Photo Editing Software: Is this necessary?

[sabbath999]

... if if you get it "spot on" in camera or not, if you want the best quality, you need to shoot RAW.

Nonsense.

 

[Sandspur]

Photography has ALWAYS been a two-step process:

1. What happens in camera, and

2. The process of realizing that original capture as a finished, viewable image.

As serious photographers we all attempt to "get it right" in camera. But then - whether we're shooting digital OR film - the product of the "in camera" work has to be converted to something else.

Film has physical form and is processed through a series of steps - development to final print -- Water, chemicals, temperature controls, dark room, enlarger, light sensitive paper, etc.

Digital data has no physical form - it's just a bunch of 0s & 1s recorded onto a chip - but, like film, it too has to go through a process in order to reach it's final purpose -- Upload, store, open the date file, using software to crop, adjust, tweak, etc., and then final output ...)

Cropping, adjusting and tweaking may NOT be necessary, of course (if we got it right in-camera).

But who among us - given the ubiquitous nature of image management software (Hell! it even comes in the box WITH the camera ... and it's FREE!) - isn't going to take advantage of this magical stuff in order to maximize the quality of our images, or manipulate them (even just a little) to suit our particular way of seeing the world and recording it.


In my seminars and tutoring sessions I emphasize that there are three distinct steps in the digital post production process:
- Optimizing the image
- Enhancing the image
- Manipulating the image.

The first one is NECESSARY - always ... with every digital image you shoot. This would, of course, include processing a RAW file or adjusting Levels and doing some cropping on a JPG or TIFF. (Think of this as having film properly developed.)

The second and third ones are optional. You don't HAVE to saturate the color, or clone an errant hair off someone's face, etc. And you certainly don't HAVE to change colors, distort, apply filter effects, stretch, skew, layer, etc. either.

I guess what I truly like MOST about digital photography is knowing that I can shoot "straight" and get good results, or I can shoot "not-so-straight" and realize an image that's in my mind's eye - because I know I can enhance or manipulate the original image when I get it into Photoshop.


In answer to the original question: YES! Of course it's necessary. Without it, digital photography simply would not exist.

 

[abraxas]

Perhaps this has been covered...however...
...
My guess is that the more knowledgeable one is about digital photography, the less likely s/he would be forced into editing. Ok, I'm ready to get reamed for that last statement, let me have it.

Where do you want to go?

My wife takes fine shots of the grandkids. She could care less about post processing. I love her work.

I made a living off digital photography for 12 years doing little more than slightly adjusting contrast and brightness with a cheap shareware program.

Almost two years ago I decided that I wanted to express my artistic nature through photography. I couldn't do without photoshop.

-

 

[Clikon]

Where do you want to go?

My wife takes fine shots of the grandkids. She could care less about post processing. I love her work.

I made a living off digital photography for 12 years doing little more than slightly adjusting contrast and brightness with a cheap shareware program.

Almost two years ago I decided that I wanted to express my artistic nature through photography. I couldn't do without photoshop.

-

There it is...this is an excellent response. I believe my camera's box contents may supply me with something that I can get by with just fine for now. My question has been sastisfactorily answered. Thanks to everyone.

 

[JerryPH]

Nonsense.

Care to pontificate?

 

[JerryPH]

I didn't state that. :greenpbl:

If you get it right in the camera the first time, you won't truly "need" editing software. Of course that's going to be difficult for newbies, but as time goes on....

For the average user who now gets a shot and never wants to use it again, I can see the reasoning behind your choice.

As time goes on (a short time for me), they will fall into wanting to do more creative things with their pics. Some may want to do things like multiple exposures or greenscreening or other fun things like creating filtered look effects that film people did in the "old days". Using a JPG as a basis for that means it gets manipulated and saved possibbly many times. If that is so, each time it is saved, that JPG quality drops. Generational losses can be seen with as little as 2-3 saves. This is something that doesn't happen when using a lossless format like TIFF or RAW.

For me, as a personal preference, I shoot nothing but RAW. This offers me possibilities and picture quality not available if using JPG.

If your intention is to take a pic as a JPG, and perhaps only look at it on screen or print it out without any post processing (and it was "spot on" already in-camera), then that is about the only reason I could see not using a lossless format and not needing an editing software.

Ah, but the limitations are still there. For me, I am not that good that I cannot do a small tweak here and there in software afterwards, and I do play with things like green screening and post processing techniques that do improve or make different a picture.

 

[Mav]

lol... Well, I really wasn't specifically pointing any comments your way, but like I said, regardless if if you get it "spot on" in camera or not, if you want the best quality, you need to shoot RAW. If you shoot RAW, you near have no choice but use some sort of editing software

OK well you were saying "everybody has said that..." and I wasn't agreeing with that. No you don't NEED editing tools. And if I was a newbie starting out I think I'd be pretty intimidated if I not only had to learn how to use an SLR which is no easy feat by itself, but also get all of these editing tools and shoot RAW and blah blah blah when that's all a bunch of nonsense. I have 3-foot wide jaw-dropping and eye-popping prints all printed from JPEGs. And what little editing I did on some of them could easily have been done right at the kiosk in the store where I submitted the prints, or via the tools right on the camera itself. And the "optimizing the image" stuff that Sandspur was talking about is done right on the camera. My biggest complaint about Nikon's JPEG outputs are that they do come out on the soft side, but you can turn the sharpness setting up to +1 or +2 right on the camera too.

Heck, between the retouch tools right on the camera and the basic tools they have at photo kiosks, I could get by without even having a computer! :lmao: Better technique and some nice lenses make all the difference in the world.

 

[Mav]

For the average user who now gets a shot and never wants to use it again, I can see the reasoning behind your choice.

As time goes on (a short time for me), they will fall into wanting to do more creative things with their pics. Some may want to do things like multiple exposures or greenscreening or other fun things like creating filtered look effects that film people did in the "old days". Using a JPG as a basis for that means it gets manipulated and saved possibbly many times. If that is so, each time it is saved, that JPG quality drops. Generational losses can be seen with as little as 2-3 saves. This is something that doesn't happen when using a lossless format like TIFF or RAW.

I'm a capturer, and less so a manipulator. No I have no desire whatsoever to do some of the things you're talking about. You're projecting your own shooting style and desires onto everybody when there's a zillion different shooting styles. You still don't need RAW for that either. You can dump a JPEG to a TIFF or some other lossless format and go to town. I've made 2-3 saves on JPEGs and saved at high quality noticed no degradation either.

For me, as a personal preference, I shoot nothing but RAW. This offers me possibilities and picture quality not available if using JPG.

You sound more like a manipulator to me and less so a capturer, so yes shooting RAW would give you more options.

If your intention is to take a pic as a JPG, and perhaps only look at it on screen or print it out without any post processing (and it was "spot on" already in-camera), then that is about the only reason I could see not using a lossless format and not needing an editing software.

Like I said above, I have 3-foot wide prints from JPEGs that look outstanding. Some were darn near straight off the camera, and others I did a fair amount of manipulation to, but nothing that I really couldn't have done via either the on-board tools in the camera, or at the photo kiosk at retail outlets. Yes, there are limitations to shooting JPEG, but that limit is far higher than a lot of people realize. People are all brainwashed into thinking you "need" to shoot RAW and that you "need" to use fancy software and RAW editing tools, and all this other crap. To me it's all just a scam and marketing to sell more disk drives, memory cards, and software. No you don't "need" it and can get by just fine without it.

An Easter photo, literally straight off the camera. The D80 with the 70-300VR and a bounced SB-600:

Don't even need to sharpen that one. Could probably push it maybe a half stop exposure wise (easily done to a JPEG) but I think it looks fine as-is. I have a bunch more Easter shots from the weekend that I won't even need to touch either.

What I do need far more than an editing tool is a great image sorting program! :lmao: For that I use iView Pro which I guess was acquired by M$. It's awesome, and even does basic editing if I need to. I'm not sure how Windoze is lately, but my friends tell me that Vista is pretty darned good and actually lets you rate photos and such, but I'll never go back. :mrgreen:

 

[kidchill]

This is just a 5 min quick edit, I'll take the pic off ASAP. The pic was actually taken very well, but a little warming and blemish removal made it a bit nicer in my opinion.

Did it make a HUGE difference? Not really, but, if the pic was taken under poorer conditions it could've been sparked up quite a bit!!

 

[Mystwalker]

"Is it necessary?"
Nope.

My wife will shoot in any format, as long as she can pop card into photo comp @ CostCo, she is happy. I suspect many beginners will feel the same.

If you want to "enhance" your shots it is better to edit in RAW, first.

I am normally happy with editing in jpeg, BUT I still take picture in largest jpeg format + RAW - do not know if all cameras allow for both. Unless photo is completely off, I'm good with using jpeg for basic stuff. My prints are normally 4x6 and for family consumption so probably less reason to spend hours to fix one photo - expecially when I have hundreds for a typical family day-trip.

If my goal was something poster size (20x30?) I think I will correct in RAW first - never done a poster so not sure

 

[Mav]

This is just a 5 min quick edit, I'll take the pic off ASAP. The pic was actually taken very well, but a little warming and blemish removal made it a bit nicer in my opinion.

http://tripcphotos.smugmug.com/photos/269861755_rpnbB-L.jpg

Did it make a HUGE difference? Not really, but, if the pic was taken under poorer conditions it could've been sparked up quite a bit!!

Nice! If I actually wanted to PP that I would have pushed the exposure just a tad but left it with the cooler look. Blemish removal is actually a great reason for a photo editor! :mrgreen: She had a little excema flare up that I try to avoid whenever it flares up like that, but she isn't always cooperative.

 

[kidchill]

I hope I didn't offend you at all by editing. It seems everyone is chasing their tales in this thread. The point is, if you take good pics, then no, it's not necessary, but if you want a little more control and want to tweak and tune, then by all means go for it. Either pic looks good. And, although there's general guidelines for what looks good, we generally edit and shoot to what looks good to us and hope that others can see it through our eyes...

 

[Mav]

I say that my photos are OK to edit, so no I'm not going to be offended if somebody edits one of my photos, lol.