What kind of photoshopper are you?

[ron chappel]

How does everyone use their photo editing programs?

Are you one that aims for absolute reality in your images -you try not to overdo anything like colour,sharpness,contrast etc?

Do you avoid editing at all costs?;) Maybe set the camera to max everything and try to never use the horrid things?!:evil:

Are you one that is ultra advanced and does all kinds of manipulations that are more 'art' than photo's?

Do you have a set workflow and favorite settings that seem to work well for most images?

[TonyKInTexas]

Pressing the shutter is the beginning of a process to bringing my image to life. I do what adjustments are needed to capture the scene I envisioned in my head.

There are times I need to do nothing other than convert from RAW. Others require some manipulation.

How does everyone use their photo editing programs?

Are you one that aims for absolute reality in your images -you try not to overdo anything like colour,sharpness,contrast etc?

Do you avoid editing at all costs?;) Maybe set the camera to max everything and try to never use the horrid things?!:evil:

Are you one that is ultra advanced and does all kinds of manipulations that are more 'art' than photo's?

Do you have a set workflow and favorite settings that seem to work well for most images?

[ToddMorris]

Hi Ron,

I like to do as little as possible ... but more, due to time constraints than any worries about "cheating".

I've had a 20D for about a month now. Here's the process I used on about 100 pictures I took at our work Christmas party last week:

1) Opened RAW images in DPP, and adjusted white balance
2) Batch converted all files to .tiff
3) Opened .tiff files in Paint Shop Pro 9, and made minor color adustments (levels, hue/saturation, etc). Would normally apply USM, but these were all shot at 1600 ISO, so I decided to skip this step.
4) Batch converted all files to lowest compression .jpg, and applied "digtal camera noise removal" to the images that needed it.
5) Opened Photo Shop Elements 2.0, and used "Gradient Map" to convert a few of the images to B&W. (I've found this is by far the quickest way to get nice high contrast B&W images ... although, I haven't actually tried the 20D's in-camera B&W mode yet)
6) Resized, and compressed a few of the pictures that I wanted to post to the web/email.
7) Wrote the rest of the .jpgs to a CD which I dropped off at work.

Obviously, I'm by no means a pro, but with the tools I have at my disposal, this is the best "process" I've been able to come up with at the moment. All in all, I'd say I spent about an hour or two total on these 100 images ... lol, and a few of them even turned out "ok" :)

Hope this is helpful ... and if anyone has any suggestions for me, on how to improve my process, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks,
Todd

[sparker1]

I haven't yet shot "RAW", but will soon try it. My current process is crop, levels adjustment, a little saturation, rarely color balance, resize and USM. I use clone, burn in, blur on occasion, as well as various selection tools.

[thomascanty]

Normally all I do to an image after converting the RAW file is whatever color correction makes it look right -- if necessary (auto-levels, auto-contrast or manually adjusting the curves), then resize, sharpen and tack on my signature text. I'll get much more involved in working on an image if it needs it, though.

[KennyG]

Interesting questions Ron. Personally I shoot using RAW, convert to TIF with C1, and then only if anything needs adjusting do I bother with PS. I probably need to 'tinker' with 1 out of 30/40 images, but nothing major.

With C1 I can rip through RAW files much faster than I ever used to work with JPG. However, I do use PS to produce the JPG's for the web, simply by re-sizing the large TIF files to the right dimensions and saving as JPG.

Before decent RAW conversion software (I rate C1 a long way above the rest) I used to spend far too long adjusting JPG files in PS. RAW actually reduced my workflow time by 70%, which is a big saving when you consider the number of images I have to deal with for a weekend's shoot.

I once spent a day with a guy who uses PS for magazine production work and boy, oh boy, in the hands of an expert it is a powerful tool. Do you want to loose 20 pounds, or 10 years, no problem, and even your closest friends wouldn't be able to find the join.... :)

[Jim P McDonald]

Hi Ron
Firstly I've read many of your posts and have learnt a great deal. Thank you!
I have a 300D and a couple of decent lenses. I use PS7 (badly) and bought C1 for RAW conversions. I have to say that I find C1 very unfriendly so usually shoot in fine Jpeg these days. Your question is fascinating because I'd love to have an established workflow. All I do is try different things with no pattern and invariably become disappointed. Having been very keen 6 months ago, I'm now finding my camera hard work. I suppose "rhythm" and workflow are the answer. Apologies this isn't an answer, probably only an observation.

[eric1]

hi Ron, i shoot raw and convert in C1. it's alot faster than ACR for me. i then use manual levels or curves in PSCS, shadows-highlights, and finally USM.

[mattchase]

I have a few different levels of editing I will do to images. I try to capture the best image I can with the camera, so that all is needed is a little boost in Photoshop with levels, saturation, and sharpness. I used to feel if I didn't capture the perfect image with my camera, then the image wasn't worth keeping. With something you are trying to represent as truth, like photojournalism, that kind of holds true. But if you are shooting something for art purposes, then the end result is the most important peice of the work. If I have an image that just isn't looking how I envisioned it when I shot it, I will spend more time on it, sometimes just doing more levels and saturation adjustments, but other times compositing in a new sky, removing a disctracting object, or even doing some creative lighting effects to actually change the feel of the image.

