Does everyone 'photoshop' their photos?
May 14, 2019 15:30:52 #
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)
Your photos will never look like what you see with your eyes because there is not a camera made that can duplicate what your eyes see. As Edgar Degas said about his paintings over 150 years ago, "Art is not what you see but what you make others see." I apply that same concept to my photography.
May 14, 2019 15:42:03 #
olemikey wrote:
Bob, Not meaning to generate argument: I get prett... (show quote)
Interesting question and issues!
As a portrait and commercial photographer and an in-house color lab operator for many years, I have been intimately involved with color matching and image authenticity for a very long time. It seems to me that many photographers, nowadays, are driving themselves crazy attempting to replicate certain elements, especially in color accuracy, saturation, contrasts and actual color reproduction that are next to impossible.
Sometimes it sobering to look back at the "old school" of the film era and remember the disclaimer that came with many so-called professional color films. The notice pertained the fact that the dyes in the color process were not exactly the same as the dyes,, etc. in actual skin tones, fabrics, paints and all manner of things. The same concept applies to the colors electronically generated in our cameras, what we see on a monitor screen, the inks in our printers and the papers upon which we print.
In the very olden days, color correction, done on color labs was determined by test printing, eyeballing and making the necessary adjustments. We had densitometers, color analyzers, and automatic printing machines but the final corrections were determined by the custom printing technicians or the color correction manager who had a keen eye for finite corrections.
Back in around 1961, I had an opportunity to use the very first VIDEO color analyzer made by Hazeldean and later on the more streamlined version made by Kodak. The first thing I learned was that an image on an illuminated screen was gonna be quite different in contrast, saturation dynamic range forms a print viewed by reflected light on a sheet of photographic paper. Furthermore, prints made on different papers or materials, as to surface finishes, differ greatly in dynamic range even if the color balance was correct. My point is even nowadays we have to understand that the images we see on our computer monitors may differ greatly in the eventual print and we have to get to know how to mentally make the adjustments.
Of course, it certainly pays off to have all your ducks lined up by calibrating every component in the process as accurately as possible. Even if you never make a print, only God knows how you perfectly calibrated images are gonna look like on someone else's uncalibrated screen. For this reason, for my portrait clients, I NEVER put their portrait "proofs" online. I show them, prints- that's right- old school proofs! For size indications, I project them in an opaque projector. If there are any issues of skin tone or texture, there are addressed there and then when the portraits are being ordered.
As far as portrait skin tones, I can write a book- no- an encyclopedia! As far as color matching on commercial products and fashion fabrics- that's another encyclopedia. If you want to consider ethnic and cultural preferences and people's color perceptions or outright color blindness- that's the fast track to the asylum! We can always get close enough through careful quality control, proper viewing lights, etc., but if you examine the colors on a spectrographic instrument- there is gonna be differences.
The most important talent or skill is in your own color perception. Even if you do not suffer from actual "color blindness" there can be biases and personal preferences. Like many other aspects of photography, it takes patience and practice.
May 14, 2019 15:43:00 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Perhaps there is too much etymology, philosophy, a... (show quote)
Of the 3 main film categories only the transparency can be processed by the book with no adjustment based on user judgement. Even when you develop the B&W film by standard during the printing step there are a lot of adjustment to be made based on your judgement. Same thing with color negative film. The OP said he had done B&W darkroom I thought he should know that.
May 14, 2019 15:44:36 #
danersmiff wrote:
from page 1... most of the time, I just do what he listed above...
..
..
Very nice
May 14, 2019 15:47:27 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Post processing can be defined as changing exposur... (show quote)
Post processing/digital editing is simply running your image thru a modern dark room-so many quick 'Little' tricks can do wonders to an image that did not quite come out of the camera the way you saw it/want to see it. some of my favorite tools in PS are - brightness/contrast, smart sharpen and shadow/highlights - these are simple easy to adjust tools. IMHO
May 14, 2019 15:54:16 #
I also do something to all of my shots, including cropping. I start in Lightroom and finish in Photoshop. Sometimes I spend <15 minutes playing with exposure and saturation; sometimes I spend 3 hours. Not all of my shots are made to be aesthetic or competition-worthy. I do the fixes to make them look the best they can in my eye.
