Editing, a bad thing?

[KmH]

Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.

Who said it wasn't?

 

[Overread]

In the film days every photo that made it to print got edited as it went from negative to print; however some only did minimal work whilst photo-labs often did only the standard defaults that they'd work with for most of the common batch processed stuff the average person put in.

Thus the average person got a standard developing process which left them with only in-camera to adjust things - that worked well for them but also gave many the idea that editing was not really an option.


Digital days we have access to all the tools of the past and more in a very easy way. Heck many of the processes in editing are direct copies or representations of film editing methods. Even cut and paste was around; it was just a lot more fiddly and harder to achieve in the past - and more time consuming. Digital has sped it up and given the average person the power to edit.


So its neither here not there to me - the key is that you get it right in camera.

getting it right in camera doesn't mean its perfect; it means that given the situation you got the best possible shot for the end result that you want. That might mean that your editing is tiny; a few adjustments here and there and sharpening; it could mean that you've got the shot that you want and now you're going to edit it heavily. Neither is superior nor better nor more faithful than the other - they are simply different approaches to artistic talent.

Learn to edit; learn to edit beyond what you need so that you've the choice as to how far and how much you edit something. Many people only learn a tiny bit and thus are limited by that and also can only edit a little if any because they don't know any better - far better in my view to be able to edit with freedom of choice as to how far you take things.



I'd say its essential, but that you can work with very limited editing method - heck if you've an out of camera JPEG its already default edited to the cameras settings; if you've a RAW you have to edit it to make it presentable.




Some get the idea that you can cheat; that photoshop can fix anything - sadly this isn't true. The magical "enhance "button only exists in CSI. If you've a duff shot then its a duff shot - editing might make it a little more presentable; but honestly not by much. If you want good photography then you get it good in the camera to then refine (as far as you want) in editing.
Most of the people I know who edit heavily are very particular about getting it right in camera because they need the best possible data to then be able to manipulate it in editing.

 

[fmw]

Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.

Who said it wasn't?

Nobody. Why do you ask?

 

[Skiiandme]

That isn't the photographer or the person that I desire to be. So now I am striving to get it as right as possible in the camera.

Wow, I never thought of that. I should probably start thinking of my identity as a photographer. Thanks!

 

[Skiiandme]

Learn to edit; learn to edit beyond what you need so that you've the choice as to how far and how much you edit something. Many people only learn a tiny bit and thus are limited by that and also can only edit a little if any because they don't know any better - far better in my view to be able to edit with freedom of choice as to how far you take things.

I'd say its essential, but that you can work with very limited editing method - heck if you've an out of camera JPEG its already default edited to the cameras settings; if you've a RAW you have to edit it to make it presentable.

Some get the idea that you can cheat; that photoshop can fix anything - sadly this isn't true. The magical "enhance "button only exists in CSI. If you've a duff shot then its a duff shot - editing might make it a little more presentable; but honestly not by much. If you want good photography then you get it good in the camera to then refine (as far as you want) in editing.
Most of the people I know who edit heavily are very particular about getting it right in camera because they need the best possible data to then be able to manipulate it in editing.

Got it. Get the best possible data you want from the camera and edit it all the way you want. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Peeb]

Yes but digital editing is a different ball of wax. Usually it is handled by the photographer. Few photographers had the skill to do the dodging and burning you see in these examples. There were never many Ansel Adams'.

Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.

You make a correct, but irrelevant, point.

 

[freddy21]

However, the less post production editing you can get away with the better, so the #1 goal should be to get it as close to right in the camera as you can. But, pretty much every photo will benefit from some basic edits.

That's my philosophy too. Anyone can make an average image and manipulate the heck out of it in post to get what they want. Yes, on occasion everyone needs to "rescue" an exposure that was taken in sub optimal conditions but doing it all the time is like using a crutch.
If I have to do much beyond lens corrections and some minor overall tweaks to colour and exposure I am somewhat disappointed with the image. If I am changing the aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 it is disappointing not to have to selectively crop to get the composition back in balance.

