editing or not

If you like to do straight out of the camera SOOC pictures, just shoot slide film and project the slides.
Slide film has the same problem that SOOC JPEGs have. It's far more limited in what it can handle without an ability to address parts of the image locally. We had the same dichotomy before digital with slide versus negative film. In the darkroom you can dodge a shadow or burn a highlight. When printing color negatives I used to dodge and burn with color filters. Back up 30 years and load one camera with slide film and the other with negative film and you can't use both to successfully capture all the same images. What the slide film can handle is a subset of what the negative film can handle. Where the slide film will blow diffuse highlights the negative film will record them and let you burn them in.

That's a non-issue for someone taking photos in a light-controlled studio, but for someone taking found photos out in the world of random lighting conditions it's sometimes the difference between you can take the photo or you can't.

This recurring topic of SOOC photos often brings up the term get it right in camera. But for that photo above of the park, editing or not there never was a get it right in camera option as the camera's available tools can't get it right. There often is no get it right in camera option. What then? Settle for get it wrong in camera or get nothing?

Another thread running through this topic is the "true to reality" idea that somehow SOOC images are unaltered and so faithful renditions of what the photographer saw. That is a bogus idea. Intermittent reinforcement provides powerful support for faulty thinking. An SOOC image in which the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset can produce an image faithful to what the photographer saw. But only when the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset. Otherwise as in the park photo above it's the SOOC photo that fails to capture what the photographer saw.
 
If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens.

Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.
 
The instagram and reddit and twitter have really screwed up photograpy n a large way. No one seems willing to show an image directly from the camera as it was taken. Not even film shooters seem willing to show an image that wasnt scanned and then put through photo shop.


Problem is, I find it funny reading old threads in various forums, about the "pretentious" need for digital shooters to have to put every image into photoshop to make it "worth viewing". Film users general thought was "pretentious to use a pc program to make a photo worth viewing. Why even take the photo in the first place?"

Now on forums and "educator websites" Photography is incapable of being worth seeing UNLESS it has been put through an editing program. And the current fad is to call anyone who admits they post photos without editing them, or admit they DONT edit photos is called "pretentious eletists" and get accused of various evil crimes against photography for not editing anything.

Editing CAN be fun if its your thing, but how much editing do you really need to make a photo a photo of the same thing?

I was viewing a site about hoaxes and it showed one of the earliest publicized black and white photos of the loch ness monster. As it was a scan of a film photo, enlarged on my 32" hd screen, i could easily tell in the image taken on what looked like trix 400 pushed to 1600 was a photo of a person SWIMMING, the BREAST stroke method. Easily solved.
Looking forward to seeing your straight out of the camera unedited raw photos.
 
For an extremely long period of time (and because of a lack of education, ergo: ignorance) I was under the direct assumption that everything I photographed was pure unadulterated crap.

I was not given the "insite' that most photos published (even on the "good 'ol film days' ) were edited to some degree. What do you think "Dodge and Burn" means?

Photoshop is simply an electronic version of the darkroom (hence why its called "lightroom") as it was used for time immortal prior to Adobe's existence.

While growing up my mother had a degree in Layout and design from Pratt. My father held a degree in Engineering Administration and worked tirelessly in his business of shooting stereo images with his old realistic cameras for engineering including processes with some collaboration with my mother.

Ergo; Paper version of photoshop done with cardboard and elmer's glue.

It wouldn't be until just a short few years ago that this revelation or epiphany came to me that such was the case when on this very forum I was asked point blankly why I wasn't using Photoshop on my images I was posting.

Go figure.



PS side note.

My work still leaves VERY much to be desired, but the concept is now grounded in.
 
If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens.

Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.
I have a Nikon camera as well. You're probably referring to the ability to create and upload custom picture controls to the camera. That is an excellent feature to improve the camera's SOOC toolset. There is a pretty wide range of capability between the various makers as well as the various models and years. Nikon can do what Fuji can't and Canon can do what Nikon can't and etc. But all of the cameras hit the same wall together: whatever they can do they do to the whole photo. Like Nikon, as you mention, my Fuji is good at changing shadow detail. But neither Fuji or Nikon can open the shadows only on one side of the photo but not the other.

