Is there any value of Unedited Photographs ?

Not open for further replies.
Amazed with all the responses and really promotive and positive responses.
Thank you all for being polite, welcoming and genuinely keen to help.

First to answer couple of questions:

@smoke665 - Got a canon camera, thanks for the link, got one suitable for my device.
@480sparky - By 'value' I meant aesthetically appealing and what I understood are they do have more monitory value as well.

@Shinden Amazing post and thanks for the story bite from past.

@mrca Do agree with ' So learn light '

@SquarePeg Good segment idea indeed.

And thanks to all others, the intent was not to paint editing in a bad light, it's definitely not cheating rather a great skill which I would certainly like to master.

Actually I have been talking to couple of people who either started sometime back or are new like me and more or less everyone seemed a little disappointed that their photos never came out as good as the ones in tutorials or the "insta likable". I know one has to be persistent and it can't happen over-night but was looking for a website or forum or community where we have just the SOOB photos.

Mr. BadPhotos,

I personally like to fiddle in LR to get my images, film or digital, just right.

However time is money, and if I have 1000 images from a professional job, I strive for and appreciate images, right out of the camera, that requires minimal editing.

Have fun,

Over the years I have noticed one common thread in photography. With rare exception most people, photographers included, are looking for the WOW factor.

That is to say, if you ask folks to choose the better picture, they will almost always choose a color print over the same black and white print. They will almost always choose a creatively post processed, super color saturated, crisp and clearer that life photo, over its "as shot" image.

Why, because it is how people react to visual stimulus. The WOW factor can, and often does, include the subject or message of the photo, both pleasant and discomforting.

For example, Color or B&W; everybody smiles at photos of cute little critters; puppies, kittens, wildlife youngsters and of course human babies. Again, it is pretty much the way most folk are wired.

But to answer the OPs question , Yes there is value in every type of photography. But, not every photographer likes every type of photography. Those who wish to sell their photos are limited by what the market place will buy.

When starting out, I think you will find yourself migrating to certain areas of interest. Some photographers chase black and white street photography, white other seek fine art studio photos.
I'm not familiar with the CorelDraw, Is it easy than the PS?
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.
Which begs the question do you want to always get it right IN camera? In time you could eventually train yourself to only photograph the small and restricted range of subjects that the limited editing software in your camera can handle. But then there's so much that you won't be able to photograph. "Get it right in camera" is very much a myth unless you understand that it prevents you from photographing most of what you can see. The camera's toolset is quite limited and it's commonplace that you will encounter scenes and lighting conditions that simply shut the camera software down. The only way you can always get it right in camera then is if you avoid trying to photograph those scenes in those lighting conditions.

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.
All digital photographs are edited by the photographer. In order to produce the final output image the camera software edits the photo according to the photographer's specifications. The camera can apply one of usually 1/2 dozen different input profiles chosen by the photographer. The camera must set a white balance for the photo chosen by the photographer. The camera can moderate highlight and shadow rendition over a range of a dozen possibilities chosen by the photographer. The camera will sharpen the photo to the degree chosen by the photographer. And depending on the camera another 1/2 dozen editing procedures.

It's curious that some people draw a line between the extensive editing done by the photographer using the camera software for every digital image -- that's not cheating -- while as soon as the editing continues outside the camera -- that is cheating. I can't find any logic in that. Especially since it may often be that the editing done outside the camera is often done to produce a more true-to-life and faithful rendition of the subject given that the camera software was too limited to achieve that.

Consider this example -- a photo of the pond and fountain in our park I took a couple months ago.


That photo is an example of a simple landscape not possible to "get right in the camera." As such it's edited outside the camera to basically make up for the camera's deficiencies or inability to edit the image well. I take photos like this all the time. The editing I've done to this photo isn't to produce a better than life WOW version but simply to capture the scene as it appeared -- something the camera software couldn't do.

Here's the JPEG SOOC that the camera created.


The problem that is ultimately insurmountable for the camera is that the scene is backlit. The sky highlights in the camera JPEG are nuked to hell and the only option for the camera is to reduce exposure. Reduce exposure and the foreground gets too dark. The editing software in the camera doesn't provide options to locally adjust different parts of the image.

The camera has a color problem as well. The foreground is too blue -- camera was set to auto WB. The sky and clouds however are much closer to the right color. Fact is the scene has a split white balance and the camera software can't accommodate that either. There is no getting it right in camera. The editing done on the computer wasn't extensive but it was necessary to render an image faithful to what I saw there at the park because the camera editing software wasn't up to the job.
I'm not familiar with the CorelDraw, Is it easy than the PS?
Corel Draw/Photo was out first and was for Windows users when PS was a Mac only product. Mostly consigned to the dust bin now, but in the day it was quite a powerful tool.

I wouldn't say it's easier, learning curve to them all, but a little more intuitive than PS, IMHO anyway. But then I used Corel 20 years ago and have almost never opened PS.
SOOC is more important in the areas of composition, framing, and the angle of the shot. These things can mainly be not corrected in post.
On the other hand, exposure, DR, etc. can often be adjusted in post to correct or improve the limitation of cameras to capture these things correctly. So we have a little more flexibility in correcting in post.
I have come to the conclusion that digital for all its advantages, rarely produces a picture that for me does not need a little tweaking, particularly when it comes to contrast. Probably just one of my personal biases.
Well, @BadPhotos , a hot topic that always spurs discussion!

Truth is: we all have our own level at which we "draw the line" regarding how much we will edit our digital images. Unfortunately, human nature often dictates that we then judge other photographers based on our own preferences. Too much or not enough editing is a first impression reaction based on each individual's unique threshold.

Photographers care, not a random viewer. People will love a poor photo because they have an emotional reaction. The same person will love an edited photo for the brilliant rendition. A photographer will brutally judge based on what they would do.

Some guys are hung up on the topic and love to re-hash the debate. I know a user on a forum who will post the same baiting questions under different aliases in order to passively justify their own position on the subject.

Record your imagery and prepare it for display however you choose. React to the choices of others however you feel. Share your opinion. It's all good.
With regards to the original question. All photos have value to someone or some group.

But, as a nubie starting out, one should be aware that the majority of photos you see published in magazines are enhanced or modified to some degree. When was the last time you saw a really bad photo published. So yes, you should be familiar with the basics of post processing.

I use Gimp because it is free, but it is confusing to use. Pacasa on the other hand is quite easy. My needs are are usually met with the some method of Cropping and Auto correcting.
Some types of photography like "News" demand for things to be unedited.
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions