# Photoshop makes better pictures??



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

In THIS thread, there is a discussion if better equipment will lead to better pictures. I believe it can lead to better pictures IF you know what you are doing and know how to work with the equipment. I also believe that a photographer in this era cannot work without Photoshop. Here is why:

Before:










After:










The before picture isn't bad. The lighting is good, the perspective is good and it is sharp. But it wasn't the image I had in my head. The AR on the crystal made the dial blue and the pictures was lacking contrast. With some dodging and burning (mostly burning) and sharpening, the picture became more interesting.

What do you think?


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Nicely done! I agree that post processing is essential.


----------



## Ryan Alden (Nov 19, 2008)

yes, definitely. but PS doesn't make a better photography.

cheers


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Great pic - love the wood chippings after processing
I guess like the other thread on whether better kit makes better pictures, my own answer is yes, if you know what you are doing. Just as a f1.5 50mm lens will produce better portrait pics than a stock zoom with f.4- lens (sharper focus, creamier bokeh), so post processing can improve colour, texture, tone, contrast, framing etc I personally am not a fan of heavy photoshopping which imports other images and changes colours to look freaky or remove unwanted objects. I think some photoshopping is cheating - not photography but computer graphic design which dishonours the original picture.

But from this and his other posts, I think Dimer honours the photograph and enhances and improves it appropriately.

Makes me think I need to get photoshop as all I have is my pac Iphoto

si


----------



## igorycha (Dec 10, 2008)

Sure it does!!! As in good old no pixel times they shoot films and then were playing shamanism in dark rooms - now we try to use all the features of PS. And I can not understand statements like - if the picture was edited in PhotoShop, then you can not consider it as real photo. BS! I am photographer, author, creator. And I can use for that process of creation whatever tools I want. Including editing. The main goal of photography as any other art - to deliver idea, mood, beauty...

The only place where serious editing can't be done is photojournalism.


----------



## Rick B (May 23, 2010)

Sorry, even the post edited picture has flaws. No detail in the watch strap, completely black, and the blue haze is still evident in the crystal near the top (in the picture). Color correction is one thing, but this pic should have been tossed!

Sorry.


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

Rick B said:


> Sorry, even the post edited picture has flaws. No detail in the watch strap, completely black, and the blue haze is still evident in the crystal near the top (in the picture). Color correction is one thing, but this pic should have been tossed!
> 
> Sorry.


I don't recall I said this is the only way to go and my picture is absolutely perfect. I have kept the blue hue on top of the crystal on purpose (see my HOW TO). I have enough detail in the strap on my screen. Maybe your screen needs to be calibrated? I don't think I can take you last remark seriously, I'm not saying my pictures are the best of the best, but if you think the picture should be tossed you have a VERY high standard and I can't wait to see your pictures! :-!


----------



## Rick B (May 23, 2010)

Dimer said:


> I don't recall I said this is the only way to go and my picture is absolutely perfect. I have kept the blue hue on top of the crystal on purpose (see my HOW TO). I have enough detail in the strap on my screen. Maybe your screen needs to be calibrated? I don't think I can take you last remark seriously, I'm not saying my pictures are the best of the best, but if you think the picture should be tossed you have a VERY high standard and I can't wait to see your pictures! :-!


Composition of picture is very good!

It is the exposure of the picture, that makes it difficult to work.
Using Curves in PS, I can pull a picture back from the abyss, but I gave up on this one after 20 minutes.

BTW, brightness on my IMAC is set at 100%.


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

Rick B said:


> Composition of picture is very good!
> 
> It is the exposure of the picture, that makes it difficult to work.
> Using Curves in PS, I can pull a picture back from the abyss, but I gave up on this one after 20 minutes.
> ...


The picture that I put on the web is a stripped JPG. It isn't strange that is difficult to work with (when using curves) in PS.

I can get more detail from my RAW file. But I like the dark/eerie feeling of the photo and I don't think the strap is too black on the right side. A well... beauty is in the eye of the beholder  We might have a different taste and take on photography.


----------



## Rick B (May 23, 2010)

Dimer said:


> The picture that I put on the web is a stripped JPG. It isn't strange that is difficult to work with (when using curves) in PS.
> 
> I can get more detail from my RAW file. But I like the dark/eerie feeling of the photo and I don't think the strap is too black on the right side. *A well... beauty is in the eye of the beholder  We might have a different taste and take on photography*.


Agree with you there! That is the same for all arts, like music. Problem is you have to die before someone appreciates your art!:-(


----------



## fueltank (Aug 3, 2009)

Did you use a CPL?
I think out of the camera a polarising filter would've helped reduce the reflection of your lightsource.


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

fueltank said:


> Did you use a CPL?
> I think out of the camera a polarising filter would've helped reduce the reflection of your lightsource.


Yes I did, but due to the reflection board the blue hue was inevitable.


