Did you edit?!

[Gary A.]

Ansel Adams was mentioned above. Adams claimed to spend as much time in the darkroom printing as he did in the field shooting.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Post processing knowledge can turn a good photographer into a great photographer. Anyone can buy brushes and paint, only certain people can create a great scene

 

[KmH]

Every photo I put online or print has been edited by me to one extent or another.
I say when whatever I post online is SOOC.

Every photograph ever made has edited the scene the photo captures in several ways.

 

[JimMcClain]

I didn't get really excited about my return to photography until I began to learn more about post processing. It's still a learning process, but I am seeing progress. I've picked up some techniques from watching You Tube videos and I like to experiment some. There have been many pictures I finished, only later to realize I either wasn't actually finished, or I finished too much. The best thing about RAW and Lightroom though, is it's non-destructive and I can fix my mistakes at any time (or just learn from them and move on to the next session).

Jim

 

[manaheim]

Do yourself a favor and do two things:

- Assume all images are edited. Even Ansel Adams edited his photos.
- Don't worry about it.

 

[imagemaker46]

I crop, straighten, colour correct, lighten or darken any of my images that need it. I do try and get as much of it correct in the camera. Generally all I need to do is a little crop, and lighten the images.

 

[@JasonChildren]

I believe your skill in editting and processing goes hand in hand with your in camera skill. The information is there....especially if you shoot raw. How you interpret what you saw when taking the shot will directly affect whay digital info you allow forward in the image and that is your personal stamp.

 

[bribrius]

huh. here is my dog getting his head stuck in the mud straight raw to jpeg conversion (only for the sake of transfer)
unlike most of the other apparent posters I really don't give a chit who sees my unedited photos or too much about post processing either.

 

[bribrius]

here is my local ad. Only on facebook so far but I am seriously considering putting it in the newspaper.
photography

"looking for a mentor so I can learn more if anyone knows someone. someone that has been doing this for like fourty years with some old school experience preferred. Photoshop pros and anyone under fifty may not be a good match. I don't do weddings."

 

[Scatterbrained]

It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed. Thoroughly.

 

[Forkie]

My photos are always run through Photoshop for a thorough clean before they are shown. I consider any of my images which haven't been through Photoshop to be not yet finished.

There is always tweaking to be done, whether it is removing skin blemishes in portraits, adjusting colour and/or contrast, cropping, sharpening etc. No unedited image will get anywhere near my portfolio!

 

[bribrius]

It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed. Thoroughly.

yeah but how you do it doesn't phase me. You don't seem to hide behind the pp you seem fairly adept shooting. You also don't pretend it is a accurate portrayal of whatever you are shooting but clearly explain it is your interpretation or vision of it.

some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.

I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.

 

[Scatterbrained]

It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed. Thoroughly.

yeah but how you do it doesn't phase me. You don't seem to hide behind the pp you seem fairly adept shooting. You also don't pretend it is a accurate portrayal of whatever you are shooting but clearly explain it is your interpretation or vision of it.

some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.

I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.

All true.

If someone felt "cheated" because your image didn't look just as the scene did, I feel sorry for them. Life's gonna be tough. Wait till they see a "SOOC" shot done with a thick stack of ND and RGND and GND filters. Of course, it also makes you wonder if everything looks like a silhouette to them at sunset.

 

[JacaRanda]

I would never care that they felt cheated. The photography is for me, not them.

Besides, there are so many debates about art and photography right here in TPF, that clearly shows we don't all see things the same way.

 

[Forkie]

It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed. Thoroughly.

yeah but how you do it doesn't phase me. You don't seem to hide behind the pp you seem fairly adept shooting. You also don't pretend it is a accurate portrayal of whatever you are shooting but clearly explain it is your interpretation or vision of it.

some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.

I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.

Where does it say that a photograph has to accurately portray the scene you were photographing? Simply changing your white balance can create a whole different atmosphere in your picture that didn't exist in the actual scene. For me, the art of photography is having an image in your head and getting that getting that image onto paper (or digital file) at the end. Whether that is done in camera or through post-processing is neither here nor there. And even if people do use Photoshop to correct mistakes; if the end result is the same, why does it matter how you get there?