Thoughts on Photoshop

R

rwright

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
4,837
Reaction score
0
I have seen some tremendous write ups using Photoshop and I'll be honest, I wish I knew how to use the software because I would probably buy it. I have sampled it but there were just so many buttons to click on and I really have a short attention span! Currently I use Kodak EasyShare software to re-size pictures. I have tried the built in feature to enhance color due to lighting or something, but sometimes it's way overboard and looks fake. I realize this subject may touch a nerve but I'm curious what everyone thinks about using Photoshop to touch up pictures? What do you consider acceptable and what is over the line in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Other than blanking out license plates, resizing, adding borders, or watermarking with logos, I don't agree with doing any adjustment of pictures intended to accurately represent the results of one's detail work. ("Photos don't lie, but liars can Photoshop.") ;)

That said, if after you've posted raw pictures of your corrective process you want to edit some of the finished project to make cool looking beauty shots, I say knock yourself out. :cool:

If you want a similar program to Photoshop that gives you some of the same capabilities for free, check out GIMP:

GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program
 
Over @ Autopia-Forums I saw someone Photochop am Afro onto Marks avitar and then they put Dreads onto Todds. I thought this was very funny :)
 
Photoshop is like carwax.....it helps you add a little depth and shine to your photos. I dont agree with creating untrue results or anything crazy.But I love my cs4 and would gladly buy it again. Youtube will teach you step by step how to do almost anything you can dream of in photoshop
 
If Photoshop is used their should be a watermark attached to alert viewers IMO.
 
Wouldn't it be fair to accept Photoshop enhanced pictures at the end to show color correction just like we accept nature and general photography enhanced for the same purposes? I agree that raw pictures during a correction process are vital to showing one's capabilities. There are a lot of times that I take pictures at the end of a detail only to find they don't represent what I actually see and it's very frustrating. I haven't posted a lot of details for this very reason, the lighting or color is off and just doesn't highlight the work very well. I guess it's time for a new camera.
 
rwright said:
There are a lot of times that I take pictures at the end of a detail only to find they don't represent what I actually see and it's very frustrating. I haven't posted a lot of details for this very reason, the lighting or color is off and just doesn't highlight the work very well. I guess it's time for a new camera.
Click to expand...

Thats not very encouraging considering I use the Kodak EasyShare :Picture:
 
I only use it to re-size pictures. I have tried out the enhance feature and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. My actual camera is a Canon PowerShot SX100 IS 8MP. We bought it probably 4 or 5 years ago and it still takes great pictures for the most part. I admit that I'm not a photographer and my shooting ability may have a lot to do with the outcome. But this discussion is really to see what the crowd thinks about Photoshop in detailing.

I know we have some photographers out there so speak up!
 
imo if your using photoshop to fool others i dont like that, for example, if you did a correction and still left buffer swirls then edit picture to not show those well thats a problem, however if your just trying to enhance the photo into what your eye see's then its fine to use. sometimes you need to edit pictures but most do that to bring out true color, or true condition of the picture. that is fine as that highlights defects ect. but if your trying to hide something well thats just lying. in all honesty photoshop does not bother me if your using it to enhance the picture to the true naked eye image. but if your say adding some wheels/body kit to a car and passing it off as your own thats when it should not be used unless your stating its what you want your car to look like ect ect....however if you take good pictures then you shouldn't have to use photoshop besides converting,resizing,watermarking,and light color enhancement..unless of course your vision is doing an artistic shot...


p.s most dont know that the top point and shoots(ones that look like a d-slr) you can get some lenses and filters for your camera which will help your photos under certain conditions. worth a shot to get some like say you want better macro images get some macro lense filters if your in the bright sun and your white looks yellow get a blue tinted filter for it to bring out the color, then you wont need to do much editing. i have seen some crazy pictures where it looked photoshop but it was the raw unenhanced image....now thats a true photographer!.
 
Photoshop is a very power software. It can take years to master and fully appreciate what it can do.

If you use any editing software to make your pictures better without disclosure and with the intent to deceive; then you are cheating the viewer, customer, and yourself. Even adding sun glare effect is wrong in my opinion.

However, software has many uses like the ability to cleary show defects or clean up pictures for print media.
 
I've been working in the graphics and printing business since 1988. As part of my job, I use Photoshop every single day. By far the best photo editing software available. It can't be learned overnight, believe me.

Every single photo that is printed has had some editing work done to it. Everything from simple editing and color enhancements, to all out mind blwing editing. Plus, all photographers use some sort of editing software. We have a full photo studio at my company as well. Especially when they are shooting in RAW mode. Photos at that point have to go through an editing program.

Photoshop isn't always used to "fool" people. But if you think you are seeing RAW unedited photos in print or online. You are fooling yourself.

Anyway it's a great tool, but it's also very expensive. There are other ways to edit and retouch photos too.

:props:
 
I do not believe in photochop. It's too easy to make pics look far better than they actually are. It's cheating and misleading imo.

When I do take pics these days I try to get the best shot I can and that's exactly what I post. My pics are straight from my camera.
 
It's unbelievable how many pictures are cheats... I don't edit my photos except to rotate, add text of which product was used on which side, stuff like that.

I darkened a photo once where the sun had washed all the black out and the photo didn't look anything like real life. Anytime I edit the look of the photo I will and did mention it in the article.

Now there are accomplished photographers that can edit a photo to make it look more realistic without cheating. The camera doesn't make photos the same way your eyes see them! It is a computers perception of what you are seeing...
 
I think Photoshopping detailing pictures blows a big one, IMO it can discourage a newbie from trying to improve his skills, because from the pics he his not achieving the same results.
Photoshopping for contest really blows too......again same amount of work can go into a detail, but with the person photoshopped pics makes them look like the worked harder.
I like raw, untampered photos.....if you look at my reviews and write ups you can certainly tell they have not been photoshopped. My 2 cents !!
 
Yes, I can do things with Photoshop that make the picture inaccurate. But, if I use it to make the picture look more like the real image was was supposed to capture, I haven't fooled anybody. I have done nothing more than those who use the point and shoot cameras. They do the picture correction in the camera to optimize the picture. Some of them (like new iPhone) will do cropping and other maximizing of image. I guess you could question removing distracting objects like wash buckets in the background. But don't criticize a program just because it is expensive and difficult to learn. Just my thoughts.

Robert Williams
Member, National Association of Photoshop Professionals
 
Sounds like Photoshop & detailing don't mix.

On a different note, I can't wait to get my iPhone 4S now, want to compare pictures taken with it vs. my Canon point and shoot.
 
I have a DSLR, and getting the perfect lighting and color balance is sometimes aggravating and dang near impossible. (The camera helps, but other things are never perfect.)

The fact that I can edit those pictures to make the intended point more visible, or assist the viewer in seeing it how it was meant to be seen, I see nothing wrong with.

It is the moral obligation of the user to not use the program in such a way as to deceive.
 
Garry Dean said:
I do not believe in photochop.
Click to expand...

Photochop. I like that.

I do recognize the challenge that when you take shots of a dark or light car the light metering can be thrown off so you have to either take bracket your shots. It takes experience to take good pics (correct exposure, etc) so you can spend quite some time perfecting your shots in the middle of detailing or do exposure corrections afterwards. Some write ups are more about who is best at photography (all aspects including post processing) than being a good detailer.
 
Hmmm... hard to say. I shoot my DSLR in RAW - by necessity, my shots need to go through post-processing (in Lightroom for me) before you can even see the image. Having said that, I've never "edited" shots to show something that isn't there (or to remove something that is) - it's always just white balance, curves, noise and sharpness adjustments.
 
You mean that that wasn't really president Obama shaking my hand at my detailing shop? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top