Did you edit?!

[limr]

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.

And I just might have replaced the leaf I originally saw on this log with a prettier one arranged just so


rs Fallen leaf by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[limr]

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.

Perhaps for you, but not to me. You're making a value judgment on someone else's learning process. Do you not accept that different people learn in different ways?

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.

Yeah. Tried that. Wasted a lot of time. Learned how to make something that looks like this:

Not to mention that the woman's voice triggered the misophonia BIG TIME and made me want to shove a knitting needle through my ear drums.

 

[bribrius]

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.

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.

not into It lew (obviously) though I do have the capability of masking now I don't.
so for someone (realist I am) who isn't into it.
what is it worth?
If it makes me five k on flikr photos or some dumb chit then clearly I don't want to work for a buck a hour processing photos so I wont do it. (I am a capitalist).
If it ever got me some publishing in a magazine, and it didn't pay much. I still wouldn't do it.
For my own personal photos I don't need it or want it.
so how much money we talking about, in a realistic sense. Not the top one percent of photos but a general summary of at least a likelihood of payout for the upper side of the processed images. i relate to money i printed this **** off for money remember earlier in the thread? i just question the percentage that actually make much for additional money on it.
For me it would only be commercialization of it. About it. Like if someone hired me to make a cartoon or processed cheese..

 

[bribrius]

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]

okay, spin this backwards and think of it this way.
novices shoot point and shoots.
pros get into processing, primarily because it is required (they want to get freakn paid)

where we run into this in between stuff is with enthusiasts and the artists types. whether it is warranted or not is clearly up to them as the vast majority do not get paid for this (or if they do surely not much). so start with they are buying the software and learning it because they WANT TO. It is not necessary.

Being the concrete (attempted lets say). i would suggest that Nikon , for instance is a fairly intelligent company as they have been making cameras for a number of years for millions of consumers.
Now i don't know about everyone else, but the Nikons i have came with a manual and view nx.
They are expecting (and they make the cameras and sell them so should know) that

a. If the user reads the manual they will know how to operate the camera correctly.

b. the majority of users of that camera that is purchased will be content with the included software and it will supply their needs while using such camera as long as they operate it proficiently or even if they make a mistake and have to make a minor correction..

The maker of the camera isn't stupid.

i would like to think, having read the manual and using the enclosed software (nx is minor adjustments) that Nikon is correct in assuming most proficient users with the camera they sold and that software will be just fine.

Now there is higher processing programs, catered to the business pros and the enthusiasts and some of the art types.
This is not the norm. The majority of people i am fairly assured, do not have ten layers. i would think these are ADDITIONAL options for those said persons wanting something ADDITIONAL.

If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual.

I also feel fairly safe in assuming the majority of users still aren't post processing images to large extents and never go beyond the original post processing software included with their camera when they purchased it.



Now considering the purist argument, and the push for post processing in this thread. considering very few in it probably make their living off photography (if any)..


i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority..

And the main way this comes up seems to be with artists and enthusiasts. Neither of which derive a primary income from it in most cases but profess so LOUDLY the requirement of it.

 

[DanOstergren]

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]

okay, spin this backwards and think of it this way.
novices shoot point and shoots.
pros get into processing, primarily because it is required (they want to get freakn paid)

where we run into this in between stuff is with enthusiasts and the artists types. whether it is warranted or not is clearly up to them as the vast majority do not get paid for this (or if they do surely not much). so start with they are buying the software and learning it because they WANT TO. It is not necessary.

Being the concrete (attempted lets say). i would suggest that Nikon , for instance is a fairly intelligent company as they have been making cameras for a number of years for millions of consumers.
Now i don't know about everyone else, but the Nikons i have came with a manual and view nx.
They are expecting (and they make the cameras and sell them so should know) that

a. If the user reads the manual they will know how to operate the camera correctly.

b. the majority of users of that camera that is purchased will be content with the included software and it will supply their needs while using such camera as long as they operate it proficiently or even if they make a mistake and have to make a minor correction..

The maker of the camera isn't stupid.

i would like to think, having read the manual and using the enclosed software (nx is minor adjustments) that Nikon is correct in assuming most proficient users with the camera they sold and that software will be just fine.

