I suggested that also. Then a person could be taken to a Vet and scanned
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I hate photoshop
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not a tattoo person and neither is my wife. I can respect the art of the and have seen some true beauty but also just some that I saw and said "why?" I am glad my wife doesn't have any and has no desire to-if she wanted one that would certainly be her call but that was also something I felt strongly enough about that we had a conversation about it early on when we were dating.
If that's your thing, though, more power to you.
On the original question-I think well done Photoshop work(or other post processing-Photoshop is almost a generic term now) is often subtle enough that you don't notice it.
I rarely use PS, and do most of my editing in Lightroom. There are a few times PS comes out for the "heavy lifting." One is that the spot healing and clone tools are MUCH better than in Lightroom, to the point that film scans basically have to go through Photoshop for me to be happy. Other tools like lens correction and perspective correction are getting much better in Lightroom, but still IMO are inferior to PS.
Another one is dealing with difficult lighting in post. As an example, and nothing crazy, but our dog is black. He's jet black-almost like he's rolled in a coal bin or been slathered in shoe polish. For Christmas this year, my wife wanted a photo of the three of us in front of the Christmas tree for a card. I pulled out every lighting trick I could(short of the studio lights, which are still in storage after moving), but absolutely could not get the result I wanted where you could see us clearly and also have him be anything other than a black blob.
After trying everything I could in Lightroom, I finally pulled the DNG over to Photoshop and went to work. It took me a little while since I don't do this stuff often, but I masked the dog off into a separate layer then adjusted the exposure on him independent of us. We got a useable card...
On darkroom manipulation, stuff like dodging and burning Darkroom 101(or maybe 102). It takes some skill, but is easy to play with especially since paper is relatively cheap and you can see the results. When I'm doing a print as a gift or something like that, I'll go through a dozen cut sheets to dial in what I want in a particular area, at least one or maybe 2-3 full size ones to set exposure(unless it's a huge photo, then I'll spot check exposure with an 8x10). My favorite exposure "meter" is one of the old Kodak pie-chart overlays, but that's a different discussion.
The next level up, and pretty much a lost art, is full hand-retouching of negatives. I have a "retouching station" somewhere in storage I have played with a bit. It's essentially an 8x10 light table that vibrates gently to aid using your retouching tools. To do it, you first generally apply an etching solution to add "tooth" to the base side of the film, or use a film that already comes that way. Kodak TXP320 is the only I know of. I have some in 220 put back in the freezer, but it's now only made in sheet film(which is much easier to retouch anyway thanks to its size). You then use a VERY sharp pencil to add density where needed, of course blending it in to the surroundings. Things like this make quick work of things like skin blemishes in portraits(Mole? It will show up as a clear or at least lighter spot on the negative, and you just color it in). The more advanced technique is working on the emulsion side, where you might use a tiny sharp knife to cut off parts of the emulsion. Back in the day, there were retouching masters who might spend hours on something like a Hollywood glamour portrait. Of course, you can do this stuff on color too using dyes, but that's a totally different level of skill.
If that's your thing, though, more power to you.
On the original question-I think well done Photoshop work(or other post processing-Photoshop is almost a generic term now) is often subtle enough that you don't notice it.
I rarely use PS, and do most of my editing in Lightroom. There are a few times PS comes out for the "heavy lifting." One is that the spot healing and clone tools are MUCH better than in Lightroom, to the point that film scans basically have to go through Photoshop for me to be happy. Other tools like lens correction and perspective correction are getting much better in Lightroom, but still IMO are inferior to PS.
Another one is dealing with difficult lighting in post. As an example, and nothing crazy, but our dog is black. He's jet black-almost like he's rolled in a coal bin or been slathered in shoe polish. For Christmas this year, my wife wanted a photo of the three of us in front of the Christmas tree for a card. I pulled out every lighting trick I could(short of the studio lights, which are still in storage after moving), but absolutely could not get the result I wanted where you could see us clearly and also have him be anything other than a black blob.
