!

    There are some others (purists) who just like to take pictures and just hand it over to a lab and develop, print it without correction.

    And there are a large emerging group of digital photographers who'd prefer to edit/color-correct the pictures in the comfort of his/her studio, home or office.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •