I do agreed in this, now a days lots of photo are over PP, like many of the macro shots i saw are over-cropping, over-saturated and over-sharpening. They had forgotten or too lazy to apply the basic fundumental of photography.
DSLR + Photoshop. Is it a must?
- Thread starter kitchionh
- Start date
- Status
I do agreed in this, now a days lots of photo are over PP, like many of the macro shots i saw are over-cropping, over-saturated and over-sharpening. They had forgotten or too lazy to apply the basic fundumental of photography.
oh please, the most is that i hear that the NTU is giving away web premuim 3 with the laptop.
If you are really from the local uni and saying this, its really sad to hear this.
Override2Zion
Senior Member
Yeap I agree with espion, most images out of digital cameras are bayern interpolated. Information extracted directly from sensors aren't usable without post digital processing. Operations like white-balance, curves and sharpening are performed by the camera initially, you can of course adjust them afterwards too via photoshop if desired.
Haa haa I like bro catchlights' analogy. :thumbsup:
then whats the point of telling people why doesn't their laptop come with ps. Very imature.:thumbsd:
Definitely not. There are other programs besides photoshop.
Pressing the shutter release on the camera doesn't give you a picture. The film or sensor is exposed, that's it. To get a picture out of it, there is a lot of post-exposure processing = post-processing involved: conversion of light to electrical or chemical signals, electronic or chemical amplification & manipulation, etc.
Whether some of this stuff s done inside the camera or on a separate computer doesn't really matter. I'd take an external computer with a decent sized screen, keyboard, mouse, and maybe graphics tablet any time over a tiny camera display and a few pushbuttons.
Motor-driven continuous shooting was common in the film days. Canon had a film SLR that did 14 frames a second in the 1980s or so. National Gepographic's photographers also use more than half a 135-36 film for a story that has less than a dozen pictures in print.
Yep, this misconception arises because people are so used to dropping off their film to the 1 hour lab and then getting their prints back all done - without knowing what actually happens to the film and the processing that takes place to get the prints.
Back when I used to develop and print my own B&W photos - I'd do a lot of 'post processing', things like choosing what developer I used, how long I developed the film for, how much agitation I applied, then when it came to the print, what grade contrast of paper I used, cropping, doing some burning and dodging etc.
Those famous prints from Ansel Adams for example - he didn't just take them and had great prints straight away, I can assure you he spent many hours in the darkroom 'post processing' them.
When you drop your film off to the photo lab - the operator at the lab does a lot of 'processing' when making your prints too (they could also let the machine do auto adjustments too) - whether it be colour balance adjustment/correction, contrast adjustment etc.
A lot of the 'post processing' techniques in Photoshop are just a replication of the darkroom techniques - even the favourite USM tool is a replication of the technique used in the traditional darkroom to increase the apparent sharpness of a photographic print.
I'd hardly call it more natural - heck, even the type of film you use is a form of post processing - whether you used a more contrasty film or one with more saturated colours or more muted colours. People chose certain films because of their 'unreal' colours and looks.
No, I don't agree. Technology has made it a lot easier and more accessible for people to not only enjoy their photography, but also enjoy the traditional techniques to help give their images their full potential. March on with the progress of technology I say.
i think ART of photography is about capturing moments. I think the SCIENCE of photography is about getting the best processed picture from your raw material. photography as a complex cultural process (art and science) doesn't have to be static and non-changing.
whats the big fuss bout PP and no PP?
i pp my pics too,but if my picture is badly composed in the 1st place,there's nothing i can do to save it.PP helps to enhance my pictures,not correct it
If you feel its wrong ,just don't use photoshop then
use lightroom loh:bsmilie:
i pp my pics too,but if my picture is badly composed in the 1st place,there's nothing i can do to save it.PP helps to enhance my pictures,not correct it
If you feel its wrong ,just don't use photoshop then
use lightroom loh:bsmilie:
Sorry if I've asked a "shoot"-me-in-the-head question.
As a camera user, I generally think that what goes on within the camera is not something we can control or alter apart from the adjustable stuff that comes with the camera. I mean the functionalities come with what the manufacturer makes. We can choose between a cheap no brand Made in Taiwan compact camera or a high end Canon or Nikon. Garbage-in, gargage out (agree).
Of course I'm not suggesting that we can anyhow do snapshot and can turn it into award-winning photograhpy by doing photoshop or other post processing softwares. I'm just saying assuming a decent scenary shot is done and displayed on the monitor, then, you think that it is not sharp enough, so sharpen it. You think that the grass is not green enough, then add more colour to it. You think the water reflection is not nice, then do something here and there. There are distractions at the corner, then crop it away. etc etc. Is this the definition of photography? I'm just a newbie, so I don't have a definition, that's why trying to find out what the experts in CS think.
Maybe live and let live. As long as you are happy, do whatever you like.
Rgds,
As a camera user, I generally think that what goes on within the camera is not something we can control or alter apart from the adjustable stuff that comes with the camera. I mean the functionalities come with what the manufacturer makes. We can choose between a cheap no brand Made in Taiwan compact camera or a high end Canon or Nikon. Garbage-in, gargage out (agree).
Of course I'm not suggesting that we can anyhow do snapshot and can turn it into award-winning photograhpy by doing photoshop or other post processing softwares. I'm just saying assuming a decent scenary shot is done and displayed on the monitor, then, you think that it is not sharp enough, so sharpen it. You think that the grass is not green enough, then add more colour to it. You think the water reflection is not nice, then do something here and there. There are distractions at the corner, then crop it away. etc etc. Is this the definition of photography? I'm just a newbie, so I don't have a definition, that's why trying to find out what the experts in CS think.
Maybe live and let live. As long as you are happy, do whatever you like.
Rgds,
i like the girl cosmetic analogy too.
like post processing, makeup can be used for more than one purpose - to enhance your appeal, to cover a small pimple, to create a different look, etc within reasonable limits, cos even the heaviest makeup cannot make a scarred face smooth.
how much time you spend on makeup (or postprocessing) depends on how much cash you are willing to invest in it, and how much patience and aptitude you have in applying it. in a way, it's like checking your grammar after you have typed your message. in it's original form, it's probably still readable with some mistakes peppered here and there, but you can choose to spend time to clean up your message to make it more presentable to others.
postprocessing is ultimately packaging. you can get brilliant works and turn them into marvellous works by means of packaging. and people knows that packaging a product always make it look more appealing. in a competitive world where people try to make their photos stand out amongst the rest, packaging is very commonplace.
depending on your audience and your needs, you need not always postprocess all your photos. you usually only pick your favourites to work on. like photography, postprocessing also depends on passion and aptitude. if you have neither the passion nor aptitude, don't waste time there - spend it on other parts of your life
like post processing, makeup can be used for more than one purpose - to enhance your appeal, to cover a small pimple, to create a different look, etc within reasonable limits, cos even the heaviest makeup cannot make a scarred face smooth.
how much time you spend on makeup (or postprocessing) depends on how much cash you are willing to invest in it, and how much patience and aptitude you have in applying it. in a way, it's like checking your grammar after you have typed your message. in it's original form, it's probably still readable with some mistakes peppered here and there, but you can choose to spend time to clean up your message to make it more presentable to others.
postprocessing is ultimately packaging. you can get brilliant works and turn them into marvellous works by means of packaging. and people knows that packaging a product always make it look more appealing. in a competitive world where people try to make their photos stand out amongst the rest, packaging is very commonplace.
depending on your audience and your needs, you need not always postprocess all your photos. you usually only pick your favourites to work on. like photography, postprocessing also depends on passion and aptitude. if you have neither the passion nor aptitude, don't waste time there - spend it on other parts of your life
No. Not really. I boost image sharpness, saturation and contrast a little, using in-camera settings. Then with careful framing, I shoot with the intention not to post-process. I do this when I shoot weddings, due to the sheer number of images I have to select and pass on to the client. The quality is still good enough for me to feel I've captured the mood and the light as I have intended to. (Of course if they pay me more, I will put in the extra man-hours to pp to get the best out of the image.)
But of course, when it comes to non-critical leisure shoots, more often than not, I will post process.
But of course, when it comes to non-critical leisure shoots, more often than not, I will post process.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The TS asked whether DSLR + Photoshop is a must, I just telling him/her if he/she doen't have a licensed copy of Photoshop, then don't use Photoshop for the PP, it is not a die die must have work flow.
All winning shots since flim time undergo PP.
A good photographer not only need to capture good photo but also well verse in his/her darkroom or digital darkroom technique.
PP is a skill too, not just dragging the curves or pushing up the saturation. It need knowlegde of understand about colour and light.
Why the workflow include post-processing? Because we want to decide how our photo is presented, that why many of us calibrate our screen and spend money on software.
In the past, people are spending hours standing in the darkroom doing PP too.
If you are taking photography serious and pursuing toward producing winning shot, PP is part of the workflow either in darkroom or digital darkroom.
Lots of unnatural photo cause by overprocess is not the fault of the workflow, but the unskillful person doing it.
A good photographer not only need to capture good photo but also well verse in his/her darkroom or digital darkroom technique.
PP is a skill too, not just dragging the curves or pushing up the saturation. It need knowlegde of understand about colour and light.
Why the workflow include post-processing? Because we want to decide how our photo is presented, that why many of us calibrate our screen and spend money on software.
In the past, people are spending hours standing in the darkroom doing PP too.
If you are taking photography serious and pursuing toward producing winning shot, PP is part of the workflow either in darkroom or digital darkroom.
Lots of unnatural photo cause by overprocess is not the fault of the workflow, but the unskillful person doing it.
I think TS, like most people, use the term "Photoshop" to mean a generic form of software for post-processing. Or even using "Photoshop" as a verb to mean "post-processing".
(Btw, don't some cameras bundle Photoshop Elements with the set? Or at least something similar, no?)
I feel post processing is part and parcel of digital photography. Its a step to achieve the effect, look and feel that you want in your pictures, whether is it high contrast or saturation, or toning etc.
Taking the picture is just getting the raw materials required for the final product.
For compact cams, basically you're just leaving the processing to the camera itself, and how the manufacturer dictates how the image will look like processed. Doing your own post processing gives you more control over the look and feel of your pictures.
Anyway i think its a misconception that pictures (film or digital) always represent the real scene...truth is it always undergoes some kind of processing or treatment, whether is it the kind of film, processing at the labs, developing etc.
Back to basics, a poorly taken picture is a poorly taken picture. With or without photoshop.
Taking the picture is just getting the raw materials required for the final product.
For compact cams, basically you're just leaving the processing to the camera itself, and how the manufacturer dictates how the image will look like processed. Doing your own post processing gives you more control over the look and feel of your pictures.
Anyway i think its a misconception that pictures (film or digital) always represent the real scene...truth is it always undergoes some kind of processing or treatment, whether is it the kind of film, processing at the labs, developing etc.
Back to basics, a poorly taken picture is a poorly taken picture. With or without photoshop.
take a look at the pictures out of camera
are they what you see in reality?
no matter how much effort i put into using filters, how long i take to set up the tripod, and most importantly, how many shots i take, what i see on the lcd and my computer monitor, is not what i see in real life. therein lies your answer. the photographs captured by your camera are not what you see.
- Status
Similar threads
