Is there any value of Unedited Photographs ?

[smoke665]

@BadPhotos There's more to getting a good SOOC shot than light, or perspective. Learning to use your tools and all that it's capable of will go a long way in achieving that illusive SOOC. For example say you're at a sporting event or zoo, and there's a chain link fence in your way. If you use a long focal length lens up close to the fence, and focus on the subject the fence will magically disapper. Cant see the street for all the people moving around, check out how to make them disappear "in camera" - https://www.photographynews.co.uk/inspiration/remove-any-moving-object-in-camera/ . Google ICM photography, or Pull/Zoom photography, the creative opportunities for SOOC are endless.

 

[mrca]

Badphotos, it is a craft that can be learned, it's not rocket science. Kelby has lightroom and photo shop classes that will take you from square one to expert at your own pace. He also has classes on what the camera and lenses do to an image, classes on composition, lighting. He has experts in the field,, teaching things like nature, lighting, portraiture, sports, product. But I always warn folks but they don't listen, don't sign up unless you can disappear for a month or 2. I didn't have the luxury of attending a photo school like Brooks so had to find sources for my photo education. Kelby really helped How did that work out? My local Professional photographers of america asked me to head their mentor program. I have won and judged professional competitions. Kelby will give you a solid foundation. But shoot and use what you learn. So much to learn, so much to photo.

 

[mrca]

@BadPhotos There's more to getting a good SOOC shot than light, or perspective. Learning to use your tools and all that it's capable of will go a long way in achieving that illusive SOOC. For example say you're at a sporting event or zoo, and there's a chain link fence in your way. If you use a long focal length lens up close to the fence, and focus on the subject the fence will magically disapper. Cant see the street for all the people moving around, check out how to make them disappear "in camera" - https://www.photographynews.co.uk/inspiration/remove-any-moving-object-in-camera/ . Google ICM photography, or Pull/Zoom photography, the creative opportunities for SOOC are endless.

Definitely alot to making a good photo. But there must be sound fundementals of composition and lighting and if they are missing, interesting techniques will still produce a poor image. Bad use of light and poor composition is still there after getting a shot through chain link or eliminating people from a shot. I have known that technique for years and never used it. But nearly every shot should have good light and compostion. I am an advocate of learning the basics of capture and editing. Folks always complain their "keeper" ratio is low. That's what happens with spray and pray. I shoot alot of film, medium format at a lab ends up costing me $3 per shot. I do everything I can to be sure nearly every one is a keeper. Knowing the craft makes that possible. I would add, joining a local club that has monthly judging of images will help immeasurably. First, you know know what you don't know is wrong with your shots and when 30 or 40 images are critiqued a night, you will quickly learn what are common problems and learn to spot them looking through the viewfinder. Most judge anonymously so look at any critique as a learning experience. That alone will improve your work more than ANY piece of gear.

 

[mjcmt]

Obviously two schools of thought, to edit or not. Some like it raw and unedited, but generally setting camera menu to a more enhanced photo. Generally street photographers like a raw B&W unedited image. Some edit extensively to get the results they envision, while some just do a bit editing to tweak what the camera captured. I try not to edit my street photos and do minimal editing on other subjects.

 

[smoke665]

@mrca I may have worded the response wrong, I didn't mean to discount the importance of lighting and composition, I was merely pointing out that creative photography can be done in camera. However I think you would also agree that opportunity trumps everything. Would anyone care about lighting or composition if you snapped a real life shot of Big Foot, or an Alien. Did anyone criticize the lighting or composition of the "V-J Day in Times Square"?