After trying everything I could in Lightroom, I finally pulled the DNG over to Photoshop and went to work. It took me a little while since I don't do this stuff often, but I masked the dog off into a separate layer then adjusted the exposure on him independent of us. We got a useable card...
On darkroom manipulation, stuff like dodging and burning Darkroom 101(or maybe 102). It takes some skill, but is easy to play with especially since paper is relatively cheap and you can see the results. When I'm doing a print as a gift or something like that, I'll go through a dozen cut sheets to dial in what I want in a particular area, at least one or maybe 2-3 full size ones to set exposure(unless it's a huge photo, then I'll spot check exposure with an 8x10). My favorite exposure "meter" is one of the old Kodak pie-chart overlays, but that's a different discussion.
The next level up, and pretty much a lost art, is full hand-retouching of negatives. I have a "retouching station" somewhere in storage I have played with a bit. It's essentially an 8x10 light table that vibrates gently to aid using your retouching tools. To do it, you first generally apply an etching solution to add "tooth" to the base side of the film, or use a film that already comes that way. Kodak TXP320 is the only I know of. I have some in 220 put back in the freezer, but it's now only made in sheet film(which is much easier to retouch anyway thanks to its size). You then use a VERY sharp pencil to add density where needed, of course blending it in to the surroundings. Things like this make quick work of things like skin blemishes in portraits(Mole? It will show up as a clear or at least lighter spot on the negative, and you just color it in). The more advanced technique is working on the emulsion side, where you might use a tiny sharp knife to cut off parts of the emulsion. Back in the day, there were retouching masters who might spend hours on something like a Hollywood glamour portrait. Of course, you can do this stuff on color too using dyes, but that's a totally different level of skill.
No has to be worded properly…. “Why do the majority of people hate tattoos?”New thread title:
"I Hate Tattoos"
Some time ago I read a story about a bloke, in IT, who had an RFID chip inserted into his forearm. He mainly used it to pay for drinks at his nightclub.
Another bloke, in Sydney, removed the chip from his OPAL (public transport) card and had that inserted in his arm. He got fined for damaging the property of the gummint.* Apparently, even though you 'buy' the OPAL card before topping it up with money, it's never yours. A bit like 'buying' a Microsoft or Adobe product...
* And he had to have it removed, and had to buy a new card.
I love Photography and Photoshop, but I never try to pass off something I did in Photoshop as a Photograph. I use Photoshop for my website designs and the following is an example (It's still a work in Progress).
As you can see it's obvious a Photoshop work though it does use Photographs in the image. When this is done it's going to be my header for my website.
I do like retouching photographs in Photoshop, but I still consider them photographs though I do most of my retouching in Capture One.
As you can see it's obvious a Photoshop work though it does use Photographs in the image. When this is done it's going to be my header for my website.
I do like retouching photographs in Photoshop, but I still consider them photographs though I do most of my retouching in Capture One.
Last edited:
Nice... I love it when people show their PS skills.. wish there was a thread on this type of work... we could learn from each other. Very creative... awesome job!!!
I know from the post here the feelings about the OP, but it doesn't seem he dislikes creative PS work... but who knows what he meant... haha... I'm not good at the creative stuff... but I would like to learn. I think what he dislikes is more of the work I do for IG Influencers and how everything is nice and perfect on FB postings. Which I think is different than fixing exposure, retouching, dodge and burn, etc...
Off the top of my head, I think fake PS work can be fun... like when I seen an old pic of Walt Disney at the front gate of Disneyland... and I thought it would be "fun" to photoshop him in the same spot with a picture shot today, and colorize Walt...
And then there erasing and cleaning up unwanted objects... I did a shoot right when the stay at home orders were lifted, and there were fences and barriers put up at the time... so I removed them in PS... I think this is on the extreme side of clean up and removal though... I normally just clean up the road, and remove people, cars, etc... in the background.
I think is this next example of what this thread topic is on... I don't normally do this stuff, but during the stay at home orders, IG Influencers were desperate for content to post. It was never posted.... because she didn't want to be "Fake"...