Now there is higher processing programs, catered to the business pros and the enthusiasts and some of the art types.
This is not the norm. The majority of people i am fairly assured, do not have ten layers. i would think these are ADDITIONAL options for those said persons wanting something ADDITIONAL.

If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual.

I also feel fairly safe in assuming the majority of users still aren't post processing images to large extents and never go beyond the original post processing software included with their camera when they purchased it.



Now considering the purist argument, and the push for post processing in this thread. considering very few in it probably make their living off photography (if any)..


i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority..

And the main way this comes up seems to be with artists and enthusiasts. Neither of which derive a primary income from it in most cases but profess so LOUDLY the requirement of it.

Do you have facts and statistics to prove these statements? Any links? I'd love to see them.

And your comments about no one in this thread being able to make a living as a photographer are laughable. Get over yourself.

 

[Alexr25]

........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............

Don't worry, I'am sure you are in the MAJORITY! I am also sure that I and most of the members on this forum are striving to rise above the lowest common denominator of the MAJORITY and produce the best photographs that we can. We therefore post-process our images to get the most out of them.
Post-processing will never turn a bad photo into a good photo or even a acceptable photo but if done well it can turn a good photo a great photo, on the other hand if done badly it can turn a great photo into utter garbage.
Being part of the majority is nothing to be proud of, the majority of photos that the ordinary person produces are rubbish, they may have great importance and emotional or sentimental value to the person who made them but as stand alone images they don't work. People who aspire to be good photographers try rise above the snapshot photo and produce images that work in their own right. If you can't see the difference between a snapshot and a good photo then I'm afraid you're in the wrong game.

 

[bribrius]

........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............

Don't worry, I'am sure you are in the MAJORITY! I am also sure that I and most of the members on this forum are striving to rise above the lowest common denominator of the MAJORITY and produce the best photographs that we can. We therefore post-process our images to get the most out of them.
Post-processing will never turn a bad photo into a good photo or even a acceptable photo but if done well it can turn a good photo a great photo, on the other hand if done badly it can turn a great photo into utter garbage.
Being part of the majority is nothing to be proud of, the majority of photos that the ordinary person produces are rubbish, they may have great importance and emotional or sentimental value to the person who made them but as stand alone images they don't work. People who aspire to be good photographers try rise above the snapshot photo and produce images that work in their own right. If you can't see the difference between a snapshot and a good photo then I'm afraid you're in the wrong game.

Agree with some of this, on the other hand..
lol. just because someone doesn't post process the crap out of a image does not make it a "snap shot". Nor would i expect everyone else running around with higher end camera gear that don't post process the crap out of their images to believe them to be "snap shots" either.
your argument is a fallacy anyway. It is like suggesting you have to have a dslr to make a great photo. you can find some garbage taken with any high end camera (processed heavily or not) and find better photos on facebook taken with a cellphone amongst that "majority".
.

by the way, since when is snapshot a bad thing? i have seen some pretty damn good snapshots..

see how you just separated yourself from the "ordinary person"

don't kid yourself. some of them ordinary majority are turning out better pics with cellphones and no post processing than people with four k cameras and five hours pping one photo.


to each their own though. world is full of images and full of processed images they are coming out of our ears at this point. You can add another processed image to the other billion and tell everyone it was your vision while adobe can pull another dime in revenue..

 

[jsecordphoto]

........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............

Don't worry, I'am sure you are in the MAJORITY! I am also sure that I and most of the members on this forum are striving to rise above the lowest common denominator of the MAJORITY and produce the best photographs that we can. We therefore post-process our images to get the most out of them.
Post-processing will never turn a bad photo into a good photo or even a acceptable photo but if done well it can turn a good photo a great photo, on the other hand if done badly it can turn a great photo into utter garbage.
Being part of the majority is nothing to be proud of, the majority of photos that the ordinary person produces are rubbish, they may have great importance and emotional or sentimental value to the person who made them but as stand alone images they don't work. People who aspire to be good photographers try rise above the snapshot photo and produce images that work in their own right. If you can't see the difference between a snapshot and a good photo then I'm afraid you're in the wrong game.

