Enhance photo


Status
Not open for further replies.

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#1
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 .
 

Banana

New Member
Dec 26, 2004
12
0
0
#2
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
 

uncleparty

New Member
Mar 15, 2005
256
0
0
Singapore
#3
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.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#5
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 don’t 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.
 

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#6
I see , so means that a dslr user w/o a pc can't ever take a good photo straight away from camera .
 

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#7
and even a proffesional photographer with D2X or mark 2 has to use photoshop to enhance their photo .
 

behyx

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2002
2,642
0
0
35
SG
www.danielbeh.com
#8
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!
 

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#9
I'm very disapointed that photoshop is a compalsory step for DSLR :(
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
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 :bsmilie: ), 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
heroyui said:
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.
 

behyx

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2002
2,642
0
0
35
SG
www.danielbeh.com
#12
heroyui said:
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!
 

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#13
behyx said:
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
 

heroyui

New Member
Jun 3, 2005
72
0
0
39
#14
+evenstar said:
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
 

behyx

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2002
2,642
0
0
35
SG
www.danielbeh.com
#15
heroyui said:
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!
 

LittleWolf

New Member
Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#16
behyx said:
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 ... ?
 

behyx

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2002
2,642
0
0
35
SG
www.danielbeh.com
#17
LittleWolf said:
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom