Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Photoshop Every Photo?  
User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 223 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

Dear all,
Kindly asking you this question.

brgds,
Yerbol


With best regards from Almaty
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Depends on what you mean by that. To 'photoshop' in everyday talk often means 'to alter'; if so, then it is no photography any longer.

[Edited 2011-01-24 14:22:10]

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4098 times:

For acceptances here every image has to be 'Photoshopped' - in the sense that all images need 'adjusting' to suit the requirements here. If it's a high-quality image to begin with all that's normally required is a slight crop, perhaps a little levelling and some sharpening.

I've heard people telling how they never sharpened an image and got it accepted here but I find it quite hard to believe unless we're talking full-frame, top-end cameras (with which I have little experience). Another way I suppose it could be possible is by selecting the exact sharpening necessary in camera, although it would involve flukes rather than genuine consistency. I very much doubt you could go out and take ten shots tomorrow and get them all on without any sharpening or other editing.

Karl


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4046 times:

If you shoot RAW, then yes, sharpening (at least) will always be necessary - though some may not be aware of this if the RAW convertor used has built in pre-set sharpening.

If shooting jpg, then things are a little different. In essence, a jpg is nothing more than a RAW file processed automatically in camera. Depending on the camera, you have varying degrees of control over the processing parameters.

Since the jpeg output has already been processed, this immediately limits how much post processing in Photoshop can be done without degrading the image, creating artifacts etc. You are in effect already one step removed from the original.

Think of it this way - all image editing is destructive ... you can never add data to an image, only modify it, and each modification changes the data (and throws some away).

In an ideal world, a jpeg should not be edited in Photoshop as the image has already been partly "destroyed" by in-camera processing. If you go the jpeg route, it is important to get the camera settings (white balance, sharpening etc.) spot on. Theoretically, a correctly setup shot taken as jpeg should look no different to a carefully processed RAW file saved as a jpeg.

In practice though getting everything right in-camera can be tricky. In my opinion it is actually easier to achieve best quality by shooting RAW and accepting that post-processing to fine tune is part of the 'fun'.

In some ways, shooting jpeg is like shooting slides - you just have to get it right. RAW is a bit more like shooting negatives - you much more scope for corrective or artistic adjustments in producing the final image.

Contrary to what many seem to think, shooting RAW is actually much easier than shooting jpg - but it is more time consuming!


Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2744 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4029 times:

Photoshopping for A.net images.

Gee, I thought the policy was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"  

Seriously, I think every image needs adjustments for level, crop, contrast, levels, etc. I don't know if I'd call it Photoshopping per se, or merely "tweaking" the quality issues necessary for acceptance.


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4010 times:

Hell no- that would be insane

User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):
Photoshopping for A.net images

That's what I meant in my previous post. 'Photoshopping' is a totally incorrect word. The question should have sounded something like, "Do you post-process every photo using image editing software e.g. Photoshop?"

The answer to such question would be 'yes', as long as it is the post-processing is 'mild', such as brightness-contrast adjustment, leveling, cropping, colour adjustment, etc.

Quoting ckw (Reply 3):
In an ideal world, a jpeg should not be edited in Photoshop as the image has already been partly "destroyed" by in-camera processing.

Maybe in ideal world it shouldn't, but in practice... I've been always shooting jpeg; it just takes practice and a little skill to make editing jpeg files in the Photoshop or the like as non-destructive as possible.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

You have to do a certain amount of post-processing, especially if you've got dust spots on the sensor.  

They won't go by themselves - and even a blower sometimes won't get rid of them. I've also done some ISO12800 images that do need some photoshop work to clear away noise. No other choice for one of those images - the plane came in super late after 9:00pm and was nothing more than a dark shape with some lights on it.

The toughest image I ever tried to edit was this:



It was really dark at 9:00pm, even with the moonlight (camera made it look brighter than it was) - the focus wasn't quite right, and it ended up noisy too. I think it was impossible to get that image - and I was very unhappy with the results.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 6):
it just takes practice and a little skill to make editing jpeg files in the Photoshop or the like as non-destructive as possible.

You probably convert the layer to a smart-object as the very first step that you do. Or maybe after you've cloned out dust spots if there are any. But definitely do it before any resizing of the image or other destructive edits. They have other benefits too, especially when applying filters since they are no longer destructive.

Otherwise, I do very little editing on images.

Quoting ckw (Reply 3):
but it is more time consuming!

Don't find RAW more time consuming. Maybe the files are larger, but then I've got a monster of a computer.   I also had a very good workflow sorted out which gives me great (and consistent) results. Doing the sharpening in Camera Raw, using the screen-sharpen, then opening the image as Smart Object seemed to solve the oversharpening issues I used to get.


User currently offlineEpten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3944 times:

If by "photoshop" you mean altering the foto (removing/adding elements and so on...) then no, I never do it, and it is forbidden by a.net rules.

If by "photoshop" you mean levels, sharpen, leveling, sometimes noise removal... then yes, every single photo you'll see here is photoshopped.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 3):
Theoretically, a correctly setup shot taken as jpeg should look no different to a carefully processed RAW file saved as a jpeg

It's a myth that RAW is better quality than JPEG - they are two different types of file, with the former simply allowing more flexibility. As Colin says, you could process a RAW to its maximum potential and it could still end up looking exactly like the original JPEG you snapped at the same time. This has happened to me on a number of occasions.

As for me, I rarely edit the RAWs (unless I totally screw up the JPEG - which sometimes happens!), instead choosing to edit the JPEGs. Since a RAW file must at some stage be converted to a JPEG I'm not really fussed. As Colin points out again, there is less scope for error when shooting JPEG only, but most of the time I nail the exposure pretty well. There is enough flexibility to correct the image providing it's only a fraction out with regard to white balance, colour, contrast or exposure.

I have a general rule - if the subject is rare, unusual, in an odd livery or if the light is tricky, I shoot RAW; however if the light's perfect and the subject boring I shoot JPEG. Each to their own. As long as the photographer's happy with the results, that's all that matters. For applications other than A.net I edit my images in a different and much less scrutinising way.

Karl


User currently offlinedvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Every photo certainly gets "lightroomed."   The only post I do in Photoshop for this site are dust removal and sharpening (with masking). At least, for this website.


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2323 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
It's a myth that RAW is better quality than JPEG - they are two different types of file, with the former simply allowing more flexibility.

No, a JPEG is the end result of processing a Raw file - whether by a human, using some software program, or by the camera, using setting programmed into it.

I don't post-process every photo I take, but every photo that I display on my web site, forums, or other places that will be seen by the world, gets processed. It may be a quick rotate/crop/tweak or a full-blown edit (HDR, panorama, edited for a special effect, etc.) but I don't show off anything right out of the camera. And that applies not only now that I'm shooting Raw, but even back when I shot JPEG.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 11):
No, a JPEG is the end result of processing a Raw file - whether by a human, using some software program, or by the camera, using setting programmed into it

Where did I say it wasn't? They are still two different types of file (according to my PC anyway), with one offering the user more flexibility. I did write this piece of text in my post...

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
Since a RAW file must at some stage be converted to a JPEG

...with emphasis on 'at some stage'. I didn't say when or how.

Karl


User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
It's a myth that RAW is better quality than JPEG - they are two different types of file, with the former simply allowing more flexibility. As Colin says, you could process a RAW to its maximum potential and it could still end up looking exactly like the original JPEG you snapped at the same time.

Well, depends how you look at things. I'd even go as far to say a JPG is of better quality, straight out of the camera!
But for tweaking the qualities both files contain, the RAW can be done twice as sensitively.
If you're getting things right from the get-go, and see no need in retaining the added info a RAW file contains, and have limited space on memory cards and your PC, then JPG is the way to go.
IMO
Spence.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3705 times:

I consider my DSLR as merely a data capture device and an extension of the data processor (my computer / Photoshop). I don't use in- camera processing and only shoot raw. Once the data is captured, I then process it in the computer.

For me, editing is a lot of fun and sometimes I can go 4-5 hours at a time doing it.

I've shot some pics that were close to 'pefect' in that they were very sharp, level, with good contrast and little noise, but it's pretty rare. The majority usually needs and benefits from some amount of processing. Thankfully the camera I shoot with has excellent auto WB and color accuracy so I rarely find myself needing to adjust those.

[Edited 2011-01-25 17:09:35]


Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

One thing that is worth mentioning regarding RAW is that "perfect" image preparation should take into account the final purpose. High end publishers will often prefer an unsharpened image as they will process it themselves to match their own printing service. Similarly, with jpg, you are pretty much stuck with the sRGB colour space, while some uses will require CMYK or AdobeRGB.

Although you can convert a jpg to other color spaces this is not the same as producing the image in the required colour space. Of course as most people's monitors are themselves sRGB devices, it is not possible to see what really happens to the image when you convert it.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineepten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 15):
Similarly, with jpg, you are pretty much stuck with the sRGB colour space, while some uses will require CMYK or AdobeRGB.

Hm...

no camera will capture the picture in "additive" system (eg CMYK). CMYK is equally "far" from sRGB and AdobeRGB spaces.

