AdamJL wrote in post #5847059
It is pretty easy to fake shallow DoF in Photoshop from a picture taken from a kit lens. Gaussian blur, layers, a bit of erasing, voila! My point is that these days, PP is potentially more powerful a tool than the camera, in the right hands. Some of the salvaged shots I've seen boggle the mind.
I don't mean to take anything away from your pictures, as they are indeed impressive.
And I do see your point about the "straight from camera" subject, but again, because of the power of PP, it's the only true measure of what the camera is capable of natively, without any additional fiddling (I speak of Raw here, not in-camera jpeg).
Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread any longer, so that'll be it from me
It is pretty easy to fake shallow DoF in Photoshop from a picture taken from a kit lens. Gaussian blur, layers, a bit of erasing, voila! My point is that these days, PP is potentially more powerful a tool than the camera, in the right hands. Some of the salvaged shots I've seen boggle the mind.
I don't mean to take anything away from your pictures, as they are indeed impressive.
And I do see your point about the "straight from camera" subject, but again, because of the power of PP, it's the only true measure of what the camera is capable of natively, without any additional fiddling (I speak of Raw here, not in-camera jpeg).
Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread any longer, so that'll be it from me
Who wants to sit in front of photoshop all day?? I sure as heck don't. I personally hate using photoshop. I want my pics to be done right straight out of the camera with very light editing afterward. Maybe some cropping, a little sharpening, and maybe some saturation boosts for pop, but that's it. If I can't get it in camera, then most times I don't want to shoot it. Plus if you're shooting a wedding with maybe a 1000 photos, who wants to use photoshop on all of them just to get your exposure right??? That would be a pain in the arse right there.
