I Edit-- So Deal with It!

D-B-J

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
9,027
Reaction score
2,175
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Sometimes I get really annoyed when friends and family get upset with me when I show them the SOOC and "after" shots--they feel it's a lie. A forgery. That I'm enhancing to the point of unrealistic levels. In response, I posted the below on facebook with some examples.



Photography is not just about taking a picture--in reality, that's only half the process, if even. I shoot in RAW format, which is as it sounds--a raw file, not processed in any way (the camera processes JPEG's by adding contrast, saturation, etc). I then take the image into Adobe Lightroom, edit to taste, and in this case, took it into NIK Silver Efex (a black and white conversion software) and push processed the image, brought it back into lightroom, made some minor adjustments, then exported the image as a JPEG. In my editing arsenal I have 5 different editing programs, and each has their purpose. Sometimes it takes just one program, and sometimes it takes four.

What I want to show you is that what comes out of the camera is a RAW file--unprocessed, dull, lacking creative touches. It is in editing and processing that an image truly comes to life. Editing allows each photographer to put their individual touches on an image...it allows us to make the image our own. Anyone can TAKE the same photo, but can they process it in the same way? Likely not.


And these comments ensued:





So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?
Jake
 
Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?
 
When I first got my d7000 I shot in JPEG. And I practived *alot* to get the photo as I saw it. Alot of them looked like they were processed, but I guess they actually were as you *are* changing setting in the camera to modify the basic image that the sensor captures.

So, as you mentioned, even JPEG is modified and not "natural".

I've found with LR now, that I can just take a shot and move on knowing that I can correct it in PP.
It's alot more fun now, but I certainly learned alot earlier on.

So I guess a "natural" photo is one in which you don't allow the camera to modify the image at all
versus using the camera's internal settings to modify the image
versus use PP to tweak it even more.

In the end, the camera can capture the beauty of the world, but you have to use the cameras abilities to modify it so it looks like what you saw.
 
Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?

Yes, a small doll house made from tongue depressors where you only need glue and no hammers ... you didn't define "house" :mrgreen:
 
When I first got my d7000 I shot in JPEG. And I practived *alot* to get the photo as I saw it. Alot of them looked like they were processed, but I guess they actually were as you *are* changing setting in the camera to modify the basic image that the sensor captures.

So, as you mentioned, even JPEG is modified and not "natural".

I've found with LR now, that I can just take a shot and move on knowing that I can correct it in PP.
It's alot more fun now, but I certainly learned alot earlier on.

So I guess a "natural" photo is one in which you don't allow the camera to modify the image at all
versus using the camera's internal settings to modify the image
versus use PP to tweak it even more.

In the end, the camera can capture the beauty of the world, but you have to use the cameras abilities to modify it so it looks like what you saw.


But sometimes I edit to more than what I saw. Higher saturation, adding some orange/pink to the sky to "boomify" it, etc. And I think that's where others get upset with me. But I feel my job as an artist is not to only represent what I saw literally, but what I saw in my mind. Sometimes on a landscape shoot I'll have a final image in my head before I even find a composition I like, and if the sunset/scene doesn't present it quite perfectly, I'll edit in such a way to mimic what I planned rather than the literal what I saw. I guess as I grow as a photographer and artist I worry less about the nuts and bolts and more about the art itself.

Jake
 
First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook? Let then think that what they see came right from your camera. Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess. ;) :lol:

Second, who cares? Do they watch movies and complain about how unrealistic the colors are?
 
Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?

With dedication and the willingness to learn? Maybe.

So you can build a house with just a hammer?

No saw? Ladder? Drill? Level? Shovel? Paintbrush? .......


The point I'm trying to make is clicking the shutter is merely using ONE tool available to you. In order to achieve your desired results, you need to use more than one tool. And in this craft, those tools include PP.
 
Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?

With dedication and the willingness to learn? Maybe.

So you can build a house with just a hammer?

No saw? Ladder? Drill? Level? Shovel? Paintbrush? .......


The point I'm trying to make is clicking the shutter is merely using ONE tool available to you. In order to achieve your desired results, you need to use more than one tool. And in this craft, those tools include PP.


DUH. Clearly missed that bit of wisdom. Yeah, I agree completely. Just curious as to what other photographers think.
 
First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook? Let then think that what they see came right from your camera. Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess. ;) :lol:

Second, who cares? Do they watch movies and complain about how unrealistic the colors are?

I care because sometimes I feel it makes them think less of my work, and that hurts.
 
Whoever said it in your post, said it best. The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.
 
First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook? Let then think that what they see came right from your camera. Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess. ;) :lol:

Second, who cares? Do they watch movies and complain about how unrealistic the colors are?

I care because sometimes I feel it makes them think less of my work, and that hurts.
Once you stop worrying about what they think you'll start to feel better. ;)
Just remember, opinions are like @$$hole$, everyone has one, and they all stink. Even amongst avid photographers opinions on processing vary widely.
 
Whoever said it in your post, said it best. The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.


That was me! :)
 
Yeah, don't tell them. Let them think you are a genius with a camera.
Then when they buy their d3100 from BestBuy for Christmas, and go in business for themselves, then fail 6 months later, they'll wonder why you are so good.
 
Some people will agree with you. Others will disagree. In the end, you have to be comfortable with what you do. If those that disagree with you make you feel ill at ease, maybe you have to look into your heart of hearts. There might be a part of you that agrees with them. Otherwise, why would you start a new thread to air your gripes? Also, it could be a matter of degree. Maybe adjusting contrast and exposure and color to reflect what you saw is OK. But cloning things in or out may be too much. We all have to think about and come to some kind of a understanding so we can feel good about what we do. At times, I'm often in conflict as well with these things. Good luck on whatever you decide.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top