Did you edit?!

[_t_is_me_]

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.

I think what you said here is so important. Even as a new photographer, I know that many people don't take the time to do the best they can in camera; they know they have editing software to "save" them. I strive for my SOOC photos to be as awesome as possible! At least some of them!

 

[_t_is_me_]

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.

I definitely "get" what you are saying here. I hate when pictures look way better than the scene ever could in real life. But I think there's a fine line between gussying it up for art's sake and crossing the line into fantasy. Now, if your goal is fantasy, that's great, and more power to you. I guess my main goal is to make the photo look the best it could in real life under perfect circumstances.

 

[_t_is_me_]

Where is the OP? Why hasn't she made her presence known on here?

LOL. Where is the OP? Living my life OUT THERE, working third shift, sleeping during the day; not spending my days on the internet. Can't take photos while sitting in front of a computer.

 

[_t_is_me_]

I would definitely find a different and cheaper hobby or activity if I found myself feeling the way you do (bribius). Would have saved myself some cash or spent it on beer and nachos.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

lol. photography is many different things to many different people.

View attachment 87966

No doubt about that. I am finding it is very polarizing (no pun intended) when it comes to gear, critiques, history, rules or guidelines etc.

It's like any other art form. Some woman takes garbage and makes a collage out of it. I think it's ugly, I don't "get" it. But other people ogle over it. And I can respect that. Sometimes, even though I don't LIKE it, I can dig it; I can understand it. Photography is no different.

 

[_t_is_me_]

Am I the only one who is curious what kind of edits (if any) are done on photos? People always post what shutter speed and aperture, which ISO, flash or no flash, etc etc, but never if there was editing done or what kind. This is something I want to know! Maybe it doesn't matter, and I'm weird; Regardless, I'd still like to know!

I'm just always curious if the image I'm seeing is "original" or has a few tweaks to pretty it up. As a new photographer, I find myself comparing my photos to other images that I see, but I don't know if it's even a fair comparison to begin with, because I don't yet edit my photos.

Where in this post did the OP say that post processing was silly or unnecessary? All she said was that no one really explains their post processing when they post a picture, and that she doesn't yet edit her own.

And yet, a few of the posters here went straight to the assumption that post processing was being disparaged somehow.

Why DO we post camera information and not processing information? If it's so important, wouldn't that information be just as instructive as exif data? For those who are curious about others' process as a way to learn more about their own process, it would be helpful.

Exactly! I didn't take any offense to those who may not quite have understood what I was saying. I absolutely have NO problem with PP. Quite the opposite. I love it and know that many of the beautiful pictures I see around could not have existed without it. I just don't know how to do it yet and want to learn HOW to (in a very general way, at least) from specific examples.

 

[_t_is_me_]

Lew is right it would be such a pain in the ass to list every edit. not only would you have to be precise but you would have to make sure to list the exact order you did everything in. The slightest change in the order can change the result.

Really the best way to show PP is by doing a video.

I am absolutely not asking for specifics or sharing of secrets. I just generally want to know, "I did a huge crapload of editing and the photo looks nothing like the original," or "I edited saturation and contrast," or "I did nothing." You know? Just so I know what I could do to my photos to get a similar look or feel. Or, when I take a photo of a tree, why the heck it looks nothing like "that guy's" photo of a tree.

 

[_t_is_me_]

My post processing is minimal whether it's a digital photo or B&W film. I could tell someone what I did because either way I've kept track of it. I don't do portraits or weddings though where I'm dealing with a large number of photos at once.

In the darkroom if I've shot a roll of film in the same lighting conditions usually once I've determined exposure time I won't have to do much else; other times I might need to vary exposure times and/or dodge/burn. I keep notes on the contact/proof sheets that the exposure was say, f8 at 11 sec. and note if I burned in a corner or dodged out some detail in a dark area in any specific print - it depends on what was needed if anything. (And if I did some dodging just because I like to play with my dodgette set, that I may not bother to write down!).

With my digital images I open the series of photos I shot, look thru them, organize/label/date. If what I want to use looks good I may print a 4x6 without any further post processing and if that looks good do an 8x10 etc. and I'm done. If it looks too dark I'll adjust from there; often for printing (or sometimes even if I'm not yet doing a print) I may brighten and/or adjust contrast especially if I was in lower or mixed lighting. I have my own way of making notations, after the title for example bri+15%, con-15%, etc..

My process with color film is to put the film in an envelope/mailer, send it out, and wait for it to come back - my process with shooting Polaroids is to catch the picture when it pops out of the camera!

If the OP ever comes back, the best thing to do might be to just ask someone what they did in processing their photos, I'd expect they'd be able to tell you.

I'm very non-confrontational (even on the internet, most of the time, which I realize is rare), so I would probably never ask anyone. Well-received or not, I would feel like I was being rude. Like asking a magician to tell me how he does his magic tricks.

 

[_t_is_me_]

One other thing I find interesting is that no one has brought up the fact that we manipulate the outcome of a photograph, especially in studio, by manipulating and crafting the light we cast on our subject right at the moment of exposure. Even in natural lighting, we choose where to place the model so the light is cast on them in a certain way. This to me defeats the purist argument, because the image is manipulated before we even shoot it. Even a good street photographer will place themselves at a vantagepoint that will put their subject in good lighting. We even manipulate the perspective and composition, all by choosing what lens to use and how we frame a scene.

The way I see it, the only way a photo could be "pure" is if shot through a 50mm lens, without looking through the viewfinder and walking around randomly pressing the shutter release in different directions, and then never removing it from the memory card or developing the film.

You're right. I'm a Pinterest freak (not necessarily for photography, but it pops up from time to time), and as such, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a pin to an article that tells you how to "sit this way" or "turn that way" or "wear this color." I mean, let's be real: All of these things change reality.

 

[_t_is_me_]

PPing information isn't generally posted because, except for some general terms like lighten, darken etc, editing is a complex issue not easily reduced to a description in words.
AND, editing can be done not only to move the original to the final desired image but also just to 'correct' something.
So to post editing data, we would have to post the original image, every slider and its setting, every layer and its mask and other qualities.
It becomes a huge project - and maybe not as helpful as one would like.

Not necessarily. We condense shooting information much of the time to shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Post processing information can be condensed as well. What's wrong with a quick mentions of masks or layers used, or color adjustments?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all -- in a forum like this many participants want to learn. That information can be helpful. How about before and after?

Here's an example. Before: SOOR which I'm told now is straight out of camera raw.

And SOOR again which is both interesting and instructive since this is just as "unedited" as the one above only by different software -- both untouched by me so which one is the real SOOR? How can SOOR not be SOOR?

And after; with cropping color and tone adjustments and a pretty obvious mask to knock back the background. Exactly the way I saw it when I paused to take the photo.

Joe

Wonderful example. Thank you!

 

[_t_is_me_]

See, I find that very instructive, and much more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?

It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step.

What I just learned from the final shot is "This is how Joe imagined the shot." Then I got to see how he executed the vision. It helps me understand that this is how he uses masks, and that makes me curious about how to use masks. This curiosity gives me more of an impetus to start learning more on my own and trying it out.

EXACTLY. You hit the nail on the head. Obviously I didn't specify what I wanted well enough... Except at the time I was asking, I'm not sure I even knew.

 

[_t_is_me_]

There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.

This isn't as true as you think. Learning is not as simple as that. How can I search out a tutorial if I have NO IDEA where the edits even begin or what they are called?

 

[_t_is_me_]

nice post, probably the best one yet.. And look, this just hit 1400 views people love melo-drama. Like jerry...

Pretty incredible. And I thought I was making a simple statement (or asking a simple question).

 

[DanOstergren]

There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.

This isn't as true as you think. Learning is not as simple as that. How can I search out a tutorial if I have NO IDEA where the edits even begin or what they are called?

If you'd like some good pointers (from my perspective), this is what I recommend:

Get Photoshop (CS3 or newer)
Look up "Adjustment Layers", and learn where to find them in PS and how to use them. Particularly, look up tutorials on how to use the Curves adjustment layer and the Selective Color adjustment layer. These two adjustment layers alone will completely change the way you edit photos if you don't already use these tools.

 

[runnah]

If you get good enough at photoshop you can see what people have done. This goes double for cameras and lighting.

For example, Dan's before and after's I can tell right away what he did to the image and I could get pretty damn close to what he did. Granted if we both started with the same "before" image we'd each come out with very different results but that is where the uniqueness and personality shines through.

So that is why it's hard to explain the edit its that are made. Each person does things differently, has different tastes and has a different end image in mind.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.

This isn't as true as you think. Learning is not as simple as that. How can I search out a tutorial if I have NO IDEA where the edits even begin or what they are called?

The most important part of getting better is first to learn to see the shortcomings in your images and only then to search out the techniques to fix them.