Too Photoshop or Not to Photoshop

[brandon]

I haven't had time to get out and take any new pictures in the last few days so I've been enhancing some old photos with Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. Basically I was trying to see if I could make my pictures stand out more and make them more appealing to the public and hopefully sell a few. All I've been doing is opening the picture in photoshop and using the Auto Levels feature in the Enhance section. Here are a bunch of my recent shots that I've already posted followed by the enhanced photoshopped version. First off do you think the photoshopped version is better or more marketable? and Secondly do you guys yourselves enhance photos in photoshop or do you prefer the "what you see is what you get" photos?

 

Anyways here they are.......personally I think they all look better photoshopped but I wanted some other opinions.

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

Original

Photoshopped

 

 

I think the first 2 photos really don`t show that much of a difference, on here in smaller size anyways. The night ones and the bear ones seem to show the biggest change....I guess the black or dark areas are affected more by the auto level feature

 

Negative or Postitive feedback welcome.....

[Deano]

It does indeed make some pictures nicer, I've done it some times, but usually I don't just because I need all the hard drive I have just for the amount of pics I have. I wrote earlier that I had over 18,000, I double checked and I'm almost at 20,000. So i don't need to make duplicates of pictures.

[danc]

Brandon, there isn't one photo of mine that I don't post process. In fact there's probably very few photos straight out of any camera that can't use some tweaking. I never use auto levels however. Adjusting levels is probably the most important step in post processing, and understanding just what it does is paramount to your final result. That's something that I don't like to leave software to decide. IMHO, your histogram is the most important tool that you have for getting perfect exposure in the field. Levels adjusting can tweak that histogram to perfection. I'd rather under expose my shots a little because it's amazing what you can bring out with levels adjusting. If you've over exposed, the detail is lost forever. Bottom line. Don't let Photoshop guess what looks best. Grab Photoshop by the horns and boss it around a little.

[ccmtcanada]

I liked the edit photos better....

 

If I had any idea what a histogram was then Dan's post would make more sense to me....LOL

[Raf]

I admit I don't completely understand the levels function either but do play around with it.

 

Here is a link that explains it

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

[danc]

I liked the edit photos better....

 

If I had any idea what a histogram was then Dan's post would make more sense to me....LOL

 

LOL... There's probably going to be a lot of this in the forum. But that's why it's here. To ask questions and offer answers and perhaps to learn a few things. Raf's link explains what a histogram is and what it does. If your camera has a live histogram, that is one that changes as you make shutter and/or aperture adjustments, then that is the best tool that you have for getting perfect exposure. Some cameras only show the histogram after the shot is taken. Not much use really. With a little practice, it's pretty simple to use though. When your graph is bunched up to the left, you're underexposed. To the right and you're over exposed. Try to get a nice bell shaped graph in the center. That's when things are just right. I use my histogram faithfully. And all that levels adjusting does is tweak your histogram to perfection.

[007]

Here's a few of my thoughts for what they're worth....

 

I am pretty much a purist when it comes to photography. I aim to take the bext possible photograph at the time of taking the shot and therefore minimise the need to do post editing (this is true whether I am taking film or digital). It is inevitable however that a shot can be improved a little especially with all the tools available in the digital age. But I really don't like the idea of photoshopping to create something that wasn't there - i like my shots to be as true to nature as possible. However in this case you are using the tools to make slight improvements to what were already great shots without changing the essence of what you saw. If you have the time then this is worthwhile as you have proven with your shots. The photoshopped shots are better but still I'm guessing are a true reflection of what you tried to capture.

 

I am fairly new to digitial photography and have so far only invested in point and shoots for convenience. When I am in my 'photography' mode I still use my film SLR cameras and shoot slides because the quality and colour on a film like Velvia is so good. However that will soon change as I have been saving and waiting for the arrival of Canon's new EOS 40D - which will be out soon. Then I will start taking digital photography more seriously and will need to learn all the tools that you and Dan C seem to understand how to use.

[bigfish1965]

There are few cameras that can capture what the eye actually sees. Our eyes are better than the processors in the cameras. Tweaking levels, adding a high pass, altering channels..its all about taking an image and recreating or bettering the original experience. It is part of the process to me.

Even simply knocking the saturation level up a bit does wonders to an image.

[Kawartha Kev]

I also do edit most of my photos also although nothing too major. I find no matter what I do taking shots my camera tends to overexpose the picture most of the time so I usually adjust the contrast and darken the lighting a bit. Here is an example of my original and edited photo.

 

Original

 

Edited version

 

Kawartha Kev

[danc]

That's a great example on why to post process Kev. The original is nice, but the final product is awesome. Photographers have so many tools at their fingertips these days. Why not use them??

[pameladallaire]

The FIRST thing you have to say is, "I AM AN ARTIST", and then everything that comes after will take care of itself.

 

If you want to adjust your own photographic artwork, you have a perfect right to do so. It is art and therefore something that can be altered, flipped, whatever YOU as the artist decide.

 

As for Photoshop, I am starting to teach it this month as part of our Art Club's 60th Anniversary. Every member is expected to volunteer time to other artists and the general public and teach what they are best at. I happen to use Photoshop instead of sketching and many of you know that I change photos before I paint them.

 

If you need help, give me a shout. OH YEAH, if you don't own a version of Photoshop, DON"T BUY IT!

Download the free Open Source version called GIMP. You have to download a small program before the main download.

 

Pam

[bigfish1965]

In Photoshop..if you are going to print the image, use the LAB colour setting to edit rather than Indexed or RGB. It is as close to matching what a modern printer will do as you can get.

[spanky]

give bibble a try for PP... easy to use and cheap to buy after the trial