Agree with some of this, on the other hand..
lol. just because someone doesn't post process the crap out of a image does not make it a "snap shot". Nor would i expect everyone else running around with higher end camera gear that don't post process the crap out of their images to believe them to be "snap shots" either.
your argument is a fallacy anyway. It is like suggesting you have to have a dslr to make a great photo. you can find some garbage taken with any high end camera (processed heavily or not) and find better photos on facebook taken with a cellphone amongst that "majority".
.

by the way, since when is snapshot a bad thing? i have seen some pretty damn good snapshots..

see how you just separated yourself from the "ordinary person"

don't kid yourself. some of them ordinary majority are turning out better pics with cellphones and no post processing than people with four k cameras and five hours pping one photo.


to each their own though. world is full of images and full of processed images they are coming out of our ears at this point. You can add another processed image to the other billion and tell everyone it was your vision while adobe can pull another dime in revenue..

Did somebody working at Photoshop steal your girlfriend or something? All I see here is you with a rebuttal to every comment made, and generally just looking for an argument. WE GET IT. You don't feel the need to post process and believe those who do are dumb.

 

[bribrius]

........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............

Don't worry, I'am sure you are in the MAJORITY! I am also sure that I and most of the members on this forum are striving to rise above the lowest common denominator of the MAJORITY and produce the best photographs that we can. We therefore post-process our images to get the most out of them.
Post-processing will never turn a bad photo into a good photo or even a acceptable photo but if done well it can turn a good photo a great photo, on the other hand if done badly it can turn a great photo into utter garbage.
Being part of the majority is nothing to be proud of, the majority of photos that the ordinary person produces are rubbish, they may have great importance and emotional or sentimental value to the person who made them but as stand alone images they don't work. People who aspire to be good photographers try rise above the snapshot photo and produce images that work in their own right. If you can't see the difference between a snapshot and a good photo then I'm afraid you're in the wrong game.

Agree with some of this, on the other hand..
lol. just because someone doesn't post process the crap out of a image does not make it a "snap shot". Nor would i expect everyone else running around with higher end camera gear that don't post process the crap out of their images to believe them to be "snap shots" either.
your argument is a fallacy anyway. It is like suggesting you have to have a dslr to make a great photo. you can find some garbage taken with any high end camera (processed heavily or not) and find better photos on facebook taken with a cellphone amongst that "majority".
.

by the way, since when is snapshot a bad thing? i have seen some pretty damn good snapshots..

see how you just separated yourself from the "ordinary person"

don't kid yourself. some of them ordinary majority are turning out better pics with cellphones and no post processing than people with four k cameras and five hours pping one photo.


to each their own though. world is full of images and full of processed images they are coming out of our ears at this point. You can add another processed image to the other billion and tell everyone it was your vision while adobe can pull another dime in revenue..

Did somebody working at Photoshop steal your girlfriend or something? All I see here is you with a rebuttal to every comment made, and generally just looking for an argument. WE GET IT. You don't feel the need to post process and believe those who do are dumb.

well then you don't get it. Because i don't feel people that post process are dumb. i see a SELECTIVE need for it amongst the highest level quality of work in the commercial industry and a OPTIONAL accessory for those in the higher realms of the art world whose ambitions take them that direction. Just as i see editing as common in making a movie, cartoons or animated video...
The magazine shooter i get, wedding shooter, i get. Doing some animated series, i get. Pushing to be in the top one percent in the photographic art world, i get.
The every day push for photoshop, nope. Don't get it.
The guy that spends hours pping some photo for it to sit on his hard drive or maybe make a little buck on a print. Don't get it. Now if that photo was being submitted for publication with a contract and decent payout, then yeah, i get it (i would do the same thing)

come on, someone told me i needed to edit the photo of my dog on here. Really?

 

[The_Traveler]

If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual.

Holy crap!
Is this the single most disingenuous statement I have ever heard?

This is the best example of the Dunning Kruger Effect that I can remember, and there are plenty in that competition here.

