Photoshop or not? Whadya Think?

[wetowne]

BEFORE:

AFTER:

[DavidHernandez]

Big difference! I love PhotoShop.

Dave.

[Pat McCarthy]

A lot of folks who have been brought up on film have had a hard time accepting the capabilities of digital photography.

I have enjoyed photographing trains for almost 25 years, and have a collection of about 1,000 railroad related photographs. Here's a recent example (taken on film, btw):

There is a LARGE community of people that enjoy that hobby.

A few years ago, there was a huge controversy concerning photo contests in various rail and model railroad magazines regarding the use of photo enhancing software which allowed contestants to "get a leg up" on those that didn't use it - BIG CONTROVERSY. I think the sponsors even decided to set up new categories for digital and enhanced photographs.

Now days, no one seems to make a big deal out of the use of digital enhancing software. I think most folks take it for granted. I, personally, don't think I use a photo - film or digital - that hasn't been enhanced in some way. My biggest reason for that is that I'm just not that great a photographer, and the software tends to "repair" many of my errors.

Your two 8926 pics are perfect examples of how enhancement software can make an ok photo into a really good one.

[DavidHernandez]

Pro's use a photo lab to process their film work. Photoshop allows non-pros (and pros) to process their film without the cost of the lab.

When you take your film to the 1-hour photo lab, the machine will automatically correct contrast and brightness. In Photoshop you can do it yourself.

Unless a photo is being modified to an extreme, I think the use of photo-correction software is both necessary and ethical.

BTW, that's a beautiful train. Why can't we have trains like that in California?

Dave.

[JBHII]

Both shots are great! Love the prop! I'm thinking a tad too much sharpening was added in the 2nd photo, as some of the dial detail looks fuzzier than in the first photo. Play with the settings in unsharp mask to strike a happy balance between sharper detail and noise.

Best,

[Pat McCarthy]

Dave,

John's got a point on the filter settings. You might consider doing a tutorial on them - especially "Sharpen" and "Unsharp Mask". Those two can really make a difference in a watch pic.

[Pat McCarthy]

DavidHernandez said:

. . .

BTW, that's a beautiful train. Why can't we have trains like that in California?

Dave - Oh, but you do . . .

Napa Valley Wine Train. Photo courtesy of Rolf Stumpf and alcoworld.railfan.net

There are a couple of pretty good dinner trains in California. Of course, the regularly scheduled trains are run by Amtrak, and pretty plain. Oh, for the good ole' days.

[wetowne]

John said:

Both shots are great! Love the prop! I'm thinking a tad too much sharpening was added in the 2nd photo, as some of the dial detail looks fuzzier than in the first photo. Play with the settings in unsharp mask to strike a happy balance between sharper detail and noise.

Best,

John, I 'm glad you jumped in here. I have a natural aversion to using Photoshop. I knew most people would prefer the tweaked version but I prefer the untouched one because it more closely aproximates what I saw when I shot it. I have really admired your work and would like to know how much digital tweaking you do.

[JBHII]

wetowne said:

John, I 'm glad you jumped in here. I have a natural aversion to using Photoshop. I knew most people would prefer the tweaked version but I prefer the untouched one because it more closely aproximates what I saw when I shot it. I have really admired your work and would like to know how much digital tweaking you do.

Some of my photos use more "tweaking" than others, but at a minium, I usually do some color and levels correction, sharpening of the dial, and curves adjustment on the dial. I find the better I get at photography, and the better I get at Photoshop, the less obvious the digital enhancement becomes, but it's definitely there.

I appreciate your kind words!

[wetowne]

John said:

Some of my photos use more "tweaking" than others, but at a minium, I usually do some color and levels correction, sharpening of the dial, and curves adjustment on the dial. I find the better I get at photography, and the better I get at Photoshop, the less obvious the digital enhancement becomes, but it's definitely there.


I appreciate your kind words!

I am obviously new to watch photography but not to photography, which is a very old habit of mine. My prefered subjects are landscapes and architecture, so this close up stuff is a major departure for me. I suppose it all come down to honesty and what is perceived to be the truth. In my youth I used to dodge and burn prints like crazy and thought that was part of the artistic process but now I wonder. With all these easy tools at hand if I am being really honest?

[Pat McCarthy]

wetowne said:

I am obviously new to watch photography but not to photography, which is a very old habit of mine. My prefered subjects are landscapes and architecture, so this close up stuff is a major departure for me. I suppose it all come down to honesty and what is perceived to be the truth. In my youth I used to dodge and burn prints like crazy and thought that was part of the artistic process but now I wonder. With all these easy tools at hand if I am being really honest?

Honesty.

Hmmm - that's a tough one.

Not so much so when a photo is altered to add something that wasn't actually there, or to change the physical setting of the subject. But, when I make a brightness, contrast, or focus adjustment to make a subject clearer and/or more visible, how is that dishonest?

I understand where you are coming from, and I respect that a photo should represent the reality of the subject it proposes. But, pictures are not just made for archival purposes - many photographers consider themselves artists. I consider many of them artists. And, many photos actually benefit from the use of the software (especially mine). I think this issue needs to be evaluated in light of the purpose of the photo.

Besides, if a lot of us didn't use enhancement software, our photos wouldn't be nearly as pleasing to the eye - at least mine wouldn't be.

JMHO.

[DavidHernandez]

wetowne:

Ok, now I see what you mean. On the whole, I think that if a photo needs a lot of work in photoshop, then the picture isn't worth saving. Just shoot another one and do a better job.

I agree with John's tweaking comment: I adjust levels and some sharpness, and remove stray dust specs off of otherwise clean photos. More than this and the original image was probably rejected by me.

As for using photoshop/painter for doing a LOT of artistic stuff, here is one I did with a portrait (some of you guys have seen this before--this is for the benefit of those who have not):



"Laura", photographed using a Canon 10D with a Canon 28-135 USM IS lens at ~35mm at f/8. I originally used a white background muslin. I cut her out using Corel Knockout 2.

The background was a mix of color that resembled a landscape when I was done with it. It was painted in Corel Painter 8. The mushroom is an actual photo of a mushroom that I then painted to be more 'fantasy-like'. I simply resized it and flipped it to make it look like a mushroom farm.

I added the mushrooms to the background, and then painted them.

Then I pasted Laura into the image and painted her.

I'm going to try this with some watch photos.

Dave.