ok I took some photos that looked good not great. basically the colors were not what I saw when I took the photo when they were developed. So I scanned them in and they lloked a bit worse for the wear. My scanner is about 5 years old. gets the job done but not too friendly to photos it would seem, or at least to the pro/am photos I like.
I want colors that are really saturated. I realize I can get these colors using slides but I really like prints just to keep down costs. I have tried to think before shooting.
ok, so the problem is this. I scanned the photos in and then did a auto levels and it popped the colors out like I like and oogle from national geographic. they had that dynamic I remember from taking the shot. maybe a little more but I don't care, I like them. Anyhow, a friend of mine looked at them before and after. I guess it is a touchy subject. Obviously I am not skilled enough to be a Nat. Geo Photographer but I would like my pictures to have that dynamic.
This might be a really touchy subject but I really would like to know. is this considered cheating as far as using photoshop to get what I want. I don't develop them so I can't do things like dodge, burn, push and pull. However, I would like to get the camera to take what I see without compromise and eventually take the picture better. I have tried a few settings and filters but it seems it will only take me so far.
Another good example is I took some pictures of my wife. unfortunatly, My pictures had shadows on here face but other things looked good. taking them in photoshop is a good way to fix a shot that is good in theory but not practice.
I realize it might piss of the pro people like Tiger Woods being pissed off at "cheater clubs"
most of my shots I concentrate on composition but I like the color to be dynamic. I know the color combo wheels
your help would be appriciated and I hope this doesn't open a can of worms.
I see nothing wrong with photoshop to boost colour saturation, adjust levels, dust bust, all I consider NORMAL since even in the days of enlargers and the darkroom they had ways to alter images, boost contrast ( which makes colours more pronounced ) colour correct etc. It's not cheating unltill you start air brushing and compositing things into a completly different image, and even then it's just a different art form.
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic in recent times, especially with the growing popularity of digital photography. There's a recent thread on this too - I think it's called "Is using Photoshop cheating?": which had some lively discussion - perhaps if you do a search you'd find it.
Personally, I think the ease of post-processing photos after-the-fact can lead to some laziness. For example, instead of finding the best vantage point to remove a cluttered background - simply remove the clutter in Photoshop! Things like that. Of course..the alternative view is that it gives the photographer much more flexibility, but I think it's always best to be able to capture what you want ''in-camera'instead of relying too much on post-processing. To me, that almost boils it down to computer imaging skills instead of photography.
You said one of your photos had shadows on your wife's face. Instead of trying to fix it in Photoshop, perhaps you need to experiment some more with fill flash?
What kind of film are you using? Perhaps a more saturated film would give your more vivid colours.
Cheater clubs used in a competition with several million dollars in prize money is one thing. Use of PS to artistically express what you like is another. So long as you don't misrepresent the finished product, especially to anyone paying for it, you have every right to use every tool that will accomplish your desired ends.
This debate about the appropriateness of using programs like PhotoShop is, IMHO, utter nonsense. Photographers have been altering their images from the very beginning. Every filter, every dodge, every burn, even the slight variations in the "look" of any film compared to any other, constitute an alteration of the image. Photography has never been an absolutely faithful rendering of the subject being photographed.
Being a purist is O.K. However, when a purist attempts to apply his standard to others, he is most probably being defensive about his own inadequacies.
Ok I understand the addage of misrepresntation and I agree. I am a visual communications major who had to take a Phtogrpahy class and will take a few more before graduating. I become interested in Photography as another form of artisitic expression (I compose music, paint, draw and write as well) most of the photos I get are not good ones I would enter in a contest. most I will use as reference or source material in my upcoming profession. still i would like to get the photo right the first time obviously.
when I get photos back and they don't look as dynamic when I took the photo (this might be due to lack of skill, or film) but when I put them in photoshop and boost the colors, then I see what I remember and the life in the picture is boosted. of course I would not use photoshop to adjust composistion like moving things around, however then another thing delimia comes up.
What about removing wires and undesirables and perhaps put the background out of focus when it was not done before.
I look at photoshop in this respect the same way I do in equipment photographers buy. Why spend 1200 on a 2.8 lens when I could accompish some of the needed in photoshop.why get a filter system when I can use photoshop later. this comes back to the teacher saying "get the picture right the first time so the photoshop skills are needed at a minimum" I agree there, but seriously my profession as a Visual comm person will depend on stuff like this. Obviously I would not use this skill if I was working as a pro photographer
to answer the questions.
I use Fuji film exclusivly usually 200 but sometimes 100
I have shot a roll of slide but I dont like the wait and cost with them.
I want to have the negitives processed but not printed so I can scan them in and not pay the cost of printing.
I got back ten rolls of film (240 pictures) and only about 10 to 12 pictures were worth of printing. so I want to lower the cost per roll through nessecary printing. also I dont want a lot of prints lying around. my desk is littered with CDs as it is
I agree with Brendan 100%. Personally, I also respect images more that don't need any cropping in photoshop - images that were perfectly composed from the get-go. Of course there are some instances (snapshots) were this is more difficult, but there's nothing quite like a perfectly composed image that requires no manipulation.
...Obviously I would not use this skill if I was working as a pro photographer...
This is not so obvious to me. The term "pro photographer" is bantered around so lightly and covers so much ground that it has little meaning without being more specific. A photo purist may not use PhotoShop or other select tools in their work, but a working "pro" photographer is going to use whatever tools it takes to get the job done.
One of our local pro studios (The Studio Photography) uses an all digital workflow. Their images are tweaked, color corrected, airbrushed if needed, rotated, assembled into collages, vignetted, and any thing else needed for the shot. Their end result looks great! Their "pro" business hinges on PhotoShop. Are they cheating? By no means.
Long before I built my own darkroom, I used to drool over the images that I saw in magazines like Nat. Geo. and wondered why my results never looked up to their standards. I was very frustrated until I discovered how much manipulation many of these images undergo to get them just right. (Don't get me wrong. Starting with an attractive, sharp, well composed, well exposed image doesn't hurt either!)
IMHO, PhotShop is just a tool, and a great "pro" tool at that.
Photography at its best is not a performing art where the photographer's primary goal is to display such a mastery of the art that no alternation of the photo is necessary. If the aim of photography is to produce an image that means the most to the viewer, anything that enhances the photo should be used. A few kinds of photos should be an accurate representation of the subject, such as forensic and documentary photographs.
My camera club does not have a seperate division for digital and traditional photographers. This encourages the former to work towards maximum quality, and the latter to work harder to stay ahead (or just keep up).