Taking a good picture isn't easy. Taking an awesome picture is even harder. And taking an impossible picture is, well, impossible. Unless you use Photoshop that is.
Peter Stewart is an internationally published photographer with thousands of followers and millions of views. He's also a wizard with Photoshop, and you can see from these revealing before and after pictures just what sort of difference some clever editing can make.
“I like to approach my digital photography with a certain sense of the fantastical and the surreal,” Stewart told PetaPixel. He uses a technique called bracketed multiple exposure, which allows him to retain highlight details from different photographs before stacking them together into one picture.
“These before and after samples are simply meant to highlight what can be done with the power of Photoshop,' says Stewart. "As such, I have deliberately provided the most dramatic examples.”
More info: Peter Stewart | 500px | Instagram | Flicker (h/t: demilked, PetaPixel)
This post may include affiliate links.
HDR Bracketing Manually Blended In Photoshop. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production
Single Raw Image Copied Twice Then Flipped And Cut Diagonally, Then Masked To Create A Seamless Join. Image Then Brightened To Reveal Detail
Perspective Re-Correction And Power Line Removal In Photoshop. Color Enhancements Using Color Efex Pro
Various Sky Adjustments Performed In Photoshop. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production Color Enhancements
Overexposed Image With Detail Brought Back Using Camera Raw. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production Color
This is the only one I like, as it still looks real. The others are over manipulated and just scream "photoshop", which in my mind, then totally takes away from the photo.
Gradual Orange Sky Gradient And Color Adjustments Performed In Adobe Cameraraw. Sunrays Created In Photoshop, With Added Glow
HDR Bracketing Composited Using Photoshop's 'Merge To HDR'. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production
i can vaguely see mt Fugi in the first two exposures, however the final image looks very photoshopped. Like the mountain was popped in from a completely different image. That's not what you want in most final images .
HDR Bracketing Manually Blended In Photoshop. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production
Adjustments To Contrast And Color To Reduce Haze And 'Warm Up' The Image. Composite Sky Blended Into Frame, With Sun Glow Added In
Kodachrome They give us those nice bright colors They give us the greens of summers Makes you think all the world’s A sunny day, oh yeah
2x Exposures Manually Blended In Photoshop. Perspective Fixed In Cameraraw. Color Adjustments Made Using Nik Color Efex Pro
HDR Bracketing Manually Blended In Photoshop. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production Color Enhancements
3x Exposures Manually Composited In Photoshop CC. Replacement Sky Layer Manually Overlaid And 'Painted' In
the cloud image does not follow the light source and coloring of the building and jungle.
HDR Bracketing Manually Blended In Photoshop. Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production
Contrast And Color Temp Corrected. Color Enhancements Made Using Vsco And Nik Color Efex Pro
Nik Color Efex Pro Used For Post-Production Color Enhancements
Some of the photo's look better in their natural state, and others not so much.
Tonal Adjustments Made Using Nik Color Efex Pro. Composite Sky Blended Into Frame Manually
a camera will never capture how you really see it and how you feel about it
Indeed. So there we have image editing programs to help us achieve the feeling. Nothing wrong with that. Just artistic photography.
Take the example of the picture with buildings. If you take a picture with no sun, will you really add one just because you "feel" it. The you are not a photographer, you are a graphic artist. I am not against post-production processing but most of the time it is really to much and pictures seem too unreal. Even if they look ok, the photographer work (if there is) is often hidden.
This article seems to be implying that professional photographers and "online pictures" are largely all so good, because they use bracketing and HDR. Maybe it's because this process appears more manual, and therefore more skillful. There's a reason you don't see this type of work in National Geographic for example. 20 years ago there were special categories in photography magazines for manipulated photos, mainly to showcase new techniques just for what they're worth. In my mind that's where these photos should stay. Secondly, these are very standard tourist shots and angles. The real essence of photography, timing and framing, is lost completely to what is basically saturation. This is kind of teaching the people of the internet to think that all the real skill is in post-production, when that is in fact a completely separate issue for serious pros. The great photos of the world are not photoshopped in any way, and that's what makes them good.
I quite agree with your assessment, "badly printed postcards", or standard magazine add fare, and already forgotten. No waiting for the light, no thousand shots for the one, no freezing in -30 or out at 3:00 am. Just grab some images and do what you can with them.
