"KatWoman" wrote: (clip) it is always easier to make a photo as good as
possible and avoid PS
> excessive corrections
> poor photos can be improved with PS but will not look as well as a shot
> taken correctly in camera
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A camera is a "machine," with physical and optical limitations. I almost
always do some digital work on my images to accomplish results that were
not
fully realized in the original image. I think your statement goes way too
far. Some failures in the original exposure are very difficult (virtually
impossible) to Photoshop away--for example, severe underexposure, camera
movement, poor focus, poorly chosen angle of view, inappropriate focal
length. OTOH, things like contrast, brightness, background blur are
easily
manipulated. Even facial expression can often be improved. The more you
work on pictures, the easier it becomes to recognize small ways to make
worthwhile changes, I LOVE to play with local contrast in order to help
the
viewer see what I want him/her to see. I sometimes move objects in a
picture to improve composition.
One of my best examples was a picture made by combining parts from several
exposures of dancers, taken in a crowded room, where the ideal photograph
would have simply been impossible. The result was a picture that
represented the "reality" I had in my mind's eye. I think this is a valid
use of Photoshop. I frequently also like to go through a photo made with
flash, and remove the harsh shadows cast by the single light source.
You may be right, that an umbrella, or a shower curtain, or a diffuse
reflector would have produced better lighting, but those dancers won't
stand
still for that.
|
