I Edit-- So Deal with It!

[molested_cow]

I have this friend who texted me asking me what camera he should buy. He was at the store looking at a few different advanced p&s as well as mirrorless options. I asked why is he buying a new camera. He said he wants something that doesn't take blurry shots of his kids. I then told him not to buy a new camera because it's more on how you shoot as opposed to the camera's ability. If he understands the problem and still feels that he needs a new one, at least he will know what kind of camera to look for.

I also told him that if he's not going to edit his photos, there's really no need to get advanced p&s or mirrorless cameras where the real value lies in the ability to take RAW files. Most people don't understand that to get a shot you want, there's a process to go through, as in, you actually need to WORK on it to get it right, before, during and after taking the shot. They are so used to the instant result of digital cameras that they expect professional quality shots right away, sometime even complain about the delay of the preview photo that shows up after taking it.

Our generation is spoiled, increasingly, by not just technology, but the way we want our lives to be. We used to have to work really hard, hands on, to have anything. Our culture has shifted from a process driven one to a result oriented one. We look for results in the form of numbers to justify our efforts, while denying the value of the efforts itself. The shorter and the easier route is always the better one because it's the most efficient. However, that's not exactly what "working smart" is about. If I do go through the full process, or even take a detour and then realize how to improve in the future, that's working smarter. To take a short cut without really learning from the process is a waste of one's own life.

Sadly, as someone who teaches today's college kids, it's not just the young generation that suffers from such lack of foresight. It's also the parents and the society as a whole.

It is ironic that in the past when the average life expectancy was shorter, people have more appreciation for hands on experience that takes longer time. Now with our average life expectancy increased, we've become more impatient, always in a hurry to have "more" and "new". There's always the need for more and more stimulation, yet no time to really experience it. The time each individual has therefore has not increased, because more of it is wasted.

I think I'm in troll-mode tonight.

 

[The_Traveler]

The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.

I actually don't think that's the point to be made.

If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?

 

[ronlane]

The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.

I actually don't think that's the point to be made.

If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?

excellent point Lew.

 

[D-B-J]

The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.

I actually don't think that's the point to be made.

If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?

excellent point Lew.

I agree as well. No artist recreates exactly what they see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

This drives me nuts as well, but it's our (industry) own fault. The language we're using is at the root of the problem.

SOOC: There is an implied understanding in that term that the photos are somehow not edited. How did that come about: Ignorance and misunderstanding. THEY ARE HEAVILY EDITED!!! Just because they're edited by the software in your camera as opposed to by you doesn't mean they're not edited. If you can't avoid that term with the false implication then you're going to keep stepping in it. "Hey look a big pile of cr*p! I'll just step in it." If you keep stepping in it......hmmmm.

If you can't fix the term then change the language altogether. I go through this every semester with my students. By the end of the semester they know better than to use that term in front of me. We use the term FUBC (F*cked Up By Camera). FUBC includes the accurate understanding that the JPEGs from the camera HAVE BEEN EDITED!

EDIT: We do edit photos. But there's a big difference between editing a photo from the beginning (raw file) as opposed to trying to repair a JPEG. Notice that I didn't say edit a JPEG. In reference to a JPEG the term "edit" does not accurately describe what you're doing. Yet we (industry) keep stepping in it. If you fix the language (stop stepping in it) the problem goes away. Again my students learn to never put the word "edit" in a sentence with camera JPEG. It's really bad for Joe's blood pressure. If there's a problem with a camera JPEG that means the camera software (under your control) screwed up. Given the archive nature (compression) of that JPEG that means it's damaged. You don't edit something that's been damaged -- you try and fix it. It's a repair job.

So this is a language problem and the way to avoid it is to just stop stepping in it. The JPEGs produced by the cameras (FUBC) are heavily edited by the camera software and often poorly edited so that we have to repair them. There you go: Accurate language to describe what's going on and the problem goes away.

Joe

 

[PixelRabbit]

I actually don't think that's the point to be made.

If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?

This!! And I agree, don't even open the door to the conversation, there was a thread a while back posting unedited shots, I ALMOST posted an unedited Fine Art in Motion shot, even uploaded it (and got multiple likes on Flickr) but didn't post it because my motivation was to prove its done in camera, not post processing and ultimately that is irrelevant, only the final image is.

