Views on use of photoshop to improve pics

[Andy_1984]

i know alot of people now dislike the use of photoshop (self included) like we have seen in the media such as bigger boobs removing, spots, mking you look skinny etc etc

 

but what are peoples views on the smaller details such as improving dark pics, making a lighter picture a little darker, using some smoothing to improve grainy looking pictures or making certain folage pictures more vibrant.

 

a few times i have taken a picture with my camera and what i see and what shows up on my camera screen are a pretty decent match but when i take it over to the pc it looks a lot lighter or washed.

 

how fine is the line between improving and manipulation.

[snakey1]

I try to keep any adjustments to a minimum (I use lightroom 95% of the time rather than photoshop) in general but sometimes I'll push the effects a little more it depends upon what I'm working on and trying to achieve, to be honest portraits (which I don't tend to do too many of) tend to get the most of a workout because people generally don't want the warts'n'all look. Mind you it all depends on your taste theres nothing wrong with pushing the effects side of photoshop if its what you like and if your shooting in RAW you'll need to post process anyway.

Edited March 26, 2012 by snakey1

[ayjay]

If it's for personal use it's entirely up to the individual in my opinion: competitions are something else entirely, it's no longer a photography competition if too much computer wizardry is involved.

 

Images were manipulated in darkrooms before the advent of digital photography.

 

I rarely save an image that doesn't get some sort of improvement, probably only a little lightening and colour manipulation but sometimes I'll remove objects from the pic too.

 

 

What's the point in having a pic that you know could look better?

[Steve Walker]

We're putting mugshots of the management team up on the website - I'm all in favour of it!

 

I rather stupidly didn't take my own photo before going fishing on Saturday - a little electronic after-sun has been required.

[kirisute]

well being a photoshop user who can create full scale digital artwork with the software as well as work on photos id have to say it depends on what you actually do with the photo.

I think once you start to "shift pixels" beyond cropping then you are essentially creating a new image from your original photo.

It depends on your target audience; for magazines and suchlike there is still no openess and honesty on just how much an image has been changed! and thats where the issues arise!

brightening and suchlike dont, in any great way, effect the viewers "belief" in the content of the photo..same with cropping and suchlike.

when you start to change what the viewer believes they are seeing then you cross the line from photograph to artwork.

what we see on magazines may as well be called artwork/illustration! its certainly not photography any more because of all the changes taking place to produce the image.

 

the other thing to remember Andy is that your monitor is not calibrated to either your camera or the printer. so your colours will always change dramatically when going between them. there are system available that will calibrate monitors and printers etc to ensure true colour showing through all devices but its a minefield of stuff.

i encounter it when colouring peoples line artwork. What appears a suitable colour on my monitor here at work and at home; both of which are calibrated to show as correct a colour as possible; are normally different to what the client or artist will have on their own systems...and therefore colour shows differently and can often be the cause for concern. Same with creating artwork for digital print where alot of art is created in RGB and the colour profiling all goes horribly wrong when converted to CMYK.

Edited March 26, 2012 by kirisute

[corydoras]

I don't believe in any of this '"purist" cr@p. I use the tools I own, both hardware and software to create the images I wan't. Just about every digital image will benefit from a tweak to levels, contrast and brightness.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with cropping a bit out of an image to make a totally different image.

[Paul33]

If you know how to use Photoshop, you love it ..... if you don't then you'll do all you can to convince the world it is wrong.

 

If you are serious about digital photography then Photoshop is as important as the lens on your camera ...... Photoshop is photography !

[Andy_1984]

If you know how to use Photoshop, you love it ..... if you don't then you'll do all you can to convince the world it is wrong.

 

If you are serious about digital photography then Photoshop is as important as the lens on your camera ...... Photoshop is photography !

 

hm, not sure i agree with "photoshop is photography". ive seen many truly stunning images taken without any digital manipulation.

 

i use it heavily when im designing websites and only for adjustments on my photographs. i wouldnt try to convince anyone it is wrong, its a very valuable tool but not the be all and end all. skill should come in to play more than photoshop i believe.

[Steve Walker]

I think the dislike of it comes from the idea that an "unedited" photograph is somehow an objective recording of an instant in time - but of course there is subjective interpretation in every photographic processing procedure, even if it is only the choice of defaults used in the camera firmware. Two different models of camera can produce different images of the same view, so how can either be objective truth? Arguably, the most representative image would be obtained by taking the photograph and loading it into photoshop there and then to edit while the subject is still visible.

 

Besides, when people use their cameras creatively, they aren't necessarily even trying to capture a true representation of reality, just a particular image.

[Rusty]

....even if it is only the choice of defaults used in the camera firmware. Two different models of camera can produce different images of the same view, so how can either be objective truth?.....

 

And don't forget in the pre-digital days you were at the mercy of whoever developed the negatives and produced the prints, even home developers would adjust the process to get the desired result, a sort of primitive photoshop. I use CS to a very limited extent, mainly auto levels and sharpen and I'm comfortable doing that, I'd use it more if I knew how to.

 

Here's an example of a blemish cloned out, does it detract from the photo do you think?

 

 

The original;