Did you edit?!

[D-B-J]

Every single shot that I post is edited in photoshop. This could be a full retouch to as little as just sharpening.

I think your post processing is what makes your shots so... Amazing. Really. Your SOOC shots are good (I've seen one or two that you have posted) but your edited shots are stunning. [emoji106][emoji106]

 

[bribrius]

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.

I came across this statement and was just amazed at how close-minded and judgmental it was even for you.
In that first sentence you are making a value judgment and condemning people, not only that you don't know but whose work you haven't seen and in an area that by your own admission, you have no knowledge or experience.
You specifically, from the work and statements that I have seen, know virtually nothing about photography or editing yet somehow you feel absolutely confident that your judgment has some worth and is even correct.

I really am not so bad. You should come shoot with me and have a beer some day.

 

[The_Traveler]

I really am not so bad. You should come shoot with me and have a beer some day.

I didn't say you were a bad guy, I said that you make these insulting statements about other people's work and intention with absolutely no basis for the statement except your own opinion - which is uninformed at best and completely ignorant at worst.
You never seem to actually listen and use any comments or critique to actually get better or inform yourself. That's your right to remain at whatever level of ability or knowledge you have.
But when you go off on some insulting flight of fancy about other people's work and intentions, saying that they either are bad at photography or trying to mislead their viewers and lying to them, that's when you cross over the line.

I don't give a crap about whether you are a good guy or not, I don't care if you chose to stay uninformed, I just want you to know how you come across - and it's not a pretty picture.

 

[limr]

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.

 

[Nevermore1]

Most photos I see posted on here I assume have had something done to them. Probably at the least - exposure correction, lightening/darkening and maybe some messing with the color/hue/saturation. I know some do more and some may even do less. It's all personal preference and what they think makes their photo look good. Yes, it would be nice if individuals posted what type of. advanced editing was done to the photo (as is anything past the basics I listed) so others (mainly newbs) can maybe learn about a new technique they may not have known about before.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

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.

 

[limr]

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?

 

[runnah]

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.

 

[limr]

Well then perhaps these are finally the answers to the OP's question.

 

[vintagesnaps]

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.

 

[Gary A.]

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.

And when I am anointed with world dictatorial powers ... that will change.

 

[bribrius]

I post process pretty much every shot. At least to kick up a shadow or the contrast a notch.

 

[DanOstergren]

On the subject of a photo not representing something "real", and saying that it should or must, I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of covering up bad photography skills with editing; what matters to me is the final outcome. In my eyes, aesthetic beauty will always trump reality. This is why we hire makeup artists. I dare you to approach every woman you see wearing makeup and accuse her of covering up poor bone structure with that contour. See how she reacts.

 

[DanOstergren]

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.View attachment 87880

Ok... So what's your point?

 

[DanOstergren]

Every single shot that I post is edited in photoshop. This could be a full retouch to as little as just sharpening.

I think your post processing is what makes your shots so... Amazing. Really. Your SOOC shots are good (I've seen one or two that you have posted) but your edited shots are stunning. [emoji106][emoji106]

Thank you.