I agreed with her that it does look fake, and happy she didn't post it. I have better examples, but these were already animated... I have a lot of fake edited pics. If you can think of what IG influencers might request, I'm sure I've done it... LOL... and please don't give me a hard time on the typo in last animated pic... haha....
Probably the people in the Digital Video subforum would be able to answer that...... Techniques for still photography and cinematography/video are somewhat different, including in the processing.
I suppose the weather forecast is a prime example of that happening live using green screens? but I don't know, how much they can manipulate it
Facetuning and Photoshopping Isn’t New: Influencers Were Doing It 100 Years Ago
We tend to think that manipulating images to create unrealistic notions of beauty is a recent phenomenon thanks to Photoshop and celebrity culture, but it turns out that retouching photos in order to mislead people has been around for well over a century. Because of an assumption that...
a quick but relevant read. photo editing not at all new.
Haven’t people been doing the retouching in other ways for years? Isn’t makeup photoshopping for the real world? I never leave the house without my concealer! 💄
(Applied with a trowel of course!).
(Applied with a trowel of course!).
To me there is a difference between photo editing (which is needed on RAW images anyway) and photo manipulation, the latter being something which goes beyond the basics of adjusting exposure, contrast, perhaps sharpening, even cloning-out a stray something which was in the image that the photographer either didn't notice at the time of composition or couldn't do anything about, etc., etc., into the territory of altering the image in a way that it is vastly different from the way it was initially photographed.
The advantage to cameras like mine is that it does not require much editing. Yes take photos in auto mode and little editing is required.
We can only hope to be cool like you.
The camera is doing the editing for you, much like a cellphone.
Maybe I should sell my cameras and buy a P&S to be cool like the OP. 😂We can only hope to be cool like you.
"Photoshopped" tattoos, perhaps?New thread title:
"I Hate Tattoos"
I was kidding about selling my cameras and buying a P&S. To me that would feel like switching from a Ferrari to a Yugo or maybe a Ford Pinto.
Last edited:
what you see as an advantage some of us see as a disadvantage. there’s not a right or wrong answer and if you don’t want to edit, then fine.
but some of us use editing as part of our voice and style to distinguish our images from everyone else’s. there is a lot of value and craft in that.
If you feel the images you’ve posted straight from your camera are good enough for your tastes, then you should be set. No need to bother with editing software, Photoshop or otherwise. You are the only one you need to please. Feel free to put your energy into hating Photoshop if it is helpful to you, to circle back to your thread title. I personally like putting my energy elsewhere.
Many of us enjoy the process of working with our images though, so to each their own, right?
Sometimes I'll pop an image into Lightroom, do some rudimentary automated stuff(lens correction) and maybe tweak the levels and curves a tiny amount.
Sometimes I'll spend 15 minutes in Lightroom getting everything correct, or maybe even realize the image is worth saving and will go into Photoshop to do more advanced work than Lightroom can do.
One of the things that my camera can't read my mind on is what I'd call the "mood" of the image and what I'm trying to convey with it. Sometimes maybe I want a low contrast, less saturated look since it works for the image/subject. Sometimes I want certain elements to stand out so maybe I'll crank up the saturation and get the "wow" factor. With film, I often leave an 81A stuck to the front of my lenses since I like things a bit warmer in general, and in fact still use my Moose polarizers with my DSLRs(cir. polarizer and 81A combined into one filter) but warmth also doesn't always work.
My camera has no way of knowing all of this. I can go in and tweak settings that control this, like changing from "Vivid" to "Standard" in the menus and setting the white balance manually, or I can just take a RAW file and get the same thing on my computer screen in post rather than farting around with menus.
Here is a simpler use case - I love black and white photography. Unless I use my monochrome camera or film, then I have to edit my images to take the colour away while maintaining the rich tones. Don’t confuse setting a camera to black and white with shooting images with the intent to make them black and white. A black and white jpeg out of camera is not as nice as a properly processed black and white image.