Photo editing or not

[tM1]

Do many people use photo editing programs or do they always take that picture perfect photo.. I always get lots of photos but one good one

 

[tododelsur]

Lot's of people, professional or otherwise use photo editing software to make their pictures look better. It's probably extremely rare to find people that don't edit their photos. I personally don't edit my photos, but I'm not the best photographer and I like mistakes and things I can't predict.

 

[o hey tyler]

Editing photos is a necessity for me. I shoot solely in RAW, so my images get processed no matter what... Even if it is very minimally.

I recommend post processing your images if you aim to get the best quality and characteristics out of them.

 

[printsnpaints]

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.

 

[dxqcanada]

I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.

I always try to take the minimalist approach.

In most cases ... if the image sucks ... it will end up as a post processed sucky image.

 

[o hey tyler]

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve.

I disagree.

If you shoot raw, your photos won't necessarily look "good" until after you process them. As it's data straight from the sensor. If you shoot JPEG, that may be a different story due to the in camera processing.

Furthermore, it's difficult (or impossible) to post process a BAD photo (Bad composition, lighting, etc) into a good one in my opinion.

With that being said, I think knowledge of photography is paramount, but knowledge of processing digital images is a very close second if you're looking for top notch photos.

 

[cgipson1]

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.

I suspect that:

A. You have no idea what you are talking about! (obviously you have never shot RAW!)

B. That you are a TROLL, trying to start some drama!

 

[table1349]

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.

Words of wisdom from a 3 day photographer. Back in the days of film photos were post processed in the lab. Now, even when you get it right in camera there is a need for post processing. Perhaps you have heard of a guy with a camera named Ansel Adams. You might want to try reading some of his stuff. I suspect you would find it enlightening.

 

[ann]

With film, we always wanted to get as much "right in camera' as possible as it made the darkroom process much easier. However, as others have mentioned there is still lots of PP done in the darkroom.

Digital is no different. I want to get as much "right in camera" as possible so the PP becomes one of creative vision, not fixing mistakes.

 

[ann]

P.S.

There is a statement i remember from long ago. For every hour one spends making the correct decisions in the field before firing the shutter, one saves two hours in the darkroom.

Now for those who are very adept at PS, they probably don't need 2 hours to make magic; but the less time I have to spend looking at a computer screen the happier I am.

 

[Pocahontas]

I personally love photo editing; its like creating a whole new feel to a photo. It adds that extra "oomph" and spark to an already extraordinary photo. I have found that editing is a way to really cement your style as well. Filters & PS actions are my friends

Everyone has a personal preference, but to me, half the fun of photography is seeing what you I can ultimately create from the photos I take. But everyone is different, and I respect photographers who take a perfect photo and do not bother with the editing process. To each their own.

 

[MLeeK]

I do little to no PIXEL EDITING, but I post process everything. Of the game I just processed I shot 237 images and I tossed about 40 of those for being totally jacked or I just plain didn't like them. Of the keepers I edited none. I post processed all of them by applying a curve, a bit of noise removal, raw sharpening and adjusting black level. All of which I have set up Adobe Camera Raw to do automatically for me. To process those 200 images took me about 30 minutes from flat and crappy to this:

You will improve as you gain knowledge.

Post processing is a necessity. EDITING is not.

 

[kungfuleg]

Re the distinction between "editing" and "processing," can anyone recommend a guide or reference that will help me learn the technicalities of digital processing? Please and thank you.

 

[jowensphoto]

RAW needs to be PP just the way film needs to be developed.

If you shoot in JPEG and don't do any editing on the computer, it's still post processed, the camera just does it for you.

 

[Garbz]

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.

Yes that is true. I can't think of a single famous photographer who had a dark room. They all just took picture perfect photos and then ran their film through a Fuji developing machine to get the wonderful prints produced last century.

/ End sarcasm.

On a more serious note, processing as a fundamental part of photography. There is nothing, NOT A THING, you can do in your camera to balance highlights and shadows to make a picture look as natural as you can see it with your naked eye. Historically many of the greatest photographers in history spent many hours in the dark room dodging and burning to get a perfect tone in an image. They selected many different forms of paper to get their look after developing and after taking a picture. They used developer at different temperature for different lengths of time to fine tune their tone after taking a picture. Even selecting different developers to achieve certain effects, and lets not forget about the wide choices of different film types.

I am of the complete opposite view to you. In my humble opinion if you don't process your photos you've effectively only taken half of the picture. The other half was taken by some engineer at Nikon who came up with a generic algorithm that he thinks will fit every photo, which is fine if you only spend your time taking the photos he used for references. But we don't.