Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Does everyone 'photoshop' their photos?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 next>>
May 13, 2019 19:20:51   #
unduki
 
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how I learn and I don't know the answer. I learned to use 35 mm cameras and the developing smelly MESS in Jr. High. Fast-forward to now, when I do not miss film at all... and I'm using a pretty nice DSLR. I'm older and it seems very foreign to me. Just using the camera has been challenging (very enjoyable though.) I'm currently learning about the settings - one of my projects is the Aurora Borealis.

So, my question is the topic title. Does everyone change things after they've shot? Do folks alter light and color in their Aurora Borealis photos?

Personally, I want my photos to look like what I see with my eyes. Maybe I'm being too myopic. I'm hoping I'll have opportunity sometime this week but I'll post a photo when I get one.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:24:45   #
bleirer (a regular here)
 
It's your art, you do it according to your own vision.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:29:37   #
toxdoc42
 
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how I learn and I don't know the answer. I learned to use 35 mm cameras and the developing smelly MESS in Jr. High. Fast-forward to now, when I do not miss film at all... and I'm using a pretty nice DSLR. I'm older and it seems very foreign to me. Just using the camera has been challenging (very enjoyable though.) I'm currently learning about the settings - one of my projects is the Aurora Borealis.

So, my question is the topic title. Does everyone change things after they've shot? Do folks alter light and color in their Aurora Borealis photos?

Personally, I want my photos to look like what I see with my eyes. Maybe I'm being too myopic. I'm hoping I'll have opportunity sometime this week but I'll post a photo when I get one.
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)


I totally agree with you, in theory. But, we seem to be in the minority. I understand the difference between a piece of art and a photo-reproduction of what I experience with my eyes.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:32:21   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
If you spend time in UHH's Photo Gallery, where 50 or more topics are posted every day, you will find a huge variety of styles from "straight out of camera" to heavily edited. It's your photo, edit it or don't edit it. Find your joy!

Here's a sample of the stuff I like to do; it's not straight out of camera


(Download)


(Download)

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:36:44   #
Ched49
 
If you want the photo's to look like what you see with your eyes, why would you mess with the color and light on your photo's? You should use your camera to please yourself, not somebody else.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:48:32   #
rgrenaderphoto (a regular here)
 
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how I learn and I don't know the answer. I learned to use 35 mm cameras and the developing smelly MESS in Jr. High. Fast-forward to now, when I do not miss film at all... and I'm using a pretty nice DSLR. I'm older and it seems very foreign to me. Just using the camera has been challenging (very enjoyable though.) I'm currently learning about the settings - one of my projects is the Aurora Borealis.

So, my question is the topic title. Does everyone change things after they've shot? Do folks alter light and color in their Aurora Borealis photos?

Personally, I want my photos to look like what I see with my eyes. Maybe I'm being too myopic. I'm hoping I'll have opportunity sometime this week but I'll post a photo when I get one.
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)


Post processing can be defined as changing exposure, shadows, cropping and adjusting color channels.
Let's say your Aurora image has very, very faint green Oxygen patterns, and you want it to be more visible, to match what you saw with your eyes. A quick green channel adjustment in Lightroom will make it more pronounced to better match what you saw.

I am not going to say never, but other than quick snapshots taken with my iPhone, I post process everything. I shot film for years in the 80's and 90's and was always frustrated that my images were flat and boring. Now they're not.

Different Strokes.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:48:38   #
unduki
 
I'm not looking to please anyone or change what I do... I'm just gathering information. Thinking about it, I don't know why I'm so amazed by all the possibilities, but still wondered if there was a sect (Oh, bad term!) that explored raw (for lack of a better term) process. Not judging anyone or even offering an opinion. Just a question.

Linda, I love the photo of the bird and the branch. What was the backdrop? beautiful capture. There's my opinion.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:49:42   #
unduki
 
Cool! Thanks!

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:50:26   #
unduki
 
For sure. Thanks!

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:53:09   #
rgrenaderphoto (a regular here)
 
unduki wrote:
For sure. Thanks!


When you reply, select Quote Reply so we can follow along

| Reply
May 13, 2019 19:53:13   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
unduki wrote:
I'm not looking to please anyone or change what I do... I'm just gathering information. Thinking about it, I don't know why I'm so amazed by all the possibilities, but still wondered if there was a sect (Oh, bad term!) that explored raw (for lack of a better term) process. Not judging anyone or even offering an opinion. Just a question.

Linda, I love the photo of the bird and the branch. What was the backdrop? beautiful capture. There's my opinion.
Thank you! I added a "texture" to overlay the steep gray hillside that was the reality. Quick definition: A texture is one or more images overlaying (or underlying) your original, for the purpose of adding impact. You do this to create a certain mood or style, such as vintage, or to add more depth - the illusion of real texture.

"Raw" is a file type in digital photography. "Straight out of camera" refers to no editing after shooting. There is no special section devoted to sooc (though there is a post processing section, which I moderate ). To find all of UHH's specialty sections, go to bottom of this page and click on "all sections."

| Reply
May 13, 2019 20:11:27   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
`

Does everyone 'photoshop' their photos?

Since you put "photoshop" in semi-quotes,
I take it to mean not just Adobe, but any
form of processing. So, it's a non-question.
Same as in the pre-digital chemical photo
era, an unprocessed image does not exist.

In the pre-D era, some users did their own
own processing [their own lab] while some
farmed it out. Likewise today, some will do
their own, and some will set their camera
[and/or choose a camera] that delivers an
image needing no further attention. But it
IS a "photoshopped" image. The user has
"farmed out" all the processing to the jpeg
engine in the camera, rather than using a
PC. An image capture with NO processing
is called a raw file, and tends to look uglee
until it gets processed into a tiff or jpeg.

.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 20:22:48   #
Bobspez
 
I've never shot the aurora borealis but I do process every picture I take. One thing to consider is that no picture ever looks exactly like what your eyes see. With digital (but not with film like velvia 50) the blue sky always looks paler in the pictuure than it does to my eyes. Things are often not as colorful or bright as my eyes see them. So I post process to try to capture the look that I recall seeing when I took the picture.
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how I learn and I don't know the answer. I learned to use 35 mm cameras and the developing smelly MESS in Jr. High. Fast-forward to now, when I do not miss film at all... and I'm using a pretty nice DSLR. I'm older and it seems very foreign to me. Just using the camera has been challenging (very enjoyable though.) I'm currently learning about the settings - one of my projects is the Aurora Borealis.

So, my question is the topic title. Does everyone change things after they've shot? Do folks alter light and color in their Aurora Borealis photos?

Personally, I want my photos to look like what I see with my eyes. Maybe I'm being too myopic. I'm hoping I'll have opportunity sometime this week but I'll post a photo when I get one.
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

| Reply
May 13, 2019 20:29:45   #
Stardust
 
unduki wrote:
...So, my question is the topic title. Does everyone change things after they've shot?... Personally, I want my photos to look like what I see with my eyes. Maybe I'm being too myopic...
Although I often do Post Processing (PP) on photos, sometimes for special results, I mostly am doing a minimal amount for the exact reason you state - to make them look like what I saw with my eyes. Believe it or not, often what comes "Straight Out Of Camera" (SOOC) is NOT what you envision your eye saw. The eye automatically adjusts to light whereby (unless using Automatic setting) your camera needs your setting it. Therefore, sometimes darkening or most likely lightening is required if exposure wasn't correct. Also, when on a trip and need to shoot through the bus window, my eye kind of blocks out the movement but my camera doesn't so I may have to sharpen a photo, and/or remove a glare to get closer to what I "saw". Or, I may need to saturate the photo more because of the direction of the sun whereby my eye saw deeper colors. I could go on but assume you see the reasons some of us change our photos to actually reflect like they weren't changed.

| Reply
May 13, 2019 20:30:30   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
If you desire images that look like Linda's two examples, above, then you'll need the software and the artistic and technical skills to create this digital art. In the broad spectrum of post processing, this would be called "photoshopped".

But, deciding to create art like her examples is your decision in how you choose to realize your unique vision.

If you desire a more natural look, maybe more like a photo than digital artwork, your images will still benefit from some amount of post processing. If you shoot in JPEG, most of that "post processing" is actually performed within the camera and your additional work would be minor, if at all, of course depending on the camera and the image. If you chose to shoot in RAW, you are choosing (by definition of the RAW format) to need to edit your image on a computer.

Given the complexities of capturing a colorful image at night over a long exposure for the Aurora Borealis, one would expect edits on a computer in the following areas:

1. Increasing the saturation of the colors
2. Darkening the black of the sky for more contrast
3. Remove of digital noise.
4. Cropping / leveling of the image and / or horizon for a better composition.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.