Does everyone 'photoshop' their photos? (Page 2): I find that there is usually something that can be improved upon in editing to make an image better. But I don't edit every single...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I find that there is usually something that can be improved upon in editing to make an image better.
But I don't edit every single image, only those I want to print or post.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

Everything gets processed to at least some extent somehow. That is true with film, as well.

I think by "photoshop" you mean "significantly alter." If so, then hardly any of my images are "photoshopped." I think that is true for most folks here.

Mike

bleirer

To make a viewer who has never seen the aurora Borealis experience it through your photograph, you might need "photoshopping" to render it is a way that is realistic to your eyes but also captures some of the essence and feeling of what you experienced being there.

unduki

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

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

Oh duh. Thanks

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

What your camera sees and what you see with you eyes are two different thing. I shoot raw and PP every images so the result is what I originally saw and not the camera's often poor interpretation of it. Remember that every jpeg produced by a camera is post processed internally by a very limited set of tools that applies the same settings for things like sharpness, contrast and color tone to every image. You can do far better than that. Next time you look at one of your images ask yourself, honestly, if that is exactly what you saw.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Answer to title question: No.

I try to spend as little time behind the computer as possible. If get the shot right in-camera that minimizes the computer time.

Having said that. The subject and use of the image determines how much more work is needed. For travel photos family shots, events with friends, I do very little other than shoot and share. But if the image is Art or for a wedding, studio shot, etc, I expect to do more retouching after the shoot. But even in those cases, getting the shot right in camera minimizes the work behind the computer.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

I always make some adjustments in my images, to please my Eyes, most of the time they are small adj. I do shoot camera RAW 99% of the time. I make no apologies for my adjustments.
I don't understand making a change from film to digital a challenge, To me was like shooting slide film only with more latitude. However I shoot manual using only auto focus for all but closeup/macro because of my old eyes. I went digital in 2004/05, I am not putting anyone down for using auto, I'M set in my ways and manual was easier for me.
Did you not make adjustments in you image in the darkroom? I know I did, be it with the choice of papers , developers, dodging, burning etc. Look at at Jerry Ulesman's work the ultimate in manipulation IMO.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

Some people enhance their pictures with both LR and PS then they call it art. It still a picture.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

Personally, I would rather see SOOC than overcooked unreality!

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

What I do, for what it's worth, is pick my favorite shots that, for example, I want to print. Those are the ones I fine tune and post process. Or those that I want to share. The other "losers" I leave alone. For vacation shots where a lot are similar exposures, you can process as a batch, as I do in Luminar for example, and apply a custom preset that you can make yourself.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

If you think about it, when you were shooting film and working in the darkroom you were manipulating the image. You were selecting paper, time and developing criteria to get the best image. Maybe using filters to change contrast, maybe burning and dodging to bring out shadow detail or even the lighting. That’s essentially what we’re doing in PP with digital.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

If you think about it, when you were shooting film and working in the darkroom you were manipulating the image. You were selecting paper, time and developing criteria to get the best image. Maybe using filters to change contrast, maybe burning and dodging to bring out shadow detail or even the lighting. That’s essentially what we’re doing in PP with digital.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

If you think about it, when you were shooting film and working in the darkroom you were manipulating the image. You were selecting paper, time and developing criteria to get the best image. Maybe using filters to change contrast, maybe burning and dodging to bring out shadow detail or even the lighting. That’s essentially what we’re doing in PP with digital.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

[quote=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?

I used to think like you until I took a once in a life time photo of an Eagle catching a fish out of a river. Problem was that he was so close to the background and it distracted from the shot. SO, I Photoshopped and blurred the back ground. Result, a prize winning photo.
Now I routinely photoshop most of my images. It does not CHANGE them, it IMPROVES an already great shot. I change very, very little.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

unduki wrote:

This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)

Think back on your experiences with manually processing film. The results from what you sent to the corner drug store for processing were always disappointing and not what you remembered shooting. When you adjust in the dark room to make it look like you remember is so much more satisfying.

Now, you do it without all the chemicals and for free!

Yes, I process all my photos. However, if a particular photo is destined for a contest, a potential sale at an art fair, or is for a client, I put a little extra effort into it.
If I am shooting a bunch of photos that are just "memories" to share with family and friends, I often just hit the AUTO button in LightRoom (or elements back in the day) and then sharpen it.
Don't forget to sharpen - it is not a fix for focus problems, but instead is an adjustment for the physical nature of the sensor that breaks the image into tiny pixels.