 

[gsgary]

Shoot film then they can't see them untill they are developed

 

[julianliu]

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.

I completely agree with you! Everyone has a opinion even the ones who do not know photography at all.

 

[julianliu]

Jake,

I agree with you, editing make our photographer a artist and different! Those who do not believe in anything but SOOC picture is ignorant about the camera and picture capturing process.

And everybody has different opinions about it so if possible, deal with the ones who agree with you. I know an American girl do not like me to PS her to be skinny and with better skin while I know a Chinese girl who begs me to PS her to be like stars on magazine cover. What are you gonna do with it? I will PS according my models needs and likes. But it made me mad that the Chinese girl took my edited photo and edited with her iphone to make it more amateurish.

But I think it's always good to listen to what people say about your work and think carefully about what could possibly improve before ignoring it.

Good luck!

Julian

 

[zaroba]

So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?

As long as the picture is nice and as long as you like the outcome, why should anybody else care what *you* do with *your* photos?
Of course, I guess there are people who think the trip is more important then the destination.


One of the things I like about digital cameras is that you can go out and take a million shots of something in an attempt to get a good picture and easily edit the pictures instead of film where you have to be careful and conserve constly film. Some people wil lsay that shows a lack of skill and isn't proper photography. My response to that is "so what? I got a shot that I think is great so why do you care?". How you obtain a good photo doesn't matter in my opinion, all that matters is that you are happy with your work. So do things in the way that works for you and ignore any people who want to act like snobs and not take advantage of modern technology that makes life easier.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Here's an example of why so many people disapprove of "processing". Even I call B.S. on this degree of manipulation: this is nothing at all like what was there, and crap like this cheapens the value of photography. And this from one of the web's foremost landscape "photography" sites! THis is basically a recipe article,. with step by step directions, on how to rescue crap and turn it into pretty "pitchers".

Death Valley Sunset

Noone replied to this.
This is absolutely awful. his original edit was fine, hell, his original image may have even been better.

The light was changing fast and it was such a dramatic sky, with great clouds and beautiful color...

"...so I ruined it with overediting and a dis-appreciation for the subtle changes in tonality of clouds and the beautiful color that I saw"

So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?

As long as the picture is nice and as long as you like the outcome, why should anybody else care what *you* do with *your* photos?
Of course, I guess there are people who think the trip is more important then the destination.


One of the things I like about digital cameras is that you can go out and take a million shots of something in an attempt to get a good picture and easily edit the pictures instead of film where you have to be careful and conserve constly film. Some people wil lsay that shows a lack of skill and isn't proper photography. My response to that is "so what? I got a shot that I think is great so why do you care?". How you obtain a good photo doesn't matter in my opinion, all that matters is that you are happy with your work. So do things in the way that works for you and ignore any people who want to act like snobs and not take advantage of modern technology that makes life easier.

The only reason people say that is so that beginners can learn by taking the time to actually compose an image. Your bound to get a better shot if you pay attention to what's actually in front of your lens than if you take 1000 snapshots of one thing. Noone is saying don't shoot a ton of images. They just mean think about what you shoot.

 

[Browncoat]

I'm not seeing so much of it here in this thread, but there are some hardcore purist SOOC zealots out there. They can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that there is no such thing as an "unedited" photo in the digital era, unless it's a RAW file. Those who shoot JPEG are relying on the camera to process the image. It isn't "pure" just because it wasn't edited in Lightroom. A digital image is going to get processed in-camera or in post, regardless. Some just choose to exercise more control and creativity over their work by shooting RAW.

But I agree with what some have already said here:

There's nothing to be gained by showing SOOC vs. edited work to the masses, especially on Facebook. I imagine it was meant to be a chest-pounding, I am photographer, hear me roar moment that backfired horribly...but predictably. We live in a world where photography is no longer an art form. It's an app on your phone, and everyone is a photographer. Let your work stand on its own merit without pulling back the curtain.

 

[runnah]

Those people sound like pretentious twats who probably say they have a gluten allergy but just want to appear interesting.

 

[D-B-J]

Those people sound like pretentious twats who probably say they have a gluten allergy but just want to appear interesting.

Always the cynic, eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[runnah]

Always the cynic, eh? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes