Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Shane E. on November 15, 2009 at 11:23am

I believe cost is a major determining factor. If you are just printing art photos and hope to sell them, then you might want to go with something that is less expensive that you are comfortable with. And maybe get one or two prints done in a more expensive style as an example of what can be done to the others. Of course, how seriously you take it will affect how seriously others do.

The world is a prop and i generally see most 'art photos' as pictures of props, so i guess I don't have a lot of helpful advice. In regards to digital photography, I would recommend learning post processing of images very well. Everyone owns a digital camera and goes in their backyard to take pictures of trees, flowers, and their dog. The average amateur is capable of getting pretty decent shots since they can sit there all day pushing the button until they get it right. Having an artistic eye isn't necessarily enough. The ability to digitally enhance your photos in terms of color and contrast in such a way that they just look like a great photographs will make your work stand out. I offer this advice in relation to the notion of selling prints to people. I believe that the post production workflow is almost as important as the capture and you need real software to do that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Tigue on November 16, 2009 at 10:26am

Shane,

As to real software, do you think DPP and Elements 8.0 is sufficient. Or, are you referring to CS4 or something similar.
What do you use? And can you post a before and after of something that illustrates the difference?

You've hit on something that I have been noticing more and more in very good shots.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane E. on November 30, 2009 at 11:36am

Photoshop is the industry standard for professional photography. Or so they say. I guess it depends on what you are doing and what you want to do. To polish your work to a professional level, I think Photoshop is the way to go. That doesn't mean you can't take great photos and tweak them a bit in other software. You can make some great images without Photoshop. However, the trend in photography seems to be speeding in the direction of digital manipulation, even if the images don't appear to be manipulated so much. So, to achieve professional results will require more work than just snapping a picture and choosing best option from the auto features in Elements.

As far as basic image editing, I think Lightroom is great for amateur, hobbyist, or pro. It has the same tools are Photoshop's camera raw plugin, and gives you sufficient control for basic adjustments, and it even includes a clone/heal tool and adjustment brush for localized adjustments (such as painting a different exposure level over a dress or face). Lightroom even uses plugins now, such as Imagenomic's Portraiture and Nik's Color Efex 3. But there are some things you can't do in LR, such as layers and layer masks. And if you don't know what a layer mask is for, then you aren't living right. :)

I think the problem with Photoshop is that people who don't have it, think they don't need it, because they don't know what they are missing. You learn to not need a tool that you don't have. And some of the people who don't have it seem to think that it is only for 'fixing' images. PS has so many tools. You can fix images, but you can do so much more. The first time you open it, the program can be a bit overwhelming. But there are so many tutorials all over the internet that explain each tool, filter, and adjustment. And some tools/filters can be used in more ways than one. No one knows every trick and technique in PS. They might know a lot but there is always some other trick or technique out there. The plugins for PS are awesome, as well.

Photoshop is not the tool to edit a workflow of hundreds of images. Lightroom or Capture One are the programs for that.

Photoshop Elements is a different program than Photoshop, though they sound similar in name. I think Elements is built more towards automatic enhancements, while Photoshop is mostly hands-on, though it does have a few auto tools. When shooting, I sometimes shoot something knowing what i will do with it in Photoshop later. More often, I will just see an image and think I can manipulate the contrast or tone to push the viewer's focus where I want it.

I took my daughter and her friend to a movie yesterday and then let them play at a playground for a couple hours. It was overcast and gloomy and getting dark, so I knew any shots I took would probably need a little tweak in PS to give them some pop. But the original exposures were okay. I mostly followed them around the playground trying to capture whatever I could. My daughter won't look at the camera most of the time. But her friend liked having her picture taken.

I shoot everything RAW, so there is no SOOC shot, really. Just default raw settings for whatever software used. I was shooting with a D300 with a 70-200 f2.8 lens. I think this shot is ISO 640, 1/320, f/4.5. Here is the image that as I edited in Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 and then opened it into Photoshop CS4. This shot looks A LOT BETTER at reduced size/resolution.

In Photoshop, I wanted to shift the contrast of the image so that the girl's face was more prominent and the rest of the image a bit darker, so that the viewer is pushed to her face, rather than the boring pieces of playground caught in the frame (they are still there, but in this shot alone they don't make much sense without the rest of the series of shots).

I think both shots are okay, but I prefer the one worked in Photoshop because it is cleaner and the subject is more clearly defined. Even though the kiddies were playing and most shots were candid, she looked at the camera for this shot and it was more like a portrait. The photoshop enhancement takes it from a candid shot to a portrait, in my opinion. At reduced size and resolution, I think some aspects may look overworked, however. Or the differences may not be so apparent at reduced resolution.

I don't know if this really illustrates my point, but I'm on my home computer and don't have access to other shots at the moment. My workstation has my pen tablet, too, and I do better photoshop with it than without.

Learning photoshop is a lot of work. I see a lot of photographer's who have just bypassed actual learning and just purchase photoshop actions and dump them on their work, especially wedding photographers. I use actions, too, but if I have purchased actions in my possession that I like, i I dissect them and absorb the techniques. It takes years to learn strong photoshop skills. And whatever you think you know this year, if you progress, next year you will realize that you knew nothing. Purchasing a pen tablet has advanced my proficiency in photoshop a great deal. I do a lot of localized dodge/burn with various techniques to control the image and I'm getting better all the time. Just like photography, you never stop learning in photoshop. But that's the way to go for really working with images.








Michael Tigue said:

Shane,
As to real software, do you think DPP and Elements 8.0 is sufficient. Or, are you referring to CS4 or something similar. What do you use? And can you post a before and after of something that illustrates the difference?
You've hit on something that I have been noticing more and more in very good shots.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Tigue on November 30, 2009 at 3:10pm

Thanks,

I used to use an old version of Photoshop 7 and strayed away from it because I never was doing anything with multiple layers (mostly) and other advanced features. I never do much more than crops, saturation, levels, sharpening, i.e., basic operations on any picture all of which are available in Elements.

What I see is a lot of really good images that upon closer inspection always seem to have a subtle vingette, texture, etc. that actually adds to the image. Many often have just a cleaner execution of selective sharpening, contrast and color enhancements than what I seem to be capable of.

I thought they were doing something with the camera that I didn't know when in most instances I'm discovering it has more to do with their post processing skills and their ability to make the adjustments look "believable." In short, they edit, but the result doesn't look edited.

I generally know what functionality is available in the software out there, I just stink at putting the tools together in any particular order and I never seem to be able to develop a consistent work flow with what I do apply.

The edited image you posted does look better than the original and I think it illustrates the point. My typical work flow on the original would have entailed a slight contrast adjustment, a bump to saturation levels and then sharpening and probably a crop to reduce some of the dead space in the shot. That's it and it would be a nice snapshot which I have a lot of.

Some of the stuff you guys post really sings. The colors pop without looking over done, the eyes are razor sharp, etc. I know some of that's studio lighting, and softboxes, etc., but a big part of it is post processing.


Shane E. said:

Photoshop is the industry standard for professional photography. Or so they say. I guess it depends on what you are doing and what you want to do. To polish your work to a professional level, I think Photoshop is the way to go. That doesn't mean you can't take great photos and tweak them a bit in other software. You can make some great images without Photoshop. However, the trend in photography seems to be speeding in the direction of digital manipulation, even if the images don't appear to be manipulated so much. So, to achieve professional results will require more work than just snapping a picture and choosing best option from the auto features in Elements.

As far as basic image editing, I think Lightroom is great for amateur, hobbyist, or pro. It has the same tools are Photoshop's camera raw plugin, and gives you sufficient control for basic adjustments, and it even includes a clone/heal tool and adjustment brush for localized adjustments (such as painting a different exposure level over a dress or face). Lightroom even uses plugins now, such as Imagenomic's Portraiture and Nik's Color Efex 3. But there are some things you can't do in LR, such as layers and layer masks. And if you don't know what a layer mask is for, then you aren't living right. :)

I think the problem with Photoshop is that people who don't have it, think they don't need it, because they don't know what they are missing. You learn to not need a tool that you don't have. And some of the people who don't have it seem to think that it is only for 'fixing' images. PS has so many tools. You can fix images, but you can do so much more. The first time you open it, the program can be a bit overwhelming. But there are so many tutorials all over the internet that explain each tool, filter, and adjustment. And some tools/filters can be used in more ways than one. No one knows every trick and technique in PS. They might know a lot but there is always some other trick or technique out there. The plugins for PS are awesome, as well.

Photoshop is not the tool to edit a workflow of hundreds of images. Lightroom or Capture One are the programs for that.

Photoshop Elements is a different program than Photoshop, though they sound similar in name. I think Elements is built more towards automatic enhancements, while Photoshop is mostly hands-on, though it does have a few auto tools. When shooting, I sometimes shoot something knowing what i will do with it in Photoshop later. More often, I will just see an image and think I can manipulate the contrast or tone to push the viewer's focus where I want it.

I took my daughter and her friend to a movie yesterday and then let them play at a playground for a couple hours. It was overcast and gloomy and getting dark, so I knew any shots I took would probably need a little tweak in PS to give them some pop. But the original exposures were okay. I mostly followed them around the playground trying to capture whatever I could. My daughter won't look at the camera most of the time. But her friend liked having her picture taken.

I shoot everything RAW, so there is no SOOC shot, really. Just default raw settings for whatever software used. I was shooting with a D300 with a 70-200 f2.8 lens. I think this shot is ISO 640, 1/320, f/4.5. Here is the image that as I edited in Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 and then opened it into Photoshop CS4. This shot looks A LOT BETTER at reduced size/resolution.

In Photoshop, I wanted to shift the contrast of the image so that the girl's face was more prominent and the rest of the image a bit darker, so that the viewer is pushed to her face, rather than the boring pieces of playground caught in the frame (they are still there, but in this shot alone they don't make much sense without the rest of the series of shots).

I think both shots are okay, but I prefer the one worked in Photoshop because it is cleaner and the subject is more clearly defined. Even though the kiddies were playing and most shots were candid, she looked at the camera for this shot and it was more like a portrait. The photoshop enhancement takes it from a candid shot to a portrait, in my opinion. At reduced size and resolution, I think some aspects may look overworked, however. Or the differences may not be so apparent at reduced resolution.

I don't know if this really illustrates my point, but I'm on my home computer and don't have access to other shots at the moment. My workstation has my pen tablet, too, and I do better photoshop with it than without.

Learning photoshop is a lot of work. I see a lot of photographer's who have just bypassed actual learning and just purchase photoshop actions and dump them on their work, especially wedding photographers. I use actions, too, but if I have purchased actions in my possession that I like, i I dissect them and absorb the techniques. It takes years to learn strong photoshop skills. And whatever you think you know this year, if you progress, next year you will realize that you knew nothing. Purchasing a pen tablet has advanced my proficiency in photoshop a great deal. I do a lot of localized dodge/burn with various techniques to control the image and I'm getting better all the time. Just like photography, you never stop learning in photoshop. But that's the way to go for really working with images.








Michael Tigue said:

Shane,
As to real software, do you think DPP and Elements 8.0 is sufficient. Or, are you referring to CS4 or something similar. What do you use? And can you post a before and after of something that illustrates the difference?
You've hit on something that I have been noticing more and more in very good shots.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on November 30, 2009 at 10:46pm

Personally, I always matted and bagged my prints for sale.
I use the nice crystal clear mylar bags and thick cut mattes with a nice backing as well.
I also frame and matte a few prints, but most are just bagged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane E. on December 1, 2009 at 11:53am

Michael, if you can see the difference and understand what Elements can and can't do, maybe you are ready to use Photoshop. You can download the trial of CS4 and just mess around. Check out some tutorials online, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Holzworth on December 1, 2009 at 1:10pm

i just got photoshop elements and for the money it is pretty sweet. elements 8 has some really cool features.

i was worried about not having layer mask in elements, but sure enough you can do it!

i don't use a ton of photoshop, mostly everything is done in lightroom.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane E. on December 1, 2009 at 1:57pm

Yeah, we use Lightroom to edit our raw files and convert to jpg. Then we tweak out select shots in photoshop. Lightroom is great and gets better all of the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Weber on December 2, 2009 at 8:21pm

Shane- thanks for your info on post processing- The examples shown really helped me understand what you were talking about......

Shane E. said:

Michael, if you can see the difference and understand what Elements can and can't do, maybe you are ready to use Photoshop. You can download the trial of CS4 and just mess around. Check out some tutorials online, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Weber on December 2, 2009 at 8:24pm

Thanks, Ryan- this is what I am especially curious about.....I'm trying to figure out the "standard"- I had one gallery owner tell me that all 2-D artwork should come framed, yet I've noticed that lots of people seem to do just what you've mentioned. However, most of that work was in art fairs or festivals, not in galleries, so I wasn't sure.

Ryan Armbrust said:

Personally, I always matted and bagged my prints for sale.
I use the nice crystal clear mylar bags and thick cut mattes with a nice backing as well.
I also frame and matte a few prints, but most are just bagged.

• ▶ Reply