While I agree with your point to a certain extent, I want to point out that post production has always existed, even in camera obscura. The great photos you see have always undergone great, invisible editors. The Photoshop of old were paper masks and flashes of lights here and there, while today an editor can do so much more, but the concept is: even on national geographic, what you see is never, ever what the camera has seen. The great photos of the world have always been "photoshopped" in many, many ways, and that's what makes them good.
Very well said m friend .. These type of images will stay in mind for few days or weeks and you forget.. But real image will stay for ever
@Kerrin Naude - You're delusional if you don't think photos in National Geographic are not manipulated. I guarantee you every professional photo you see has some degree of manipulation. Any serious photographer shoots in raw, and at the very least in lightroom has to making corrections for lens distortion, white balance etc. Every tool in photoshop is based on a technique that can be achieved in a real lightroom with film. Look at what Ansel Adams did to his photos in the lightroom. His original still is heavily manipulated to get the final product long before pc's and photoshop existed. Photo enhancing is 100% an art!
And I stand by the fact that the really, properly great photos of the world are great for pretty much every reason other than perfect colour saturation and unreasonable levels of detail in every area of the frame. If reality didn't actually look like that, and you couldn't be bothered to wait for better light conditions (like Ansel Adams did - sometimes for weeks on end) then your picture loses my vote. Just the use of a simple gradient filter IN CAMERA would make you a photographer more in tune with your subject, rather than a disconnected "fixer".
I'm not suggesting they are unmanipulated, I'm suggesting they all look like normal photos withreasonable gamma range. Ansel Adams was a genre unto himself. These look like badly printed tourist postcards.
Yes. I just started learning photoshop and lightroom....like today. It made me a little sad cuz ive thought back on all the amazing shots ive admired over the years and wondered how many were real and how many were manufactured. Theres a big diferrence between fixing lighting issues and dropping a lion from the zoo on a bridge in kentucky and adding tropical plants from Ace Hardware and calling it a jungle pic. Hahaha Anyway, i know i have a great eye for natural framing and appreciate the unusual and weird angle so im gonna keep flowing wit that and leave the heavy photoshopping to others. .
If only that was true, you now see highly manipulated composite digital images in both National Geographic and Smithsonian on a regular basis (National Geographic just ran one as a 3 page cover)
Fair enough, bad example, I meant the focus is clearly more on emotion, timing and framing.
It's photographer's desicion how they would want to present their images. That's why there are different styles and different people. Nobody can force you to like something that you don't but you can't say what is right and what is wrong. It's a matter of choise.
All places are still impressive even before photoshop.
I often hear or read about people saying "of course. They used photoshop." If someone thinks photography is easy, try it. If someone thinks editing is easy, I dare you. A crappy photo will always be a crappy photo. In most of the cases the post processing is possible because the photographer knew how to take the photo in a way that they would have all they needed to work with and give it the look they want. Things aren't that simple. And if you find articles like this as an excuse and say "sure the photos are better than mine but I don't process them", then go for it. Try and see. No excuses. These photos take some really hard work to end up looking like this. It's not cheating. It's actually harder! Oof. Sorry.
A lot of these are crappy photos
Some turned out to be quite good.. Not the composites though.. Few were highley manipulated which doesnt seem right.. At the end of the day, photographers are not ppl who have to document their visits to places, but produce some selable images.. But overdoing the manipulation is also a sin to the photography religion!!
And when you get really good images without such post production, most of people think it's photoshopped only, that's sad but reality
In the old days of course there wasn't such a thing as photoshop. The photographers used to burn and dodge in the darkroom to get the images they wanted, ooooh just like using photoshop in fact. Different times and different skills, however the common theme is Somebody had to compose and take the shot in the first place.
So many people complaining about the quality of the modified versions - it appears nobody read the opening text: “These before and after samples are simply meant to highlight what can be done with the power of Photoshop,' says Stewart. "As such, I have deliberately provided the most dramatic examples.”
Still takes mad skills to be a pro photographer...post production used to happen in the darkroom, now it's on a screen.
Wow! Very interesting thread. Thank you for the insight because I never knew pictures were that photoshopped! It's amazing what technology
Some pictures are, by far the majority aren't.
Awsome !
I admit there are sometimes that photoshop is needed, like to brighten a darker picture or darken a too bright picture but I believe there is such a thing as too much photoshop.
