Okay, this thread is for this thread I made. I have photoshop CS2, is that enough to make my images look really "magazine gloss-like"? I've tried Picasa from google, would that work enough, or should I spring for Adobe Lightroom or something? I'm on a PC btw.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post Processing Images
- Thread starter Evan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photoshop is *the* program to use for post-processing. Lightroom isn't a Photoshop replacement, it simply complements it. Lightroom is a program to manage workflow and only has basic editing like white balance, brightness, etc., whereas Photoshop is a true full-scale editing program. For post-processing work, your Photoshop CS will suit you just fine.
Here's a stupid question - is it hard? Would it be as easy as adjusting saturation which is just one slider? Or are we talking about getting really into it and adjusting minor things? See, I am hoping for something more....automated since I would be processing a ton of photos from various events and need to do it in a timely manner. Also, I know Picasa has a button to automatically do stuff to pictures. Would pros use something like that?
There's no "magic button" for photographs, honestly. Study what makes magazine cover shots look good. Ten to one it's stuff that happened BEFORE the photographer snapped the shutter: things like hair, makeup, location, and lighting, lighting, lighting (as well as a photographer with good glass and a good camera body). The rest is just adjustments to the image as a whole and cleanup (or for fashion stuff, probably airbrushing, which takes some artistic talent and practice).
Garbage in, garbage out. Quality in, quality out. Post-processing is for tweaking an already good photograph. You can only polish a turd so much.
Garbage in, garbage out. Quality in, quality out. Post-processing is for tweaking an already good photograph. You can only polish a turd so much.
In a word? NO. Pro's using Picasa or some automatic software that simply puts on "saturation" etc.? Are you kidding? That's like saying, "Would a video editing company just use automatic transitions and simply put all the footage into frames that make a movie automatically?"
Ok, put down the mouse and step away from the computer. You are not going to get better photos this way. Subject, composition, light...that is what you need to be learning. Not Photoshop, gearhead junk, or other 'techie' aspects of photography. Learn what hyperfocal is and how to achieve it. Learn how to get shallow depth of field.
Spend more time taking photos and learning from your mistakes and less time tyring to find quick fixes for your lack of photography skill. Its like asking an art store for paint that will make you a better painter.
Better plan for you is to get about 10 images, post them on Photo.net, Fredmiranda.com or similar sites and ask "what is wrong with these, why, and how do I fix it".
Technology is a tool that cannot and will not replace basic photography principals....subject, composition, lighting.
If getting good photos to look great was a 2 minute process in Picasa, do you think people would pay photographers or other people for this sort of work?