On the other hand, AdobeRGB is pretty much a "subset" of sRGB and both are more-or-less interchangeable. No photo in this world will ever be ruined because of sRGB to AdobeRGB conversion.

Anyway, if the photo is wrong in such way that fixing is possible only if it is RAW - then it's too wrong to begin with. similary, if exposure, focus, everything... is done properly on the first place, then the resulting jpeg will be perfect.


User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Quoting epten (Reply 16):
Anyway, if the photo is wrong in such way that fixing is possible only if it is RAW - then it's too wrong to begin with. similary, if exposure, focus, everything... is done properly on the first place, then the resulting jpeg will be perfect.

As mentioned before, a perfectly exposed JPG image out of the camera is always as good as what you can do with a RAW image... but that's a big "if". I shoot a lot of weddings and while I wish all my shots were always perfect, that is just simply not the case. Light situations change quickly and sometimes I just end up with an under- (or over-) exposed shot. If I were to shoot in JPG, I would have very limited possibilities afterwards. Because I shoot RAW, correcting the exposure is much more likely to produce a picture that I can offer the client. And with a wedding, you never get to redo the shot.

There have been a lot of comments about whether JPG or RAW is better... and that depends heavily on how you define "better". What's better, a Ferrari or a Ford Focus? They are both equally good if all you care about is getting from A to B. They both do that. If speed is important to you, the Ferrari might be better. If gas mileage is more important, the Focus is...

Same with RAW vs. JPG. They both can get you perfect images. But if you only have a 2GB card and need to send the images to your publisher 2 minutes after you took them, then JPG is the better choice. If you want to keep every information that the camera saw the moment you took the picture, then RAW is clearly better.

Quoting epten (Reply 16):
On the other hand, AdobeRGB is pretty much a "subset" of sRGB and both are more-or-less interchangeable. No photo in this world will ever be ruined because of sRGB to AdobeRGB conversion.

I am pretty sure sRGB is a subset of AdobeRGB and not the other way round. So you certainly end up with less information if your camera assigns sRGB to your JPG instead of AdobeRGB... if that ruins your picture is another discussion.

The nice thing about RAW is that it does not have any color space assigned to it. You define the color space only at the time when you export it.

[Edited 2011-01-26 13:59:20]

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3512 times:

no camera will capture the picture in "additive" system (eg CMYK). CMYK is equally "far" from sRGB and AdobeRGB spaces.

That's sort of correct, however, using RAW you can select a very wide gamut color space (such a ProPhoto) which will avoid the limitations of sRGB and therefore render the CMYK conversion more accurate.

On the other hand, AdobeRGB is pretty much a "subset" of sRGB and both are more-or-less interchangeable. No photo in this world will ever be ruined because of sRGB to AdobeRGB conversion.

No, adobeRGB has an extended gamut - or put another way, it can describe more colors. Whether this is of any value for most uses is a point of debate, none the less, if an art editor requires AbobeRGB you can't simply convert a sRGB jpg to adobeRGB ... well you can, but it won't be as accurate as a RAW to adobeRGB conversion.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineua935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
It's a myth that RAW is better quality than JPEG

No it is not.

How can you even suggest that a 20 + mb RAW file is not better quality than a 5 mb or less JPEG?

The moment you take a JPEG image there is compression, edit and save, yet another layer of compression.



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

Quoting ua935 (Reply 19):
No it is not

We could go on about this all day. What do you have to convert a RAW file to ultimately? A RAW being five times bigger than a JPEG only means that it's preserving more data. As has been said, if you can get a perfect shot in JPEG, the same RAW image will not look any better after processing/conversion.

I fail to see how RAW can be better quality when it's a totally different type of file. It allows for better quality in the long run but in itself isn't better quality.

Karl


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 2):
I've heard people telling how they never sharpened an image and got it accepted here but I find it quite hard to believe unless we're talking full-frame, top-end cameras (with which I have little experience).

Even by resizing the image down to a size small enough for it to be uploaded here, some editing happens - and some form of manipulation/sharpening is performed by the software, even if you aren't doing anything yourself.

That said, a reasonable camera and a good lens will deliver a good result. It doesn't necessarily need to be a 36x24mm format, it can be a 24x16mm - but it's all down to the lens and the person operating the camera to use the correct settings and to not get motion blur.



I took that at 1/125sec, F/5.6, 5250K and 250mm in fading light, but still only ISO200. Just resized it down to the usual 1024px wide resolution, nothing else done on it. Even if it isn't sharp enough for this site - I'm perfectly happy with it (even more so the one before it without the lights in the way). Most people here would nail images like that one every time, given the talent here.