Every shot can be made better than SOOC; why not make improvements?
Every shot can be made better than SOOC; why not make improvements?
May 14, 2019 15:56:05 #
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)
But the problem for you is the camera does not see what you see and will not take that photo...the only way to get what you see and share that experience is to process the photo to the scene you remember and even that is faulty. Film was also processed in the darkroom and the end result could be and was altered in many cases when people become proficient enough to do that.
May 14, 2019 15:59:12 #
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)
-------
The shots won't look like you saw them unless you do process them. No camera can capture everything you see exactly as you see it. Your eyes had a lot broader range than the camera.
May 14, 2019 16:10:19 #
No image taken through a camera looks like you saw it without processing. Your eyes automatically reduce glare in what you see. They also automatically compensate for a color cast in the incident light. In effect your brain is the post processing in what you see. The camera is not smart enough to do this, particularly in raw.
May 14, 2019 16:10:44 #
May 14, 2019 16:30:15 #
unduki wrote:
This might seem like a dumb question, but it's how... (show quote)
I can only tell you what I do. Any camera can not duplicate exactly what the eye sees. And your eyes are different than any one elses eye. As are mine. So a picture is a reminder , an aproximation of what I saw at the moment. So, I, Almost always have to tweak an image in some manner or another. But the trick is to not over cook an image, and to make it look as if it was never touched. But pay no attention to what I do. It's your photo.
May 14, 2019 16:40:43 #
My camera rarely, if ever, captures exactly what I see with my eyes - one might argue that this is simply impossible: even just on the notion that the field of view on a camera does not represent the entirety of what you see with your eyes.
For many, capturing the raw data of an image (taking the picture itself) is just the first step in creating an image, and photoshop and other software programs allow us to further the creation process to produce the 'art' which we then share with others.
For many, capturing the raw data of an image (taking the picture itself) is just the first step in creating an image, and photoshop and other software programs allow us to further the creation process to produce the 'art' which we then share with others.
May 14, 2019 17:22:31 #
No offense taken. My monitor has auto white balance and all my primary colors are right on so I believe it is pretty accurate. Maybe you have better equipment than I or take the time to set the WB on your camera, which I don't do, I just set it to auto.
As an experiment I just took a picture of my hand under a desk lamp. Then tweaked the SOOC jpg picture in Photoshop to be as close to the image in front of my eyes as I could get it, not just my hand but the glasses case, the computer icons and the notepad on my desk. The desk lamp gives off a bit of a yellowish cast. The photoshop version is as close to I can get to the colors and details I am seeing by putting my hand under the lamp right next to the screen. The details and colors are as close as I can get them with Photoshop. They are quite a bit different than the SOOC jpg image I started with. Of course without comparing it to the original no one would know. The SOOC details, skin tones and the color of the notepad look realistic, but they were not what I was seeing. The untouched jpg SOOC is on the left and the PS version is on the right.
As an experiment I just took a picture of my hand under a desk lamp. Then tweaked the SOOC jpg picture in Photoshop to be as close to the image in front of my eyes as I could get it, not just my hand but the glasses case, the computer icons and the notepad on my desk. The desk lamp gives off a bit of a yellowish cast. The photoshop version is as close to I can get to the colors and details I am seeing by putting my hand under the lamp right next to the screen. The details and colors are as close as I can get them with Photoshop. They are quite a bit different than the SOOC jpg image I started with. Of course without comparing it to the original no one would know. The SOOC details, skin tones and the color of the notepad look realistic, but they were not what I was seeing. The untouched jpg SOOC is on the left and the PS version is on the right.
olemikey wrote:
Bob, Not meaning to generate argument: I get prett... (show quote)
May 14, 2019 17:27:43 #
Bobspez wrote:
No offense taken. My monitor has auto white balanc... (show quote)
I would say the left image is closer to correct...
bwa
May 14, 2019 17:57:44 #
That's amazing. You have the ability to see my hand remotely. I did mention that my hand was illuminated by a desk lamp that gave off a yellowish light, and it did give my skin a yellowish tone. I'm going by what I saw, not someone's or the camera's interpretation of what skin tones should look like.
bwana wrote:
I would say the left image is closer to correct...
bwa
bwa
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.