To Photoshop or Not , that is the question.

[Eric_Collins 11]

I was wondering if anyone has to play with photoshop once they take a photo ?

I have never used photoshop in photographic touch up ways, only really to re size the images for comps etc...

 

If you are an avid Photoshop Guru , what sort of tricks can you do to a standard photo to give it the WOW factor.

 

I have PS CS3 with a few plug-ins.

[Ark-Seven 10]

I use photoshop quite often, for obvious things like increasing contrast and levels, sharpening and B&W conversions. Its really handy when you're working in RAW aswell which i always do. Although it is a useful tool, it's no subsitute for real filters and its definately not a quick-fix for bad photos.

[ImpInaBox 10]

I tend to think of Photoshop as my darkroom. Most of the work to create a pic is done in camera but Photoshop is the too to get the finished result from it. As Ark-Seven says, contrast and colour tweaks, sharpening, and maybe a bit of cropping and rotating are all everyday tasks.

 

For a bit of extra wow, with the right image, try playing with layers and blending modes. Duplicate the background layer of a pic and then change the blending mode of the new layer to 'soft light' or 'hard light' or something. You can reduce the strength of the effect by changing the opacity of the new layer. The result is maybe like a 'pop polarising filter' but different. It's fab in the right place.

[jezzyjj 10]

For most photographers Photoshop is a waste of time. It's an absolutely brilliant programme but overkill for most people. Programmes like Lightroom will suit the vast majority of photographers, much better. In fact everything that Ark Seven says he uses PS for can be done in LR and much quicker too.

 

PS has nothing to do with RAW image development. Adobe Camera RAW [ACR] or LR [which is ACR with a fancier interface] are what you use to 'develop' your RAW files and they will need developing as they are akin to undeveloped film, before PS can even open them.

Capture1, Aperture and many other programmes will also develop RAW files.

 

Just like the Imp says, PS is my darkroom and if you are the sort of person who liked to or would be interested in printing B+W with an enlarger, then PS would certainly be of interest. It's also essential if you want to do any compositing, texture alteration or to alter specific parts of the image, but even LR will be able to locally edit in LR2.0.

I would recomend learning to use ACR thoroughly first to get the best image into PS. And then start playing with layers, blending modes, opacity just as the Imp correctly suggested.

 

Some demo images below

Image processed purely in ACR

 

 

 

Same image but this was finished in PS, but at this size you cannot really see the differences, it's mainly in texture.

The PSed shot is actually closest to original scene colours.

 

 

 

This image shows how useful using RAW files are when it comes to sorting out colour balance.

It was processed twice in ACR and then the two 'correct' parts were composited in PS.

Image chosen for teaching purposes not artistic reasons!

 

 

 

 

These days I develop in Bridge/ACR and LR and then send pics into PS for finishing off/compositing.

But that's because some of the looks I use, can only be achieved in PS. But this is 95% LR

 

 

 

 

This shows localised editing in PS to remove flair, another SF photographer's shot BTW.

[mrmist 10]

I use PS Elements 5 to edit my photos if they are going to be presented anywhere, be that on screen on in print. Mostly I would use level changes, contrast and shadow tweaks, noise reduction and USM, which will give images a bit more "pop".

 

If I'm feeling particularly daring then I might engage in some dodge and burn, or smooth out minor annoyances, but that would really depend.

[DaFoot 10]

I spend far too much time in front of a computer already (my 9-5) so am loath to use any in depth photo editor unless I have to!

 

My needs are minimal, so no real need for Photoshop for me.

The Gimp (photo editing software) has been been able to do everything I've needed to as yet and it's free (while being legal! )

[alchresearch 208]

I use Serif Photoplus for my resizing and minor tweaks. Its supposedly got the best resizing tool on the market.

 

Photoshop takes far too long to load up. I've seen some good photos processed in Lightroom though.

[jezzyjj 10]

Photoshop takes far too long to load up.

Takes 3 seconds on my machine.

[jezzyjj 10]

And PS CS4 is even quicker, less than 2 secs.

[rob-s 10]

It's nice to see honest answers here - I have seen this question on so many forums and the "purists" all say that photoshop just encourages people to degrade an image - get it right in camera and you never need photoshop - it's just there for people who can't use a camera and have to manipulate everything to just get an acceptable print. I would bet that most digital photographers have photoshop or some very similar editing software, and if you took it away from them, they would cry!

I have Photoshop CS3 and I use it all the time. My images are opened in ACR as RAW images, then saved as tiff files - as a working photographer I have to deal with problems - at weddings, registrars will often tell you where to stand so that you are not in the way, so the tear in the wallpaper cannot be avoided in the photographs, and the clone tool is handy. Lab mode is useful for saturation, and blend modes and layer masks are essential for good black and white conversions - if I had to get rid of photoshop, I would get rid of my digital cameras - as has been said on here, it is now my "darkroom", despite the fact that I still have a real darkroom (I think it's upstairs somewhere).

[mr chris 10]

Lightroom is my darkroom, and the non-destructive editing = WIN!

 

Photographers have always made changes at the darkroom stage, and LR/PS is no different...

[Jabberwocky 46]

I cant even get photoshop. I tried to download it a few weeks ago and the damn thing flatly refused to load.