Does "digital" = "edited"

cal_gundert05 · Oct 5, 2006

Excuse my ignorance, but I've only never shot digital. My question is:

Do all digital users edit their work after they shoot? What do you generally do as far as editing? Is it fair to say that most digital photography is not truly reflective of the photog's skill (ie, you see a better image than what was really shot)?

It seems that this is a stigma of digital cameras. Is it true?

Just wondering:mrgreen:

TBaraki · Oct 5, 2006

I do think that many people have a stigmatic relationship with digital editing. 100% of my digital images are edited in some way in photoshop. Basic levels and curves work, cropping, dodge/burn, etc. I cut my teeth on film and in the darkroom. I'd say that probably 75% of the editing work I do is things that I have done or could have done if I was more skilled in the darkroom.

I don't think it is fair to say that digital photography is not reflective of the photographer's skill. I see being skilled in PS analogous to being skilled in the darkroom.

To play the devil's advocate to my own argument, there are many images that seem to "cross the line". That line is fuzzy at best and easily debated too.

JohnMF · Oct 5, 2006

i think surely everybody who takes their digital photography serious will edit in some way.

But what do you mean exactly by 'editing'? Just cropping a picture could be considered editing

craig · Oct 5, 2006

I shoot 95% digi. I started with film and I shoot and edit digi in the same way. Crop, contrast, colour correction and sharpness are all controlled in the camera and photoshop as opposed to working with those elements in the darkroom.

With digi we have the advantage of editing every pixel, which is very convenient. It is up to the artist which direction he wants to take that.

GrfxGuru · Oct 5, 2006

I think that it would be unfair to brand digital images as edited since a lot of the 'tweaks' I do to digital files are the same ones I used to do in a darkroom by hand...so you could argue that at least some conventional images are also edited. But then we have to define editing, is dodging or burning editing?

Is the fact that a camera's internal software generates say a JPEG or TIFF editing? And what about RAW files, they have to be edited to develop the image intended even if it's just an exposure tweak.

Regards,
Peter Witham

Alex_B · Oct 6, 2006

When I take digital images, I do take them as RAW files. Then they are processed in a RAW-converter, tweaking a bit with the curves and "exposure". For 90% of my images that is it. And actually that is very similar to the darkroom work with film .. first of all the choice of film influences the outcome anyway (grain, colours, ... whatever), and then you have darkroom processing which again influences the result. You could push and pull films. And now many people just do similar things digital. If you call this "editing" then also film is "edited".

Then I would maybe use the clone tool in PS to remove some dustmarks ... again something similar one would do also when you go for to large format output from film!

And then there are maybe some 8-5% of my digital images where I heavily photoshop. Well, that is then somthing I would consider editing and which hardly could be done with film.

If you do not shoot RAW but save as JPEG, that is then comparable to giving your film to a lab to be processed, where they take the decisions how to do it (just as the camera decides how to save your JPEGs).

JMHO

MommyOf4Boys · Oct 6, 2006

basically, if one thinks that editing a photo in a "digital darkroom" such as Photoshop is not reflecting the photographers true ability, then would it be said the same for someone who uses a regular darkroom to enhance their 35mm prints? I personally think you have to start out with a good photograph to do the "editing" on to make it an even better photo, correct?

rmh159 · Oct 6, 2006

Yeah I agree with you MommyOf4.

MommyOf4Boys said:
basically, if one thinks that editing a photo in a "digital darkroom" such as Photoshop is not reflecting the photographers true ability, then would it be said the same for someone who uses a regular darkroom to enhance their 35mm prints? I personally think you have to start out with a good photograph to do the "editing" on to make it an even better photo, correct?

I don't mean to offend or step on toes but I've always felt that people that argued against Photoshop touch-ups, editing digitals, etc. were ignorant to what goes into photography. Like others said, film is touched up the same way.

fmw · Oct 6, 2006

Unless you shoot transparency film and view the transparencies directly, any photograph is the result of manipulation. The equivalent in the digital world would be to display camera RAW files on the computer monitor.

In the darkroom we make test strips to determine the ideal exposure for printing. We crop and burn and dodge and do all kinds of things to make the print look like we want it to look.

Photoshop and other similar programs are simply the modern day version of the darkroom. No difference at all. Nothing has changed except the technology. The final image is the sum of the photographer's work. It always has been.

Big Mike · Oct 6, 2006

Well said.

Alex_B · Oct 6, 2006

fmw said:
Unless you shoot transparency film and view the transparencies directly, any photograph is the result of manipulation. The equivalent in the digital world would be to display camera RAW files on the computer monitor.

Besides digital I did and do shoot slides (transparencies) .. and I have to say that even there you do not get an "objective and true" image. After all you choose the type of film according to the light you have and the mood you want to achieve.

Tiberius · Oct 6, 2006

How many Pro Photographers use straight-out-of-camera shots? Film guys use Darkroom work. Digital Guys use Photoshop. There's absolutely no difference except that PS is a million times more powerful. Film users use different films and colored filters depending on the effect they want; Digital Users mess with Saturation and White Balance. They're the same concept with different words.

cal_gundert05 · Oct 6, 2006

Tiberius said:
How many Pro Photographers use straight-out-of-camera shots? Film guys use Darkroom work. Digital Guys use Photoshop. There's absolutely no difference except that PS is a million times more powerful. Film users use different films and colored filters depending on the effect they want; Digital Users mess with Saturation and White Balance. They're the same concept with different words.

Well said. I was never exposed to the advanced photo techniques used with film. That's why I thought digital photography and editing was a special case.

Thanks for the replies.

niccig · Oct 6, 2006

I think most of us are in agreement - everyone edits their pictures, it's just that digital and flim people use different words to describe the same things. A few days ago I printed a 35mm b&w photo of a clock, where the clock was originally about 1/3-1/2 of the frame. In the camera, I used Delta 100 for fine grain (noise/grain reduction). On the print, I enlarged the clock to fill the enitre 8x10 frame (cropping), dodged the side away from the light (exposure tweaking) and spot-toned out some dust (healing brush). I also used a #2&1/2 contrast filter and made a test strip before printing (levels/curves adjustment). All that said, on the rare occasion that I do shoot digital, I try not to do any editing in photoshop that couldn't be accomplished in the darkroom (like inserting a UFO or something ;-)). Though I don't think there's anything wrong with digital art, I like to do everything I can in-camera to get a good print.

W.Smith · Oct 12, 2006

cal_gundert05 said:
Excuse my ignorance, but I've only never shot digital. My question is:

Do all digital users edit their work after they shoot? What do you generally do as far as editing? Is it fair to say that most digital photography is not truly reflective of the photog's skill (ie, you see a better image than what was really shot)?

It seems that this is a stigma of digital cameras. Is it true?

Just wondering:mrgreen:

Imo, 95% of people are 'snappers'. They shoot a pic while trying to have as little to do as possible with buttons and settings (they probably don't know WTF to do with them anyway...), then take the flash card to a photo store, stick it in the print machine, and basically print them straight 'out of the camera'.

Changing anything at all about the picture, even if only cropping a little bit (which, BTW, you can also do in those print machines), is in a literal sense 'editing'.
But since the other extreme an entirely 'photoshopped' photo is also 'editing', that concept covers a looot of ground.