Did you edit?!

[limr]

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.

For every photographer, there is a philosophy of photography. Some have no interest in reality and others are preoccupied with making the picture as close to reality as possible. Both poles as well as the spectrum of philosophies in between are - or at least should be - valid approaches, depending on context of course. Journalistic or documentary photography should be more concerned with reality whereas fashion or art photography is more concerned with the aesthetic value of the final image.

But is it not true that we've all seen pictures that use processing to make a bad picture seem better? How many times have you all critiqued a photo and said - or at least thought - that a person could process all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad photo? Admitting this does not mean ALL processing is used this way, but it's disingenuous to say that it never happens. I've seen crappy pictures that were processed within an inch of their lives, and yet this does not make me automatically doubtful of all pictures that have been processed.

As for the make-up analogy, a woman may not like to admit it, but make-up IS there to hide flaws - or at least what are considered flaws according to society's beauty standard du jour. Foundation hides blotchy skin. Blush gives higher cheekbones. Eyeshadow can make a small eye look bigger. The unwillingness to admit the use of make-up to hide flaws is simply vanity, and does not invalidate the truth.

 

[DanOstergren]

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.

 

[limr]

I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.

 

[DanOstergren]

I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.

Every photo is processed, that is fact. Film is developed, and that is processing. Digital images are converted to viewable image files, and that too is processing.

I don't judge people who don't edit their photos, I judge people who act like they are better than others because they choose one or the other without considering that everyone has different taste.

 

[limr]

I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.

Every photo is processed, that is fact. Film is developed, and that is processing. Digital images are converted to viewable image files, and that too is processing.

I don't judge people who don't edit their photos, I judge people who act like they are better than others because they choose one or the other without considering that everyone has different taste.

Fair enough, but I just don't see where anyone in this thread did that.

And yes, every photo is processed, but I think it's also taking the word "processing" too literally, when what we are all talking about in this day and age is what is done to an image once it is loaded into a photo processing software program.

 

[DanOstergren]

I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.

Every photo is processed, that is fact. Film is developed, and that is processing. Digital images are converted to viewable image files, and that too is processing.

I don't judge people who don't edit their photos, I judge people who act like they are better than others because they choose one or the other without considering that everyone has different taste.

Fair enough, but I just don't see where anyone in this thread did that.

And yes, every photo is processed, but I think it's also taking the word "processing" too literally, when what we are all talking about in this day and age is what is done to an image once it is loaded into a photo processing software program.

The topic of purism was being argued between Traveler and Bibrius, so i was commenting on that, because I too have opinions on the matter.

 

[Ysarex]

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

 

[limr]

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.

 

[The_Traveler]

This example is very simple and obvious ( that's not a value judgement about the picture but a description of the concept and process of editing) and minimal compared to the intricacy of editing in more complex shots that might involve 10 or 20 layers and lots of non- obvious steps that don't self document like this one does.

 

[D-B-J]

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. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me. [emoji106]

 

[limr]

This example is very simple and obvious ( that's not a value judgement about the picture but a description of the concept and process of editing) and minimal compared to the intricacy of editing in more complex shots that might involve 10 or 20 layers and lots of non- obvious steps that don't self document like this one does.

Then don't explain the processing on that very complicated photo, or only comment if someone has specific questions. Allow me to repeat:

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ysarex]

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.

Thanks -- I'm glad you liked that.

Joe

P.S. I don't want to encourage a purist lynch mob to start hunting for me but it's also worth noting that I pulled up some weeds, removed another set of leaves off the hanging vine (upper right) and re-arranged the vines in the background to fill-in and cover the concrete wall that you don't see.

 

[limr]

Exactly. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me. [emoji106]

This is the only thing I disagree with - not because I necessarily agree with the so-called purists, but just that I don't find it foolish. Just a different way of thinking/working.

Truth be told, I do very little post-processing (and yes, I'm using the practical definition, not the hyper-literal definition.) I don't consider myself a "purist" but it's just been so ingrained in me to do most of the work in camera. Part of this is that I haven't done my own film developing until recently. I grew up taking a shot and sending it to a lab. Once it was back in my hands, the only real 'editing' I could do was cropping with a pair of scissors. That hammered in the habit of thinking that my work ended when I hit the shutter.

These days, I have a LOT more control over the image once that shutter is tripped and the film advanced. I develop, I scan, I use software. But still inside me is a very strong belief that most of my work to get an image the way I envision it is done in the camera. And when I do edit, I do so to improve the image, yes, but also to get it as close as I can to what I saw and wanted to capture.

I DO enjoy trying to capture reality as I see it. But that's just me. Before anyone misunderstands me, I am in NO WAY saying that this is how photography should be. This is simply how I want MY photography to be. I do value the power of post processing and I engage in it as far as I feel I need to, but because of my background, because of my personal philosophy, because of my distinct lack of interest in 20 steps of post processing (because I don't enjoy that work), I just don't do as much to my photos as others do.

But whatever little I do, I'm always interested in learning how to do it better, so it would be nice once in a while for someone to pull back the curtains and let me see how the Great Oz/final image is being manipulated.

 

[D-B-J]

Exactly. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me. [emoji106]

This is the only thing I disagree with - not because I necessarily agree with the so-called purists, but just that I don't find it foolish. Just a different way of thinking/working.

Truth be told, a do very little post-processing (and yes, I'm using the practical definition, not the hyper-literal definition.) I don't consider myself a "purist" but it's just been so ingrained in me to do most of the work in camera. Part of this is that I haven't done my own film developing until recently. I grew up takinga shot and sending it to a lab. Once it was in my hands, the only real 'editing' I could do was cropping with a pair of scissors. That hammered in the habit of thinking that my work ended when I hit the shutter.

These days, I have a LOT more control over the image once that shutter is tripped and the film advanced. I develop, I scan, I use software. But still inside me is still a very strong belief that most of my work to get an image the way I envision it is done in the camera. And when I do edit, I do so to improve the image, yes, but also to get it as close as I can to what I saw and wanted to capture.

I DO enjoy trying to capture reality as I see it. But that's just me. Before anyone misunderstands me, I am in NO WAY saying that this is how photography should be. This is simply how I want MY photography to be. I do value the power of post processing and I engage in it as far as I feel I need to, but because of my background, because of my personal philosophy, because of my distinct lack of interest in 20 steps of post processing (because I don't enjoy that work), I just don't do as much to my photos as others do.

But whatever little I do, I'm always interested in learning how to do it better, so it would be nice once in a while for someone to pull back the curtains and let me see how the Great Oz/final image is being manipulated.

I think part of my thought process is heavily biased or swayed to "disagree strongly" with the purists because I never shot film.. I did for a few months, but not as the sole medium for years. So I've always manipulated. Now more than ever. Using GND's and HDR processing and all that is really a hefty "editing" process, and the filtering is all done in camera, before I event post process! So, I think my style and how i shoot is what makes me disagree, and had I started earlier (or... Er.. Been Born earlier) I would think differently.