On vacation I was showing my sis how to remove specks from a photo using photoshop.
"You touch up your photos?"
I wasn't sure if she was serious or not, but in case anyone else is curious the answer is a resounding YES! Not only that, I think everyone should, especially anyone with a digital camera. Photoshop is probably overkill for most uses, but iPhoto comes free with a new Mac and does a pretty good job. Better yet buy Adobe Elements, it's under a hundred bucks and has most of the useful tools from photoshop, a nice file organizer, and a user friendly interface.
If you are appalled at the idea of touching up photos I ask you to take a quick side trip here and tell me what color JoAnn Pflug really is. A bit of an extreme example but you can find the same thing browsing flikr or any online photo gallery.
Here's a simplified outline of how a digital camera works:
What you get in the end is the camera's best guess of what the photo should be given all of the dial settings, defaults, lighting, and built in algorithms. Hardly an exact replica. By the time you get the photo onto your computer the "photo bits" have been twiddled so much that they ought to have rounded corners from wear!
A good photo editing program is essential, since it lets you adjust the picture to look the way you saw it. Ideally you'd learn as much about your camera as possible so that it captures the image this way in the first place, but that's not always do-able. Mistakes happen. The more options on the camera the better chance you'll forget one of them and end up with a folder full of blue toned images. Do you throw them away or adjust the white balance? Even film needs help from time to time.
And then there's artistic license, the ability to change the photo to be what you want it to look like, which may not be anything like reality. In the top photo I punched the sky up a bit, adding definition, but leaving the sandy beach alone. In the small photo I lightened and sharpened a bit more to make the kite guy visible.
Speaking of touch-ups: I should remove the person growing out of the guy's head.
I wouldn't remove that person. To me, the depth is clear enough that the person on the guys head does not look like he/she is growing out of the guys head.
Toss him! It clutters the photo. You'll still have depth cues from the aerial perspective and the other guy.
Didn't even notice it until you said something. Now that's all I can see...the little guy growing out of the head.
Odd how that works.
Kite's pretty.
I cannot agree more. Plus, there is a final ingredient that is changing the image in a way a camera cannot possibly deal with by itself: the brain. Our visual processing cortex constantly changes the "reality" seen by our eyes to make sense of it (correcting color casts, geometrical distorsions, excluding uninteresting details...). A camera cannot do the same, ans post processing, wether in a darkroom or with photoshop is a fundamental tool for matching the image with what our brain's eyes had seen.