Do most professional's photoshop?

Hi Everyone,

I am just interested to see if most professional photographers see post processing in say, photoshop, as something that is part of the nature of the work... or if the majority of pros prefer to take a good picture in camera with no post processing...

I ask this because i see how a lot of images taken by pros to be so sharp and colours to be so vibrant that i wonder if there is something wrong with my camera!!

Thanks!

All RAW files require processing out of camera, such is the nature of the medium. I would assume most pro's would photoshop or post process.

Getting it right in camera is definitely the first step to a great shot, it goes a long way to reducing the overall amount of post required.

Also, post processing is another way for each photographer to put their own "signature" on the image. It's another tool that can be used to define the outcome of a photograph, much like that of a darkroom in the archaic days.

Ansel Adams was a huge darkroom artist. It's been said that 50% of his work was done in camera, 50% in the darkroom.

First off, WELCOME to POTN!

Shooting RAW, you simply must do some processing on your images. Sometimes it's only adding a little sharpening but usually, I need to do a little saturation and contrast tweak as well.

In JPEG, you can get great stuff straight out of the camera but most will still tweak their images at least a little. Even news or sports shooters on tight deadlines (and even tighter ethics) will occassionaly crop slightly or rotate a little for level if necessary (although the receiving publication will often prefer to do all of this.)

Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? If JPEG, what picture style are you using and are you processing your work on a calibrated monitor?

Even in film processing, tweaks in processing could produce different output. Pro's use this same technique today to produce an appealing output. Sure a pro can get great results out of camera, but I would say 90% do something to them in post.

Welcome to POTN.

Some pro's do indeed shoot jpeg and get it right in camera, typically these pro's are very experienced and these guys really know how to take a properly lit well composed photo with proper white balance in the camera.
Someone just starting out would not be able to get away with shooting jpegs, if they want to turn out quality work.

The vast majority of "professionals" and I do use that term loosely, do some varying degree of processing of their photos.
Each actual professional comes up with a "recipe" of processing that gives his photos just that particular look that he likes and helps to define his style.
Achieving an actual professional quality product is not easy and normally takes years of study practice and work to get to where their photos are of such quality that it makes you feel like your camera is broken when you compare your photos to theirs.
There is no magic bullet .

shoot properly, then process a little. job done.

More then half of the work I do is after the event. Processing raw files is actually done in lightroom and every image gets "touched." I do not typically use photoshop for post processing as it is slow. I try to make sure my images are properly exposed, well composed and lack distracting elements in the frame.

I use photoshop more for design and product creation like albums, cards and such.

I prefer to SLOW DOWN! Get it right (or at least very close) the first time and do as little PP as possible. Sure, there are times when I'm trying to achieve a certain look that requires some heavy duty PP but I tend to avoid it if possible. That said, it seems that overprocessing is the way to get all the oooohs and ahhhhs but again, I prefer to let the composition and subject tell the story, not the PP.

I shoot RAW for everything, it's your base negative and never changes. The changes you DO make are saved only to a copy as a TIFF, JPEG, DNG or whatever you prefer.

The time spent shooting is equal to or less than the time sitting on the computer doing post work. However, shooting jpg I do VERY LITTLE to the images. If I screwed up the settings and it's going to need a lot of post it gets deleted, unless of course it's a necessary shot and then may edit it to "bring it back". For editorial the editing is literally an auto contrast and crop, that's it. For portraiture and others may remove some pimples or what not, but again the editing is minimal. Note though weddings and other type there is a lot more, so it depends what field of photography your'e talking about.

jlwhitlock wrote in post #11260422
Hi Everyone,

I am just interested to see if most professional photographers see post processing in say, photoshop, as something that is part of the nature of the work... or if the majority of pros prefer to take a good picture in camera with no post processing...

I ask this because i see how a lot of images taken by pros to be so sharp and colours to be so vibrant that i wonder if there is something wrong with my camera!!

Thanks!

Depends to a certain degree on the genre and the form of output. If you said "most photojournalists," I would say, "No." If you said, "Most portrait photographers," I would say, "Yes."

And it depends on the measure of post-processing you're talking about. If you're talking about post processing to the extent of optimizing sharpness and color tone, I'd say that practically every professional does at least that much (although not necessarily in Photoshop, but at least in Lightroom), and he doesn't his publisher does.

i would imagine most pro photgraphers use some sort of accelerated photo-friendly post processing software like lightroom to make global adjustments and enhance photos.

there are photogs that are wizards with photoshop and can make truly special creations, i think those are more studio oriented folks that choose to have extreme control w/ lighting and whatnot.

Daedalus34r wrote in post #11265047
i would imagine most pro photgraphers use some sort of accelerated photo-friendly post processing software like lightroom to make global adjustments and enhance photos.

Yes, LR3 and CS5 for me.

Daedalus34r wrote in post #11265047
there are photogs that are wizards with photoshop and can make truly special creations, i think those are more studio oriented folks that choose to have extreme control w/ lighting and whatnot.

I'm the latter. prefer to get everything right the first time. I am far from a PP wizard.

I am old school and prefer to get it right in the camera.

However, I always shoot in RAW and must tweak images in LR or Bridge.

Only sometimes do I need to use P.S

I often spend as much as two hours on a single image in photoshop.

It's more digital art than photography, for me, at this point.

mikekelley wrote in post #11266065
I often spend as much as two hours on a single image in photoshop.

It's more digital art than photography, for me, at this point.

That's where I draw the line...It's the art of composition and mastery of using light for me.