Who Needs Photoshop?
Just occasionally I get tempted to join in, but I always resist. If you use other social media and photography is your thing, chances are you get adverts from editing software providers, regardless of the fact that you're already a paying customer, telling you all about the latest sky replacement tools and the facility to squeeze as many real life unicorns as you can sensibly into your images. I can't help but stop and read the comments sometimes, and am always intrigued by the ones who profess to be completely against editing of any type whatsoever. Among them I'll find the sage counsel of the genius who states there's no need at all, because they always take their photographs correctly in the first place. Do they never get dust spots on their sensors or specks on their lenses? They're obviously far cleverer than I am, so I don't ask them how they manage to avoid low light noise with the ISO rammed up to twenty gazillion, or how they pull back the shadows and drop the highlights, or how they reduce the saturation that cameras often seem to add of their own accord. I'm still not sure how they manage to get a shot looking reasonably in focus throughout the scene at longer focal lengths either. But it seems they can. I just can't be dealing with the plaudits from one side and the vaguely focussed vitriol from the other, as they accuse me of adding too many unicorns under my replacement sky. The conversation is often heated as responses get shorter and shorter, often just reduced to a couple of short words, one of which is unrepeatable. I often wonder whether the "Be Kind" movement needs to intervene at such moments. So I scroll past and look at other peoples' photos instead, with and without unicorns. I tend to prefer the ones without the unicorns, but that's just me. When Topaz put up an advert for their wares, the posturing gets even more intense, even over the utility suite programmes that are only there to enhance file sizes for heavy crops and reduce noise or sharpen blurs.
So yes I admit it. I've never been tempted by the replacement sky option, and I'm studiously avoiding the new "add unicorn" button in Photoshop, but I do edit my raw files. Call me Mr Manipulator if you like, but if such luminaries as Mads, Nigel, Gavin and all the rest of them do, then why on earth wouldn't I? And until cameras are able to see what the human eye does instead of averaging everything out, I don't think there's any other option when you shoot into those big dynamic range scenes. Mostly I blunder through, slowly accumulating half an idea of what I'm supposed to be doing, and gradually I'm getting the hang of how it all works - often with the help of those YouTube gurus who've unknowingly dragged me through the process. Maybe I've learned about two percent of what Photoshop does now. The other ninety-eight could take several lifetimes.
But here's the thing - this shot, taken at sunset on that blustery bluff above Hay on Wye has been barely touched. All I did was crop it to this aspect ratio and slightly twiddle the white balance before frowning briefly and concluding nothing further was needed. Not even a unicorn or two. Those hazy hilly layers before the setting sun spoke for themselves, or so I felt.
What about you? Unicorns or not unicorns? Nobody judges you here.
Who Needs Photoshop?
Just occasionally I get tempted to join in, but I always resist. If you use other social media and photography is your thing, chances are you get adverts from editing software providers, regardless of the fact that you're already a paying customer, telling you all about the latest sky replacement tools and the facility to squeeze as many real life unicorns as you can sensibly into your images. I can't help but stop and read the comments sometimes, and am always intrigued by the ones who profess to be completely against editing of any type whatsoever. Among them I'll find the sage counsel of the genius who states there's no need at all, because they always take their photographs correctly in the first place. Do they never get dust spots on their sensors or specks on their lenses? They're obviously far cleverer than I am, so I don't ask them how they manage to avoid low light noise with the ISO rammed up to twenty gazillion, or how they pull back the shadows and drop the highlights, or how they reduce the saturation that cameras often seem to add of their own accord. I'm still not sure how they manage to get a shot looking reasonably in focus throughout the scene at longer focal lengths either. But it seems they can. I just can't be dealing with the plaudits from one side and the vaguely focussed vitriol from the other, as they accuse me of adding too many unicorns under my replacement sky. The conversation is often heated as responses get shorter and shorter, often just reduced to a couple of short words, one of which is unrepeatable. I often wonder whether the "Be Kind" movement needs to intervene at such moments. So I scroll past and look at other peoples' photos instead, with and without unicorns. I tend to prefer the ones without the unicorns, but that's just me. When Topaz put up an advert for their wares, the posturing gets even more intense, even over the utility suite programmes that are only there to enhance file sizes for heavy crops and reduce noise or sharpen blurs.
So yes I admit it. I've never been tempted by the replacement sky option, and I'm studiously avoiding the new "add unicorn" button in Photoshop, but I do edit my raw files. Call me Mr Manipulator if you like, but if such luminaries as Mads, Nigel, Gavin and all the rest of them do, then why on earth wouldn't I? And until cameras are able to see what the human eye does instead of averaging everything out, I don't think there's any other option when you shoot into those big dynamic range scenes. Mostly I blunder through, slowly accumulating half an idea of what I'm supposed to be doing, and gradually I'm getting the hang of how it all works - often with the help of those YouTube gurus who've unknowingly dragged me through the process. Maybe I've learned about two percent of what Photoshop does now. The other ninety-eight could take several lifetimes.
But here's the thing - this shot, taken at sunset on that blustery bluff above Hay on Wye has been barely touched. All I did was crop it to this aspect ratio and slightly twiddle the white balance before frowning briefly and concluding nothing further was needed. Not even a unicorn or two. Those hazy hilly layers before the setting sun spoke for themselves, or so I felt.
What about you? Unicorns or not unicorns? Nobody judges you here.