I also don't use many filters in the field, just have a few of the basics like a polarizer and ND filters (and my favorite, IR filter). So if I the image needs warming or some other photo filter effect, I will usually do that in Photoshop.

The magic of Ansel Adams was not what he did with his camera, but what he did in the darkroom.

[Mogwyth]

In my book photography is Art and you do what you must (within the law:lol:) to achieve what you set out to do, without deliberatly decieving people (nothing wrong with removing unaviodable distracting minor elements, but would not add elements). I try to achieve as much as I can in camera and largely any image I subsequentily post process has to be able to stand up and be counted, how ever much it is going to be worked on. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

[Persian-Rice]

I like to manipluate and make the image artsy is some sitations, while keep it "as is" at other times. I am a sucker for B&W images, and most of my images are in B&W. I have gone as far as spending weeks perfecting my own conversion method. On the other hand, I enjoy maniplauting colors and whatnot.

There are the type who couldnt care less and run their images through a generic proccess. Then there are the people who will spend 6-7 hours on a single shot to perfect it, making tweaks barely visible to the eye(Im guilty of this).

I personally never undertood the people who follow strict rules created by others, I think people need to make their own rules. Why would I want to photograph something that 200 other people are going to photograph using the same basic rule of thirds and running it through the same genreic PP setup everytime?? I might as well sit an just enjoy the next guys images.

I don't think either concept is wrong, but In my heart, I believe that individuality is major differnce between the great and the ordinary. The best are the ones who can be an individual while still managing to appeal to everyone elses tastes.

Manipulate if it works, don't touch it if it doesnt.

[Moppie]

I do exactly what I need to do to achive the result I want.

I had some photos printed for a sports expo a few months ago, one of them I did nothing more than run a small level of unsharp mask (USM) over it, one I had to add a new sky from another photo, and a third I had to use layers and levels to build up the sky to a level that looked good.

It all depends on how succesful I was useing the camera, and how much manipulation is allowed for the final image, all dependant on my goal for the photo.

[ron chappel]

Hi Ron
Firstly I've read many of your posts and have learnt a great deal. Thank you!. :) :) You have learnt from *MY* posts??
Did i accidentally say something intelligent once?;) LOL


...Your question is fascinating because I'd love to have an established workflow. All I do is try different things with no pattern and invariably become disappointed. Having been very keen 6 months ago, I'm now finding my camera hard work. .....
Mmm,maybe i can actually help!
This is a REALLY variable subject because everyone likes different things-as you can see by the responses.
For what it's worth though,here are some things that might suit you/might be worth trying (?)

All basic stuff such as anything that needs cloning out or small areas that need sharpening,dodging,burning,etc,etc i'll try to do that at the start or middle of the editing.
That way i get it out of the way and can concentrate on the things that really make or break an image.

For any change that really makes a difference it's best to leave it to the end so you can save different versions and compare them later
Looking at them later (the next day or more) helps enormously when learning editing or when you are unsure!!
Even experts regularly use this technique
I sometimes save a basic file with all the small stuff done to it but no big changes so i can have another go later .This is a big head start as starting from scratch inevitably leads to a different result and more confusion

The changes that i find make big differences are: (remember i like reality in my photo's so these things may be of no consequence to alot of people)

Cropping. no big deal usually -but some rare pics do require lots of experimentation.

Contrast (and brightness). Contrast is one of the main changes i make to my pictures believe it or not. In photoshop elements i find somewhere between 5 and 15 there is a point where several numbers change makes a huge difference between boring and over the top stupid looking.I invariably hover somewhere on the realistic looking side of that change point
Just the right amount of contrast makes a huge difference in overall sharpness/'brightness'/punch of an image
(i prefer to use brightness/contrast instead of levels usually as it gives simpler control)

Sharpness.Usually i do this after setting contrast as they have an effect on each other.Even with my 300D set on max sharpness the images are nowhere near realistic looking.They need some extra sharpening

One little hint i can give is in the unsharp mask settings
Allways set threashold to zero
For a large image (eg. 3000x2000 pixels for printing) set the radius at 0.6 then push up the amount slider until it looks right
For screen/web size images set the radius at 0.3 then push up the amount slider until it looks right


Colour ballance. This can sometimes drive poeple nuts so again it's one of those things where you can save several different versions for later viewing,or save a file where everything BUT white ballance has been done so you can try again later

Saving for web. For the best quality/file size compromise you may want to experiment as above

One little hint i can give is in the unsharp mask settings
Allways set threashold to zero
For a large image (eg. 3000x2000 pixels for printing) set the radius at 0.6 then push up the amount slider until it looks right
For screen/web size images set the radius at 0.3 then push up the amount slider until it looks right

as is say,editing is a variable subject but hopefully some of these hints might help!

[eric1]

thanks for the usm settings Ron, i will try them. i usually do one of two different profiles...
1. 100-130%, radius 1.3, threshold 3
this is a very good standard usm profile.
2. 25%, radius 50, threshold 0
this will help you get seperation on SOME wildlife pics. when it works, it's very good. found this formula on another website.

[toddb]

I'm a big PS user. I use it one to make up for not having L glass but more importantly I don't have allot of chances to go out and just shoot pictures so I tend to spend more time on the processing side. I love to use PS for B&W and for painting light. I'm always amazed what you can do with a relatively boring photo and give it that punch that wasn't there or to change the lighting dynamics. I don't think this is cheating, it's just putting the emphasis on the places where the artist wants it to be in his/her vision. That is what it's al about right? Your expression of something. With all the technology out there and great cameras, I use PS to push it a little farther.

My entire work flow is pure Photoshop CS and I've got it down now. I don't heavily process every shot but do use PS for just about everything so that's why I don't use C1 or any other programs. I like to tweak my raws and save the info in the side cars and archive them to DVD. The raw file and side car files take up ALLOT less space then process them out to tiffs. I only save the heavily processed ones like that. I can easily retrieve any of my 15000 photos in PS because I have all the cache exported to the DVD as well so previewing is a snap to find what I'm looking for. Automation is also a HUGE factor with my PS usage. You can automate just about anything!!

[ron chappel]

I'm going to try those usm settings you gave eric.
The ones i gave before are from lots of experimentation so work very well.....but because i didn't (still don't) fully understand the effect that every possible setting gives i may well have missed something important and usefull.
I'll explain how i came to use these settings and would apreciate feedback/advice critisism from anyone!

The settings i gave work pretty well becuase of a few things i discovered-
- the old advice that several small sharpenings are better than one single big one is basically false
-Using the smallest radius to do the job seems to definitely work best.There is abit of room for juggling the radius and amount sliders to get the same end effect but generally one should try to keep the radius low.That's why i quote about 0.3 for screen size images and 0.6 for full size images-it's about where they start having a usefull effect


...and the threashold i have absolutally no idea about!:o:confused::lol:
I used to experiment with it once but never got any usefull improvement with it so leave it at zero now

[bachscuttler]

I have been a big PS'r since 1997 and tried to squeeze every last drop out of it.

I only took up photography as a hobby this year and previously used it to create digital art and website graphics, but as an amateur photographer, I try not to overdo it as it generally seems to be frowned on and tend to keep it to cropping/resizing, tweaking levels and the like.
I've found that as my cameras have progressed (not that far just yet) I have to do less and less in Photoshop.

Before I got the camera, PS was a hobby in its own right.

[eric1]

I'm going to try those usm settings you gave eric.
The ones i gave before are from lots of experimentation so work very well.....but because i didn't (still don't) fully understand the effect that every possible setting gives i may well have missed something important and usefull.
I'll explain how i came to use these settings and would apreciate feedback/advice critisism from anyone!

The settings i gave work pretty well becuase of a few things i discovered-
- the old advice that several small sharpenings are better than one single big one is basically false
-Using the smallest radius to do the job seems to definitely work best.There is abit of room for juggling the radius and amount sliders to get the same end effect but generally one should try to keep the radius low.That's why i quote about 0.3 for screen size images and 0.6 for full size images-it's about where they start having a usefull effect


...and the threashold i have absolutally no idea about!:o:confused::lol:
I used to experiment with it once but never got any usefull improvement with it so leave it at zero now
i think radius is how many pixels are affected. like .6 of a pixel. theshold is harder to explain, but like f stops the smaller the number, the greater the action. so zero is more thanone, and so on.

[betty1704]

Interesting question!
I usually process as much as I think it needs, which is variable. Some photos have no processing at all but...and there are two very BIG BUTS for me, I use a lot of my photos for my digital painting to have original work to work with and usually the pictures that I am more satisfied with are a bit on the abstract stilllife side.
So I guess it is a question of taste.
Yesterday I went to a photo exhibition and the photos I disliked more were the abstract ones. Go figure!

[Glenn NK]

Yes, interesting question. A year ago, I bought a white balance tool, and used it faithfully for a while. But because I do a lot of flower closeup and macro stuff, I hardly ever use the white balance disk because I adjust the WB during PP to get the colors the way I want them.

Example: I shoot a purple geranium against the green foliage in the late afternoon or evening. The colour of the flower is as I remember it and as I like it, but if I do a WB, the green foliage turns more yellowish.

I don't like yellow green foliage - I like the slightly bluer green that I get with the lower K temperature the camera captured using Auto WB, so I ignore the WB reading. Or I might use the WB shot of the card, and adjust the hues in Lightroom.

There is a thread started by LeuceDeuce featuring the Burrard Street Bridge in Vancouver, BC. He didn't do a technically accurate WB because the slightly warm colour of the concrete piers of the bridge look better than if they were accurately balanced.

Graphic artists use their sense of colour to create the mood - why shouldn't I?

If one has no colour sense, then the WB may be very useful. Incidentally, someone pointed out that 40% of males have some defect in their colour vision - maybe this is why so many are fanatic about WB.

[thomascanty]

Wow, you really went back into the archives to dig this thread up! It was dead for three and a half years...