is editing necessary all the time?

[y0aimee]

Hi everyone!
I just took 2 shots and edited one of them through Flickr's picnik editing tool. Pic #2 has been "auto-fixed" in exposure/ contrast with a bit of adjustments by me through picnik. In pic #1, it is totally unedited and untouched. My question is... Would it have been possible to achieve a shot like pic#2 straight from my camera without any editing or pp? The reason why I'm asking is because I want to learn to use my camera to its full potential so I can achieve good shots and not have to rely on editing in order to make my pics look better (plus, I don't like to edit too much because I want to keep the pic as real as possible). I understand that editing/ pp can enhance a photo, but what's the point of learning about my cam if I can just snap a shot in "auto" and let the camera do all the work. hehe

Thanks in advance!

50mm
f/1.8
1/8"
iso 100


1

2

 

[Jon0807]

You can but it would involve making your camera do all the editing for you. You can have the camera adjust the sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc after you've taken the photo. Essentially when you take a photo your camera shoots it in neutral then applies the adjustments you tell your camera to make. So basically your photos are being PP'd, just by the camera.

Personally I like to shoot in RAW and entirely neutral and do all the PP myself unless I'm doing a studio shoot where I want all the pictures to turn out the same and the lighting doesn't change. Even then I feel that I have more control over the fine details by doing PP on a computer rather than on the camera.

And I love those two shots btw. Great composition and color :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

Loving the composition and colours as well

And like Jon I agree you can have the camera make a range of adjustments to your images before they leave if you save them as a JPEG shot - even if you shoot as RAW many of the RAW processing softwares can be set to use the incamera settings as a default starting position when processing.

However you are then not getting the best out of your photos. Consider the above photo as an example - when you sharpen the shot you idealy don't want to sharpen the background elements - they want to remain blurry; whilst on the other hand noise will show up more in those blurred background areas and thus might require noise reduction which your sharp flower head does not want (it wants to remain sharp and noise reduction softens overall details).
In camera edits will be applied to the whole image so you lose control, whilst if you do them yourself not only can you specifiy the amount of sharpening needed but where it is to take place as well. Sometimes you will get avery sharp shot which requires little sharpening and other times not.

Also if you shoot in RAW your shots will need sharpening almost all the time (since they are not getting the in-camera sharpening that a JPEG does).

Do keep your mentality of getting things as good in camera as you possibly can, but don't avoid editing either - its a very key and important step and since digital lets you control this process do so.

 

[skieur]

The auto on your camera is really guessing at the photographic conditions in your scene and the more your shooting changes to artistic/creative/original/unique etc. the more those guesses by your camera on auto will be incorrect and require post processing on the computer. This is why all experience enthusiasts and pros postprocess.

skieur

 

[Shockey]

Absolutely possible.
Set your jpeg settings to vivid and high contrast and sharpening to taste and see what it looks like. If you can get the look you like in jpegs then processing is not necessary.
Having said that processing can always help a photo by cropping, cloning, dodging and burning etc. etc. but those are slightly more advanced techniques.
Just starting out shoot jpeg and gradually work on improving your knowledge until you feel like you are ready to try some processing.
Have fun and don't over complicate it.

 

[o hey tyler]

Absolutely possible.
Set your jpeg settings to vivid and high contrast and sharpening to taste and see what it looks like. If you can get the look you like in jpegs then processing is not necessary.
Having said that processing can always help a photo by cropping, cloning, dodging and burning etc. etc. but those are slightly more advanced techniques.
Just starting out shoot jpeg and gradually work on improving your knowledge until you feel like you are ready to try some processing.
Have fun and don't over complicate it.

Don't know if I'd agree with this. Changing vivid color settings won't really make for a "better" photo. If there's not enough light for the camera to process, it's going to make all of those supposedly vivid colors muddy and unsightly. I would suggest purchasing a strobe and some strobe accessories. Depending on how you bounce the light, you can get a very contrasty and crisp photo with a good dynamic range. And also, I'd suggest shooting in RAW pretty much 24/7/365 (with a few exceptions) if you've got a memory card with adequate cojones to store a ton of raw files.

