Photography or Photoshop? What to learn?

W00DY · June 5, 2007

Hmm,

I have been thinking about it lately and I am wondering if I really need to learn photoshop before moving forward with my photography. Now, I don't want this to turn into a "how much is too much PP" thread... But I wonder what other people are REALLY getting out of their cameras (without the touchup).

Here is one of mine:

So I wonder, How does this compare with your "out of the camera" image?

The reason I ask is that whilst I don't think the above image is that bad (highlights are a little blown and skin tone not quite right (just)) it is NO WHERE NEAR as good as some baby/portraits I see on the web, which makes me ask the question, photography or photoshop?

I should also say that I don't believe photoshop is any substitute for good photography, just do we need to know it just as much these days?

Would love to hear and see other peoples examples.

Cheers,
W00DY

Awais Yaqub · June 5, 2007

What a beautiful photo and very cute baby
well all of my photos has to go through photoshop no matter how good they are mostly my photos are not good right out of camera. I am not able to upload my photo yet here is what i would have done to this photo if it was mine

I alway love shots like these in bw it allowes me to directly see shape of lips he is trying to make

and his connection with his mother's hand
got what i am trying to say ? because even i am lost about what i am saying

sorry for no permission

Awais Yaqub · June 5, 2007

Ok here is what i found on my hd

here is straight out of my sony w1

and here is after photoshop

David_S85 · June 5, 2007

W00DY wrote:

Hmm,
I have been thinking about it lately and I am wondering if I really need to learn photoshop before moving forward with my photography.
...
I should also say that I don't believe photoshop is any substitute for good photography, just do we need to know it just as much these days?
Would love to hear and see other peoples examples.
Cheers,
W00DY

This is a little like asking if one should learn to drive a car first or study up on traffic laws first.

They both compliment each other. Learning one discipline aids in learning the other.

That said, one should probably place much more emphasis on the photography side. It is the foundation you build upon. A bad photo is rarely ever saved or enhanced by learning software. A good photo will always be a good photo. Using any software properly can only compliment and enhance fine photography.

Nikolai · June 5, 2007

W00dy,
It's purely a matter of personal preferences.

Some people don't do anything in post (except cropping maybe), some are not even considering posting a picture unless they have spent a few hours tweaking the curves, and rest (which is vast majority) is in a happy medium.

I say: choose your poison and live with it:-)

PS
I'm the second type:-)

anwmn1 · June 5, 2007

I'll post behind Nikolai since I am guilty of posting pictures too early sometimes.

I currently know very little about photoshop, okay-okay- absolutly nothing

, and I currently only use the Iphoto program that comes on every mac computer.

I try to get the best photo I can with the camera because I do not have a lot of additional time to 1. learn photoshop 2. spend hours on a few pictures in photoshop. My PP limitations make it that much more important to take it right in camera and hopefully that is making me a better photographer.

With that said I know that there are limitations with equipment that photoshop will help overcome as well as making a good photo into a great photo. That is why I do plan to learn photoshop as I go forward and use it to enhance my photos while still keeping the post process to a minimum.

Learn both but I prefer to learn the camera first and rely on that the most.

Aaron

colourbox · June 5, 2007

The better a photographer you are, the fewer long hours you have to spend in front of Photoshop. Repair work is a tedious chore. There are better things to do with your time.

It's so nice to have photos that need little fixing because they were shot right. That motivates me to shoot right.

evoryware · June 5, 2007

I like to shoot, download, convert RAW, upload, done. I'd rather get it right out the camera and maybe make a few adjustments to the RAW file.
This is right out the cam.

Last year I only used the Canon Zoombrowser software to make any adjustments to jpegs. I didn't even start shooting raw until Thanksgiving weekend '06.
Until recently this year, I only opened photoshop to crop some pictures, but I started forcing myself to learn the in's and out's of PSE thanks to these forums. I've hit roadblocks a few times letting me know it's time to upgrade from Elements.

davev · June 5, 2007

This will tick a lot of people off, and of course it's just my opinion.

If you shoot in RAW, you need to know how to do the post work. Pretty much any setting on the camera can be changed during the conversion.
If you shoot JPG, you need to have more photography skills. If you get it wrong from the camera, it's pretty much wrong forever.
And with both, you need at least a little bit of an artistic eye to compose the shot properly.

I shoot JPG's, I use Photoshop Elements 4 for my post work.
I need to be fairly close to what I want when I click the shutter.
My post work for the most part is cropping, resizing, and straightening the horizon. Maybe a little levels work also.

That artistic eye thing, I just barely make it.:D

claudermilk · June 6, 2007

colourbox wrote:

The better a photographer you are, the fewer long hours you have to spend in front of Photoshop. Repair work is a tedious chore. There are better things to do with your time.

It's so nice to have photos that need little fixing because they were shot right. That motivates me to shoot right.

After many hours spent "fixing" photos in PS I got very motivated to finally really learn the photography basics. I can now get shots that need little to no post. But, there are those which I take knowing there will be a lot of postprocessing--and knowledge of PS is definitely needed there.

I agree with Dave, if you're shooting RAW, you really need to know what you're doing in post. Why? Because you just shot a negative and now need to head to your dark room to develop and print it--and there's no corner drugstore to do it for you. For those of us who want/can spend the time in our new darkrooms it's rewarding, but you must learn the skills first.

Anyway, I'd say learn the photography first. That's your foundation. Then really dig into the processing--that's the finishing touches.

Nikolai · June 6, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

I agree with Dave, if you're shooting RAW, you really need to know what you're doing in post. Why? Because you just shot a negative and now need to head to your dark room to develop and print it--and there's no corner drugstore to do it for you. For those of us who want/can spend the time in our new darkrooms it's rewarding, but you must learn the skills first.

And that's actually the reason why I shoot RAW exclusively. I want to make sure that I at least look at the image onscreen before presenting it to public/client. With JPEGs there always will be too much of a temptation to go "ah, wth, they're all fine" route...

claudermilk · June 7, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

And that's actually the reason why I shoot RAW exclusively. I want to make sure that I at least look at the image onscreen before presenting it to public/client. With JPEGs there always will be too much of a temptation to go "ah, wth, they're all fine" route...

Buy you can fight that temptation. I still review all files before releasing them, even if I shoot JPEG that time (I prefer to shoot RAW when I can). I also make it known that this is part of my process--so when the client sees me blasting away & taking a hundred shots, they understand when they only see a dozen or two why that's all they see.

Leonardo · June 7, 2007

In my oppinion, skill and techniqe with camera makes 80-90 percent of really good photo other 10 goes to postprocessing which mainly depends on purpose and way of presentation. For screen (especially CRT, using both CRT and LCD) sharpening is nearly obligatorily (for printing I've found it is not that necessary), sometimes you must reduce noise because of high ISO, crop, etc...

I'm still learning both shooting and postprocessing and I'll never learn it enough:D

My example of conditionally unedited photo (converting from RAW, sharpening after resizing, removing metadata, no levels, no curves). I'm satisfied with this picture, but I think I'll try to change perspective and lens distorsion (maybe once

). I used polarizer for shooting.

dragon300zx · June 7, 2007

David_S85 wrote:

This is a little like asking if one should learn to drive a car first or study up on traffic laws first.

WHo needs traffic laws, it's whoever drives the fastest wins right? See I already know the rules. Learning how to drive is what matters...... :P

David_S85 · June 7, 2007

dragon300zx wrote:

WHo needs traffic laws, it's whoever drives the fastest wins right? See I already know the rules. Learning how to drive is what matters...... :P

:marlin

I hope you carry a bail bond card with you where your valid driver's license should be.

dragon300zx · June 7, 2007

David_S85 wrote:

:marlin

I hope you carry a bail bond card with you where your valid driver's license should be.

Sure enough. It's tucked in behind the proof of insurance, behind the registration, behind the Drivers License, and my attorneys card is behind that. Ya get pulled over enough times and ya learn it's easier to keep all that info together.....

CathieT · June 7, 2007

David_S85 wrote:

This is a little like asking if one should learn to drive a car first or study up on traffic laws first.

They both compliment each other. Learning one discipline aids in learning the other.

That said, one should probably place much more emphasis on the photography side. It is the foundation you build upon. A bad photo is rarely ever saved or enhanced by learning software. A good photo will always be a good photo. Using any software properly can only compliment and enhance fine photography.

David, that is the most concise response to that question I have ever heard - and trust me, I've seen that question come up once or twice!

I am pleased when I get something absolutely spot on "in camera" - but there are photographs which I know I'm going to tweak and filter before I press the shutter!!

I think it all depends on what your 'vision' for that shot is .......

David_S85 · June 8, 2007

CathieT wrote:

David, that is the most concise response to that question I have ever heard - and trust me, I've seen that question come up once or twice!
I am pleased when I get something absolutely spot on "in camera" - but there are photographs which I know I'm going to tweak and filter before I press the shutter!!
I think it all depends on what your 'vision' for that shot is .......

And that vision is where it all begins.

Digital software can improve many shots, but shouldn't be a crutch. Many times a digital photo, due to the camera's limitations, or flat / poor lighting (or both) renders a picture that is just plain blah, and needs more pop (contrast and curve adjustments). In those cases, knowledge of one's image software is crucial. Obviously, one can take many additional steps — which taken too far can also render a photo worse. The Auto One-Click Fix in many apps might be a good start, but learning the deep down tricks has lots more benefits. And it is just fun!

But I firmly believe that the first step is learning how to take a good photo to begin with. Just like back in the old days.

Nikolai · June 8, 2007

Knowledge of post-processing software will not turn a poor picture into a good one, but it can turn a good pictiure into a great one.
One thing many people fail to realize that in today's cameras there is tons of very serious post-pocessing going on before the image even hits the media card.
But "out of site, out of mind", and they - somewhat naively - call it "straight from the camera". It is not. And cameras are simply pretuned for certain deliverables. P&S usually produces oversharpened and oversaturated colors, dSLRs are moderate in this respect yet still guilty (at least they tend to offer RAW and "picture styles").
I say - why leave it to the camera, which is trying to please everybody (which is an impossible taks anyway)?

My "eye sensor" is not linear. CCD/CMOS sensor is. My eye has dynamic adaptation - camera has not. My eye automatiaclly adjusts for perfect WB - camera presents color cast.

Post-processing cannot replace good composition skills and an ability to catch the soul, the spirit. But it sure can help to present it properly.

Nikolai · June 8, 2007

Leonardo wrote:

In my oppinion, skill and techniqe with camera makes 80-90 percent of really good photo other 10 goes to postprocessing which mainly depends on purpose and way of presentation. For screen (especially CRT, using both CRT and LCD) sharpening is nearly obligatorily (for printing I've found it is not that necessary), sometimes you must reduce noise because of high ISO, crop, etc...

I'm still learning both shooting and postprocessing and I'll never learn it enough:D

My example of conditionally unedited photo (converting from RAW, sharpening after resizing, removing metadata, no levels, no curves). I'm satisfied with this picture, but I think I'll try to change perspective and lens distorsion (maybe once ). I used polarizer for shooting.

Leonardo, it's a good shot, yet it features one rather typical problem - keystoning. I'm not sure if that effect was in your original intentions. I suspect not, cause if it were, you'd get flat on the ground to emphasize it.
To avoid it, you need to use a wider lens or a TS lens, which you may not have had on you at the time you pulled the trigger.
It's very easy to fix in post, however.

claudermilk · June 8, 2007

David_S85 wrote:

And that vision is where it all begins.

Digital software can improve many shots, but shouldn't be a crutch. Many times a digital photo, due to the camera's limitations, or flat / poor lighting (or both) renders a picture that is just plain blah, and needs more pop (contrast and curve adjustments). In those cases, knowledge of one's image software is crucial. Obviously, one can take many additional steps — which taken too far can also render a photo worse. The Auto One-Click Fix in many apps might be a good start, but learning the deep down tricks has lots more benefits. And it is just fun!

But I firmly believe that the first step is learning how to take a good photo to begin with. Just like back in the old days.

Isn't that vision what it's all about?

For the rest, I agree. In fact, now that I've used digital to get really comfortable with the basics of photography. I no longer really have to think hard about the shutter/aperture tradeoff--just where I want to place my compromise and how much DOF I want; I even pretty much understand what I'm doing with my lightmeter now. :ivar So...part of why I decided to grab that Mamiya rig is that it strips away all the digital "helpers" --now it's just my vision, the light-tight box, and a piece of film. With that one I really stop and THINK about my vision--what am I taking a picture OF? Or rather what image am I trying to create? This is harder than learning the technicalities of shutter speed & aperture, and is a lot more fun.

What I find interesting is taking the scans of those negatives into Photoshop, I have a totally different mindset for some reason. It's not "let's try and fix this image to make it look better" it's more of "ok, let's try and get this image to where my mind's eye saw it when I tripped the shutter." My next trick is to maintain that mindset when working on the all-digital images.

Sam · June 10, 2007

Woody,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
"which makes me ask the question, photography or photoshop?"<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The answer is yes!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
While there are many good responses here, I think Nikolai has summed it up best, so I have no idea why I am trying to muddy the waters even more, but I will.

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Out of camera is a misnomer in my opinion. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Digital cameras capture data. After that it’s a mater of interpreting this data. You can let the camera with it’s itty bitty (yet pretty amazing for the size) processing capabilities extract this data based on a set of predetermined algorithms or you can extract this data based on your vision, and idea of what you want your finished photo to look like.<o:p></o:p>
Images should be prepared differently for different output devises. Your camera can’t do that.<o:p></o:p>
I look at photography as a process. The process (for me) combines all the technical aspects of the camera gear, the post capture processing, printing (different paper, ink, and or print processes), presentation, (matting, framing, mounting, etc), of the finished work.<o:p></o:p>
Throughout this process you must infuse your work with whatever artistic skill / talent / vision you have.<o:p></o:p>
Sam<o:p></o:p>

Photography or Photoshop? What to learn?

Comments