| Author |
Message |
kiclik76
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 34
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:15 pm
|  |
hi....
I just wondering what kind of plug in do you use for photo editing? or do you manually edit in photoshop?
There are eye candy, auto fx, etc.
cheers,
kris |
|
stasvolik
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 909
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:16 pm
| |
Manual photoshop. |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:06 pm
| |
Mainly photoshop but occassionally use some photoshop plugins within Photoshop. |
|
kiclik76
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:26 am
| |
| stasvolik wrote: | | Manual photoshop. |
do you think is it acceptable using "300" movie effect for image stock? |
|
supertramp
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 3818
Location: Lost, but making good time.
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:34 am
| |
Manual PS CS2 but sometimes use NeatImage (layered and selective areas) if I think the noise is too much. |
|
logan101
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 139
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:13 pm
| |
| kiclik76 wrote: | hi....
I just wondering what kind of plug in do you use for photo editing? or do you manually edit in photoshop?
There are eye candy, auto fx, etc.
cheers,
kris |
I think that simple filters such as "300" or "picnik" are seen as being overly simple and gimmicky. It is always better to learn photoshop and be able to customize your photos as you wish. Although arty effects may look nice, they rarely sell on stock. It is best to simply make small adjustments to WB, levels, curves, saturation, noise reduction, etc. |
|
davidcrehner
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 4169
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:37 pm
| |
| supertramp wrote: | | Manual PS CS2 but sometimes use NeatImage (layered and selective areas) if I think the noise is too much. |
Same, but CS3 and Noise Ninja instead. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 7207
Location: www.xlr8photo.com
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:11 pm
| |
PSCS2 and a couple if plugins from Nik! |
|
pauge
Joined: 04 Jul 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:02 am
| |
I was just wondering, does using Photoshop to improve your photo reduce the quality of the image? I know enough about PS CS2 to edit an image to make it look a lot better but I have had my first 10 rejected due to various reasons main one being artifacting!
Patrick |
|
mcaryphoto
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 660
Location: http://mcaryphotoart.blogspot.com/
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:17 am
| |
| pauge wrote: | I was just wondering, does using Photoshop to improve your photo reduce the quality of the image? I know enough about PS CS2 to edit an image to make it look a lot better but I have had my first 10 rejected due to various reasons main one being artifacting!
Patrick |
Patrick,
Yes over use of Photoshop can and does reduce the quality of an image. This one of the reasons people like Rinder99, kenny123 and hhltdave5 are always going on about exposure and getting it right in camera.
Properly exposed images should require only minor adjustments in PS. There's nothing wrong with apply more dramatic adjustment but those should reserved for non-stock images.
Mike |
|
graphicphoto
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2383
Location: In your brain, stealing your ideas!
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:05 pm
| |
I use photoshop, NIK, and Imagenomic (for noise). I like to use photoshop and NIK to enhance my photos or edit them appropriately. Many people have the thinking error that they can "fix" an image with photoshop. As long as you don't fall into that line of thinking and don't overdo your images I think any software program is a great tool. |
|
pauge
Joined: 04 Jul 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:27 pm
| |
Thank you Mike & graphicphoto for ur help, back 2 studying "how 2 get approved"
Patrick |
|
joseppi
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 73
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:41 am
| |
| pauge wrote: | I was just wondering, does using Photoshop to improve your photo reduce the quality of the image? I know enough about PS CS2 to edit an image to make it look a lot better but I have had my first 10 rejected due to various reasons main one being artifacting!
Patrick |
Patrick,
If you're getting artifacting, check the following... You are probably shooting .jpg mode right? While there is the RAW vs JPG topic, let's assume you would like to stay with JPG. Check that your jpg seting is set to maximum quality. Perhaps it's not at max.
Also, try to stay at the lower end of the ISO. I default to 100 ISO, but if you are maybe 200-400 ISO the faster speed, which usually results in more noise, could also translate into the jpg compression try to deal with the noise and get some artifacting...
HTH,
Joe |
|
pauge
Joined: 04 Jul 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:35 pm
| |
Thanks Joe for your help, I will check that on the camera, I know it has a raw setting would it be better to use this setting?
Patrick |
|
joseppi
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 73
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:00 pm
| |
| pauge wrote: | Thanks Joe for your help, I will check that on the camera, I know it has a raw setting would it be better to use this setting?
Patrick |
From the technical, traditional standpoint, RAW is higher quality than a lossy compressed image like jpg... .jpg does throw out some data. You can proably also get more image data to work with and process in RAW. On the downside, RAW will take more space on the memory card (may be a factor if you are away from home and the card fills up). RAW may take longer to write to the card, so if you are doing multi-frame action shots, RAW might affect the number of shots you can store to the buffer and save to disc. Raw will mean you have to process all your images before you can print them at the local commerical photo kiosk. You could should some RAWs and test the workflow and see if it's worth it to you.
HTH,
Joe |
|
| |
|
Log in