As sophisticated as they are none of our cameras could for example darken the highlights in a sky while not darkening the highlights in bldg. windows -- if the camera can darken highlights it will darken all highlights.

There are photos to be taken in which the toolset in the camera is sufficient. If the subject and scene lighting are within a range that the camera toolset can handle then we can take an SOOC photo successfully. Sure it happens. Looking back over my most recent photos I find this photo I took a month ago on 5-4 -- it's SOOC. The camera can handle it no problem. I'd still make some slight improvements but the subject and scene lighting don't stress the camera software.

glaciers.jpg


The question remains are you going to limit yourself to just photos the camera software can handle? I'm not. That same day I also took this iris photo which the camera software could not handle. I'm going to take both photos.

ice-blue.jpg
 
@Ysarex I just started my completely SOOC, unedited raw image.............should be done in a couple weeks. :chuncky::chuncky::chuncky::chuncky:
cave-man-chiseling.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looking forward to seeing your straight out of the camera unedited raw photos.
here's mine.

10111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100
 

Here's mine: iris.png
It's that photo of irises I posted above. I left it full res and didn't lossy compress it (PNG) so you can zoom in and see the color filter array (X-Trans). It's dark but you see the irises. Unedited and unprocessed raw files are image files in which you can actually see the photograph.
 
If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens.

Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.
So I was at the park today. I know I spend a lot of time at the park. Actually this is a different park. My neighborhood in Saint Louis is called Southwest Gardens and we have a lot of parks. Two of them are a few blocks from my home. Today I had my Nikon with me. So I saw these ducks sitting on the wall in a row and I thought, ducks in a row! So I took that photo and posted it earlier: Finally! I Got my Ducks in a Row.

Then I turned to my side and looked at the fountain in the lake and the fake ruins. This park is modeled on a English Victorian park and we have fake ruins. It was a nice view of the fountain and fake ruins with a pretty dramatic sky in the background so I grabbed a snap. To do that I made sure of only one thing. I made sure to expose the sensor to capacity because I recognized the scene was backlit with a high dynamic range. I nailed the exposure and after 36 years of marriage my wife said hey that's a nice photo of the fake ruins when she saw me processing it. Seriously, she's been looking at my photos for over 36 years and when she takes notice it's usually a decent photo.

So this is the fountain and fake ruins at Tower Grove Park in Saint Louis and this is a photo that no camera can take SOOC. But since you mentioned Nikon it may be worth noting that Nikon cameras can get closer than most. Nikon's ADL function is almost promising.

Thought you might enjoy proving to yourself that the camera can't do the job so here's the raw file: DSC_0490.NEF You can download a copy of NXStudio from Nikon's website if you don't already have it which will allow you to load the raw file and re-process it to every possible SOOC variation the camera is capable of. Play fair and only use the camera functions that NXStudio duplicates.

fake-ruins.jpg
 
Slide film has the same problem that SOOC JPEGs have. It's far more limited in what it can handle without an ability to address parts of the image locally. We had the same dichotomy before digital with slide versus negative film. In the darkroom you can dodge a shadow or burn a highlight. When printing color negatives I used to dodge and burn with color filters. Back up 30 years and load one camera with slide film and the other with negative film and you can't use both to successfully capture all the same images. What the slide film can handle is a subset of what the negative film can handle. Where the slide film will blow diffuse highlights the negative film will record them and let you burn them in.

That's a non-issue for someone taking photos in a light-controlled studio, but for someone taking found photos out in the world of random lighting conditions it's sometimes the difference between you can take the photo or you can't.

This recurring topic of SOOC photos often brings up the term get it right in camera. But for that photo above of the park, editing or not there never was a get it right in camera option as the camera's available tools can't get it right. There often is no get it right in camera option. What then? Settle for get it wrong in camera or get nothing?

Another thread running through this topic is the "true to reality" idea that somehow SOOC images are unaltered and so faithful renditions of what the photographer saw. That is a bogus idea. Intermittent reinforcement provides powerful support for faulty thinking. An SOOC image in which the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset can produce an image faithful to what the photographer saw. But only when the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset. Otherwise as in the park photo above it's the SOOC photo that fails to capture what the photographer saw.
For decades, non-professionals shot slide film and projected them. We all managed to do that although there were limitations due to availability of stops and other factors. No one edited their slides. Viewers didn't notice darker shadows areas and stuff like that. It forced photogrphers to get it as right as they could SOOC and forced good composition from the get-go. If you screwed up an exposure, you just threw that slide in the trash.

Also, keep in mind that with a slide show, you're looking at each one for a few seconds. You're not holding a print to examine and where you can notice those things more easily. The flow of the show was what was important like a movie. As long as the exposures were in the ballpark, everyone was happy.

And the best part with slide shows is that there's no editing. No in-between adjustments. Just shoot and project. Simple.
 
I think we’ve moved beyond slide shows as a way of sharing photos, but to each their own.

Just like with any hobby or profession, things change and skill sets need to keep pace with the technical advances. Editing skill may be more valuable to some than others but it’s still a skill that takes a lot of time and effort to learn.

The disdain and criticism by some, while likely meant to make themselves feel superior or to make others feel bad about their work, comes across as sour grapes to me. Worry less about what everyone else is doing. You do you.

To all the “new” members who recently joined the forum just to start these pot stirring “debate” threads - how about posting some of your work and letting it speak for itself? The best way to make your point is by example.
 
For me, it isn't so much editing, as it is over-editing.

I see so many pictures of sunsets/sunrises that just blow my eyes out with the intensity of the colors. In real life, I've seldom seen sunsets/sunrises that spectacular. Yet, in a FB group of which I'm a member, there are several members who "constantly" get those brilliantly bright and colorful images.

It's really annoying to me to see "outlines" around objects, to the point it's so obvious the photographer went too far in editing.

I "confess" to editing most pictures I print. I'm still learning how to make exposures correct IN my camera, so before I print any photos, I want to get as close to what I remember seeing.

To each his/her own! It's all about what one prefers.
 
Ysarex, thanks for the effort and thought you invested in your descriptive and informative post. Well done!

Alan K, Does anyone still do slides? I have shelves full of them and my Dad had thousands more! Yet, a Kodak film SOOC and a Aga Film SOOC slides of the same subject taken at the same time would have a different interpretation of the blue color of the sky. Experts today describe the same differences of color when describing differences between Nikon and Canon cameras.

For me, it all comes down to how a photo impacts me. If I find a "wow" image, I am not thinking about what was the camera, what software was used to edit, is it a composite is there too much noise, etc...etc. If I am moved by the image, the artist has succeeded.

Once, I joined a photo club outing to a local garden. I photographed a beautiful flower. Later as photos were shared online, I saw an image of the same flower taken on the same day at the same place at the same time of day. I could not believe what I was seeing. What an amazing difference! The photo was taken by the young professional photographer who had organized the meeting, and I was looking at a masterpiece of art! I had looked at the same flower, but had not seen what she saw. Since then I have improved my skills in the art of seeing and, yes, having my vision of what I saw show up in my photos also has to do with camera settings and color shifts in editing and trying to make what I see as the best use of the natural light. Then after all that and having before me something I personally admire, I show it to my wife who shrugs and if I am lucky she might say, "huh".

My point??? There is no right or wrong way for how the artist gets to his/her final result. I am reminded of the artists who died penniless while today their works sell for millions, or composers whose works were first scorned, but who symphonic orchestras now perform to standing ovations to the same music.

Just look no further than this thread to read critiques of critiques.

As my Mom used to say, "If three people agree on everything, someone isn't thinking!"
 
For me, it isn't so much editing, as it is over-editing.

I see so many pictures of sunsets/sunrises that just blow my eyes out with the intensity of the colors. In real life, I've seldom seen sunsets/sunrises that spectacular. Yet, in a FB group of which I'm a member, there are several members who "constantly" get those brilliantly bright and colorful images.

It's really annoying to me to see "outlines" around objects, to the point it's so obvious the photographer went too far in editing.

I "confess" to editing most pictures I print.
What's to "confess?" Confess makes it sound like you're doing something wrong or failing in some way. Would it be better if you didn't edit most of your pictures? I edit all of my photos. I take them so that they all require editing,
I'm still learning how to make exposures correct IN my camera, so before I print any photos, I want to get as close to what I remember seeing.

To each his/her own! It's all about what one prefers.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top