Do most professional's photoshop?

sapearl wrote in post #11283554
Thanks Allen - appreciate it .

The nice thing too about today's "digital darkroom" is that it's not as antisocial as the chemical laden, smelly and claustrophobic cave of the past. I'm not PLANNING on getting divorced, but if things ever get that bad (which they certainly are NOT) she won't be able to blame it on my disappearance into the basement darkroom .

Actually, that factor did play into the failure of my first marriage. But I can edit images while sitting with my family now...very much a benefit of digital in my life.

G.. wrote in post #11265434
I am old school and prefer to get it right in the camera.

If you really were "old school" then you'd be dodging and burning in the darkroom, which is really no different than using PS on a digital image.

krb wrote in post #11283662
If you really were "old school" then you'd be dodging and burning in the darkroom, which is really no different than using PS on a digital image.

Absolutely . Heck - I remember one old pro who'd probably forgotton more than I'll ever learn show me how to spot bleach portions of the print as well as heat up certain areas of the surface - usually with your breath - to affect the final appearance.

Don't get me wrong - I really do try to get the best possible image in camera out of the gate, usually underexposing slightly to retain highlights - but for me the "capture" is just the start of the process for my really serious work.

lol, most pros shoot for post.

Absolutely . Heck - I remember one old pro who'd probably forgotton more than I'll ever learn show me how to spot bleach portions of the print as well as heat up certain areas of the surface - usually with your breath - to affect the final appearance.

I used to do that. I used ferricyanide (yes, very poisonous, both to breath and to drink). It reacted strongly to metals, so we had to use bamboo brushes and a dedicated mixing cup. I used it for spot lightening at the end of the fix period. First you brushed a bit of ferricyanide over the spot to be lightened (print wet with fixer). Then as soon as you saw it start to lighten, you put it back into the fix to control the bleaching. You had to use a bright light to be sure to see the bleaching action as soon as it started. When you got what you wanted, you gave it more time in the fixer and then gave it a thorough--"archival"--wash.

Ferricyanide bleaching was itself anti-archival, so it pretty much begged selenium toning afterward to give it as much archival benefit as possible.

Ahh, the old days.
For the most part, in the old days we still tried to get it right in camera. Pro work typically went to the lab and there were significant price differences in machine/custom prints. It was truly a last resort.

Nowadays we have the benefit of being able to treat each image as a custom print without having to pay someone. If you knew you wanted a vignette you would put a mask on the front of the lens. If you decided you wanted on after the fact you had to pay extra to have it printed by hand.

Being able to provide custom looks, black and whites, sepia, toned, saturation, contrast and much more had to be thought about before you loaded the camera.

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.

HOLY CRAP!!! 2 hours?!

I get the photo right in camera, then with LR3 I just tweak it a bit. If its going in an album I give it the works (skin smoothing, slimming, colour, sharpening etc.)

Yes, but I don't do high-volume shooting. A finished product for a client might consist of 4-6 images, sometimes less, sometimes more depending on their needs. And there is just no way to get what I do right in one exposure (unless someone wants to donate 20 speedlights, pocketwizards, and God's hand to make the light perfect at every second to me).

chrismallet wrote in post #11296390
HOLY CRAP!!! 2 hours?!

I get the photo right in camera, then with LR3 I just tweak it a bit. If its going in an album I give it the works (skin smoothing, slimming, colour, sharpening etc.)

Two hours is nothing man. In some of my beauty work, I have spent over six hours cumulatively on a single image.


@OP You can check out some of my retouching jobs on my website: http://www.jackstrutzp​hoto.com/

It REALLY makes a difference when you have a good understanding of Photoshop

JackStrutz wrote in post #11296523
Two hours is nothing man. In some of my beauty work, I have spent over six hours cumulatively on a single image.


@OP You can check out some of my retouching jobs on my website: http://www.jackstrutzp​hoto.com/

It REALLY makes a difference when you have a good understanding of Photoshop

Same for some of my portraits that are going 20x30 and larger. I'll scrutinize every square centimeter of the image and even clone out lint spots from clothing. If Sargent wouldn't have painted it in, I'll take it out.

I understand enlargements, albums and all that stuff, but the stuff that isnt going to print, whats the point?

Is there a program easier to use than photoshop that allows you to do the types of changes that you can with PS? I used to have a copy of PS essentials that was a breeze to use.. I didn't know if some of the others are as easy but faster than PS CS2.

Waaazooo wrote in post #11344445
Is there a program easier to use than photoshop that allows you to do the types of changes that you can with PS? I used to have a copy of PS essentials that was a breeze to use.. I didn't know if some of the others are as easy but faster than PS CS2.

All the changes? No, any program that can do everything Photoshop can do will inevitably be as complex. However, most photographers don't need everything Photoshop can do. If Elements or Lightroom (or some others like Corel Paintshop has the set of operations you need, then for sure, go for that.

I actually did use Paintshop for quite a while. However, my experience was that going to Photoshop actually made my life easier (and my time more profitable) because while I might have to wrestle on my own with a problem for a day in Paintshop, I could Google or pose a question on a forum about the same problem in Photoshop and have the answer in minutes. Time is money, and I'm pretty sure I made up the difference in price within the first month after buying Photoshop.

Go to a bookstore and compare the number of books (including basic how-to manuals) for Photoshop compared to anything else, or do a search for YouTube videos on Photoshop compared to anything else. As a practical matter, the breadth and depth of help available for Photoshop actually makes it an easier program to learn and use.

I just use the color manips.. saturation, hues, being able to keep color and b/w the rest. I'll do some looking around.

JackStrutz wrote in post #11296523
Two hours is nothing man. In some of my beauty work, I have spent over six hours cumulatively on a single image.

@OP You can check out some of my retouching jobs on my website: http://www.jackstrutzp​hoto.com/

It REALLY makes a difference when you have a good understanding of Photoshop

I dunno, one thing to remove blemishes and such, but to mess with the face or ears shape..?? Like in that before/after of the top right girl with red lipstick - looks like 2 different photographs.