Art of Photograpgy

LaureenMoore · Oct 4, 2011

The Art of Photography

I've only gotten back into photography recently. Never had an slr before. However I've noticed alot rely on photoshop. Is there any who just take photos and use as is?Anyone think it takes the skill or enjoyment out of the picture if you have to edit it?

Tomasko · Oct 4, 2011

Well, it depends. Processing an image in a computer is no different comparing to the old days manual processing. You just have more options and more freedom. No one uses images "as is", because even if you don't process them yourself, your camera does it for you. I believe, that fully relying on your camera's decisions is the worst that owner of a DSLR can do. We don't buy fancy stuff, so that we can use it as a very expensive compact camera...

Editing software is a tool like any other, you just need to know HOW and WHEN to use it, to get the result you want.

Compaq · Oct 4, 2011

Photography is an art form. Do what you need to achieve the results you want. People might not like it, though

How many of your favourite photographs do you think haven't been edited?

cabledawg · Oct 4, 2011

Call me a newb but when I look through my old 35mm photos, the only "editing" I ever did was with the camera. I've never used a dslr, but if/when I do, I don't feel that photoshop will be a tool I rely on to get "the shot".

Compaq · Oct 4, 2011

The shot may be gotten, but does it "come alive"? Does it "pop" with colours, contrast and depth?

Tomasko · Oct 4, 2011

cabledawg said:
Call me a newb but when I look through my old 35mm photos, the only "editing" I ever did was with the camera. I've never used a dslr, but if/when I do, I don't feel that photoshop will be a tool I rely on to get "the shot".

So, you've NEVER developed your film (or paid a company to do that for you)?

Don't confuse "editing" with "photo manipulations", it doesn't have to mean the same thing. You (or your camera) have to process the raw image either way.

cabledawg · Oct 4, 2011

Developing and processing are different than editing. I dont do my own developing, but I dont have a shop redo my pics either. I'll take a shot and if I dont feel it came out, or just want to try something different, i'll take afew more. When the film is developed, I pick the best one to display. But i've never gone back and edited a picture to get a desired look/effect. That's just me though.

Derrel · Oct 4, 2011

I love all my piccies equally. Each and every one of them is perfect, just the way they are Laureen.

radiorickm · Oct 4, 2011

Here is my $.02 worth

I think there is a (sometimes) fine line between editing a picture, and ALTERING a picture. My definition is as follows:

Editing: adjusting the elements of a photo that exist in capture
Altering: Taking away or adding elements of a photo that did not exist at capture.

So, back in the days of 35mm we sent the film off to be developed (or did it our selves). During this process we could effectively change the ISO of the film.
When it was printed, there were color balance issues, and cropping issues. All of these things were dealt with, whether by us or the lab, but they were issues.

DEVELOPING a digital photo is not that much different. If you shoot RAW, then you certainly have to "develop" the image. If you shoot JPEG, well then the camera decides how to develop the photo. But, you can still add to it.

I do, and I believe we all need to, EDIT our pictures ie..cropping, sharpening, color balance; I don't really like ALTERING a photo (altough I have on limited occasions...I got a great picture of a BIG Elk, but there was a stupid highway reflector in the background....it got altered right out)

I strive to capture the image in camera as I would like it to be presented. I don't rely on photoshop to "get the shot".

rateeg · Oct 4, 2011

the people who hates editing doesn't know how to do photoshop.

enzodm · Oct 4, 2011

Past time Photoshop: A Tour of Ansel Adams Darkroom (look at minute 11 or so, for example).

I would not confuse my personal snapshots with artistic pictures. In film times I never developed, but I knew the great photographers were developing and printing on their own. If developing and printing was just a mechanical job with no creative meaning, no need for them to loose time that way.

But since photography for most of us is just an hobby, anyone is free to focus on the phase/s that give more personal satisfaction. I use the computer for much of my working time, so I try not to spend too much time in postprocessing. However, at least what is needed for developing RAW cannot be avoided, unless adapting to "blackbox style" in-camera postprocessing (like at film time was when sending to a photolab). For this reason I only own DPP and Lightroom: Photoshop would open me too many nice options that would subctract further time to my other hobbies

.

KenC · Oct 4, 2011

Adams used to equate the negative with a musical score and the print with a performance. Any artistic process offers choices all along the way and anyone is free to avoid those choices to the extent possible or let camera software or manufacturer's directions for developing/printing make those choices for them. Sometimes it feels like the people who say they don't process images (or don't realize it's being done for them) think they are taking some sort of high road by doing this. Some photographers used to print everything with an uneven black border created by filing out their negative holders so some of the clear area around the negative printed as black, showing that they had not cropped the image. Anyone is welcome to print every image at a 3:2 ratio if they want to, but they are either discarding all the images that would work better square or as panos, or they are printing them anyway at a sub-optimal aspect ratio, either of which seems like a waste to me. Let's all do what we are comfortable with and let the results speak for themselves.

DiskoJoe · Oct 4, 2011

You can do it how ever you want. But when you use a DSLR and shoot RAW exposures they tend to capture more color and light then you can see in a normal spectrum and need to be edited some. But as said before this is not really altering the photo. But there is nothing wrong with altering photos either. Embrace the technology and make it your friend. You dont even know this person photoshop but you seem to want to hate on them with no just cause. You could be missing out on a good friendship.

SuzyGirl · Oct 4, 2011

Since I discovered RAW images, I tend to shoot in this (nearly) all the time. Simply because I always know I have a fall back and can edit in Photoshop. In truth, I follow Scott Kelby's advice, and do some 'improvement' in Photoshop to most shots. Although I try to take the 'perfect' photo from within the frame everytime, I still find when I compare pre to post edited shots that I have always prefer the post Photoshop version.

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Oct 4, 2011

This topic has been beat to death. I find it to be quite a loaded topic for ones first post as well, so I have my suspicions. Editing is being done in camera when shooting Jpeg as well as by use of filters and film choice. If you choose to edit in post, that is up to you. There is a big difference between shooting strictly for enjoyment and shooting with the intent of producing the best images that you can.

Often times there is a misconception as to what Photoshop ( or similar software ) is used for when editing photos. There are also amateurs who help perpetuate those notions by doing shoddy editing work. Nobody would edit their photos if they did not enjoy the final product and did not think that it was improving upon the captured image.