Editing/processing

[Naturegirl]

Not sure if this belongs in beginner's area, but I'm still a newbie and don't spend nearly the time here I should....and I'm new to digital....

anyway, I digress. My question is this. I recently purchased a Nikon D80. I LOVE it. I was one who SWORE never to go digital, and I've only picked up my 35mm a handful of times since getting the D80. However, I'm still resisting the editing side of it all. There is beautiful work out there, but it's not my niche I guess, and "what I shoot is what you get", pretty much sums it up. So, I was wondering if there are people who do NOT do any editing to their work. It seems to be the norm now, and I wonder if I can get a business going if I choose to not jump on the graphic art side of it all.

Thanks

And another question. I'm a member of another message board & post pictures frequently (non-photo related board), but I can't seem to post them here. Is there a certain way I have to post them here? Something I'm missing. I'd like to post some stuff to get feedback, and it seems that people like to see a newbie's work.

Again, thanks.

ETA: Looks like I've been a member for over a year, and have only 6 posts. still a newbie indeed.

 

[gmarquez]

You'll find many opinions on edit vs. "what you get out of the camera". My suggestion is to just do what you are comfortable with.

However, you might want to think about it this way. Even if you just get JPEG files straight from the camera and have them printed, there is a lot of processing that goes on that you don't see (sharpening, noise reduction, white balance adjustments, contrast adjustment, color saturation adjustments, etc. etc. etc.). It still gets processed, it's just that your hands never get dirty doing it yourself!

Actual post-processing is an art form into itself, and you may find that you may like it for art's sake...similar to processing and printing film, where artful dodging, burning, etc. can bring out elements of a photograph that wouldn't otherwise show as well.


Anyways don't sweat the decision too much. You can always change your mind on the issue as many times as you want.

 

[zioneffect564]

I know that thebeginning doesnt do very much post processing work. You can check out his senior pictures they are great.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/member.php?u=3533

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with gmarquez, most images are processing in one way or another, whether you know it or not. Most snap shooters don't realize that their film photos get tweaked when they take them to the lab to get prints.

I like to think of Photoshop as a digital darkroom, and my digital images are like B&W film negatives....there needs to be some sort of process done to them before they reach an output format...either prints or just digital display. The amount of post process editing depends on what I want to do or show.

I suppose you could go about shooting and making money with little or no post processing...but personally I think it would be a little silly to ignore some simple steps that would improve the images or at least make things easier.

As for posting images...you can't upload directly unless you become a subscriber. The alternative is to use an off-site host like Photobucket.com.

Read this

 

[Naturegirl]

First, thanks for your comments.

Coming to realize that my film was being "processed" in more ways than one was pretty much what convinced me that it was ok to go digital.

I think one thing that bothers me though, is the fact that it doesn't seem like anything is "real" anymore. Every picture I see I wonder if the sky really was that color, or if the grass was really that shade of green, or if the shape of someone's nose really was that perfect. It makes me sad to think that nothing is good enough without being enhanced in some way anymore. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate it as an art, because it is amazing what can be done. But it's kind of depressing to me at the same time.

And I'm far from being perfect as a photographer OR a person.

Was that a little too deep? aranoid:

 

[Big Mike]

I hear what you are saying and I agree. I guess it's just a consequence of living in our modern world. Look at movies, the effects get more realistic every day.

It used to be that photos were renditions of reality...or at least that's what many of us though them to be. Actually, photos have been manipulated for as longs as photography has been around...to one extent or another. I think the difference is that now it's in the capabilities of so many more people. Not every photographer had a dark room and the skills to use it. Now, just about every photographer has a computer and image software.

The good news is that you are free to edit or not edit your own photos. If you want to create photos that are accurate renditions of reality...then that's what you should do.

 

[gmarquez]

I think one thing that bothers me though, is the fact that it doesn't seem like anything is "real" anymore.

Lets put it this way...photos were NEVER a "real" representation of a scene, partially because film and image sensors dow't work like the human eye. The dynamic range (darkest darks to lightest lights) I can see with my eye (ie 'being there') is much larger than what I can capture on film or on a digital sensor. The images straight from the camera are "fakes" in that they can't capture all of the detail that is present when you are there in person. Additionally, your choice of film makes a difference in the reality you capture. Some people like films that "mute" the colors a bit. Others use films that give intense saturation. Which is more real?

Now if you are asking "was the sky REALLY that intense color?", sometimes you have to post-process things to get the photos to look like what was 'really' there, again because film and image sensors work differently than the human eye.

The only way to "know" if a scene is a good representation of the actual event is to ask the photographer "is that what it looked like when you took it?" And in that case, you still don't know for sure.

I guess what I am getting at is that in the whole history of photography, there has never been an instance where photos did or could capture a scene exactly as observed by the photographer. What you end up with is varying levels of processing (including the choice of what film to use) and interpretation...sometimes to increase the 'accuracy', sometime to increase the 'artistic content'. As the artist, you get to choose what you want to achieve.