Use of photo shop

SNAKEDOC

Esel wrote: »

This comment is not not about 'shopping or after-image processing.

If you want to take a proper shot of moving water, then you need to adjust something - probably aperture speed.

Your photo shows a blurred, white mass, whereas it should show bubbles, some white water, lots or still(ish) water etc. - unless your shot is exactly as you intended it to be.

The main advantage of digital photography is that one can afford to take many, many shots of such a subject.

So, switch to manual and go from there!

There are loads of photos out there just like my shot with the water as you describe it a white mass. I intended to photograph this. The water flowing through the shot yet the surrounding area in focus. I dont know what you mean by bubbles in a shot like this. My aperature was 2.8 and a shutter speed of 1 second.
Just google picture of flowing water for more like the effect in my shot

Red Nissan

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Is editing allowed for photo compitetions, id imagine not. Again probably asked here before but im new.

Photoshop is allowed of course as photo finishing is part of the coverall development process.

However, Photoshop can create features and that is usually not allowed in conventional photo competitions, PS leaves a forensic trail so any examiner [judge] can undo changes to check if too much PS has been applied.

BTW, you cannot get away with no editing, every time you change a setting on your capture device you are instructing the processing engine to change a parameter.

Red Nissan

My workflow, pictures captured in RAW and developed in DPP [Canon's software] mostly taken in M mode via a separate hand held meter [but not exclusively, I do use all the modes].

Flash is sometimes metered too and fixed.

I select all my files with Fastone 4.9 and move them to a holding folder, I view with Fastone and select copying the selecting to another holding folder. I run DPP and if all are the same I'l make an onthefly recipe and apply to all ~ save, name, number, convert and re size all in one go to the same folder and then delete the originals from that folder. Open FotoStation, caption and open Email and send files.

No PS used at all in my day to day workload. Occasionally in a series of pictures of a group and I don't have all open eyes in one frame, then PS does come up and I swap heads around.

I do PR work too and this is creative and all rules are out the window, we WILL turn a Hurricane into a beautiful sunny day and PS is the creator.

Any photos going to newspapers as News Stories cannot be Photoshopped at all, baring a little levels and contrast ~ some still don't even want them sharpened, sharpening is destructive and irreversible.

magicbastarder

one thing worth commenting on is the equivalence people draw between post-processing, and the algorithms applied to the photo in-camera as it's written to memory, be it sharpening, white balance, or what have you.
the obvious distinction to make here is that in terms of photographer input, that is pre-processing; the decision on settings is made *before* the exposure is made, and getting them right would therefore count as skill in image capture, much as being able to frame right or read tricky exposure conditions.

there's nothing wrong (and quite a few things right) in aiming to get things right in-camera; it's *much* more rewarding (for me, certainly) than sitting in front of a computer, revisiting a photo weeks or years after you took the shot, still trying to nail the best treatment of the shot.

Myksyk

In-camera processing (which happens after you take a shot) is not the same thing as making decisions on camera settings before you take the shot. Those settings decisions are made whether you're shooting jpeg and letting the camera do the processing or shooting raw and doing it yourself.

You compose the shot ... you make the decisions regarding the camera settings (good or bad, skilled or not). Then you have a decision about your preference to:

1. have your camera produce the final JPEG without you, including all the information 'it' decides to use our dump (this is in-camera processing)
2. use your computer to process the raw data you instructed your camera to collect and you make the decisions about which information is used or dumped.

magicbastarder

obviously, if you're exporting RAW, there is no in-camera processing of the likes people are talking about.

squareballoon

ah the issue of what constitutes a photograph or a photographer comes up again. Is this a photograph?

No, it's 3. Did I get it right in camera? No because what's possible in camera isn't what I wanted. The camera is a means to an end, as is photoshop, LR, gimp and whatever else you want to use. Could you have saved the blown areas shown here in your image in camera?

sure you could but you chose not to because as you said that's not the image you wanted. Post processing isn't always about fixing mistakes, it's also about creating an image that is pleasing to you.

SNAKEDOC

Thanks for all the replies. I suppose im just a simple guy when it comes to photography. I like to photograph nature and on occasion sporting events. I tend to enjoy photographs that are how i see them and not i suppose picture perfect with every detail covered. I just like having a nice clean crisp image of what i was looking at through the view finder. Theres probably a lot of folks thinking what is he like but hey it works for me, and i think of it as my take on an art form not an exact science.

.Longshanks.

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Ive had my DSLR for a while now and although i first bought it for work not as a photographer i have recently began using it in conjunction with my love of the outdoors to capture shots of the wilderness. I dont own a laptop or computer so therefore i dont have photshop and i have never altered any of my shots. Is there anyone else here that would flat out refuse to edit their photos for any reason. I like the challenge of getting my photo perfect without asistance from a computer.
Heres one i took over christmas

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I suppose im just a simple guy when it comes to photography. I like to photograph nature and on occasion sporting events. I tend to enjoy photographs that are how i see them and not i suppose picture perfect with every detail covered. I just like having a nice clean crisp image of what i was looking at through the view finder. Theres probably a lot of folks thinking what is he like but hey it works for me, and i think of it as my take on an art form not an exact science.

Changed your tune
:pac:

SNAKEDOC

Well i look at it like this in my minds eye my photos are the way i want them and what i meant by picture perfect is what some might do to it in post editing changing exposore and such. I see something i like i take a picture and i print it i sometimes take a lot of shots but only print and keep the ones i like.

Rew

magicbastarder wrote: »

obviously, if you're exporting RAW, there is no in-camera processing of the likes people are talking about.

Worth remembering that RAW converters generally apply basic processing

SNAKEDOC

squareballoon wrote: »

ah the issue of what constitutes a photograph or a photographer comes up again. Is this a photograph?

No, it's 3. Did I get it right in camera? No because what's possible in camera isn't what I wanted. The camera is a means to an end, as is photoshop, LR, gimp and whatever else you want to use. Could you have saved the blown areas shown here in your image in camera?

sure you could but you chose not to because as you said that's not the image you wanted. Post processing isn't always about fixing mistakes, it's also about creating an image that is pleasing to you.

Just a thought here and dont take me wrong but you said here that what you wanted to achieve was not possible in camera so in essence a camera could not do the job so can it be classed as photography? From the meaning of photography drawing with light, does making an image on a computer using a photo as a template not really fall under CGI computer aided imagery.