DSLR + Photoshop. Is it a must?

[denmad]

My take on this subject: a person who produce a work of art using PP is no less an artist than someone who does not do any PP at all (if this is at all possible). A great photo is a great photo. Period.

the photographs captured by your camera are not what you see.

I agree with night86mare's point, and add the following to people who still feel queasy about PP their photos:
1. If you shoot in JPEG format, the camera has already post-processed the photo for you.
2. If you shoot in RAW format, how can you avoid PP?

Furthermore, between my DSLR and my computer, I know which one I prefer to have my photos post-processed with.

 

[justanut]

For me, post-proccessing (Photoshop or Gimp or DPP or Lightroom... depending on mood and needs) is required because camera technology + my own crappy skill are not enough for a perfect photographic replica of the world as i see it. PP helps bring the output from my camera closer to that "perfect" state.

And of course, some effects that are "unnatural" just suits the mood and helps paint the story, so why not?

 

[Override2Zion]

Regarding the part on picture being a female and photoshop being the makeup, I have a thought.
We could always put on artificial makeup on the subject such as removing freckles, blemishes and other misc. flaws. When done in moderation, I guess this would make most subjects happier. =)

 

[yanyewkay]

i use picasa.. :embrass:

PP is not a must.. if you like to shoot and keep by all means. No problem.

Else if you want, you can shoot and send it to the printers to get a hard copy, chances are they will adjust the colours anyway unless you go to a really lazy lab or you told them specifically NOT to adjust the colours.

So to answer you, DSLR + Photoshop, no it's not a must. I know a photog who shot and burnt all the pics onto a disc the spot for the customer. Totally zero PP, at the end of the day, as long as your photos match your target audience (can be yourself or anyone) is what matters.

 

[dw2chan]

So to answer you, DSLR + Photoshop, no it's not a must. I know a photog who shot and burnt all the pics onto a disc the spot for the customer. Totally zero PP, at the end of the day, as long as your photos match your target audience (can be yourself or anyone) is what matters.

some photogs will charge extra if the client want PP done... so maybe that was why.

but back on topic. PP is definitely not a must... but in my opinion the only medium that does not involve PP is Polaroid (i consider darkroom PP, and same with the fancy image processor outputting jpgs)
I've seen some excellent work done with polaroid... wish i had the link.

photoshop was pretty much based on darkroom techniques and i think a photog should be proficient in both the use of a camera as well as PP.
i feel PP can be used to bring out the full potential of an image, it also gives the photog an outlet for he/her creativity. and there's no way PP can save a bad shot... to a certain extent you can save some shots...but they wont be as good as if you were to get the shot right.

think of the photo as the foundation and pp as building on top of it... if your foundation sucks, you wont be able to build as high.


anyways... at the end of the day does it really matter how you get to a great photo?

 

[kitchionh]

Hi All,

To conclude, DSLR + photoshop (post processing softwares) is NOT a must. Depending on your needs, with appropriate post processing (to each own's likings and choice), it can enhance and bring out the full potential of the pictures taken. Whilst some form of processing already takes place within the camera, it doesn't hurt to utilise technology (post processing via a computer and software) to customise your pictures. Capturing the moment is critical but how you want to present that moment to your audience depends on how you post process it. Over doing or over-reliance on either of the process (capturing the moment and post processing) will affect the final output that you want to present.

Thanks for contributing.

 

[diver-hloc]

To PP or not to PP.... that is a question for oneself to answer.....

If you are happy with your Photo..... Good for you.

If you think it could be 'better' after PP.... Why NOT ??

Ask yourself - Are you taking up Photograhary for your own Enjoyment.... or to prove that you are an Artist ?? :what:

Btw.... no need to use CS2/3.... U could use the cheaper PhotoShop Elements + Lightroom for your RAW format shots. I know I'm going to get flame for this...... Go and get yourself the 'JB edition' software if you really need to.... but at your own risk.:sweat:

 

[Dream Merchant]

I guess just about every conceivable angle has been covered in the preceding pages, so I'll just add my 2 cents:

Post processing is generally always a must.

Even in film days, the picture only starts it's life when it is taken. Without processing of any kind, be it a convenience neighbourhood lab or a drakroom, you will not have a photograph. You will only have a latent image that need to be kept locked-up safely in a light-tight environment.

In the digital age, where you get an almost instatenous converted image on your LCD screen, and even if you do not print your pictures out, you have to realise that even if you do not use any post processing techniques, a lot of pre-processing has already been done in cam. Especially more so for PnS shooters, and slightly less for DSLRs, but still there.

As for HOW MUCH post processing work - ah ... my only take is: IF it serves it's purpose, and helps fufill the vision and objectives of the artist. Anything more, or anything less would be not good.