How about
'If pen companies expected their pens actually to be used, they would never have made them retractable.'
'If hammer companies expected their hammers to actually be used to hit something, they would never have made the heads all shiny and nice.'
'If pencil companies expected their pencils to actually be sharpened, they would have sharpened them at the factories'
'If canvases were made to have paint put on them, they would come that way.'
'If paint brushes were actually intended to be used to paint pictures, they would come with instructions.'

 

[bribrius]

If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual.

Holy crap!
Is this the single most disingenuous statement I have ever heard?

This is the best example of the Dunning Kruger Effect that I can remember, and there are plenty in that competition here.

How about
'If pen companies expected their pens actually to be used, they would never have made them retractable.'
'If hammer companies expected their hammers to actually be used to hit something, they would never have made the heads all shiny and nice.'
'If pencil companies expected their pencils to actually be sharpened, they would have sharpened them at the factories'
'If canvases were made to have paint put on them, they would come that way.'
'If paint brushes were actually intended to be used to paint pictures, they would come with instructions.'

Good morning lew!

it is all in fun. If nothing else makes one re-think...

 

[The_Traveler]

You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.

No one can produce a picture without processing.
Every picture gets processed or you couldn't see it.
In light of that fact, picking out an arbitrary point and saying that any processing up to that is fine and any processing more than that is wrong is ridiculous and stupid.

Why do people edit?
For the same reason that people paint or draw or sculpt, they want to take essentially raw materials and make them into their vision of grace or beauty or interest.
For the same reason that, when adding a porch, people cut wood to fit and then paint it so that it matches the house - because there is some beauty and satisfaction in making something that meets one's own esthetic criteria.

Maybe you don't understand that urge, but unless you are completely solipsistic, from the amount of push back you have gotten, you should be able to realize that your opinion, even if it is held by the majority of people who have cameras, is not the opinion of those who are serious about their work.
And, it is insulting, even pathological, that you should continue to see people who do things differently than you as wrong or evil or liars or cheaters.

 

[bribrius]

You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.

No one can produce a picture without processing.
Every picture gets processed or you couldn't see it.
In light of that fact, picking out an arbitrary point and saying that any processing up to that is fine and any processing more than that is wrong is ridiculous and stupid.

Why do people edit?
For the same reason that people paint or draw or sculpt, they want to take essentially raw materials and make them into their vision of grace or beauty or interest.
For the same reason that, when adding a porch, people cut wood to fit and then paint it so that it matches the house - because there is some beauty and satisfaction in making something that meets one's own esthetic criteria.

Maybe you don't understand that urge, but unless you are completely solipsistic, from the amount of push back you have gotten, you should be able to realize that your opinion, even if it is held by the majority of people who have cameras, is not the opinion of those who are serious about their work.
And, it is insulting, even pathological, that you should continue to see people who do things differently than you as wrong or evil or liars or cheaters.

group hug time!

 

[jsecordphoto]

Bribrius you do realize that photography is art right? I don't understand people like you that spend time worrying about what other people are doing. People may want to spend hours post processing their photos simply because it is their artwork and its what they love to do. That's like saying "why would someone spend weeks on an oil painting if they aren't even going to sell it or gain some sort of fame through it!?".

I've spent hours in post on my photos before, focus and exposure blending...dodging and burning, etc. And had those photos sell tons of prints and be in magazines and whatever, but even if it was just for myself I'd still spend just as long because its what I love to do. Who cares what other people are doing with their artwork? From what I've seen, those who focus on doing what THEY love tend to be successful. Those who worry about what everyone else is doing...get on their soapbox on online forums apparently

 

[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.

Perhaps for you, but not to me. You're making a value judgment on someone else's learning process. Do you not accept that different people learn in different ways?

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.

Yeah. Tried that. Wasted a lot of time. Learned how to make something that looks like this:

I am making a value judgment, not on the method of learning but on what you are learning.
The fact that you made an execrable hash out of that tutorial makes my point exactly.
Because you specifically have no idea what you need to do, then you can't use a tool correctly.

You don't know what you don't know - and the best way to fix that is not to find and learn some technique and practice it but to set about learning what it is that you don't know.
When an architect sets out to create a structure, he or she does not learn how to use a router or a bandsaw or a welder; he or she does not learn skills because those skills are necessary to build but not to design and create.