People who say "UN-EDITED"

[Pallycow]

Here is an example of a shot that I (or anyone) could not have gotten "right" in camera.


Not how it looked in person, the jpg my camera rendered otherwise known as "sooc"

Closer to how it looked in person. Our eyes catch the variations in colors and shadows/lights that our cameras simply cannot. In post, I simply adjusted the highlights/shadows option to make it look more true to life and capture the drama that I saw as well as not lose the details in the shadows.

 

[Pallycow]

Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol. oh, and add vignetting too. sweeet

 

[UnknownBro]

Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol. oh, and add vignetting too. sweeet

Now you're auguring style of photography. Something that's subjective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others won't like it. Try to stay on topic here. We're talking about verbiage not the fact that people edit their photos.

 

[pixmedic]

If we are talking verbiage, I've always gotten a chuckle out of "natural light photographers". A good photographer can make use out of many light sources, but you dont hear them calling themselves "natural light, speedlight, strobe, indoor light, reflector photographers".

Just be a photographer, and work with whatever medium is needed to get good results.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think for me it stems from the BS superiority that is implied when people say they are "natural light" or SOOC.

It's like, whoopty freakin' doo. You're gimping yourself as you're too ignorant to realize it.

 

[Pallycow]

Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol. oh, and add vignetting too. sweeet

Now you're auguring style of photography. Something that's subjective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others won't like it. Try to stay on topic here. We're talking about verbiage not the fact that people edit their photos.

I'm not arguing anything, simply stating my opinion. The saturation reference was from another thread and it was said in jest in this thread. I'd like to think I can make a joke in any thread if I like, thanks.

 

[UnknownBro]

If we are talking verbiage, I've always gotten a chuckle out of "natural light photographers". A good photographer can make use out of many light sources, but you dont hear them calling themselves "natural light, speedlight, strobe, indoor light, reflector photographers".

Just be a photographer, and work with whatever medium is needed to get good results.

I'm just an a--hole with a camera. This is just a hobby for me. More of a water off a ducks back deal for me. I don't care how people talk. I enjoy looking at quality pix; no matter how the person words things doesn't change the way something looks.

I think for me it stems from the BS superiority that is implied when people say they are "natural light" or SOOC.

It's like, whoopty freakin' doo. You're gimping yourself as you're too ignorant to realize it.

IDK maybe it's because I'm a bouncer and I'm used to hearing bs from people 24/7. The way people talk about themselves/talk themselves up doesn't bother me anymore. Just a load of hot air.

Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol. oh, and add vignetting too. sweeet

Now you're auguring style of photography. Something that's subjective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others won't like it. Try to stay on topic here. We're talking about verbiage not the fact that people edit their photos.

I'm not arguing anything, simply stating my opinion. The saturation reference was from another thread and it was said in jest in this thread. I'd like to think I can make a joke in any thread if I like, thanks.

Oh well I don't have my nose in every thread on this forum. It's fair to assume I'm going to miss an obscure reference from time to time. That being said you're more than free to jest, but I do have a brief spoiler alert for you.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.

 

[Pallycow]

Sarcasm never translates well in text. Know that after 10pm most of my posts are garbage. I troll at night.

...and wear my sunglasses.

 

[UnknownBro]

I wear my kid gloves here. I use general offtopic forums to talk crap.

Trust me when I say I'm more than capable of getting people fired up. I'm just going to assume this place frowns on that as they censor words like *******.

 

[Derrel]

I will sometimes upload unedited JPGs. I try not to shoot like chit, so it actually works out. I try to avoid missing the exposures by one or two f/stops and therefore I seldom find myself constantly needing to "edit" away blunders. Shoot like you mean it. Shoot like there's valuable Kodachrome or Ektachrome Professional in the camera. Shoot like there's a roll of 36 frames in there, not a CF card that holds 600 frames, each one just a little bit more valuable than than "almost worthless" without massive editing-away of f&&k-ups and half-assed I'll-fix-these-up-later-so-they-are-all-more-or-less-presentable technique. Restraint, not retouching.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Seeing some of the processes people do here, I rather see jpeg sooc.

 

[pgriz]

SOOC:

I never edit, becuAse my straight out of of camero shots are wo awesome, editing will jest mess up the genoius.

Edit:

Hmmm... the picture looks a bit flat, the sharpness is not quite there, the framing needs a little off the left, the horizon needs to be level, there's that little smudge of flotsam that really needs to be cloned out, so a little bit of TLC, and the thing looks like I imagined it to be... and that text string needs a little massaging as well. So "I edit because my straight out of camera shots aren't so awesome, and editing allows me to reveal the image I had in my mind".


Sometimes, especially on forums, SOOC (straight out of computer) really does require some judicious editing, just like pictures do. But that is another topic.

 

[molested_cow]

Well on a parallel note, I met a seasoned professional photographer who dismissed HDR completely cus he "fiddled with the software many times and couldn't get good results". And when I was trying to show him what I've got on my phone, he was too busy talking how other techniques suck to even take a glance.

 

[sm4him]

MANY of my pet peeves have to do with semantics; like when my kids say they NEED something that they actually just WANT. Or people who say "Can I see that?" when what they really mean is "Can I HOLD that, touch it, "see" it with my hands?"

But "unedited" just doesn't really bother me. I suppose it's because *I* already understand that it IS edited already, by the camera, at the very least--so when I read "unedited" what I actually "hear" is "I haven't done anything to this photo that wasn't automatically done in-camera." It's a good point, however, that apparently many people *don't* realize that every picture has been edited, to some degree, either in-camera, in post-production (darkroom or software) or both.

I guess I also don't usually infer the "superiority" evidently implied by saying "unedited." *I* always thought that when most people say unedited, they mean "If this photo looks like cr*p, at least don't blame my post-processing skills because I didn't do any." Because that's what *I* would mean if I used that term. :lmao:

I will sometimes upload unedited JPGs. I try not to shoot like chit, so it actually works out. I try to avoid missing the exposures by one or two f/stops and therefore I seldom find myself constantly needing to "edit" away blunders. Shoot like you mean it. Shoot like there's valuable Kodachrome or Ektachrome Professional in the camera. Shoot like there's a roll of 36 frames in there, not a CF card that holds 600 frames, each one just a little bit more valuable than than "almost worthless" without massive editing-away of f&&k-ups and half-assed I'll-fix-these-up-later-so-they-are-all-more-or-less-presentable technique. Restraint, not retouching.

PREACH IT! :lmao:
Gotta admit--when I first got back into photography "seriously" after getting my first DSLR a couple of years ago, I fell into the VERY bad habit of looking through my viewfinder, actually SEEING some issue with what I was shooting and thinking in my head, "Meh. I'll just Photoshop that." I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit I did it.

Not so much anymore. I try to spend as much time behind the camera as possible, and as little time on editing software as possible. I'll freely admit that I need to drastically improve my editing skills, but even then, with MOST of my pictures, I'd just as soon not spend that much time in post-processing.

 

[Benco]

I like the way some people always shoot in raw (cos it's the best) and their photos are all converted straight to JPG without tuning them at all.....Argggh! shoot in JPG, your photos will look so much better. :banghead: