means to an end

[pixmedic]

Speaking strictly from an end product perspective, is there a perceived difference between someone who is average at photography but excellent at (insert photo editing software of choice here) and an excellent photographer but average photo editor?
I feel like they could potentially produce basically the same result, perhaps excluding extreme conditions that require specific photographic skills just to get the shot at all. But generally speaking?

 

[smoke665]

I think you first have to define the parameters of the end product. A skilled photographer is capable of producing a SOOC JPEG, ready to print an hang on the wall, but an average photographer is capable of producing a data file that a skilled editor can manipulate, add to, change, and develop in a multitude of ways. However, photo editing is somewhat like the old computer adage "Garbage in - Garbage out". The better the file you have to work with the better the final edited image.

 

[tirediron]

I would have to say, 'Yes!'. Why? Because the excellent photographer is producing a product that is already mostly finished, and any "finishing" will be done on a high-quality substrate as it were. The skilled retoucher however is only starting out with a mediocre product.

 

[Ysarex85 79]

Speaking strictly from an end product perspective, is there a perceived difference between someone who is average at photography but excellent at (insert photo editing software of choice here) and an excellent photographer but average photo editor?
I feel like they could potentially produce basically the same result, perhaps excluding extreme conditions that require specific photographic skills just to get the shot at all. But generally speaking?

You're making the question too vague and impossible to answer. How average are excellent photographer's editing skills? How average are excellent editor's photography skills? What is excellent editor going to fail to do that excellent photographer will get right?

It's the age old SOOC (get it right in camera) versus fix it in post dichotomy which is almost always presented as a red herring by someone sharpening their ax. Both skills complement each other and overall better work results when both skills come together. Excellent post process skills extend what is possible behind the camera in dealing with adverse subject/lighting conditions and as such should be under consideration when the image is captured.

Taking a hint from Ansel; we should all work to be excellent photographers who get it right in camera which includes shooting for post with the understanding that we need the right data to realize our previsualized image that we plan to create in the darkroom.

Joe

 

[The_Traveler]

Taking a hint from Ansel; we should all work to be excellent photographers who get it right in camera which includes shooting for post with the understanding that we need the right data to realize our previsualized image that we plan to create in the darkroom.

Joe

Taking a hint from Ansel; we should all work to be excellent photographers who get it as right AS POSSIBLE in camera which includes shooting for post with the understanding that we need the right data to realize our previsualized image that we plan to create in the darkroom.

 

[Derrel]

I think you first have to define the parameters of the end product. A skilled photographer is capable of producing a SOOC JPEG, ready to print an hang on the wall, but an average photographer is capable of producing a data file that a skilled editor can manipulate, add to, change, and develop in a multitude of ways. However, photo editing is somewhat like the old computer adage "Garbage in - Garbage out". The better the file you have to work with the better the final edited image.

Taking a hint from Ansel; we should all work to be excellent photographers who get it right in camera which includes shooting for post with the understanding that we need the right data to realize our previsualized image that we plan to create in the darkroom.

Joe

Taking a hint from Ansel; we should all work to be excellent photographers who get it as right AS POSSIBLE in camera which includes shooting for post with the understanding that we need the right data to realize our previsualized image that we plan to create in the darkroom.

Most all of my thoughts have been covered by the above posters. But I do want to shade,a little bit, toward the skilled shooter and less toward the skilled pixel-jockey. As Ysarex mentioned, this is a bit of an un-winnable, strawman-type of question. As smoke665 said,"Garbage in - Garbage out".

 

[Original katomi]

Oh boy this is a flame just waiting for someone to pour petrol on. I have seen so many rows on the in camera v post prossing. The garbage in garbage out or sows ears and silk purse is still true. Not everyone can get it right in camera and not everyone is a wizz in photoshop but unless otherwise requested as long as that final image is pleasing to the end user does it really matter.

 

[Overread16 4]

It's an impossible answer because without context it is utterly meaningless.

That said in a very general rule of thumb I would say that camera trumps editing for most typical applications.

There are times where top end editing is the only way to get what one wants so the photo quality is a secondary element, which is not to say its not important, just that its not the most highly skilled element in that situation. I've seen some fantastic composite images where a pretty average to snapshot style photo has been heavily edited and almost used more like a guiding base in a drawing and that editing on top has created a great bit of work. I've seen 3 guys in a pretty average photo dressed in snow gear on a parade turned into 3 intrepid explorers braving thick heavy snow storms and drifts.

That said most times a solid photo is best, it gives you a strong base and I would argue that many of us here have experienced it whereby we've basically got lazy with editing and still turned out great looking photos. A levels adjust, white balance, a boost to the darks, a bit of contrast etc... Sharpen it up and resize and away you go - you don't need vast skills for that.



Also in some fields editing is almost useless - take reporting where much of the work can't even be edited with anything fancy; its a strict crop and post and that's about it. Sports can be much the same; again its a fast shot that doesn't get a vast amount of editing thrown on top - some to be sure and more than the newspaper article, but nothing extreme.



In the end the output and intention are key. Different ideas and concepts and situations will weight things one way or the other. It's why unless one works in a very niche situation; most photographers learn both skills to a degree, though the camera is normally the first because it directly enables the second. Sows ears and polishing turds and all that is more "boogymen" stories told to beginners and feared by fierce debaters as to things that "could happen" if one takes things to the extreme.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

This is a bit six of one, half a dozen of the other but all the same you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so my feeling is getting as much done towards the end result before the image leaves the camera is always a plus point.

 

[pixmedic]

This is a bit six of one, half a dozen of the other but all the same you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so my feeling is getting as much done towards the end result before the image leaves the camera is always a plus point.

I wasnt thinking so much "garbage in" as i was something more along the lines of: is a good photographer/great photoshopper = great photographer/good photoshopper.

Obviously you want the best shot you can get right from the shutter release, but do you ever reach a point of diminishing returns? IE: a point in your photography where learning better processing skills would get you better results than more camera skills?



Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Original katomi]

I have been thinking about this post and the question.
I am not great, really good at either, but I have looked at my images and they seem to fall into three groups
A point shoot... to capture the moment,
B a whole heap of prep work, lots of shots to get that ,just what I wanted shot, minimal post prossing eg crop remove spots
C a lot of planing, thought of what I want final image to be, up to 30 shots then a lot of hours and layers in photoshop
To produce the large 60 inch outdoor displayed panoramas I currently into.
I have had speakers at club level who have encouraged photographers to cut branches if they were in the way just so the in camera shot was better.
I can just see myself explaining to a local copper

 

[Ysarex85 79]

This is a bit six of one, half a dozen of the other but all the same you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so my feeling is getting as much done towards the end result before the image leaves the camera is always a plus point.

I wasnt thinking so much "garbage in" as i was something more along the lines of: is a good photographer/great photoshopper = great photographer/good photoshopper.

Obviously you want the best shot you can get right from the shutter release, but do you ever reach a point of diminishing returns? IE: a point in your photography where learning better processing skills would get you better results than more camera skills?

Simple answer to that: yes. Lot of assumptions though: We're talking about natural or "given" light photography not studio photography. Being able to control the lighting is a game changer. Camera skills can't do bleep bleep about adverse natural lighting. You want to shoot a landscape and the light direction isn't quite right. You missed it, come back tomorrow at the right time weather permitting. Can't come back tomorrow or it's going to rain? You get bupkis. What camera skill will solve that problem?

I took this photo walking to the grocery store:

Here's the camera JPEG SOOC:

What adjustments to the camera settings will deliver a SOOC JPEG in which the red tree appears a little brighter while at the same time recording the blue in the sky as I really saw it and as it shows in the top version of the photo? If you can't answer that then refer back to the simple answer above.

Joe

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[Soocom1]

OK.
As a wood worker and someone who use to build plastic models I can add in my opinion on this that is a bit more on point here.

if the initial product is higher quality, then the photo shopping is minimal.

if the initial product is poor, the end results will show it.

in wood working a poor choice in wood, wood grain, end finish (pre-varnish) will clearly show on a finished product.

In plastic model building and in the automotive finish industry, your base ( the unfinished work) will show its flaws no matter how much primer paint, glue, filler or anything else you put on.
And if it doesn't show at first it eventually will.

From my perspective, the GI-GO mantra is only true to the extent of the initial photograph. Do all the adjusting you want. If its poor to begin with, it will be poor int he end.

 

[smoke665]

What adjustments to the camera settings will deliver a SOOC JPEG in which the red tree appears a little brighter while at the same time recording the blue in the sky as I really saw it and as it shows in the top version of the photo?

Ah Joe but can you truthfully say the edited one is a true representation, or the representation of your memory. How much did your mind subconsciously adjust what the eye actually saw? Doesn't the human eye/mind automatically compensate for WB, how much else might we compensate for?

 

[Ysarex85 79]

What adjustments to the camera settings will deliver a SOOC JPEG in which the red tree appears a little brighter while at the same time recording the blue in the sky as I really saw it and as it shows in the top version of the photo?

Ah Joe but can you truthfully say the edited one is a true representation, or the representation of your memory. How much did your mind subconsciously adjust what the eye actually saw? Doesn't the human eye/mind automatically compensate for WB, how much else might we compensate for?

It's what I "saw" at the time and that's fair. No need to go messing around with how our eye/brain interactions are interpretive. The image on your retina is curved, reversed left to right and upside down. You nonetheless manage to walk around and not bump into things.

Joe