do u agree ps(photoshop) yr photo is very important?
- Thread starter junniee
- Start date
- Status
Exanimated
Member
Shouldnt there be an option for:
100% shoot quality 0% ps editing
100% shoot quality 50% ps editing
There are purists who believe that ps is sorta cheating.. =P
100% shoot quality 0% ps editing
100% shoot quality 50% ps editing
There are purists who believe that ps is sorta cheating.. =P
Even in old film photography, shots were corrected during dev process in the darkroom.
However, corrections under any means should be avoided as best you can, otherwise laziness and shodiness can creep into one's primary goal of calculating, composing, and catpuring great pictures.
Today, many people go about photography with very laxed sense of integrity in this art, with the comforting notion that PS, is always there to correct hence, compromises are often allowed...
I do edit mny shots as well, and it is always only in exposure values; darken or brighten, and very rarely anything else, so that I strive to for shots that require less and less editing via PS.
Technology is there to aid us, but we shouldn't let it become a crutch which we permanently depend upon.
However, corrections under any means should be avoided as best you can, otherwise laziness and shodiness can creep into one's primary goal of calculating, composing, and catpuring great pictures.
Today, many people go about photography with very laxed sense of integrity in this art, with the comforting notion that PS, is always there to correct hence, compromises are often allowed...
I do edit mny shots as well, and it is always only in exposure values; darken or brighten, and very rarely anything else, so that I strive to for shots that require less and less editing via PS.
Technology is there to aid us, but we shouldn't let it become a crutch which we permanently depend upon.
i go with 100%shoot quality 20% ps editing
ZeroDivine
Senior Member
hrm if 100% is for full effort and time, I think getting the image right first at 100% effort is necessary. Followed by 100% effort in tuning up the image to what you envisioned.
Just no bad shots can be salvaged, but a good shot can become 'wow' with the effort and time put in to PS.
Just no bad shots can be salvaged, but a good shot can become 'wow' with the effort and time put in to PS.
In both Digital and Film Photography, color casts do happen.
The point is, know what causes it, and avoiding or prevent its occurence.
I mean if the intention is to take a picture and then completely remake it under PS, it should be re-classified as some other graphical art form. Not Photography...
The choice is open to each individual. There will be those who refuse to PS, and there will be those who advocate PS. And there will be the in-betweens. What matters is getting what you want to get, isn't it?
For myself, I'm a lazy person, I prefer to avoid post-processing, and hence I go for out-of-camera 90% of the time. I like the feeling of getting good photos out-of-camera, too. But when it comes to work (images my clients want), then the PS stage is a necessity. Blemishes, skin imperfections, dust specks on sensor, you name it.... they all need to be cleaned. And adding the "art" effects as well.
So no right or wrong. Just go and enjoy making your images.
For myself, I'm a lazy person, I prefer to avoid post-processing, and hence I go for out-of-camera 90% of the time. I like the feeling of getting good photos out-of-camera, too. But when it comes to work (images my clients want), then the PS stage is a necessity. Blemishes, skin imperfections, dust specks on sensor, you name it.... they all need to be cleaned. And adding the "art" effects as well.
So no right or wrong. Just go and enjoy making your images.
Yes you are right.
PS helps greatly in reducing and or removing blemishes especially in wedding photography.
But as with any powerful tool, it can be easily ABUSED...
No right no wrong, just evolution...
not even close to the truth regarding the colour cast,
u actually shoot film b4?
film's temp n ur lighting temp differs only,
gone case with film unless PP.
not so with digital.
giantcanopy
Senior Member
well said.
I believe in making things right out of the camera firsthand. Pics that needed too much PS done to represent its original capture would be only a means of salvage and i will not make big prints out of them.
compositing shots can only be done right out from the camera. PS will not save a poorly composed picture
Ryan
Harry Potter
New Member
dSLR pic is meant to be post-processed.
:bsmilie: do u all agree tt .
example
shoot 6 hr of event (up to 1k shot)
ps
another 6 hr? (best shot of 300?)
anoher 3 hr? (best shot of 300?)
need more advice more on this..
i was really thinking by shooting 6 hr is alot..
if quality can't make then i ps longer
if quality so so .. wad i do some contrasting, compositioning,cropping .
tt it hahaha
example
shoot 6 hr of event (up to 1k shot)
ps
another 6 hr? (best shot of 300?)
anoher 3 hr? (best shot of 300?)
need more advice more on this..
i was really thinking by shooting 6 hr is alot..
if quality can't make then i ps longer
if quality so so .. wad i do some contrasting, compositioning,cropping .
tt it hahaha
actually i did notice something wad dslr shoot in term of color.. seem abit fade off as in 60% of pink when i shoot i know is due to the lighting
even u on yr AWB
even u are on AV mode
even u are on Good lens?!?
even i shoot a 100% pink.. dslr seem have 80% of pink ? issit the L, M , RAw doing the prob?
.. (just my thinking anyway, note me if i am wrong over here)
after shooting i need to ps on the color balance and contrast, wonderng why dslr have this function... on the av mode they help us to do the auto contrast...
hahaa
even u on yr AWB
even u are on AV mode
even u are on Good lens?!?
even i shoot a 100% pink.. dslr seem have 80% of pink ? issit the L, M , RAw doing the prob?
.. (just my thinking anyway, note me if i am wrong over here)
after shooting i need to ps on the color balance and contrast, wonderng why dslr have this function... on the av mode they help us to do the auto contrast...
hahaa
hmm.. I've not much experience with flim, think the latest i using it is when i'm in primary six. Was using my dad's nikon SLR. So I can't comment on that.
But as for Digital, from Scott Kelby's The Photoshop CS2 book for Digital Photographers, he stated that there is still one thing that digital cameras wont do, they sneaks in some kind of color cast, generally it's a red or blue cast depending on the cameras.
However the case, PS or not, is still up to self preferrence, the most impt is you personally like it.
ZeroDivine
Senior Member
actually i did notice something wad dslr shoot in term of color.. seem abit fade off as in 60% of pink when i shoot i know is due to the lighting
even u on yr AWB
even u are on AV mode
even u are on Good lens?!?
even i shoot a 100% pink.. dslr seem have 80% of pink ? issit the L, M , RAw doing the prob?
.. (just my thinking anyway, note me if i am wrong over here)
after shooting i need to ps on the color balance and contrast, wonderng why dslr have this function... on the av mode they help us to do the auto contrast...
hahaa
I think most dslrs r meant to serve those who want more control and processing later, especially true in higher end bodies. You will find out of the cam r usually a little muted in colour, softer. Of course fujifilm already has quite nice colour out of their dslrs.
Just look at the output of body like D2x. Clearly it is not meant to be viewed out of cam but require some PP to bring out the best.
zoossh
Senior Member
i have an open opinion about this.
it depends on what works best for the picture under a specific user to serve the intended effect for the genre, as different people have different strengths and weaknesses, some of which are physically bound, some are technically bound, and some are aesthetic appreciation.
digital enhancement are merely complex algorithms that cannot be applied in the DSLR in camera processing, in terms of details processing, colors and tones.
there is two other processes that invited debate.
- compositional distortion to a face. when done to buildings, nobody gets really upset whether the building's tilt is exaggerated or corrected. but when a face is shaped, a question of what the picture is meant for, is important.
- cloning on or off, digital mergence. which means recognisable items are completely added or subtracted. again the purpose should be asked. and the action stated with the picture posted.
i'm quite open about this, although i dun do mergence. falling into rigid rules and not thinking about it can derive certain ironies. some people actually believes that if you removed a red plastic bag on the coast out of your frame, that is al'rite. but if you shoot and then cloned off the red plastic bag, it is sinful. i actually thought that the former is slightly better simply becos the effect is better, rather than based on those principles. also i think that if one actually bothers to bring the plastic bag, keep it and dump it in the nearest rubbish bin, then there is a value of good moral to talk about.
it depends on what works best for the picture under a specific user to serve the intended effect for the genre, as different people have different strengths and weaknesses, some of which are physically bound, some are technically bound, and some are aesthetic appreciation.
digital enhancement are merely complex algorithms that cannot be applied in the DSLR in camera processing, in terms of details processing, colors and tones.
there is two other processes that invited debate.
- compositional distortion to a face. when done to buildings, nobody gets really upset whether the building's tilt is exaggerated or corrected. but when a face is shaped, a question of what the picture is meant for, is important.
- cloning on or off, digital mergence. which means recognisable items are completely added or subtracted. again the purpose should be asked. and the action stated with the picture posted.
i'm quite open about this, although i dun do mergence. falling into rigid rules and not thinking about it can derive certain ironies. some people actually believes that if you removed a red plastic bag on the coast out of your frame, that is al'rite. but if you shoot and then cloned off the red plastic bag, it is sinful. i actually thought that the former is slightly better simply becos the effect is better, rather than based on those principles. also i think that if one actually bothers to bring the plastic bag, keep it and dump it in the nearest rubbish bin, then there is a value of good moral to talk about.
- Status
Similar threads
