Do you edit most of your photos?

I'm about mid experience level with Photoshop. Heck I have been trying to teach myself it for years. I'm just curious are there any photography purist here that don't believe in alter photos? Those that are advanced with Photoshop, how did you learn it? With my photography business growing, I'm finding I need to learn more or find alternative ways of getting my photos fixed correctly.

I don't use all that Photoshop has to offer, you can learn on line, magazines, go to seminars, etc. But I use it with all my photos. All photos when you shoot RAW need tweaked, they need the contrast, color, sharpness boosted. Then if there is any items that need removed etc. For portraits. I use either my OnOne phototools software that helps you smooth skin etc, or my Portrait Professional software, If you are in a business you need to do these things quickly to sell the best the client can be, without going overboard. Women are the ones that usually purchase the photos and if they don't look good then they won't buy.

I edit the pix that are used for publication and the others that are good enough for what the client expects. that's why they are proofs and not final prints. I edit my personal work and my landscapes because that is what pleases me.

Even as a hobbyist I tweak all of my images, usually with Elements (too cheap for PS). I do make the effort to "get it right" in the camera, but still expect some light PP. Most of my shots are for sharing via E-mail or my online gallery. The few that I actually do print need a lot more PP. Which may say more about my funky display and printer than the image quality.

Kelly Cook

I try to keep post processing to a minimum by putting most of my effort in the front end process. HDR, well that's a whole nother story.

I took a semester of Photoshop and Illustrator at the local community college. I'm surprized your tax person hasn't told you if it's for the betterment of your job .... Tax Deductable.

I use Gimp to clone things out, adjust color, saturation. That's about it .

I uses Nik plugins[have all of them]plus Onone Photo Tools,my visible light images takes little time
to process.From my raw converter it`s pretty close to Viveza2,and Exposure filter in CS5.
My color Ir images is a totally different scenario with a lot of editing,if I cannot get the colors I want I closed it and come back another day.

There are two types: ones that at least says they tweak their photos and ones that lie like a cheap carpet. .

LR is fast enough.

I've never heard of a photographic technology that doesn't require processing to be seen with human eyeballs. Even Polaroid has to go through the rollers. "Straight-out-of-the-camera" with a digital camera just means you've chosen the installed processing software and processing by prediction (set processing parameters using previsualization before exposure) over some other processing software and processing by inspection (set processing parameters by eye after exposure). It's extremely handy to be able to process by prediction, but there's a reason the Zone System breaks the tonal scale down into 10ish steps vs the 256 steps we get with most processing software.

Each photographer should choose the methods they find effective and a pleasure to use. If sitting at a computer or working in the darkroom is not their cup of tea then they have other options. There are many ways of valuing a photograph, and no doubt some folks think it's very important to consider how hard it was to create. Previsualization requires much more effort to learn than adjusting photos to taste with our eyes. In the end I'm mostly concerned with the finished piece. I don't care if the photo was created using an 8x10 camera if it's boring. I don't care if they shot it with their I-phone if I find it intriguing.

I learned most of my image processing fundamentals looking at photographs, paintings, and drawings, and trying to achieve them in the darkroom (college, home, and work). Switching to digital it was just a matter of learning how to use the new processing tools. The basic ideas are the same. I don't think you have to go into the darkroom. Experience in Photoshop or whatever is just fine. Spend lots o time looking at photos and paintings in art museums and galleries. When you find one you really like try to assess why you like it. Try to achieve those visual aspects with your photos. I usually try to keep it simple: local and global adjustments that would be used in the traditional darkroom. But if I see something new that seems neat I'll try it out for a while. Often the excitement wears off eventually.

Edward Steichen wrote: It is rather amusing, this tendency of the wise to regard a print which has been locally manipulated as irrational photography – this tendency which finds an esthetic tone of expression in the word faked. A MANIPULATED print may be not a photograph. The personal intervention between the action of the light and the print itself may be a blemish on the purity of photography. But, whether this intervention consists merely of marking, shading and tinting in a direct print, or of stippling, painting and scratching on the negative, or of using glycerine, brush and mop on a print, faking has set in, and the results must always depend upon the photographer, upon his personality, his technical ability and his feeling. BUT long before this stage of conscious manipulation has been begun, faking has already set in. In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in dark-room the developer is mixed for detail, breadth, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact, every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability.

The above quote was said over 100 years ago, so the debate about image manipulation is pretty old, although the common perception seems to be that it's a recent development (no pun intended).

Photoshop Version 7, Photoshop Elements 8, the Gimp and Power Retouche Pro are what I use. I have yet to utilize all of the capabilities they offer. Learning has been all done online and through books and magazines.

Dori wrote: I use Gimp to clone things out, adjust color, saturation. That's about it .

How do you like that program? I know it's free, now does it compare to Photoshop well?

I edit every photo either with photoshop or lightroom. There has only been one photo that is SOOC. Never been edit in any kind of way.

www.crystalwightman.com/macro/eac3a3b7

Tweak the majority of my images, a little contrast here and there a bit of dodging and burning, it all helps, just dont go overboard, I use CS5 and LR, as to learning, the best way is to dive in there and play with it all.