to "photoshop" or not to "photoshop"

[Rich]

The first photo looks as though someone could be swirling the wine in the glass prior to tasting, the second one jars with me.

Vertical glass, vertical tree in the background but the wine is not on the level. There is nothing in the picure to sugest movement to make the wine not be level.

Feel free to ignore my comments, I have yet to take a decent photo!

h

 

That's a fair comment actually, I hadn't noticed that until you said. A good example of why a photo shouldn't be photoshopped maybe...although I feel another one coming on!!

[d[-_-]b]

Photo-shop can be used for other fun things as well tho:

 

Like planning out how in an ideal world you would like your car to look for example ^^,

 

My car as it is "pretty much" atm - (slightly older pic of it):

 

 

A "scenario" of many of how i would like:

 

 

I do use Photoshop for other things too, and I think if it can be used to remove a "blemish" from an otherwise perfect picture (ie the photo couldn't be set-up to avoid it) then there no problem with it. I would say probably well over 50% of pro photographers images are "tweaked" in various programs.

 

CJ

[phipck]

hey dude :-)

 

That as you know is my pet gripe about photoshop, if you cant take the photo you want because theres a telegraph pole in the way or theres a building in the background, i wouldnt take the picture. It feels distructive and peculiar to me to say "that'll do, i'll remove the bits i dont want later" as my preference is to go and find the shot im looking for else where.......but then as you know i have inhuman patience!

 

In my little ideal world all photographers would be able to say no to the neccesity of editing a photo's content for approval within the industry. You are quite right, hardly any images published havent had something done to them in post production so that they fit in with what the production team want. The pressure put upon magazine photographers to taylor their images saddens me, as it breeds photographers who wont take such care in their craft as they can "fix" it later.

 

i suppose i see it as my niche, as i dont edit the content of my photos, that becomes the charactoristic of my images.

 

the use of photoshop in other areas is on the other hand a very creative tool, post production to create something that cannot be created in any other way like car colour changes, 'digitial art' and filtering feels less distructive to me.

 

 

 

ps, we took some great pictures that day

[Rich]

I love 'shopping motors, got some I've done somewhere on the PC I will have to dig them out.

 

Anyway, the photo I took of the lady bird earlier, I had a play with the RAW file and I took it in aperture mode so everything else was automatic...I think the white balance could've been changed to brighten the green up. This is something I had only just start to play with on the other camera so I guess this will be a learning curve.

 

 

[parthiban]

If the first one is the original and the second is shopped, I have to admit I prefer the first - colours look more natural. Great pic though

[Rich]

Yes the first is the original...after I posted I wasn't too sure on the one I processed TBH but it was only a quick alteration to see how RAW images work. I can tell it will be so much easier compared to editing a JPEG though.

[NickT]

The only "photoshopping" I do is take a pic of me in widescreen then re-scale to normal so I look thin

[phipck]

lol ^

 

 

the major benifit of editing RAW is that you never alter the original image, the data stays safe. so you can play till your hearts content and always revert it back to its original.......with jpg though once you click save....thats what it now looks like!