Post processing is only a tool, just like a camera or lens. Would that mean that using anything other than a standard lens (in 35mm or FF terms, a 50mm lens; in 1.6 crop terms, a 30mm) is deviant and 'unpure' because you are altering the way the image is captured?

 

[espion]

In the old film SLR world, every shot is precious.

Not really accurate. Rather it ought to be:

In the old film SLR world, every shot is expensive.

If you have to bracket, you bracket, expensive or not.

Then, as now, its better to get a shot than no shot.

 

[espion]

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 ....

To answer this question you need to ask WHY you, in the first place, are taking that photograph.

A police taking photos at a scene of crime or accident will look and use a picture very differently from an artist. The latter can be using the very same photographic raw material, but perhaps only as a reference for his imaginations in his water colors painting, or to create some shocking photo-based visual statement, eg Drink Driving Destroys Lives.

And if you are a scientist looking at the stars to detect planets you may need an entirely different sensor altogether, perhaps one which is extra sensitive to UV light and no Bayer interpolation.

Processing a "picture" is both technical and artistic, but sine qua non.

There can be some technical "standards" of what good processing is, wherever it happens, in or out of camera, automatic or manual.

But artistically the call is entirely yours. The world may not agree, maybe now when you are alive, but if you want to make a buck with your work or win competitions, then at least some must agree with you.

The bottomline is that you must know WHY you process your picture this way or that, more or less sharp (impress judges), more or less green (your memory says its greener), clone the rubbish bin or not (will get criticism from Clubsnap), etc etc

 

[NoMoney]

To answer this question you need to ask WHY you, in the first place, are taking that photograph.

A police taking photos at a scene of crime or accident will look and use a picture very differently from an artist. The latter can be using the very same photographic raw material, but perhaps only as a reference for his imaginations in his water colors painting, or to create some shocking photo-based visual statement, eg Drink Drinking Destroy Lives.

And if you are a scientist looking at the stars to detect planets you may need an entirely different sensor altogether, perhaps one which is extra sensitive to UV light and no Bayer interpolation.

Processing a "picture" is both technical and artistic, but sine qua non.

There can be some technical "standards" of what good processing is, wherever it happens, in or out of camera, automatic or manual.

But artistically the call is entirely yours. The world may not agree, maybe now when you are alive, but if you want to make a buck with your work or win competitions, then at least some must agree with you.

The bottomline is that you must know WHY you process your picture this way or that, more or less sharp (impress judges), more or less green (your memory says its greener), clone the rubbish bin or not (will get criticism from Clubsnap), etc etc

I agree.

Photoshop for me is to tweak the photo a little to my preference while maintaining the picture as natural as possible.

Whether is a must for you, I think its up to your preference. Some people like S5Pro colour, so spend less effort on photoshop or even no PP. So its up to down to the shooter to decide bah.

Perhaps I can say DSLR is like a prata. You can go with curry or sugar according to your preference as long as you enjoy it.

 

[Elgaris]

In my opinion, digital photoshopping is not really much different from darkroom processing, just that the digital way is a lot easier & cheaper.

 

[catchlights]

In my opinion, digital photoshopping is not really much different from darkroom processing, just that the digital way is a lot easier & cheaper.

easier & cheaper??
Nikon F3 is selling brand new less than 1.5k,
Nikon F4 is selling brand new less than 2.5k
Nikon F5 is selling brand new less than 3.6k

Nikon D1, how much it selling when launched?
how about D2... D3?

last time all you need is to buy films, want to invest in darkroom or not s entire up to you.

now you need to buy CF cards, softwares, computer blar blar blar... whether you do or not do any post processing.

to sum it up, digital photography is never never be cheap, so are your time spend on it.

 

[chjing]

hi, this is my thought. Photography is about creativity. There is no right or wrong. eg. someone may think a blur photo is an art sometimes. Someone has mentioned that photoshopping is not 100% about rescuing photos. He is right. Photoshopping is another way to bring out your creativity, your very own. for example, you can do pop art, old tinted effect, subject colour with background black and white etc. There are many many ways to play around photoshop to create certain creative effects of your own. just that photoshop can also "rescue" photos, so people tend to have that wrong perception.

Photography is about creativity.
Photoshopping is another way to bring out your creativity, your very own.

regrds....

 

[johngiam]

I have this problem too as i always like to add a touch of photoshop to my shots everytime.
It always came out better as I am a lousy photographer. So everytime I used photoshop I feel so lousy LOL but yet again like what ortega said PP is just like darkroom work and the statements had make me feel better. I hope I will use less photoshop in the future though.:thumbsup:

Actually, there is no best, only better.