Photo editing or not

[GHK]

In digital photography editing is ESSENTIAL. The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless.
The image which is recorded on the sensor is a RAW image; it is called that for obvious reasons.
You normally have two options as to how your images will be saved on your camera card, RAW or JPEG (maybe both).
If you choose JPEG the image from the sensor will be EDITED (using software that is built in to the camera) before it is saved.
If you choose RAW the sensor image will be saved directly to the card without editing. (It has to be rendered into a RAW saving format, which is usually
specific to the manufacturer, and, often, to the camera model itself but it is not subjected to anything that would constitute editing as normally understood).
So, the JPEG has already been edited before you ever open it by something foisted upon you with giving you any say in the matter. It is hardly surprising that
JPEGs, almost invariably, will benefit from further editing, done by you and, most importantly, under your control.
The situation with a saved RAW is quite different. Not only has it not been edited, it is not fit for purpose. If you were to see a raw image (it is not at all easy to do this) you would probably dismiss it as totally useless. RAW images are completely different their nature from such as JPEG, PSD, TIFF, etc. all of which
were invented by humans specifically to have responses which correspond to those of the human visual system; (film has similar responses).
In RAW images the relationship between the exposure and the density of the image is described as linear.
In all the other cases mentioned the relationship is described as exponential or logarithmic (two ways of saying basically the same thing).

When you open a RAW image into Adobe Camera Raw, what you see is not the RAW image. During the opening process the linear image is converted to the exponential PSD format; this is, of course, a form of editing, but there is no further 'enhancement' of the type which is involved in JPEG saving.
This is whythe JPEG may well look better at this stage than the opened RAW. You will now go on to edit the image in ACR. It will not be obvious, but your changes will be made to the linear RAW image although they will only be seen in the exponential display. The RAW image will still retain its linear format.
After editing the image should be opened into Photoshop (when further beneficial editing can be done) and saved as a true PSD. Further changes can still, of course, be made later.
GHK

 

[The_Traveler]

I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.

 

[pjaye]

View attachment 117705

I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.

But you had to take the time to point it out?

I disagree with your assertion that his post is "facts" too. I also disagree with parts of his post that aren't fact but opinions.

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.

 

[table1349]

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

 

[GHK]

View attachment 117705

I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.

But you had to take the time to point it out?

I disagree with your assertion that his post is "facts" too. I also disagree with parts of his post that aren't fact but opinions.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that everything I say is absolutely accurate, so I should be interested to learn which parts of my post are incorrect and which are merely opinions. Supporting arguments would also be welcome.
GHK

 

[GHK]

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. As I have already pointed out, the RAW image on the storage card, if you had the facility to see it, look hopeless. I put this down to the linearity of the file. I also chose not to mention, at least at that stage, that the basic RAW image has only one channel and is a simple greyscale image. All the rest of the image information colour, white balance, etc. is encoded as vector based data. I like to think of this as data which is sort of floating around, waiting for me to give it some body by deciding where to put my points on the various vector curves, i.e.. that the image, at this stage, is a sort of ethereal thing, floating around, waiting to be brought down to earth and reality in Adobe Camera Raw.
GHK

 

[pixmedic]

View attachment 117705

I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.

But you had to take the time to point it out?

I disagree with your assertion that his post is "facts" too. I also disagree with parts of his post that aren't fact but opinions.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that everything I say is absolutely accurate, so I should be interested to learn which parts of my post are incorrect and which are merely opinions. Supporting arguments would also be welcome.
GHK

well, not everyone shoots raw. so....if you dont shoot raw and instead shoot jpeg, then "getting it right in camera" becomes much more important. I always shoot raw so I have the data leeway, just in case.
editing is just another of many choices one has to make when they decide to press the shutter button.
since I shoot raw, all of my photos get edited to some degree.
I think people put way too much emphasis on editing, whether they feel its a necessity, or whether they take a minimalist approach.
I believe its the end product that should be judged, not the process. some people are better photographers, and some people are better editors. if they both produce the same image at the end of the day, what difference does it really make how each of them got there?

 

[407370]

I believe its the end product that should be judged, not the process

I could not agree with you more.
It is meaningless to say that a digital image has been put through Lightroom / Photoshop / Photomatix etc. The final image presented to the viewer is all that is really important.

 

[table1349]

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. As I have already pointed out, the RAW image on the storage card, if you had the facility to see it, look hopeless. I put this down to the linearity of the file. I also chose not to mention, at least at that stage, that the basic RAW image has only one channel and is a one bit, greyscale image. All the rest of the image information colour, white balance, etc. is encoded as vector based data. I like to think of this as data which is sort of floating around, waiting for me to give it some body by deciding where to put my points on the various vector curves, i.e.. that the image, at this stage, is a sort of ethereal thing, floating around, waiting to be brought down to earth and reality in Adobe Camera Raw.
GHK

Here is a photo of a wheat field. Didn't get it right in the camera. Little blown out. How about fixing it for me?

 

[tirediron]

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

Precisely. Why is it any different with digital than it was with film? To be honest. the only major difference I've found since going digital is that my hands don't smell after processing. The process, including "getting it right*" in camera is more or less unchanged, other than the actual equipment.

*To be clear, like the "Rule" of thirds, "Getting it right in camera" really means "Getting it as close as you can in camera". I've rarely (ever?) shot an image that didn't require some form of "post-processing" regardless of whether film or digital.

 

[tirediron]

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people are disagreeing with the portions of the post which are opinion vice those which are fact?

 

[pixmedic]

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people are disagreeing with the portions of the post which are opinion vice those which are fact?

no.
because this is the internet.
if you dont spell out your every little intention in a detailed dissertation, someone will misunderstand, make a rash assumption, and get offended.
and then call you out on it.


and then be offended again when you tell them they were wrong in their assumption.

 

[table1349]

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people are disagreeing with the portions of the post which are opinion vice those which are fact?

no.
because this is the internet.
if you dont spell out your every little intention in a detailed dissertation, someone will misunderstand, make a rash assumption, and get offended.
and then call you out on it.


and then be offended again when you tell them they were wrong in their assumption.

I disagree, and I am offended that you would disagree with us.

 

[pixmedic]

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people are disagreeing with the portions of the post which are opinion vice those which are fact?

no.
because this is the internet.
if you dont spell out your every little intention in a detailed dissertation, someone will misunderstand, make a rash assumption, and get offended.
and then call you out on it.


and then be offended again when you tell them they were wrong in their assumption.

I disagree, and I am offended that you would disagree with us.

I am equally offended by your disagreeing offendedness to my disagreeing on whatever the heck was being discussed.