Photoshop..?

[Novem]

I was wondering if there were 2 sides to this question? When
I look at pictures, I think that non-photoshop pics have a better
feel to them. I am not not talking about basic stuff, like changing
brightness and that kind of thing. The kind of pictures that have
fake DOF, and different multiple images etc.
There are some PS pics I do like. Some of the HDR or white
bracketing, nothing hardcore i.e. over saturated colors and the like.
I was wondering if alot of members on here keep their images
mostly unaltered?

Craig

[david.elliott]

Bad photoshop is bad. Good photoshop doesnt look 'photoshopped.'



I just use the basic adjustments if necessary - tone curve, brightness, contrast, exposure, sharpening, and white balance.

[buzzardkid]

I use tone curve, brightness, contrast, shadows/highlights, calculations, layers and channels. Cropping and levelling.

All of these to improve the balance between light and dark, tonality, etc. only. Never use any layers to selectively sharpen or stuff like that.

Just the things you would be able to use in the dark room when wet printing get into my shots.

If I feel something is missing from a shot, I strive to better myself the next time I push the shutter button, not push the mouse button

[manusrayus]

only classical stuff, brightness, contrast , sometimes cropping. Changing too much with photoshop brings photography too far to publicity photos to sell things better
Fern

[buzzardkid]

Ha!

No publicity photos on my site though, the tools I use from Photoshop still are the classic tools available to photographers when the trade was confined to the dark room.

In my list I forgot to include the clone tool, which I use for 'dustbusting', the modern equivalent of retouche in prints.

The negative is a raw file that needs improving to bring out whats in there. Personally, I feel I still work within the boundaries of the classical printer and this is important to me. I want to be a craftsman at photography, not Photoshop.

[januaryman]

I use Photoshop to fix those bad guesses I had when I employed Sunny 16. I also rid photos of dust and scratches and have, on occasion, used cloning to get rid of an offending wire or lamp post or foot. To me, if you can tell it's been 'shopped, you did a bad job. Not counting those graphics artists who use photographs as a starting point to create mad art.

[ampguy]

or crop, unless it's to ultimately get say a 4/3 image into a non 4/3 frame for a print and there is ample room to get to the target size.

I also prefer to look at images non-photoshopped, and non-cropped.

Here's an interesting perspective on a guy who doesn't use photoshop or cropping with wildlife, preserving the historical integrity, while using photoshop on his landscapes:

http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=10060

(photoshop disc. is 20 minutes from the beginning).

Originally Posted by Novem

I was wondering if there were 2 sides to this question? When
I look at pictures, I think that non-photoshop pics have a better
feel to them. I am not not talking about basic stuff, like changing
brightness and that kind of thing. The kind of pictures that have
fake DOF, and different multiple images etc.
There are some PS pics I do like. Some of the HDR or white
bracketing, nothing hardcore i.e. over saturated colors and the like.
I was wondering if alot of members on here keep their images
mostly unaltered?

Craig

[MartinP]

I don't use Photoshop either. I only use basic stuff, like re-sizing and a bit of curve adjustment, for web-pictures or Flickr (no printing) and the Gnu Image Manipulation Program "Gimp" (www.gimp.org) does more than enough for me.

[charjohncarter]

I do minimal work, like everybody above. But I do use a color correction plugin by CFSystems. I just couldn't get real color with PS. Actually, I use PSE6.

[acheyj]

Nothing I did not do in the darkroom with one big exception.
Curves.
It has transformed my digital stuff, emulate the "heel" and "toe" of a negative.

ron