 

[SCraig]

If one arrives at the photograph that they had envisioned, whether in-camera or through editing, what difference does it matter how they got there?

 

[480sparky]

If one arrives at the photograph that they had envisioned, .............

And right there, folks, is the connection that many do not make.

Editing begins before you raise the camera to your eye.

 

[greybeard]

Whether it is pre-processing, arranging the background, arranging lighting etc., or post-processing in PS, one is still editing of a sort. Like my signature says, "if it looks good, it is good". All that matters is the final result, how you got there is immaterial.

 

[Gary A.]

As a former photojournalist, it is hard for me to "over-manipulate" the image into something significantly different than what was there. For me, as an example, cloning out telephone poles or trees, or straightening the horizon, or cropping at all, in post, is an indicator of low skill level. While it is true that the majority of viewers don't give a rats about how one attained the final image ... but as a photographer, I appreciate more the vision and skill of the capture ... over the computer wizardry of a digital artist.

Then there are a few on this forum, like Binga, who bring both worlds, of photographer and digital artistry, together seamlessly into images which can best be described as pure ART.

 

[fmw]

Yes but digital editing is a different ball of wax. Usually it is handled by the photographer. Few photographers had the skill to do the dodging and burning you see in these examples. There were never many Ansel Adams'.

Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.

You make a correct, but irrelevant, point.

I appreciate the support.

 

[Derrel]

I learned most of my craft on film, and shot a lot of color slide film which was never edited and was developed to a single, standard gamma. Everything had to be done in-camera. Film was expensive and always finite. Today, I can shoot all I want and have wide control over gamma, saturation, and color palette, on every frame!

Editing from raw images is now verrrrry easy compared to how it was with the $499 Nikon Capture 1.0 app that could open and edit .NEF files 15 years ago. At that time raw files were new and difficult to open.

Today we have such high megapixel imaging that final image crop and aspect ratio are quite flexible. The 'never crop, print with a filed-out negative carrier and black knock-out borders around each image' line of bullspit now seems pretty dated.Ancient history. Like typewriters, and white-out,and pay phones, and music videos on MTV.

Editing? Not sure what, exactly, that word means, and to who or to whom. We need to keep in mind, there is photography and there is digital imaging, and these are not the same things, so some of the old rules and ideas no longer apply in the same ways, or at all.

It makes a lot of sense to realize that most of us left analog or silver-based "photography" behind, years ago, and we are now in the pioneering stages of digital imaging. There no longer exists a fixed, permanent image held in an emulsion, on a base of tin, glass,or cellulose,or on celluloid; no, we no longer write with light in a permanent form, but instead we push pixels around, into multiple arrangements. We can develop, and print, in broad daylight, without caustic chemicals. It's time to leave outdated ideas behind, and focus on new realities, and this is especially true for those who are just starting to find their way. Silver-based photographs are in a permanent, fixed, tangible, physical form: digital images are in binary data.

 

[chuasam]

I call it retouching.
Editing to me is just removing the bad shots, choosing the good ones, fixing colour space, white balance and tonal adjustments.

As for your retouched watch..
let me leave you with this

 

[Ysarex]

As a former photojournalist, it is hard for me to "over-manipulate" the image into something significantly different than what was there. For me, as an example, cloning out telephone poles or trees, or straightening the horizon, or cropping at all, in post, is an indicator of low skill level.

And I've always considered the insistence that an image must be cropped in-camera (especially using fixed-focal length lenses) as an indicator of sloppiness and an inability to see well.

Joe

While it is true that the majority of viewers don't give a rats about how one attained the final image ... but as a photographer, I appreciate more the vision and skill of the capture ... over the computer wizardry of a digital artist.

Then there are a few on this forum, like Binga, who bring both worlds, of photographer and digital artistry, together seamlessly into images which can best be described as pure ART.