Are all these shots great post work? I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am just amazed by the quality of them. I have never gotten shots like these in my life. I am...

fullyexposed Loc: Illinois

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am just amazed by the quality of them. I have never gotten shots like these in my life. I am currently getting back into photography and right now and mainly still trying to learn my new camera. I bought Paintshop Pro X9 Ultimate on a great deal and have been playing around with it to learn how it works and what I can do with it. I have never done any post work before, but so far I have been able to figure out the basics and have improved some older pictures that I have taken with a point and shoot in the past. I am curious to know if the images that are being posted are greatly "photoshopped"? I would love to be able to have this type of quality, but have never seen it from my own shots and I'm not sure if it's because I don't have the right post processing experience, or maybe I don't have the right software, or my photography skills are severely lacking (which I know they are). I chose paintshop pro because I did some minor graphic design with paintshop in the past for website creation and also the price was dirt cheap. Any advice or information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Which pictures are you impressed by? Can you post a link?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

fullyexposed wrote:

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am just amazed by the quality of them. ... I would love to be able to have this type of quality, but have never seen it from my own shots and I'm not sure if it's because I don't have the right post processing experience, or maybe I don't have the right software, or my photography skills are severely lacking (which I know they are). ...

Sad but true:
Do the best you can in-camera because it is good practice and will make the post work easier..

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

fullyexposed wrote:

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am ... (show quote)

It boils down to Knowledge ( mostly from experience), software, and quality camera/lens.

Bill_de Loc: US

You are probably seeing a range of right out of the camera, a little touch up, extensive editing, to fully altered pictures. In each category you will find everything from depressing to impressive work.

The better you do in the camera, the less work you need to do on the computer.

--

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

The ones you really like but are not sure how they got such a great picture are probably really well post-processed photos
Good post processing makes a good photo great. Bad PP usually makes a good photo look ..post processed :-)

tresap23 Loc: Texas

I know what you mean! There is a photographer's work that I greatly admire. He takes amazing photos of the gulf coast. Lots of boats, coast line, light house etc. I know he does post processing, because the colors are so vivid. That is not the way the water and the boats and the sky look, naturally. Even at sunset. His photographs look more like a painting, than a picture. But, he obviously is a good photographer, because you can't get that sharpness, and clarity in PP. I'd love to learn his technique in PP and his photography skills. But I will settle for just getting good quality pictures for now. When I get that down, then I will try and learn some of these new filters, and Photoshop techniques.

fullyexposed wrote:

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am ... (show quote)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

There are some really great photographers on this forum. Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I don't say it enough. I'd love to list them, but there is not enough room; besides I'd leave out somebody. Most great pictures are the sum of knowledge and talent; for a very few, it is just a matter of dumb luck.

Fortunately most of those who have the knowledge and the talent are willing and, in most cases, eager to share both. Sometimes the advice comes across a bit rough, but, if you can plow through it, the lesson is worth the time spent learning it. There are even a few who have a wealth of technical knowledge, but little talent; that's where the dumb luck comes in. My ex is from the opposite side of the ledger; no technical knowledge, but an eye that visualizes beauty and captures it. Give here a Leica or give her a Lomo; she'll make a work of art out of it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

fullyexposed wrote:

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am ... (show quote)

I know what you mean. I see two types of photos in the Gallery. Some images are beautifully composed, are sharp and clear and pleasant to look at. Others are so good that they are almost depressing. How can someone using basically the same gear I have take such excellent pictures? Still, I keep shooting.

James Van Ells

Many times the camera cannot capture what our eyes see because of the limited dynamic range of the sensors. As photographers, we can change the image in post processing to try to match what we saw in the moment. But, we can also go too far. As Socrates said, "all things in moderation".

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

fullyexposed wrote:

I see a lot of work that is being posted and I am ... (show quote)

While many of the images have been "post processed" before being published, how is that different from doing essentially the same things to the negatives or slides in the darkroom? To me, the camera is the tool for recording the image onto the medium (memory card or film) for transfer to the processing application (darkroom, Lightroom, Photoshop, Paintshop or whatever) then output to print, published or displayed. The only thing that has changed in photography since it's inception it the method of going from exposure to finished product. Yes some images can go straight from camera to printing but, did you get the best possible image out of that? Probably not.

agambrell

I think you need to start with a good image to have a high quality image after processing. There are a few things at play here. I'm one of those who tries to get it right in camera and do minimum post processing. How much post processing depends on each image. For example, when deciding whether or not to bump up the ISO to get the shot, I know I can resolve some of the noise in PP. I also don't have a problem recovering shadows and highlights and making other minor adjustments. To me, a high quality image is a high quality image.

While post processing is necessary when shooting RAW, how much is done is up to each photographer. Unless you're submitting photos to an entity that enforces certain rules, there are no rules. While I have self imposed rules on how much I will modify an image, those rules are for me. Post processing can be an art form in itself and I love some of the composits, mixed media, and even HDR work I've seen. I just don't do it, except when I'm playing around with the software for fun.

I have a mentor who got me involved in bird photography as I was heading into retirement and gives me pointers and lots of opportunity to practice. The quality (sharpness, subject, composition, etc.) of my recent images, when compared with the photos I took a few years ago, is obviously much better. I credit this with taking lots of shots and then actually studying the results and the camera settings used to make them. I also upgraded my 25 year old wobbly tripod with a much sturdier one. Another suggestion from my mentor is to only share my best work. He told me to learn from what didn't work and make adjustment, but don't post inferior images. I've become much more critical of my work and delete many images on my first pass.

