On 2/6/2016 7:23 PM, philo wrote:
I use photoshop primarily to "fix" photos of items that I'm documenting.
Often, to remove backgrounds. Other times, to correct perspective
(e.g., I may have shot something at a slight angle instead of "square on"
so PS lets me "fix" the apparent "taper" in the image. Still other
times to isolate some specific portion of the image and remove unnecessary
detail (e.g., if I'm describing the front panel of an instrument, there's
no need/value to showing a perspective view complete with top and sides;
just crop out those other portions to highlight the front panel itself!).

About all I do it convert to B&W if appropriate and adjust color and contrast.

With my spotted and slightly damaged negatives, the healing tool works wonders
and is easy enough for me to use.

I will sometimes "cook" the image to make the item "look new". E.g.,
if there is an inventory control sticker in a prominent place, I won't
want that in the publication. So, I'll replicate the nearby surface
OVER the label to make it look like it was not there.

At other times, I've altered text *in* photos to suit the accompanying
narrative. E.g., if I am describing a 5 step process and showing photos
of the steps and the device has a *time* display (e.g., "current time"),
I may have taken the photos in a different order *or* at different times
(e.g., "I should insert another illustration between #4 and #5").

I wouldn't want the resulting photo sequence to show the device indicating
10:00, 10:03, 10:05, 10:06, 08:23, 10:08 etc. So, I'll go back and edit
the 08:23 image to show 10:06 or 10:08. Or, even 10:07 if I can "find"
a '7' in some other image.

[Yeah, it's "anal retentive" -- but, I'm a stickler for these sorts of
details. If I'm narrating/illustrating a PROCESS, there shouldn't be
obvious discrepancies in that documentation!]