Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by dexlab View Post
    Anyway, are there any good/famous photographers who doesn't do PP at all or minimun PP? Cos PP seems to play an important part in making a picture look great. The point I wanna know is if it's possible to have a Great picture just Raw or all do great pictures have to go through PP to be great?
    i am sure there are photographers which were not pped much, but relied more on the light, circumstance, skill, among the 80,000 other things that photography is about, rather than just pp.

    you miss the point here, and the vibe i'm getting is that you're trying to say that pped good photograph is lesser than non-pped good photograph. that's like saying that bad pped photograph is lesser than non-pped bad photograph. the thing is, a bad photograph is a bad photograph. a good photograph is a good photograph.

    in short, you don't need pp to get a good photograph, but pp can add to a good photograph. and in my view, a good photographer should recognise when he needs a certain amount of pp to bring across his message, to convey what he visualises, and when to stay away from it.

    there are so many ways to take pp. take for example a swan picture. i can turn it into black and white, i can do selective colouring, i can just adjust the curves, or i can spend half a day burning and dodging it to achieve a certain effect. choosing the correct path of pp, or not pping at all because there is no need for it - that is what is important, if you ask me. and at the end of the day, what we see is the final result.
    Last edited by night86mare; 4th December 2008 at 09:16 AM.

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i am sure there are photographers which were not pped much, but relied more on the light, circumstance, skill, among the 80,000 other things that photography is about, rather than just pp.

    you miss the point here, and the vibe i'm getting is that you're trying to say that pped good photograph is lesser than non-pped good photograph. that's like saying that bad pped photograph is lesser than non-pped bad photograph. the thing is, a bad photograph is a bad photograph. a good photograph is a good photograph.

    in short, you don't need pp to get a good photograph, but pp can add to a good photograph. and in my view, a good photographer should recognise when he needs a certain amount of pp to bring across his message, to convey what he visualises, and when to stay away from it.

    there are so many ways to take pp. take for example a swan picture. i can turn it into black and white, i can do selective colouring, i can just adjust the curves, or i can spend half a day burning and dodging it to achieve a certain effect. choosing the correct path of pp, or not pping at all because there is no need for it - that is what is important, if you ask me. and at the end of the day, what we see is the final result.
    **applause**
    Family | Health | Happy-ness. . . my Flickr here

  3. #43

    Default Re: Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by dexlab View Post
    Just a thought,
    nowadays can anyone get away with printable shots without any pp? Seems like many nowadays rely on pp to make their shots look better. Even basic stuff like cropping or changing colour saturation etc.

    Is it really neccessary? or can we just get away without it and print brilliant pictures?
    Quote Originally Posted by dexlab View Post
    haha...so even if you pp or don't pp, you will still puke?
    like that might as well don't pp cos the end result is still the same! haha..saves time too.

    Hmm...seriously, IMO really good photographers don't really needa do much pp. but there are of cos really bad photographers who are very good at pp as such their pp-ed pictures look better compared to some of those taken by good photographers. Any truth in my thought?
    In the old days, you have to developed your film, and then make a print.

    Post processing and DI is just that, developing and printing.

    The lab you send the film to process, will often make some adjustments when printing, unless your instruction is to do absolutely no adjustments. Then you probably will be sending the film to a professional lab.

    If you are serious enough, you might be doing the developing yourself, and make adjustment in terms of the temperature of the developing solution, the development time, and let's not forget, the type of solution used.

    NOTHING comes straight out of a camera and is usable.

    Today, in the digital world, the camera onboard processor will make the post processing for you.

    What I have failed to understand is, this preoccupation of "I don't do post processing", "I don't do photoshop" ... Very misguided.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  4. #44

    Default Re: Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

    yeeey.. so please uninstall your photoshops at home.. hahaha

    peace to all. :P
    Loslos...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •