As a photographer, do you edit the temperature of your photo?

Question

Do you tweak it a bit? I am aspiring photographer, but I don't like using the editing software. Today, I went for a trek into the rainforest and took some photos, however, due to the cloudy day the photos seemed dull (trees were not so green). Where as, in photo books the rainforests seem like a perfect green. Do they use any software or is it just natural?

Thanks

Answer 1

Photographers have always edited their work. In film or digital there has always been manipulation, it's just easier today with a computer. Any photographer needs to learn to edit for the photo to look it's best. One of the most printed and sold photos is Ansel Adams photo Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico. With out editing this photo was not possible. Learn to edit do not fight it.

Enjoy your photography, It can bring a lifetime of excitement.

Answer 2

I do what photographers have always done since dark rooms were invented. They manipulate the image to bring the best out of it. Even with digital photography and programs like photoshop, you will get the best from your images if you can set up dark room conditions at home for working on an image. It is great to shoot when the light is just right, but light changes all the time.



The only images that should never be altered ar those used for legal reasons (scene of crime etc) and photo journalist stuff portraying true events for news purposes.



Beulah

Answer 3

If you want to be a photographer, you need to get over your aversion to editing software. Every professional photo you have ever seen has been edited to some degree. Even with today's great equipment, no camera can perfectly record a scene the same way the human eyes can see it. This means editing software and proper post processing is necessary. Almost all pros shoot in their camera's RAW format, which requires post processing, especially when it comes to white balance (color temperature).

Answer 4

I trust you as much as a factor. I began my coaching while photoshop used to be cutting-edge so I got coaching in conventional methods at an excessively top stage. On the opposite hand, I labored in photograph healing for a few years utilizing photoshop so I comprehend it good. Photoshop has its location. Some powerful composites and montages can also be performed, as good as restoring broken images at a satisfactory stage unequalled by means of hand methods. The predicament, in my view, comes from individuals who attempt to use Photoshop to salvage deficient pix which certainly not must had been used within the first location. If you understand your gear and methods you should not want photoshop for whatever greater than filth-recognizing. Sadly for the enterprise, this occurs customarily. The more thing I see is that individuals have got used to on the grounds that unhealthy satisfactory and are wasting their "eye for qualty" . Look at an Ansel Adams photograph or perhaps a poster up near and you're going to see a degree of satisfactory that's just about forgotten at present. I have labored within the enterprise 22 years now at each and every stage, so that is wherein I shaped my opinion from. I'm no longer looking to knock any one else's paintings, I simply see an excessive amount of junk in magazines and portfolios.

Answer 5

Nearly every professional edits nearly every image they publish. I edit EVERY photo somebody else is going to see even family snapshots and sets done for free for friends. All my shots get the same attention to detail regardless of their intended use. It's a good habit to get into if you want to turn pro as not only does practice make perfect but sometimes while tinkering with other shots inspiration hits for some nice clever or artistic looking edits for the paid work.



On another note editing is also necessary because as nice as the idea of getting the perfect shot straight out of the camera is it rarely happens that way and at least small adjustments to colours, contrast and curves are usually necessary if you want to produce pictures people will want to pay for.

Answer 6

I shoot raw like most people do to get the best out of the photo.



I edit with one software or more. (photoshop, lightroom..)



Sometime I adjust the temperature to my like but not too much to over done it.



However if I have to use a lower quality setting mode, such as jpeg then I won't edit the file since the camera has already did the post processing on it.



You can try this with photoshop http://www.flickr.com/groups/photoshop/discuss/72057594133489239/



If you don't have it you can download it from adobe, the software will fully work for 30 days, then you'll have to get a serial key, one you can get from adobe by buying the software.



If money is an issue you can get "The Gimp" later on, it's like photoshop & it's totally free.



http://www.adobe.com/downloads/



http://www.gimp.org/



You can also take a look at this technique, exposure blending, personally I think it look more natural than HDR (With hdr people tend to over done it).

http://photocascadia.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-basics-of-exposure-blending/

Answer 7

If you mean white balance/color temperature -- yes.

Every single shot.



I only shoot RAW, and I make sure the color temperature is correct (or what I want it to be) on every shot. You can do it in Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW in batches, and it's quick and easy, but very important.



The camera's "auto white balance" gets it right, oh, maybe 20-30% of the time. That's not good enough.



Peace.

Answer 8

Yes. I usually shoot RAW, so I often tweak the colour temperature in post processing, but only if the camera white balance is off.. That's the beauty of shooting RAW - you don't have to actually worry about white balance settings in the camera.



You may find that they often bump up the vibrancy of the colours for foliage in such pictures.



I use Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW.

Answer 9

Always. I always adjust my white balance if it needs it.



I do 3 minor tweaks to all my images.



1- White balance

2- Punch up the shadows as smidgen

3- Adjust exposure a smidgen to get it just perfect (about 1/4 of a stop more or less).



The shots you might have seen in the books might have been HDR shots. You braket 3 (or more) shots and then merge them in post to get a good dynamic range.



It looks more natural when done well because the human eye is much better a capturing a wide dynamic range than a camera sensor but it can look like garbage if done incorrectly.



Good example of HDR:

http://digital-photography-school.com/19-beautiful-examples-of-hdr-done-right



Bad example of HDR:

http://www.google.ca/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=949&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=9uvl3ygDRE1-eM:&imgrefurl=http://barrysphotoblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-wimberley-hdr-good-vs-bad-hdr.html&docid=7NdBs-gEt__znM&imgurl=http://www.pbase.com/blarmer/image/103176246/original.jpg&w=800&h=532&ei=REOIT4zgKqTb0QGui7GzCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=295&vpy=168&dur=439&hovh=144&hovw=192&tx=97&ty=106&sig=114182614698033747138&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:68



http://www.google.ca/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=949&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=URPzBUyxictmbM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickriver.com/photos/kushaldas/2433830425/&docid=C_BwByfEE2dOVM&imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2433830425_d8f6682a97.jpg&w=500&h=335&ei=REOIT4zgKqTb0QGui7GzCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=499&vpy=167&dur=302&hovh=145&hovw=194&tx=109&ty=106&sig=114182614698033747138&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:70



http://www.google.ca/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=949&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=0LyvnmYBuBmgOM:&imgrefurl=http://anarchyjim.digitalanarchy.com/adobe-photoshop-plugins/i-hate-hdr/&docid=PgVegYnqO3_TEM&imgurl=http://anarchyjim.digitalanarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/hdr_hate.jpg&w=550&h=366&ei=REOIT4zgKqTb0QGui7GzCQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=328&sig=114182614698033747138&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:74&tx=111&ty=79

Answer 10

can do - by changing the white balance...