Photoshop

[JC]

Just wondering how much people use photoshop. Personally I try to use it as little as possible, trying to get my shot right without using it.
I do realise how useful it is , but I think that people have an over reliance on using. Trying to make a good shot out of nothing,and going over the top with levels and curves etc.
Any thoughts?

[jollyroger]

Hi Jc,
I use photoshop every working day and I can asure you of one thing it can not make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It can help to tweak the tonal range, saturation and contrast etc. of a good image but you have to have a good image to start with. As the old saying goes c..p in c..p out.
I find a well exposed large format image does not require a great of work in photoshop anyway, get the basics right and your are more than half way there. Photoshop is a great tool but it is only a tool and does not replace the photographer yet , maybe it will by CS6. Keep trying to get the image right it's the only way in the end.

[Joanna Carter]

Hi JC, as Roger says, Photoshop is not a universal panacea, especially for scanned images; although digital RAW files can contain more data that it can help bring out. All scanned images, except those from very high-end scanners, will need some sharpening and Photoshop will do this better than most. things like adjusting of black and white points, contrast curves, colour balance, etc can all be required due to the dynamic range of the trannie/neg not being quite the same as the final print; not forgetting the need to apply a suitable profile to the scanned image to compensate for differences in scanners.

But, as far as "manipulating" an image, the furthest I will go is to remove small distractions like distant red coated paople and motorhomes

Once again, as Roger so succinctly put it, it is very difficult to make something out of nothing. Perfection in the camera is far more important

[John Fontana]

I find the camera raw converter in CS3 is indispensable for black and white conversion. I personally feel that having the options to tweak six colour ranges, the way of altering certain tonal ranges in the curves option that comes with the converter, and the ability to 'rescue' some highlight loss, very intuitive. Yes, I know some of it can be done with channel mixer etc etc, but I would use the analogy of drilling a hole in wood with a manually turned hand drill, or with a variable speed electric drill. I know which I would prefer.
Additionally, at least in black and white which is almost exclusively my medium, very small details can have an enormous effect on the final result. A small object that needs darkening, an increase in tonal detail in one small area etc etc. The real buzz for me about Photoshop is the incredible degree of control. I am talking about sometimes quite subtle changes, at others quite significant alterations, with burning, dodging, local contrast change and so on.
I personally get irritated by people talking of 'getting it right in the camera', as if those who seemingly can, have developed cunning skills that I will never be able to acquire. If I had waited for everything to come together in such a way that I would not have to carry out any post processing manipulation, I don't think I would have exposed a single frame in the last forty years. What I see on the groundglass, and what I envisage in my mind's eye, are often poles apart, and the thrill of photography for me is the realisation of one from the other.
Sorry to bang on , but I do feel strongly about this. Then again, my images might be c--p!
John

[John Fontana]

I apologise if I seem to be a tad critical of others in my possibly over hasty post above.
I do of course accept that good exposure and development on a well composed image are vital to ultimate good results, but Photoshop is also potentially a wonderfully expressive tool beyond mere levels and saturation tweaks - and I have no financial links with Adobe!

[Brian E]

Let's hear it for photoshop ! Why do photographers look down on anything " digital " ?? I've been using PS since version 4 for my social photography on DSLR and earlier on scanned Medium Format I now scan in my LF Work. What's the fuss. Did any one ask Rembrant the make of his paints and brushes or did he remove a sitters' spots - NO. I use PS the same as I used my wet darkroom years ago - Burning - Dodging - Contrast adjustment etc. etc. Let's face it it is more comfortable - I never took tea or coffee into the darkroom (except for some early experiments in toning during the 50's & 60's) Come on photographers - It's the final COMPLETE picture that matters - NOT how you got to that stage.
PS: And YES you do need the best possible Neg/ Slide/File to start with no matter how you reach the final product. Let us start looking at the Whole Picture and not try to analyse each separate square inch - not how it reached that point.

[Joanna Carter]

I use PS the same as I used my wet darkroom years ago - Burning - Dodging - Contrast adjustment etc. etc

I have said this before; it's only when you start "messing up" a perfectly good shot by doing things like dropping in skies that weren't there, etc that Photoshop can become the devil's own tool; using the adjustment layers and masks is just, as you say, a more comfortable darkroom, with the lights on

- I never took tea or coffee into the darkroom (except for some early experiments in toning during the 50's & 60's)

And YES you do need the best possible Neg/ Slide/File to start with no matter how you reach the final product

I went to the Dundalk camera club the other week, as I was working in the town, and saw a sign that said "Great pictures are made, not taken". Unfortunately, most people there seemed to think that you can "make" a picture out of a "sow's ear" by using Photoshop