Original Or Edited Photo?

[lakers808]

im a starting beginner with a nikon d40 had my camera for a good month now almost 2 .. i practice with it but i need ur guys c/c about this .. i like original because when u take a picture with manual settings and its how u like and it looks good then theres no point in editing it .. i mean whats the point of getting a dslr if ur gonna edit it ? .. if u edit it feels like the program is making the photo nicer for u not urself ...

 

[DRoberts]

No Pic Posted.

 

[lakers808]

No Pic Posted.

trying to make a point from it.. y u have to edit a photo that the program is gonna edit it for u when u can make it nice with settings that u setted to to take the photo .. u know wat i mean?

 

[zeto88]

" gonna edit it for u "
You have to do it.
Also, Firefox has spellcheck... Just sayin'.

 

[lakers808]

u know wat i meant tough right? .. why use photoshop that edits the photo for u when ur not doin all the hard wrk.. its better to use the photo from ur settings from urcamera which is manual settings

 

[zeto88]

Photoshop IS hardwork.
People get paid thousands and thousands of dollars to do work in photoshop.

 

[Gaerek]

You do understand that, if you aren't shooting RAW, the camera is 'editing' your shot, right? If it didn't, you would have a flat, boring, low contrast, unsharpened shot, every single time you pushed the shutter. If you are shooting RAW, the shots come out unedited, but they need to be edited to an extent if you want an interesting shot. Something to keep in mind.

 

[TommyF]

Also, Firefox has spellcheck... Just sayin'.

Agreed.

But, I kind of see this guys point. If you edit the crap out of something it kind of stops being what you shot. What did you guys do when the good cameras were 35mm?

 

[J.Kendall]

When I use 35mm, I will edit the photo, but thats by different means. That editing is done by different apertures on the enlarger, different burn times, dodging and burning, etc. Basically the same thing as nowadays.

 

[zeto88]

Sure, if you edit it like a pre-pubescent 13 year old girl who just signed up for myspace and got a new copy of photoshop elements.

 

[J.Kendall]

Ok so the work and end result don't line up with each other, but it's almost parallel.

 

[DevilDogge]

u know wat i meant tough right? .. why use photoshop that edits the photo for u when ur not doin all the hard wrk.. its better to use the photo from ur settings from urcamera which is manual settings

Ahh, another example of the texting generation. :lmao:

 

[Dao]

Film or digital, post processing is needed unless you really like what it come out from the camera. As mentioned before, for digital, you can let the camera do all the post processing for you, or you can do it yourself based on what you like per photo.

Also, a lot of digital editing techniques are come from the darkroom. Dodging, burning, cross-processing ....

 

[Pugs]

These threads always amuse me because they show an absolute lack of understanding about photography. Or at least a lack of understanding about post-processing. Ansel Adams, he of the mantra "get it right in the camera", would print and re-print a negative over and over and over again, sometimes over a hundred times, until the print looked "right" to him. You think that isn't post-processing? You think that changing the amount of time that you expose the paper isn't post-processing? You think that using filters on the enlarger to boost contrast isn't post-processing? You think using the enlarger to crop isn't post-processing? Different papers, solarization, sepia bleaching, multiple-exposures, cross-processing, etc... are all examples of post-processing.

EVERY image, digital or film, REQUIRES post-processing. Either you do it or the camera does it, but post-processing is being done. If you're shooting in .jpg, the camera is applying saturation, contrast, sharpening, black-clipping, brightness control, color levels, etc... for you. If you're shooting in RAW, you get to do those things in some piece of software.

Post-processing can be pushed into the realm of graphic design/graphic art to the point that it really isn't photography anymore and graphic designers can make HUGE money (more than photogaphers, often). So, if playing in PhotoChop is your thing and learning to properly expose and image isn't, maybe you should be graphic designer rather than a photographer. BUT, every photographer should know how make their image look its absolute best!

u know wat i meant tough right? .. why use photoshop that edits the photo for u when ur not doin all the hard wrk.. its better to use the photo from ur settings from urcamera which is manual settings

Ahh, another example of the texting generation. :lmao:

Would you believe that I had a student who turned in a paper that was ENTIRELY written in texting shorthand? Ridiculous!

 

[Mike_E]

Lakers, the only point to photo editing is to get the photo looking like you want it to. If you are happy with the photo right out of the camera you have no need to edit it further.

The point to having a DSLR is the ability to change lenses for the different qualities they have and the ability to fully control the aperture and shutter speed if you so desire.


BTW you will get a better reception here if you go ahead and write out the words instead of using text speak, some of us here are old codgers and have a hard time trying to understand and that just makes us irritable.

enjoy your new camera!

mike