----------



## Bruce2 (Jun 4, 2010)

True photoshop has become part of life for imaging professionals (and non pros) and can add real punch when you need it. 

Keep in mind though there is quite a bit of difference between imaging and photography. Photoshop wont help take good photograps (that's up to the person behind the lens) take a look at old pics in any War Memorial for heart wrenching impact - taken with old field cameras.

However when building images it's a must, so I guess it's "horses for courses" but your headed for disappointment if you think Photoshop will turn a not-so-good photographer into a pro.


----------



## Watchman1985 (Jun 2, 2010)

Although we might agree that the picture might become a little fake because of the use of photoshop, the difference is absolutely amazing, and in this case I don't think that there is any problem with using it.


----------



## himmelblau (Mar 8, 2010)

I have been on two photographic courses with Philip Dunn and know that he can take a better photo with a Canon digital point-and-shoot camera than we could only dream about using a DSLR.

Many of the tools in Photoshop owe their existence to methods used by photographers in the darkroom and photos have been edited in some form or another since photography was in its infancy.

Something that we should not forget is monitor calibration without this we would be unable to produce prints close to that seen on the screen and we would all be seeing a different photo to the one on the posters monitor. I use Color Munki as I was heavily into photography and have just calibrated my monitor due to reading this post; I have been lazy and not calibrated my monitor for awhile.

Brian


----------



## Nai no Kami (Jun 25, 2010)

Rick B said:


> Composition of picture is very good!
> 
> It is the exposure of the picture, that makes it difficult to work.
> Using Curves in PS, I can pull a picture back from the abyss, but I gave up on this one after 20 minutes.
> ...


If you tried to manipulate a JPEG using curves to bring back darkened detail, answer about brightness when asked about calibration and write IMAC instead of iMac, you have a long way to go, young padawan.


----------



## robrobin (Feb 14, 2006)

I have Aperture (very similar to PS Lightroom) that I use in post processing. Being from the old school (35mm film) I try to compose the best I can using the light, camera and surroundings with little post processing. That's the challenge, get it right the first time. Software like Aperture allows you to push the photo into a dimension that wasn't available before. It makes brides skin look perfect, removes wrinkles, adjust colors, put filters in place that you forgot that day, erases stray objects that distract you in a photo, etc, etc....

Oh, and I agree with most of the above.....if you have the skills, tools with more features and technology will give you more options and in a lot of cases a better outcome......eg. full frame/large aperture yields great dof; 21mp large size poster prints and excellent detail; photoshop to adjust/dodge/burn/create........


----------



## waruilewi (May 18, 2008)

Bruce2 said:


> True photoshop has become part of life for imaging professionals (and non pros) and can add real punch when you need it.
> 
> Keep in mind though there is quite a bit of difference between imaging and photography. Photoshop wont help take good photograps (that's up to the person behind the lens) take a look at old pics in any War Memorial for heart wrenching impact - taken with old field cameras.
> 
> However when building images it's a must, so I guess it's "horses for courses" but your headed for disappointment if you think Photoshop will turn a not-so-good photographer into a pro.


Well said. Garbage in > garbage out. True now more than ever.


----------



## waruilewi (May 18, 2008)

Nai no Kami said:


> If you tried to manipulate a JPEG using curves to bring back darkened detail, answer about brightness when asked about calibration and write IMAC instead of iMac, you have a long way to go, young padawan.


Please educate us on the 'proper' workflow then. And don't leave anything out - starting with how to correctly capture and massage the 16-bit data out of the RAW file you saved in the ProPhoto colorspace, viewed on the calibrated Delta-E compensated IPS display showing 98% of the Adobe-RGB gamut running a 12-bit lookup table...

Seriously. If the look is what your mind intended and you're happy with it after 'processing' then that's really all there is to it, no? I took this with a camera-phone quality lens and ran it thru the Tilt-Shift app on the iPad, of my wife standing on the balcony of our hotel doing her impersonation of Evita Peron - and IMO it's a shot I'll always treasure because it brings me back to a place in our shared past - IQ or post processing prowess is not always the end-all.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

I'll be honest - I don't like photoshop. But I'm also a bit old school. I grew up with film and darkrooms - and while I've made the switch to digital I still miss a lot of the elements of film. All that said I can see PS being an advantage for certain professional photographers - people in advertising or portrait or commercial photography. But for the recreational photographer, for the photojournalist, for the sports photographer, and for the nature photographer I maintain that no computer program out there can replicate the ability to be there - in the moment, to have the sense of timing, exposure, composition and instinct that comes from actually working the photograph in the field. 

I definitely get the fact that PS can be a big asset, but all too often photographers use it as a crutch - a way of compensating for mistakes made when the photo was taken - and it can be obvious. 

I'll also say this - PS has been around for a long time, it's been in common use among photographers for, what... well over a decade now, I'd guess. I haven't seen an increase in the quality of the best photography over that time.


----------

