Photographers that don't edit

[rexbobcat]

Most serious photographers shoot in RAW because it allow more latitude in PP. For someone who is really into photography, I would assume that some kind of manipulation is a must.

And with film photography processing is a MUST so....

I also find it funny how people who don't process their photos are so quick to tell you that....again...and again...as if to say "I'm sorry my photos are mediocre."

 

[cgipson1]

Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.

 

[Ysarex]

Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.

It's the same reason for both -- they don't know how, it's just that one of those groups has a problem admitting it.

Joe

 

[molested_cow]

I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"

 

[Ysarex]

I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"

Because Joshua needs some reassurance.

 

[Overread]

I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"

You know there is a magic x button that lets you do that without being rude.
Repeat discussions will always happen because we get new members joining all the time with all levels of skills. So long as we get new people new to photography we will get repeat discussions. Either partake in them if you want or move along to a discussion you find interesting. There is no need to leave silly remarks about "oh this again" and it is somewhat rude to new members.

 

[The_Traveler]

Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.

I'm not certain it's always pretentiousness.
There is such a technical barrier to learning PPing that, when insecure people are faced with it, they'd rather find an excuse not to do it, than to do it and not do it well or even just fail.
They don't want to look foolish/stupid/insecure.

It's sort of the same as people who, finding that producing art is hard, get frustrated at not being able to produce 'good' pictures and then become pixel peepers. Knowing everything about the techie stuff but able to produce only perfect but empty pictures.

If there is a continuum of picture-making that goes from technically perfect but empty all the way along to filled with lots of stated meaning but no picture value, I want to be somewhere in the middle with pictures that have some impact and that are technically adequate.

 

[Steve5D]

There is a point, and it's probably different for everyone, when a photograph ceases to be a "photograph". Dodging, burning, cropping, cloning dust, saturation and lighting adjustments, for me, keep it in the "photograph" realm. When you start doing heavy editing; selective color (yech), putting someone's head on someone else's body, cloning out or in a subject; all of that, for me, takes a "photograph", which is made with a camera, to a "picture", which can be made any number of ways.

The OP said something interesting:

I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited...

That tells me that the edits, at the very least, were done well...

 

[cgipson1]

There is a point, and it's probably different for everyone, when a photograph ceases to be a "photograph". Dodging, burning, cropping, cloning dust, saturation and lighting adjustments, for me, keep it in the "photograph" realm. When you start doing heavy editing; selective color (yech), putting someone's head on someone else's body, cloning out or in a subject; all of that, for me, takes a "photograph", which is made with a camera, to a "picture", which can be made any number of ways.

The OP said something interesting:

I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited...

That tells me that the edits, at the very least, were done well...

That should be the goal for all edits.... IMO!

 

[molested_cow]

I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"

You know there is a magic x button that lets you do that without being rude.
Repeat discussions will always happen because we get new members joining all the time with all levels of skills. So long as we get new people new to photography we will get repeat discussions. Either partake in them if you want or move along to a discussion you find interesting. There is no need to leave silly remarks about "oh this again" and it is somewhat rude to new members.

Fantastic! I'm glad that you expressed your opinion about my opinion about Joshua's opinion!


Little Tommy runs to mom asking,"Mom, Rob says that Santa doesn't exist. Is this true?"
Rob,"come on, not again!"
"Don't be rude, Rob!" Dad says.

Even the sugar coat they use on your cake isn't all pure sugar, who still expects to fine pure black or white? Why not spend the time mixing your own shade of grey? You see with your mind and feel with your heart. Do whatever it takes to produce something that inspires.

 

[Mike_E]

Hi there!
this question has been really bugging me for some time...are there any famous photographers that don't edit there photos.
I recently went to this seminar where the speaker kept on talking aout how great god has made this world, i was really interested in his theories , but then...he kept on talking about how important it was to edit your photos! I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited, but I was blown away about what he edited! I then realised how fake some of his shots actually were, so may faith in his photographic skill dropped massivly. So I was wondering if there are any photographers that only rely on their skill and not a computer?

Thanks for viewing,
JoshuaSimPhotography
PS: Nearly every photographer i know uses photoshop. I was sad to also find out that even Ansel Adams used editing techniques

If you've ever moved around to get a better view or shifted your camera to get your subject framed properly/on a third line then you are guilty of editing as well.

Relax, it's just part of the process of maturing from being a snap shooter to a photographer.

 

[daarksun]

I doubt any image is perfect out of the camera. I just don't see it, the perfect crop, etc. There are to many variables when taking a photograph. Why would you take a perfect untouched photograph but the bride had a zit on her forehead? Do you leave it that way or remove?

The problem is the photographer that believes his or her photo is perfect and everyone will love it. Let's face the facts that people simply like what they like and it may not be the perfectly processed photo. Some my like more contrast or color saturation. Why do so many hate the HDR over processing but none photographers eat that crap up? They love the detail and saturated colors. It's eye catching over a perfect photo of the same image.

As photographers we have learn to find out what the person we are shooting for likes. Not what we think is perfect. So for most the "out of the camera" crap doesn't work. I think we have to do what sells.