 

[mrca]

I edit when the image calls for it, when it will maximize the message or story being told. There is nothing purist or virtuistic about declaring you don't edit. It is usually a sign someone wont be bothered to take the time to edit, doesn't have the editing skills or even understand what makes a great image. Of course, if I just mindlessly took a photo, had no idea why I took it, it wouldn't be possible to maximize a non existent message or story. It is like sitting at the keyboard, closing your eyes and hitting random keys hoping it will say something meaningful. However, like a blind squirrel, you will occasionally find an acorn. But then don't complain when your images don't compare with someone who crafts the image from capture to print. Ever see a draft of a great speech, it is full of edits, cross outs etc. Is it more pure not to edit the first draft of literature? Beginners are not expected to know the difference and understand, but folks photoing for awhile,

@mrca I may have worded the response wrong, I didn't mean to discount the importance of lighting and composition, I was merely pointing out that creative photography can be done in camera. However I think you would also agree that opportunity trumps everything. Would anyone care about lighting or composition if you snapped a real life shot of Big Foot, or an Alien. Did anyone criticize the lighting or composition of the "V-J Day in Times Square"?

I agree, can do creative photography in camera with unique camera positions, lenses. But I disagree opportunity trumps everything. Yes, in some cases I would rather be lucky than good. However Bambi Cantrell said expression trumps perfection but her friend and fellow master wedding photographer Jerry Ghianis said that's true, but expression plus perfection trumps expression alone. My best awarded image is a shot taken looking behind me at an event and spotting a reflection of a christmas laser light show in an 18th century santas glasses. It got all kinds of awards because of the subject matter but no one realized I popped a flash to the other side of the street 40 ' away 45 degrees behind me off the glass store fronts to put loop lighting on his face instead of the flat light from the laser in the dark. It was a decisive moment capture with an expression of wonderment, but wouldn't have been as good without the perfect lighting. That's why it takes a few months practice to be able to take decent photos, 10,000 hours to make outstanding one. Smoke we are pretty serious about our photography and have to remember that so many folks are only expecting to get sharp well exposed with the subject recognizable. And there is nothing wrong with that. But it would be great if folks could discover the amazing creativity available in photography both capture and editing and enjoy what we both have found.

 

[smoke665]

However, like a blind squirrel, you will occasionally find an acorn.

Here in the woods and mountains of Alabama we say "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then", one of my favorite sayings by the way. LOL

But I disagree opportunity trumps everything. Yes, in some cases I would rather be lucky than good.

Once you've been at it for many years, you develop a certain amount of reflex actions that you instinctively do without conscious thought, even in those split second shots.

 

[mrca]

Here in the woods and mountains of Alabama we say "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then", one of my favorite sayings by the way. LOL



Once you've been at it for many years, you develop a certain amount of reflex actions that you instinctively do without conscious thought, even in those split second shots.

In Italy, those pigs find incredbily expensive truffles. I have seen your work here and you are not relying on pray and spray. You work on mastery of the craft. So true on things becoming automatic. When I don't shoot for a while in studio, I have to think how to use the light trigger. In the shot I described, I had just returned from a cross country trip to study with Denis Reggie and Joe Buissink who in 2011 was charging up to $50,000 per wedding. When he had demonstrated a 40 foot speedlight bounce, I couldn't believe it. We did a 100' bounce from the back of the Atlanta cathedral to the front and back and produced wonderful light on the bride. That is exactly why I can't recommend highly enough joining a local club with monthly judging. After a few months, the standard errors automatically are recognized in the view finder and folks make fantastic progress.

 

[AlanKlein]

It depends on what you intend to do with your photos.

When I travel or shoot family occasions, I use a digital camera and shoot jpeg and raw. When I get home, I make a slide show of selected pictures from the trip. I mainly use jpegs as shot in the camera. The only editing I do is some cropping if needed and maybe adding a little more color and saturation which could have been done in the camera when I shot them. (There are settings in the camera for color, saturation, etc.) So you really don;lt need editing programs other than simple adjustments.

On the other hand, when I shoot film, I need to scan and do major adjustments afterward. So I use Lightroom and other programs. If you intend to do fancy printing, then you;ll need more skills. Even then, most printing doesn't;t require huge edits. I just sent a cellphone picture to Walgreens for a couple of 5x7 prints. No editing other than a little cropping.

In any case, I wouldn't get ahead of myself. Stick with simple straightforward stuff first. If you feel you need to develop more skills, then you can do that later.

 

[TanBrae]

I edit most of my photos. I'm still trying to learn how to use my camera, and don't always get it right IN camera.

That said,,,

I generally prefer more true-to-life photos, rather than those that are, in my opinion, overly processed. A FB group I'm in posts a lot of sunrise and sunset images. Most are quite overly saturated. I seldom see sunrises/sunsets that are THAT bright. (the group is a state-wide only photo group)

Bird and flower shots, too, are often overly saturated. I know what color cardinals are - a sort of orange-y red, NOT a lipstick red! And, our grass isn't very green at this time of year, but I'm constantly seeing bright, summer green grass in many images.

Edit, but don't over do it!

 

[weepete]

@BadPhotos there's more to a really good shot than editing alone. Sure, tweeking photos individually can get you a slightly better result than not, but it's more about getting that shot to be the best in can be than elevating it to a different level.

In a really good shot, the technical aspects of photography are pretty much a given. So, if you are at a stage where you are getting consistantly well exposed, sharp images and you still think there's something lacking, it's time to delve into more advanced concepts. The trouble with tutorials from experienced photographers is that they'll be applying years of learning subconsciously, and it'll seem quite simple, but often they'll be paying attention to things that create harmony, or discordance without realising it.

I'd really reccommend is getting some critique on your photos, and learning how to critique others as well (both in a constructive way). I have a little bit of art education, critique was absolutley fundimental to development, and actually understanding art. We've quite a good sub-forum here for that. If you've got the inclination, a course at a local college which could teach critical evaluation and art history is well worth it. 25 years on I still use the things I learned during art classes.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Badphotos, it is a craft that can be learned, it's not rocket science. Kelby has lightroom and photo shop classes that will take you from square one to expert at your own pace.

Ah ha, another K1 member! I'm Cytography over there! Kelby has what are called "Tracks" for various topics. For example, a Light Room "track" where there are several "classes" and each class will have several "lessons." I've completed the LR "Track" and now working on the Photoshop Track. Soup-to-nuts from beginning all the way to advanced techniques. He has classes (and in many cases tracks with multiple classes) for just about any Photo related topics you can imagine. And Kelby's instructors are world-class. Then you can discuss the class-related topics (or anything else) in the Kelby community forum like this one. Many professional hand out there. Kelby isn't free but I feel like it's well worth the price of admission.

 

[Jason LB]

Probably not the most popular opinion, but ever since digital came along, I kinda consider the electronic editing that happens on a computer to be “cheating” in a way. If it wasn’t done in a darkroom, the tonal changes that are applied are a whole different thing.
My opinion may be changed if I were to take a class on digital manipulation, but I enjoy the prep work I do before a shot in order to achieve the results I’m looking for, and yes, I’m off base more often than I’d like, but that’s part of the learning for me.

 

[dxqcanada]

Going back to your original post ... as an old film photographer, i know that we did not typically present a SOOC image ... many do not manipulate the film development, but most have done many different versions of the print ... dodging, burning, contrast changes, filters, etc ... to get an image that we liked.
Shooting positive (slide) film, really made us work at getting it right the first time.
This age of digital imaging has just made this process ooooh, soooo much easier ... and yeah, the tools we have now can make a trash bin image into a keeper.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Probably not the most popular opinion, but ever since digital came along, I kinda consider the electronic editing that happens on a computer to be “cheating” in a way. If it wasn’t done in a darkroom, the tonal changes that are applied are a whole different thing.
My opinion may be changed if I were to take a class on digital manipulation, but I enjoy the prep work I do before a shot in order to achieve the results I’m looking for, and yes, I’m off base more often than I’d like, but that’s part of the learning for me.

There's certainly room for both schools of thought. I think it depends on what you're shooting for and what type of shooting you do. Even Ansel Adams did a fair amount of "post processing" in the dark room, albeit to a different degree that we can do it now.

I always (well, almost) shoot RAW and do most of my post processing in Lightroom. I can achieve an artistic vision far beyond what I could get straight out of the camera. I see it as just more tools that allow for increased creativity.

I'm not trying to be a photo journalist, but rather enjoy the photography (hobby for me) as a means of artistic expression where the camera and the available editing tools are all just part of the overall creative process.