If you really push the limits of your camera, then you must do some editing - no option. 1/4sec panning shots don't normally appear perfect sharp right across the frame. Add extreme ISO settings that you might use in total darkness to capture a fast moving subject - and the need to edit the image is obvious, you have no other choice. But if it works out - the result should be good.



[Edited 2011-01-28 04:44:02]

[Edited 2011-01-28 04:45:08]

User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3269 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20):
Quoting ua935 (Reply 19):
No it is not

We could go on about this all day.

If the jpg of the paricular shot is not that good, you could get a better jpg from the raw file of that shot.
If you nail the jpg perfectly when you take the shot, then your point is valid. But in real world exp could be a bit off, then the raw will yield a better result ( in jpg created from raw). For A.net jpg is more than enough, for non av raw can do a lot more stuff and get more dynamic range than a jpg IMO.


User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3261 times:

Lightroom3 is... basicly manditory now. Not only is it great for organising your collection(s), but it has great tools for basic corrections. Best of all it doesn't actualy alter your origional file, so if you come back later with better tools, or more experience you can start with the same exact RAW or JPG you did today. Only its output has the changes made.

I'd say that or something comparable should be the first stop for any photo you wish to show to another.


User currently offlinecondor981 From Costa Rica, joined Mar 2010, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

I shoot RAW, and then of course use Photoshop for minor color and exposure adjustments as well as sharpening required for Anet shots.

Then yes, my answer for your question would be, yes, I photoshop every photo  


25 paulinbna : I can't tell you have times I have shot pictures for people and they wanted me to burn a disk BEFORE I process them. The person asking is mystified w
26 jfarango : The images need a basics adjustments, and are most necesary when uploading it to A.net when you expose your work
27 yerbol : Dear all, The reason why I've asked this question is many rejected photos of mine. I would like to learn more to make-up my photos in order to get the
28 Post contains links dlowwa : Yerbol, you can use the Feedback Forum to get advice about how to improve your images enough to make them acceptable for here. Just remember that edit
29 Post contains images JakTrax : Always a good debate Dana - I have a couple of digital images which are so poor they look nothing like the accepted images here. As long as there are
30 yerbol : Dlowwa, understood. Thanks for advise!
31 trvyyz : Then why do you call it poor? do you mean cropping and levelling?
32 yerbol : dear all, which version of photoshop is more suitable for airplane photos adjustments? thanks in advance for replies!
33 dlowwa : Any relatively recent version of Photoshop is more than enough to edit airplane photos, and you could easily argue that Photoshop would actually be ma
34 yerbol : Thanks for advise Dana!
35 stealthz : Yerbol, There are some that say you will not be able to post process an image unless you have Photoshop CS5, they are the same ones that say an EOS 5D
36 Post contains images yerbol : Thanks for advise Chris! As I see photos of airplanes need more adjustment than photos of people, portraits, nature, animals etc. Architecture require
37 epten : Frankly - just about any. I still use Photoshop 5.5, now about 13 yrs old. It still does the job admirably.
38 yerbol : Dear all, Finally I got photoshop installed on my computer! And today is 1year since I've joined Airliners.net! Thanks to all for help and advises in
39 JakTrax : I still use Photoshop Elements 5.0 and it's more than enough to edit images for here. As has been said, Photoshop CS5 et all are complete overkill unl
40 JRowson : I've just changed from CS3 to Elements 9 recently after trialling it and have to say that 99% of everything I used from CS3 is available in PSE9. The
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do You Think This Photo Will Be Accepted........ posted Mon Jan 1 2001 23:22:30 by BA
Do You Like This Photo? posted Fri Jul 28 2000 18:42:46 by USAir_757
How Do You Take This Kind Of Ground To Air Photo? posted Tue Jun 29 2010 10:30:36 by ehyman2
My First Photo's, What Do You Think? (AMS-AKL) posted Fri Mar 26 2010 08:07:47 by tbloemink
What do You Consider as a "high- hitter" Photo? posted Tue Feb 3 2009 01:41:50 by WILCO737
What Do You See Wrong In This Photo? posted Sat Jul 26 2008 13:04:11 by Mirage
How Do You Get Photo (camera Settings) Info? posted Thu Feb 28 2008 17:39:40 by Witticism
What Do You Think Of This Photo? posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:59:07 by LongbowPilot
How Do You Find Out If Your Photo Gets Accepted posted Thu Apr 12 2007 23:20:46 by N612ua
Photo Request. What Do You Think About. posted Tue Sep 27 2005 11:10:24 by Jorge1812