I'm guessing the 'processed' one would be more appealing to most ppl as it looks a little more artistic as EB put it versus SOOC.
EnoBlog: I'll have to check out that VSCO. Thanks for your response.
See, I wouldn't consider this "processed" under the 2nd definition that Evan stated. I would consider this to be in the first category. There isn't much done to this image beyond the normal color and contrast corrections.
Definition: processing is whatever rendition, modification or enhancement the photo undergoes to transform from a RAW file to the final delivered digital file or print. Processing may be minimal, but at a minimum involves the "rendition" portion, where a RAW file is transformed from the original format to the delivered file or print.
I think you are confusing "processed" with "special or custom effects."
coresare wrote:
EnoBlog: I'll have to check out that VSCO. Thanks for your response.
If this is what you're shooting for, the only thing you'll use in VSCO is probably the Kodak preset in the Tools. Probably not worth the price for that one thing when you could create it yourself.
amonline wrote:
If this is what you're shooting for, the only thing you'll use in VSCO is probably the Kodak preset in the Tools. Probably not worth the price for that one thing when you could create it yourself.
Regardless, check it out anyway.
Agreed - it is not worth hassel, I ws using VSCO lot more with LR3, with LR4 for some reason it feels like there is not enough variety in VSCO.
Evan Baines wrote: I think that there is a fundamental disconnect here on terms.
To others, "processing" means doing something to change the look of the photograph from what came out of the camera to something observably different.
The original poster seems to have been asking about the latter option.
Thank you!
That's what I was referring to, as well, with my guestion. Basic color correction is assumed. I was asking for the opinion whether artistic processing is "a must".
This is something that I am struggling through, as I am just starting out.
I want to develop a "look" that is repeatable and my own, but want to keep is fairly close to natural, as I fear that if I go to crazy I will be changing the processing all the time.
So yes I do "process" the images, but try to do it..... gently?
coresare wrote:
Yes! It's so hard and Im not that advanced of a 'photoshop' user. Something that gives it a stylized look without altering skin tones too much
I may be by myself when i say this, but using Photoshop to do your edits, is pretty ridiculous and antiquated....it's no where near as fast to use as lightroom, and aperture, and both those programs do pretty much 90% of everything you need.....you can burn and dodge, vignette, sharpen, saturate, desaturate straighten, crop, de-vignette, flip, do curves, noise reduction, retouch, etc etc.....pretty much anything an image might need....and then you can adjust one file, and apply those adjustments to any other file with one click...all non-destructively.....
i know one person who still exclusively uses photoshop, and he comes from a graphic design background, so it's what he's used to....if you held a gun to my head, and said i couldn't use aperture or lightroom for basic edits, i'd take iPhoto over Photoshop....
clearly there are things that only photoshop will do....but most of the time, lightroom or aperture will work more than fine....
btw, if you want some help with photoshop, check out this tutorial series...
