Is Photoshop/PP really neccessary?

[dexlab]

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?

 

[night86mare]

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?

you can eat raw meat if you want to

i prefer to cook mine a little

and like i always say

meat rotten, cook or raw, eat also puke

 

[satan_18349]

Of course you can and what is your definition of printable shots? For A, he may like more contrasty, B may like dreamy, C likes b&w, PP is like adding some seasoning to the taste to create a sort of own personality.

 

[synapseman]

It depends. Any shot straight out of the cam can always be improved.

How much of a perfectionist are you?

For "normal occasion" shots, I just send the shots straight out of the camera to a good lab and let them do the necessary adjustments. 90+% of the time it will be to my satisfaction.

 

[David Kwok]

you can eat raw meat if you want to

i prefer to cook mine a little

and like i always say

meat rotten, cook or raw, eat also puke

Nice... I love my sashimi, hence I love it raw, but eventhough it's raw, it's post-processed raw. :bsmilie:

 

[dannysantos]

Post-processing isn't new... the masters have been known to post-process their shots in the dark room, adjusting contrast and all. As i've read in one of the flickr threads, photoshop is just the darkroom for the digital age.

Also, photoshop cannot do wonders to a shot that's taken badly. It can only enhance those that are taken right. As they say... if you spend more than 5 minutes post processing your shot, it wasn't shot right in the first place.

 

[David Kwok]

Post-processing isn't new... the masters have been known to post-process their shots in the dark room, adjusting contrast and all. As i've read in one of the flickr threads, photoshop is just the darkroom for the digital age.

Also, photoshop cannot do wonders to a shot that's taken badly. It can only enhance those that are taken right. As they say... if you spend more than 5 minutes post processing your shot, it wasn't shot right in the first place.

Oh man.... give some slack please. 5 mins for PP, are u rushing for dinner ? I'm sure those nice looking PP done on works such as DanielKHC takes more than 5mins right ? :bsmilie:

 

[dexlab]

you can eat raw meat if you want to

i prefer to cook mine a little

and like i always say

meat rotten, cook or raw, eat also puke

haha...so even if you pp or don't pp, you will still puke? :bsmilie:
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?

 

[prolensdreamer]

I thinl all great shots need some minimun PPs.(at least some level tweaking, cropping)

 

[David Kwok]

haha...so even if you pp or don't pp, you will still puke? :bsmilie:
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?

I beg to differ Just because japanese eat raw food doesn't necessary makes them better cooks than the Chinese whom normally prefer cooked food. Post processing is a skill to enhance the photos, to get into the mood that is intended for. It's not necessary just to cover up flaws or so forth. How many models can go on photoshoot without make up ? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: (Okay this is different, forget abt it)

It will be offensive to use PP as a comparison between good and bad photographers

 

[Kit]

If you were to just sharpen the photo or do some minor colour adjustments, then 5mins sounds reasonable. The more complex toning work and post editing can certainly take longer than that and taking more than 5 mins does not necessarily akin to saving a badly taken photo. That's a wrong assumption and you'll realise that once you get to know what complex post editing really entails.

 

[boombox]

Depends on individual to decide whether if it's necessary.
:think:



Photo retouching and Manipulation began very early actually - The first recorded case of photo manipulation was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady.

Source: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

 

[dannysantos]

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?

I don't think so.. bad photos will still be bad photos even after a lot of pp... that's the point.

 

[Kit]

haha...so even if you pp or don't pp, you will still puke? :bsmilie:
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?

The very act of taking a photo is in itself s form of editing because the camera will instill its own parameters to your photo. If you haven't noticed, you'll never capture exactly what you see with your eyes.

 

[Kit]

Depends on individual to decide whether if it's necessary.
:think:

Photo retouching and Manipulation began very early actually - The first recorded case of photo manipulation was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady.

Source: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

That's where the line has to be drawn between enhancing a photo and altering its content.

 

[dannysantos]

That's a wrong assumption and you'll realise that once you get to know what complex post editing really entails.

HDRs and fashion photography i think is a different ball game in that they really do require complex post editing. I was just referring to normal folks like us taking shots and posting it up on our online gallery.

 

[Kit]

Then you are the one who decides what you want to do with your photos. The workflow can be complex too; if you want it to be and again, that does not necessarily equate to saving a bad photo.

 

[boombox]

That's where the line has to be drawn between enhancing a photo and altering its content.

I agree - though it's up to individuals (photographers, Artists) and organisations (the press, photo studios) to do determine where the line's drawn.




So while we do know that PP is there for a long time, the advent of Digital Photography and Photoshop and other Raster Image editing software has made PP very accessible to the masses, and everybody starts doing it for one reason or the other, or some reject it completely.

But as with all sorts of tools out there, including photography - DI itself has a lot of usage potential, and the limit of which is determined by where that individual draws the line (matter of principle), and where his/her knowledge of what DI can do ends (extent of knowledge).

i.e. People can use DI to rescue photos, others use it do Creative DI - as a form of expression etc...

:sweatsm:

 

[giantcanopy]

HDRs and fashion photography i think is a different ball game in that they really do require complex post editing. I was just referring to normal folks like us taking shots and posting it up on our online gallery.

Alot of normal folks here actually also do HDR

Ryan

 

[dannysantos]

Then you are the one who decides what you want to do with your photos. The workflow can be complex too; if you want it to be and again, that does not necessarily equate to saving a bad photo.

You may be right... at least that's a general rule I pose on myself. When not careful, too much processing may lead to unrealistic photos (probably that's the reason why i don't like HDRs and the famous Dragan effect).