How much can a photo be edited?

[skieur]

You are the artist. It is up to you.

I've done a lot of manipulation before the age of digital and digital would help me do the same kind of work a lot faster but when the end result looks nothing at all like a photo, what's the point?.

Perhaps the point is to create an artistic image. Whether is looks like a photo or not may be irrelevant. Many of us have seen paintings that were purposely done to look like photographs. If the image is effective and artistic I am sure that few people would really care what media it is.

skieur

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You are the artist. It is up to you.

I've done a lot of manipulation before the age of digital and digital would help me do the same kind of work a lot faster but when the end result looks nothing at all like a photo, what's the point?.

Perhaps the point is to create an artistic image. Whether is looks like a photo or not may be irrelevant. Many of us have seen paintings that were purposely done to look like photographs. If the image is effective and artistic I am sure that few people would really care what media it is.

skieur

If all you want is to please yourself, you are absolutely right. To each his own.

My response comes from my experience as an artist selling through galleries. Photography has never been big with art collectors but I've sold my share. Except, that is when I went off the deep end and my work ended up in limbo between the photograph collectors couldn't see any sign of photography as they understand it and the painting collectors who just run away when anything photography is mentioned

The show was beautiful but I didn't sell a single work. We do create for ourselves but we, like everyone else, have bills to pay and it helps to understand the collector's mind. Not to mention that this gallery took a chance with these works but, since they also have bills to pay, they are not about to do it again

 

[patrickt]

Different strokes, I guess. I'm not an artist. I have no desire to be an artist. I do want to be a very accomplished photographer.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Different strokes, I guess.

Absolutely.

The problem is when the editing/special effects are there to mask the lack of technical skills. New photographers should get the shooting technique down before getting into heavy duty editing, imho.

 

[skieur]

You are the artist. It is up to you.

I've done a lot of manipulation before the age of digital and digital would help me do the same kind of work a lot faster but when the end result looks nothing at all like a photo, what's the point?.

Perhaps the point is to create an artistic image. Whether is looks like a photo or not may be irrelevant. Many of us have seen paintings that were purposely done to look like photographs. If the image is effective and artistic I am sure that few people would really care what media it is.

skieur

If all you want is to please yourself, you are absolutely right. To each his own.

My response comes from my experience as an artist selling through galleries. Photography has never been big with art collectors but I've sold my share. Except, that is when I went off the deep end and my work ended up in limbo between the photograph collectors couldn't see any sign of photography as they understand it and the painting collectors who just run away when anything photography is mentioned

The show was beautiful but I didn't sell a single work. We do create for ourselves but we, like everyone else, have bills to pay and it helps to understand the collector's mind. Not to mention that this gallery took a chance with these works but, since they also have bills to pay, they are not about to do it again

Interesting! I suppose it depends on the sophistication or conservative nature of the local artistic community. I know of some galleries that include computer art and have a lot of "mixed" media.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Different strokes, I guess.

Absolutely.

The problem is when the editing/special effects are there to mask the lack of technical skills. New photographers should get the shooting technique down before getting into heavy duty editing, imho.

I certainly agree with that, but needless to say new photographers still need to learn how to do the basics in postprocessing and unfortunately there seems to be an all or nothing approach, as opposed to a happy medium.

skieur

 

[ArtphotoasiA]

I love this issue........ too much is too much..... reality is reality....... but already a photo is immediately non real.... just today I shot a pictures of nice plaza over here the sun was nearly gone but my eyes could cach all... I deliberately used under exposition to make siluette of churches on the plaza in front of a nice exposed skyview... so... the reality was not that one... it was my artistic interpretation of images and art...

So... let me say..... make a view of reality is the main point... but not green sky and blue roads

The moment is important to me so beside quality, beside tecnique, beside colors, beside light, I will not put together things far away... keep fish in the sea and birds in the sky!

 

[ArtphotoasiA]

When too much is too much?

I just got those videos.... about photoretouching.... they scared me!

Too much is too much? | Blog on Southeast Asia :: ArtphotoasiA


Where is the limit for a photographer?

 

[SrBiscuit]

i ALWAYS pp my photos.
it's how I like to do it, and how I achieve the vision i had for that particular image.
am i still a photographer?... i think so.
it's all art. whatever leads you to the result YOU want is the right process.

