People who say "UN-EDITED"

[pgriz]

Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids. It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well. As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic. Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?

 

[480sparky]

Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids. It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well. As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic. Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?

There's no argument that I'm brainless. But I would consider the steps taken in the field composition, not editing. I"ve never heard of anyone say, "I edit my images by changing ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance and focal length....."

 

[Derrel]

I thought this was interesting: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=841063

Who is the Playboy photographer that shoots images that need absolutely ZERO Photoshop work to be rendered absolutely PERFECTLY, right out of the camera in JPEG mode? Is it Arney Freitag? I saw some of his unedited, SOOC images in a demonstration article he did several years ago...of course, he's a professional, and one who uses a lot of small, continuous lighting sources (as he said, 15 to 20 individual lights is his 'normal' amount for the centerfold shots)...

Of course, this Ken Markus fellow is shooting glamour/nudie work for Penthouse using lighting gear and light modifiers, and he is a guy who learned shooting slide film, when there was basically, only expensive airbrushing, and for the most part, images were considered mostly final as they came out of the developer's machines. "E-6" slide film days and all...

Anybody who grew up shooting color slide film understands that getting the image RIGHT when making it is the easiest way to make good images that need no heroics to become 'decent'. The quality of the source material always has an impact on the final images. Of course, that concept in itself is one of the MAIN differences between traditional photography, and digital imaging; in photography, the idea is to create an image and fix it, permanently, in silver, on a permanent base (Daguerrotype; tintype;glass plate;nitrate-base sheet film; nitrate-base roll film, modern safety film, either sheet and roll) and to create a single, tangible "THING", a "photographic image". In digital imaging, the idea is to create good source material, which can later be edited any number of ways, to, hopefully, make a good image. In digital imaging there really is NOTHING TANGIBLE about the source...it can be pixel-pushed until something decent pops out and splatters on the floor, and comes to life, like an alien baby being born in a horror movie.

There is an activity one can call making photographs. (Not taking, and not snapping pics, but literally MAKING photographs). There is an activity called "capturing digital images". These two activities are not really the same thing--although they might appear to be the same thing to many people. I think what has happened with some people's mindset is that they forget that all the software manipulation and heroic rescues together represent, quite often...a very advanced,technical form of turd-polishing. I see a huge amount of turd-polishing on the web, with HIGHLY-edited images which are, in many cases, very weak as photographs. The prevalence of these kinds of polished turds show that a lot of people think that the back-end of the process is the most-critical area for success. I think the need for digital image editing is pretty substantial when the original images are seriously lacking in one or more areas. The big picture-sharing sites are filled with LOADS of highly-edited images, many of which are pretty poor as photographs, but which have indeed, been made "better" than what they started out as.

The best editing is done with the right index finger of one's shooting hand. When the scene is crap, do not trip the shot. This is all my opinion, presented as an opposing point of view that runs counter to the prevailing trend of 'shopping the chit out of every single photo, to make it "complete".

 

[Buckster]

I'm of the mindset that the finished image people view is all that really matters.

How it got to that finish can sometimes be interesting in it's own right, even worthy of discussion either for social, political or technological reasons, but I think that's a separate issue.

The image itself must stand or fail on it's own, regardless of the journey it took. I don't give or take away "points" for it being SOOC or edited to within an inch of it's life or anything else associated with it's journey to the finished image. I don't consider one process "real" and another "not"; I don't draw lines in the imaginary sand and say that anything beyond "X" point is no longer valid or right or wrong or anything else. I don't consider "traditional" photography any more valid or true or righteous than any modern alternative.

YMMV

 

[Derrel]

The discussion on edited versus un-edited images has been a HUGE topic on photo.net for literally years now.

What I think is funny are all the crappy photos that people post in that forum that are simply ridiculously over-processed to the point that the Polished Turd Award has become so common that it's now no longer a lapel pin, but merely a bulk e-mail sent out every 4 hours (every 2 hours on weekends) to the lucky recipients.

 

[sm4him]

Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids. It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well. As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic. Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?

There's no argument that I'm brainless. But I would consider the steps taken in the field composition, not editing. I"ve never heard of anyone say, "I edit my images by changing ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance and focal length....."

^+1 to what Sparky said. I'm an editor, by training and profession. I'm also a writer, by training and profession. But the two are very different. First, you write. Just stick the words on the paper--sure, you're thinking about what you want to say, and how you want to say it, but that is, as sparky said, composition. THEN, you edit what you wrote. But until there is something written down, editing can't happen. Same thing goes for a photo, imo--editing doesn't happen until there's a base image to work with.

EDIT: And, to carry the analogy further, some writing needs more editing than other writings do. I've met some writers who turn in the worst cr*p imaginable but it ends up sounding good--because they have a fantastic editor. The better the initial writing, the less editing that has to be done.