Do most professional's photoshop?

Svetlana wrote in post #11345322
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.

Actually, the retouched image is probably more like she looks in person. The camera--by its nature of projecting a 3-D subject to a 2-D surface--flattens and widens the subject. That's the problem every mapmaker faces when making a flat map of the spheroidal Earth.

Most of what JackStrutz has done in that image is to de-flatten the young woman's face and give it back its naturally viewed depth and roundness. Knowing how to correct the inevitable faults of 2D projection is one of the more important lessons for a high-end portrait photographer to learn.

A good portrait photographer can also distinguish the psychologically guided difference in emphasis that the mind gives different features of a person versus the lack of such emphasis from the camera. When we interact naturally with a person face-to-face, our minds note eyes and mouth, for instance, more significantly than other facial elements. Our minds de-emphasize other features.

For instance, if we were interacting with, say, Betty White, our minds would probably greatly de-emphasize the wrinkles and sags that are characteristic of her old age because of the keen spriteliness of her personality. But then when we look at a straight photograph of her--we see all the sags and wrinkles of an old woman that we didn't notice in person. A good portrait photographer retouches the image to the reality that our minds reveal to us--the person beyond what the camera mechanistically shows.

It can often be largely done through careful posing and lighting. Before Photoshop, that was pretty much the only economical way to do it. However, posing and lighting have their limits and introduce compromises in other areas. For instance, if a person has a prominent nose or uneven eyes--it may be necessary to pose or light for those issues and compromise on others.

Photoshop gives the portrait photographer the best option: No compromises.

I shoot with vision in mind as to what I will be doing in post production with every image. I am far from a purist in that sense. What I see in "my mind" by no means would match what a purist style capture of a scene would be. The camera is just part of the equation for me, post production being the other. Every shot is about portraying a feeling or emotion.

I also shoot planning my wedding book designs in my head as I do each wedding. So not only am I thinking about post production but also image layouts, overlays, textures where text may go and so on.

I used Lightroom 3 predominately for processing weddings shots and occasionally Photoshop CS5. How long I spend in post for each image will depend on my mood at the time. 30 minutes per image in Lightroom is a max I'd say. (ALL from RAW).

Now Landscape is a whole different ball game. I can and have spent several hours on just one image before.

Luxury wrote in post #11260439
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.

I completely agree with this outlook. I mean it's one thing to OVER process - but to add your own artistic flair to an image is great!! Look at all the developing options film users have and now, for most of us, our computers are our "darkroom" (or should I say Lightroom )