I have a problem !!!!!!!

[JerseyJay]

Well.

I am glad I have your attention.

I began to dislike this section of the forum. Why ???

- It seems like "we" are encouraging people to use PhotoShop, Neat Image etc etc etc. There is so many softwares on the market now days, that you barely need decent skills to take pictures since half of them could be edited to perfection. We are here to teach, learn and share tips on how to take better PICTURES and NOT how to modify "poorly" taken shots.

- I find, especially recently, a lot of pictures which are just way tooooo much sharpened. Come on guys, it is too obvious and it looks fake. Using NeatImage will help out some, but don't abuse it.

- I thought this was a Photography Forum, not Editing software forum.

Digital Photography has bad reputation, especially among 35mm professionals, because of editing softwares.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Adobe and other softwares but I spend hours on reading manual, doing research, practicing and taking pictures over and over. This is THE ONLY WAY to become better.

Don't take couple pictures and ask for editing, retake them over and over again. !!!!!!!!!!!

[ccplim]

Jay, I really agreed with you regarding those editing software. They do help in a way for viewing purposes but doesn't really help much towards perfecting our photography skills.

You know, I have actually tried those software so many times and there were many instances whereby after spending so much time on one picture, I'll rather discard them and go back to using my original. That is the one and only one that I feel it will tells me where my standard stands.

I understand that many people tend to delete away those pics that were badly taken. But for me, I will always keep them no matter how bad the results are and I will usually refer back to it to learn from my mistake [smilie=wink.gif]

[Molino]

I'm glad someone brought this up Jay.

I agree retouching images and using post processing enhancements/changes should be kept to a bare minimum. It's always better to take a good picture initially, rather than having to retouch it later.

Many of the pictures which are sharpened are sharpened too much and are beginning to look bad. Also some of the colours after digital "enhancements" are unatural.

Pictures I edit are almost never edited for colour and any other changes I make are usually very minor (ie editing out air bubbles, etc).

[Anonymous]

I think you guys forget something ...

your digicam DOES sharpen and adjust color already !! you can actually adjust the settings yourself !!

Everybody has heard of the 'white balance' ... what do you think that is ??? Ofcourse, your cam will adjust the color.

Heard of FEC ??? What's the difference between using FEC and taking a slightly underexposed shot which can be adjust with PS afterwards ??

Why not remove background or chance them into plain black ... it doesn't change anything on the fish ...

As long if it's not used to misinform, I don't see any problem in using PS or others. And I agree, some photo's are worse afterwards, but many are much better (imho)

And those 35mm boys shouldn't point the finger at us digi's ... they use(d) chemicals themselves to retouch photo's ... digital made it only much easier and it's now in reach of almost anybody who wants to try.

just my 2 cts

While I agree about overdone photoediting, (having been a victim of that too many times myself) I do consider knowledge and use of software to clean up pictures as essential in this hobby. It helps beginners make their pics look better while they are learning to take better pictures.

Like everyone here I am sure, I went through a stage where I did crazy things to my pics, and they came out all weird and I thought they were great, I am slowly learning to keep editing to a minimum, maybe clean up is more appropriate. I have learned to throw away a lot of pics that I would have earlier edited into the "good enough" category.

I dont focus on this forum, I am much more interested in the Photography 101 and others to become a bigger discussion area, but I do that think that it does serve a purpose.

If you see someone here OVERDOING it with their renditions of the photos, point out what exactly they are OVERDOING so that they learn. That is a great learning tool.

As anything else, I appreciate your concern, and it's DEFINITELY an extremely valid one. I think we are starting to really show progress here, in the way certain individuals' pics are turning out much better, and I hope we all learn in the process.
Ed

[Meganfitz]

I agree, I went a little crazy for a few days "overdoing" the sharpening, the color, etc. I decided yesterday if a little autolevels wasn't enough, it probably isn't a good enough pic to keep! [smilie=huh.gif] [smilie=lol.gif]

[inkfish86]

I too have found that there is a great use for these editing software programs, but I have noticed that in the last week or so (since I started learning techniques for editing AND for photographing) we have had a higher quality of photo to start with, and always try to "enhance" photo's to capture the actual look of our fish.

Besides, it has become much more fun to TAKE pictures now as the software allows us to salvage a shot that may otherwise have been discarded.

[JerseyJay]

I think you guys forget something ...

I didn't. I'm well aware of all the things you listed below.

I noticed the following trend lately.

"Please help me FIX my pictures to look better" instead of "Please help me take better pictures".

those 35mm boys shouldn't point the finger at us digi's ... they use(d) chemicals themselves to retouch photo's ... digital made it only much easier and it's now in reach of almost anybody who wants to try.

Oh man. Don't get me started here. Although I do use digital camera I'm a stong beliver of 35mm excellence. I don't have to reach too far to bring arguments to the table. My fiance, who is not your 35mm pro but could take beautiful pictures, will make your head spin when she is through with you on that topic.

[Anonymous]

I think you guys forget something ...

My fiance, <snip>, will make your head spin when she is through with you on that topic.

oh please, bring her on ... ... I love when girls make me spin ... [smilie=censored.gif]

[smilie=laugh.gif] [smilie=laugh.gif]

serious ... I'll get your point jay. And it's sure a valid one. But in a digital time like the one we live in, post processing is just something which should be done.
DSLR are less sharp than digicams because they do less sharpening WITHIN the cam in order to produces less artifacts. So postprocessing is normal ... BUT ... as with anything ... you can overdo or misbuse it.

[ccplim]

I think you guys forget something ...

My fiance, <snip>, will make your head spin when she is through with you on that topic.

oh please, bring her on ... ... I love when girls make me spin ... [smilie=censored.gif]

[smilie=laugh.gif] [smilie=laugh.gif]

serious ... I'll get your point jay. And it's sure a valid one. But in a digital time like the one we live in, post processing is just something which should be done.
DSLR are less sharp than digicams because they do less sharpening WITHIN the cam in order to produces less artifacts. So postprocessing is normal ... BUT ... as with anything ... you can overdo or misbuse it.

It all depends. Unlike normal digital camera, a DSLR have to depends on many different factors like lens quality, reflex mirror, CCD sensor, etc. DSLR can get dust on their reflex mirror and sensor quite easily due to the changing of lens and this will all contribute to the final results.

Just my 2 cents.

I noticed the following trend lately.

"Please help me FIX my pictures to look better" instead of "Please help me take better pictures".


Jay, I totally agree with you on this point, that is why we have made 2 diff. forums, photo101 for help with adjusting your phototaking technique to take better pics, and before/after for teaching people how to clean up images CORRECTLY, to not make funky neon-looking, overdone photos. The before/after is an afterthought, and most images should show up first in the Photography 101. But I will do this. I will edit the Before/After rule STICKY to reflect that photo editing is NOT the way to get good pics, but a way to clean up ALREADY good pics to get rid of MINOR imperfections.

[JerseyJay]

I will edit the Before/After rule STICKY to reflect that photo editing is NOT the way to get good pics, but a way to clean up ALREADY good pics to get rid of MINOR imperfections.

Great. Thanks a lot

[benny]

I'm glad you brough this up too. Good that we are heading in the right directon.

Cheers,

[CDM]

I think if the goal is to bring out the true scene (what you see in real), I have no arguement on the photo editing. Those are the same thing we do during film or paper development, one can change the brightness, contrast, color hue in the darkroom. However, if the original expose is off too much, the darkromm adjustment can't help too much, and leave traces for the over adjustment. Actually, there's one thing we can't do in some photo contest (film type), that we can't crop a part of the shot (the film should be attached for review). Anyway, I have no objection with the photo editing, just don't do over, what you see is what you present, that's my 2 cents.

[Dracofish]

As I said in another discussion, programs like Photoshop and NeatImage are great additions, but shouldn't be overused. I use Photoshop for one thing only (besides resizing), and that's to compensate for where the white balance of my camera is lacking. I have aquarium bulbs that can make pictures look downright purple. The white balance helps, but it can't fix it completely. Of course, my eyes don't see the purple hue, but the camera lens sure does. Using Photoshop to DOWNPLAY the excessive blue and red hues of my pictures will better represent what the fish actually looks like.

Now, one thing I don't agree with is all the supposed sharpening and softening. What's with that? I feel that if a picture has to be sharpened through a photo editing program, then the pic wasn't good enough to begin with and should be thrown out. During a single photo session, I will literally take over 300 shots and use maybe 10 of them. If the picture isn't up to my standards BEFORE it goes to editing, then it gets deleted.

Now, about the whole argument that 35mm is better because you don't have editing programs. Like hell! CDM made an excellent point about that. Can you honestly say that 99.9% of pictures in magazines (especially ones with people) aren't all airbrushed to hell? Damn, I'd say that most 35mm photographers can be just as guilty with editing their photos as digital photographers are.