 

[ArtphotoasiA]

how I achieve the vision i had for that particular image.
am i still a photographer?...

This is Art for sure... if you do not exceed too much is also photography of course!!

 

[craig]

Why should there be a limit on post processing? What about photogram's and pinhole cameras. They paint with light and rarely even remotely resemble what some people call a photograph.

Love & Bass

 

[ArtphotoasiA]

Just a personal feeling on post processing...... I'm not saying is not art..... just a different art.....

more processing... maybe an art too far from photography ???

the most important thing for me is the shoot!!

 

[Pugs]

I have never taken a photograph that didn't need some sort of post-processing. This is true of digital AND film. Shooting digital in RAW basically MANDATES that some post-processing is needed. Even before that, though, how long I would expose the paper, how much dodging/burning would be done to various sections of the image, what filters were/weren't used, what kind of paper would be used, how the image was cropped, etc... all varied with each shot. Even special effects are nothing new. Multiple exposures (either in camera or darkroom), sepia and other washes/bleaches, solarization, mirroring, etc... were all done in the days of film as well.

For me (in the digital world now), there is a line between "photography" and "graphic design"/"graphic art". Where that line is varies by viewer and artist. I'm not sure that I can explain where that line is for me other than to say that I know it when I see it. For instance, most HDR shots are SO cartoony and fake looking that they totally cross that line (tastefully done HDRs are GORGEOUS); or adding/removing major elements crosses that line (a zit, yeah, remove it, but a person...?); or actually changing the colors rather than enhancing/correcting them; or...

There's a place for graphic design and graphic art. There's a crap-load of money to made in it, too! It's not any less "legitimate", it just isn't my thing and in my mind it isn't "photography".

That's my two-bits...

 

[lakers808]

im just a beginner in photography and sorry for saying this but im not a fan of editing photos.. i wanna know wat my camera can do and wats the full potential for it .. i mean whats the point of having a camera if a program makes the picture nicer for you when u can control the setttings on how you want your picture to be ... i probably will go photoshop if thats my last resort of gettting people to like my photos..again beginner sorry if that made you guys defensive...nikond40 btw

 

[Pugs]

im just a beginner in photography and sorry for saying this but im not a fan of editing photos.. i wanna know wat my camera can do and wats the full potential for it .. i mean whats the point of having a camera if a program makes the picture nicer for you when u can control the setttings on how you want your picture to be ... i probably will go photoshop if thats my last resort of gettting people to like my photos..again beginner sorry if that made you guys defensive...nikond40 btw

Oh, no! Not defensive at all! It's actually really refreshing to hear a beginner say that they want to learn how to maximize their photography by using the camera properly!

The thing that you have to understand, though, is that if your camera is set to shoot .jpg files, your camera is actually performing the post-processing for you. When I mentioned that shooting in RAW format with your camera mandates that you do post-processing, that is because the RAW format is the raw data from the camera without any manipulation. When you shoot in .jpg format, the camera is applying sharpening, contrast adjustments, color correction, white balance correction, black-clipping, and other adjustments that I'm sure I'm missing. These are all things that would have been done in the darkroom if you were using film, or in Photoshop or other software if you were shooting RAW.

A common complaint that I hear from beginners in the photography class that I TA is that when they switch to RAW format all of their photos are dull, lifeless, flat, and soft as compared to what they were getting in .jpg. And the images DO look dull, lifeless, flat, and soft because there is no post-processing done to the image at all straight out of the camera. Just like with film, SOME post-processing is needed in the darkroom, RAW files need that same amount of post-processing done to them in some editing software.

Does this make sense?

So YES! You want to maximize the potential of the image by getting it right in camera. You also want to learn how to do proper post-processing to create the print that you want.

A classic example of this Ansel Adams' "Moonrise Over Hernandez". Ansel Adams printed and re-printed this image over and over again over the years and spent HOURS upon HOURS in the darkroom trying to get the post-processing right. And Ansel Adams was a HUGE proponent of the notion, "get it right in the camera". It wasn't that the negative was bad; it was simply that every negative (or digital image out of the camera) needs some tweaking in post-processing. The post-processing can be done in the camera (when you shoot .jpg), in an editing program, or in the darkroom.