Purists versus creative freedom discussions. lovely! Personally I think photography is an art that is about capturing reality. That is it's essence. If you decide that you want to create an expression of art with a medium like a camera that is about altering reality, you should be more creative than simply enhance this reality with more vibrant colors or a stunning background. Because that is not art, it is simply a tool you use to trick someone into believing something is prettier than it actually is. There could be nothing wrong with that if that is what you like doing or looking at....proving you are not trying to sell me a ticket to a holiday location with this....art.
I like the real ones. You can tell from the plane that they are photoshoped!
I don't think there's really anything wrong with this type of photoshop. I mean, it's another format of art and creativity. It encourages people to go out and explore the beautiful world. The images are pretty great even before the manipulations but, like painting a picture, photo shopping your photographs is another form of personal expression and creativity. You're not going to bash someone for not painting a realistic picture exactly how it looks, right? If you still don't belive me, pick up your camera, go take a photo, and try to make it look as awesome as these. It's not always as easy as you think.
Its a digital photography, so dont be suprised. This techiques allows photographes create stuning images and be more flexible with digital format. With film old times you havent had so much freedom in editing.. you was more pro if you capture moment once.. this is pro by editing :-)
Can do nowadays ;)
And the 10th was the reason I waited til dark in garden by the bay. To get that amazing shot. Apparently that amazing shot never happened.
Thanks so much Julija I needed that I was starting to feel most depressed my photos are never as good as the online ones the ones I see on instagram now I know why Thanks a million.
That may not be the reason. If you study enough you'll get the results you want.
a camera will never capture how you really see it and how you feel about it
Indeed. So there we have image editing programs to help us achieve the feeling. Nothing wrong with that. Just artistic photography.
Take the example of the picture with buildings. If you take a picture with no sun, will you really add one just because you "feel" it. The you are not a photographer, you are a graphic artist. I am not against post-production processing but most of the time it is really to much and pictures seem too unreal. Even if they look ok, the photographer work (if there is) is often hidden.
This article seems to be implying that professional photographers and "online pictures" are largely all so good, because they use bracketing and HDR. Maybe it's because this process appears more manual, and therefore more skillful. There's a reason you don't see this type of work in National Geographic for example. 20 years ago there were special categories in photography magazines for manipulated photos, mainly to showcase new techniques just for what they're worth. In my mind that's where these photos should stay. Secondly, these are very standard tourist shots and angles. The real essence of photography, timing and framing, is lost completely to what is basically saturation. This is kind of teaching the people of the internet to think that all the real skill is in post-production, when that is in fact a completely separate issue for serious pros. The great photos of the world are not photoshopped in any way, and that's what makes them good.
I quite agree with your assessment, "badly printed postcards", or standard magazine add fare, and already forgotten. No waiting for the light, no thousand shots for the one, no freezing in -30 or out at 3:00 am. Just grab some images and do what you can with them.
While I agree with your point to a certain extent, I want to point out that post production has always existed, even in camera obscura. The great photos you see have always undergone great, invisible editors. The Photoshop of old were paper masks and flashes of lights here and there, while today an editor can do so much more, but the concept is: even on national geographic, what you see is never, ever what the camera has seen. The great photos of the world have always been "photoshopped" in many, many ways, and that's what makes them good.
Very well said m friend .. These type of images will stay in mind for few days or weeks and you forget.. But real image will stay for ever
@Kerrin Naude - You're delusional if you don't think photos in National Geographic are not manipulated. I guarantee you every professional photo you see has some degree of manipulation. Any serious photographer shoots in raw, and at the very least in lightroom has to making corrections for lens distortion, white balance etc. Every tool in photoshop is based on a technique that can be achieved in a real lightroom with film. Look at what Ansel Adams did to his photos in the lightroom. His original still is heavily manipulated to get the final product long before pc's and photoshop existed. Photo enhancing is 100% an art!
And I stand by the fact that the really, properly great photos of the world are great for pretty much every reason other than perfect colour saturation and unreasonable levels of detail in every area of the frame. If reality didn't actually look like that, and you couldn't be bothered to wait for better light conditions (like Ansel Adams did - sometimes for weeks on end) then your picture loses my vote. Just the use of a simple gradient filter IN CAMERA would make you a photographer more in tune with your subject, rather than a disconnected "fixer".
I'm not suggesting they are unmanipulated, I'm suggesting they all look like normal photos withreasonable gamma range. Ansel Adams was a genre unto himself. These look like badly printed tourist postcards.