To the original question; if you're talking about proper focus, DOF, sharpness, and composition, it's tough to improve those in PP without it being obvious "extra" work was done. Cropping can help composition, but an out of focus shot remains out of focus. Over saturating sunsets can grab a viewers attention, but to other photographers it's obvious that the saturation slider was really pushed.

I have a friend who can spend hours "tweaking" an image. He loves LR and Photoshop and is an expert in the software and loves working with it. I usually spend less than a minute processing an image so I have more time to spend in the field with my gear. Each to his own. By the way, I love my friends images, when he finally finishes processing them.

TheDman Loc: USA

agambrell wrote:

I think you need to start with a good image to have a high quality image after processing. There are a few things at play here. I'm one of those who tries to get it right in camera and do minimum post processing. How much post processing depends on each image. For example, when deciding whether or not to bump up the ISO to get the shot, I know I can resolve some of the noise in PP. I also don't have a problem recovering shadows and highlights and making other minor adjustments. To me, a high quality image is a high quality image.

While post processing is necessary when shooting RAW, how much is done is up to each photographer. Unless you're submitting photos to an entity that enforces certain rules, there are no rules. While I have self imposed rules on how much I will modify an image, those rules are for me. Post processing can be an art form in itself and I love some of the compositions, mixed media, and even HDR work I've seen. I just don't do it, except when I'm playing around with the software for fun.

I have a mentor who got me involved in bird photography as I was heading into retirement and gives me pointers and lots of opportunity to practice. The quality (sharpness, subject, composition, etc.) of my recent images, when compared with the photos I took a few years ago, is obviously much better. I credit this with taking lots of shots and then actually studying the results and the camera settings used to make them. I also upgraded my 25 year old wobbly tripod with a much sturdier one. Another suggestion from my mentor is to only share my best work. He told me to learn from what didn't work and make adjustment, but don't post inferior images. I've become much more critical of my work and delete many images on my first pass.

To the original question; if you're talking about proper focus, DOF, sharpness, and composition, it's tough to improve those in PP without it being obvious "extra" work was done. Cropping can help composition, but an out of focus shot remains out of focus. Over saturating sunsets can grab a viewers attention, but to other photographers it's obvious that the saturation slider was really pushed.

I have a friend who can spend hours "tweaking" an image. He loves LR and Photoshop and is an expert in the software and loves working with it. I usually spend less than a minute processing an image so I have more time to spend in the field with my gear. Each to his own. By the way, I love my friends images, when he finally finishes processing them.

I think you need to start with a good image to hav... (show quote)

I skip showering so that I have more time to spend in the field shooting.

agambrell

Yep. Don't need a shower, or shave, when heading to the field.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

agambrell wrote:

I think you need to start with a good image to have a high quality image after processing. There are a few things at play here. I'm one of those who tries to get it right in camera and do minimum post processing. How much post processing depends on each image. For example, when deciding whether or not to bump up the ISO to get the shot, I know I can resolve some of the noise in PP. I also don't have a problem recovering shadows and highlights and making other minor adjustments. To me, a high quality image is a high quality image.

While post processing is necessary when shooting RAW, how much is done is up to each photographer. Unless you're submitting photos to an entity that enforces certain rules, there are no rules. While I have self imposed rules on how much I will modify an image, those rules are for me. Post processing can be an art form in itself and I love some of the compositions, mixed media, and even HDR work I've seen. I just don't do it, except when I'm playing around with the software for fun.

I have a mentor who got me involved in bird photography as I was heading into retirement and gives me pointers and lots of opportunity to practice. The quality (sharpness, subject, composition, etc.) of my recent images, when compared with the photos I took a few years ago, is obviously much better. I credit this with taking lots of shots and then actually studying the results and the camera settings used to make them. I also upgraded my 25 year old wobbly tripod with a much sturdier one. Another suggestion from my mentor is to only share my best work. He told me to learn from what didn't work and make adjustment, but don't post inferior images. I've become much more critical of my work and delete many images on my first pass.

To the original question; if you're talking about proper focus, DOF, sharpness, and composition, it's tough to improve those in PP without it being obvious "extra" work was done. Cropping can help composition, but an out of focus shot remains out of focus. Over saturating sunsets can grab a viewers attention, but to other photographers it's obvious that the saturation slider was really pushed.

I have a friend who can spend hours "tweaking" an image. He loves LR and Photoshop and is an expert in the software and loves working with it. I usually spend less than a minute processing an image so I have more time to spend in the field with my gear. Each to his own. By the way, I love my friends images, when he finally finishes processing them.

I think you need to start with a good image to hav... (show quote)

Agambrell, I agree with you to a certain extent. The difference between a "picture taker" and a "photographer" is that the latter attempts to get the best possible results in the camera and then does everything that can be done to make the image as good as it can be.... Garbage in Garbage out applies to a certain extent here. And you are doing everything to get a good image out of the camera. While I do that too, (and you probably do as well) I take that well exposed, well composed, image and "fine tune" it in Lightroom/Photoshop to get the best results that I can from the image (NOTE: My post processing skills are still being developed so I often return to images shot years ago and rework them). This is not a case of taking a better image from the camera but applying increased skill post processing. Photography is similar to an artist painting in oils or any other medium, there is always something else that you can do when you look back at the painting but a good artist knows when to let well enough alone and move on to the next. I suspect that if Da Vinci was still alive, he might look back at the Mona Lisa and want to retouch the highlights in her eye or something. Its ALWAYS something.