 

[IgsEMT]

but what's the point of learning about my cam if I can just snap a shot in "auto" and let the camera do all the work. hehe

Well, by same though, you might as well shoot with a P&S and do the editing ~
I'm a Nikonian most of the time , so I use Capture NX2 for RAW work - 99% of what I see in the camera is what I get in the final product, the 1% is done in PP. In JPGs, I use LR just for small basic stuff.
Think back to good old film days, you use specific film and set your exposure but the fun stuff starts in post processing - well in digital it is same idea

 

[Olympus E300]

That second picture is awesome!! I love everything about it!

 

[lakers808]

hey watsup my names is johnmark from hawaii and im a beginner at photography still lol so sad but getting better.. anywayz um i agree with u about using the camera to its full potential.. i want my pictures to be original and i hate editing pics.. people who edit pictures is just takn the easy way out .. i rather hardwrk for my photos and be original.. isnt it better to learn on your own and find out how to make a photo look crisp by doing it on your camera with your settings rather than using a software??..

 

[AfroKen]

I don't think editing photos is taking the easy way out any more than processing film was before. Obviously, you want to get the best photos you can with minimal processing, but there's nothing wrong with processing in PhotoShop or whatever (something which I hope to learn better soon!).

 

[Sherman Banks]

i want my pictures to be original and i hate editing pics.. people who edit pictures is just takn the easy way out .. i rather hardwrk for my photos and be original..

Being that you're new to photography you may not understand that editing is not the "easy way out". For many good photographers, professional and amateur, far more time is spent looking at the shot on the computer screen than when it was in the viewfinder. Editing a photo and taking a photo are two different skill sets and to say that editing is the easy way out is completely backwards. Relying only on your camera to produce the results would actually be the easy way out since you're avoiding spending any time to enhance it, but I'm not about to spark a purist/edited debate.

As for originality, you're way off there. Being original comes with how you fill your frame, not how much contrast, saturation, or the level of sharpening it has. Composition is not something you do in post, although fixes like cropping and cloning help, it all starts in the viewfinder. Avedon and Adams are some of the most renowned photographers in the world and they both did a lot of post work on their shots, and this was long before Photoshop was around. A good shot requires a lot of elements which you may not always get with the camera alone. If you can get the results you want straight off the camera, great, but I wouldn't go around assuming an edited image required any less thought/work than one SOTC. Same goes for originality.

 

[y0aimee]

but what's the point of learning about my cam if I can just snap a shot in "auto" and let the camera do all the work. hehe

Well, by same though, you might as well shoot with a P&S and do the editing ~
I'm a Nikonian most of the time , so I use Capture NX2 for RAW work - 99% of what I see in the camera is what I get in the final product, the 1% is done in PP. In JPGs, I use LR just for small basic stuff.
Think back to good old film days, you use specific film and set your exposure but the fun stuff starts in post processing - well in digital it is same idea

Yea, that's what I meant and I totally agree with you. I can understand "professionals" using PP to enhance their photos since they most likely get paid for their work, but me being a beginner I would like to learn more about my camera first rather than resorting to PP just to make my pics look good. If that was the case, then I would've just stuck with my point & shoot and PP.

Thanks everyone for your input! It's nice to see where people are coming from and get a better understanding of each person's ideas/ opinions about photography. =)


Oh, and thanks for the C&C on my pics.

 

[Sherman Banks]

...I would like to learn more about my camera first rather than resorting to PP just to make my pics look good.

That's what we call polishing turds. If the shot doesn't look good on its own, it's likely that PP isn't going to do anything to make it look better. As is always preached, learn the fundamentals then build upon them in camera and in post.

Nice shots BTW.