Yes. I just started learning photoshop and lightroom....like today. It made me a little sad cuz ive thought back on all the amazing shots ive admired over the years and wondered how many were real and how many were manufactured. Theres a big diferrence between fixing lighting issues and dropping a lion from the zoo on a bridge in kentucky and adding tropical plants from Ace Hardware and calling it a jungle pic. Hahaha Anyway, i know i have a great eye for natural framing and appreciate the unusual and weird angle so im gonna keep flowing wit that and leave the heavy photoshopping to others. .
If only that was true, you now see highly manipulated composite digital images in both National Geographic and Smithsonian on a regular basis (National Geographic just ran one as a 3 page cover)
Fair enough, bad example, I meant the focus is clearly more on emotion, timing and framing.
It's photographer's desicion how they would want to present their images. That's why there are different styles and different people. Nobody can force you to like something that you don't but you can't say what is right and what is wrong. It's a matter of choise.
All places are still impressive even before photoshop.
I often hear or read about people saying "of course. They used photoshop." If someone thinks photography is easy, try it. If someone thinks editing is easy, I dare you. A crappy photo will always be a crappy photo. In most of the cases the post processing is possible because the photographer knew how to take the photo in a way that they would have all they needed to work with and give it the look they want. Things aren't that simple. And if you find articles like this as an excuse and say "sure the photos are better than mine but I don't process them", then go for it. Try and see. No excuses. These photos take some really hard work to end up looking like this. It's not cheating. It's actually harder! Oof. Sorry.
A lot of these are crappy photos
Some turned out to be quite good.. Not the composites though.. Few were highley manipulated which doesnt seem right.. At the end of the day, photographers are not ppl who have to document their visits to places, but produce some selable images.. But overdoing the manipulation is also a sin to the photography religion!!
And when you get really good images without such post production, most of people think it's photoshopped only, that's sad but reality
In the old days of course there wasn't such a thing as photoshop. The photographers used to burn and dodge in the darkroom to get the images they wanted, ooooh just like using photoshop in fact. Different times and different skills, however the common theme is Somebody had to compose and take the shot in the first place.
So many people complaining about the quality of the modified versions - it appears nobody read the opening text: “These before and after samples are simply meant to highlight what can be done with the power of Photoshop,' says Stewart. "As such, I have deliberately provided the most dramatic examples.”
Still takes mad skills to be a pro photographer...post production used to happen in the darkroom, now it's on a screen.
Wow! Very interesting thread. Thank you for the insight because I never knew pictures were that photoshopped! It's amazing what technology
Some pictures are, by far the majority aren't.
Awsome !
I admit there are sometimes that photoshop is needed, like to brighten a darker picture or darken a too bright picture but I believe there is such a thing as too much photoshop.
Purists versus creative freedom discussions. lovely! Personally I think photography is an art that is about capturing reality. That is it's essence. If you decide that you want to create an expression of art with a medium like a camera that is about altering reality, you should be more creative than simply enhance this reality with more vibrant colors or a stunning background. Because that is not art, it is simply a tool you use to trick someone into believing something is prettier than it actually is. There could be nothing wrong with that if that is what you like doing or looking at....proving you are not trying to sell me a ticket to a holiday location with this....art.
I like the real ones. You can tell from the plane that they are photoshoped!
I don't think there's really anything wrong with this type of photoshop. I mean, it's another format of art and creativity. It encourages people to go out and explore the beautiful world. The images are pretty great even before the manipulations but, like painting a picture, photo shopping your photographs is another form of personal expression and creativity. You're not going to bash someone for not painting a realistic picture exactly how it looks, right? If you still don't belive me, pick up your camera, go take a photo, and try to make it look as awesome as these. It's not always as easy as you think.
Its a digital photography, so dont be suprised. This techiques allows photographes create stuning images and be more flexible with digital format. With film old times you havent had so much freedom in editing.. you was more pro if you capture moment once.. this is pro by editing :-)
Can do nowadays ;)
And the 10th was the reason I waited til dark in garden by the bay. To get that amazing shot. Apparently that amazing shot never happened.
Thanks so much Julija I needed that I was starting to feel most depressed my photos are never as good as the online ones the ones I see on instagram now I know why Thanks a million.
That may not be the reason. If you study enough you'll get the results you want.