Picture Editing

[sabbath999]

Sabbath, I have been shooting with your style up until the last few weeks, the spray and pray so to speak where you just take as many as possible and hope one comes out right. Now I am starting to shoot in RAW, and since RAW sucks to process I have been taking a lot more time to set up my shots, making sure I get things as good as I can in camera. I consider it a quality instead of quantity approach. It's hard to get used to.

I should qualify my answer by stating upfront that I pretty much only shoot animals. I have a passion for animals, and basically I am just setting up the compositions then just letting the critters do all the work while I pay attention to keeping their eyes in focus (the one thing you can't do with a critter picture is have eyes that are anything less than totally tack sharp).

 

[gmarquez]

Most of the stuff I shoot never sees the light of day. The stuff I do keep, I'll usually do a slight "curves". Sometimes I'll do a lot more (dodging, burning, etc.), but that usually ends up a mess anyways, and I just 'toss' the photo.

*Anything* that comes out of a digital camera has been processed. Yes, setting the white balance is processing. There is (mostly) nothing magical about what happens in-camera vs. what happens on the computer...you might *think* that the camera is giving you "the real world", but it's really just an interpretation of it run through the camera's on-board processing.

As for film, as someone earlier said, is choice of film (positive, negative, saturated colors vs. not so saturated colors, grain, etc.) considered "processing"? Are techniques done when developing and/or printing considered processing?

 

[Peanuts]

I would probably fall into the 100% category.

I shoot in RAW, therefore must make them TIFF/JPEG

All large files are then tweaked in photoshop using curves primarily.

All large files are made into small files and saved as sRGB for web viewing.

Nothing distract but editing none-the-less.

 

[cherrymoose]

Most of the stuff I shoot never sees the light of day. The stuff I do keep, I'll usually do a slight "curves". Sometimes I'll do a lot more (dodging, burning, etc.), but that usually ends up a mess anyways, and I just 'toss' the photo.

The same happens here. I often shoot about 50 random snapshots daily, *edit* them all, and then end up deleting them all off of my hard-drive except for about 10. (For instance, when we went to San Diego, I got some 985 'good' shots, and only actually kept about 150 of them.)

When I say I edit my photos, I usually just adjust the white balance and the tones. Sometimes I crop. Would you call my photos fake?

Also, if you think a little editing is fake, how about black and white shots that were originally shot in color? Would converting them to B/W be considered editing them?

 

[Torus34]

What could be more 'fake' than a depiction of a landscape made by daubing colored paints onto a flat surface with a brush? [And yet it is generally considered to be art while, for many, photographic prints still struggle to be recognized as such.]

The final print is best considered as a thing in itself, regardless of the medium or the technique(s) used in its creation.

While there is nothing inherently 'wrong' in using a minimum of manipulatory techniques* [consider, if you will, the painting technique of trompe l'oeil], it is in itself nothing more than a choice of the methodology used to produce the finished work. It is not inherently 'right', 'wrong', 'better' or 'worse'.

* Even a b&w contact print is manipulated by the choice of paper contrast.

 

[Alex_B]

there aren't any unprocessed images on this planet, since creating a photograph is a process. And processes depend on parameters, which you can chose, or let the machine decide for you. If adjusting these parameters by using your own brain (instead of your camera's brain) is called editing, then I fall in the 100% category. However I clicked on 10-40% since that is roughly the percentage of my images which are seriously postprocessed.

Editing such as cloning things out appears only in 0.1% of my images.

 

[abraxas]

Oh Lord, yes I edit!

And I'm getting better at expressing myself through photography.

However, other than sensor spots, I clone nothing. I either compose the photo block out what I find undesirable, or don't shoot it at all.

Sounds like you have a good ethical basis to develop on. Learn processing to express yourself. IMO, other than that, they're just snapshots.

 

[Kent Frost]

I have a question.

Which of these photos looks more interesting to you?


This unprocessed one?

http://www.djspiral.com/images/photography/entries/examples?IMG_1098_before.jpg


Or this processed one?

http://www.djspiral.com/images/photography/entries/examples?IMG_1098_after.jpg

 

[Kent Frost]

Oh Lord, yes I edit!

And I'm getting better at expressing myself through photography.

However, other than sensor spots, I clone nothing. I either compose the photo block out what I find undesirable, or don't shoot it at all.

Sounds like you have a good ethical basis to develop on. Learn processing to express yourself. IMO, other than that, they're just snapshots.

What if someone hires you for portraits and wants you to correct something they're not proud of?

http://spiralphoto.com/photography/touchups.jpg

 

[ksmattfish]

Really, but you dont think its somewhat "fake" picture?

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen

Before automated film labs showed up on every corner editing was the norm. When I went to college for photography (long before the term "megapixel" became popular) we were taught that 99% of photographs can be improved in the darkroom from what comes out of the camera.

 

[abraxas]

What if someone hires you for portraits and wants you to correct something they're not proud of?

http://spiralphoto.com/photography/touchups.jpg

I stick with landscape photography- When I was younger, I drew portraits and didn't have a problem with 'idealizing.' Looking at the link, you've done a great job of expression- and I wouldn't have a problem with that type of editing either.

I do edit. I like pushing color in the landscapes I shoot. I find I have a 'grain' and try not to go against it as far as what I consider what I'm trying to develop as 'art.'

Likewise with what I do for a living, real estate photography, yet it is slightly different. Rarely I do clone, and I do mean rarely (maybe twice in 12 years so far- once was taking myself out of a mirror shot). What my clients like, is that with minimal staging I get attractive exterior and interior shots of homes. I don't push the color, but I edit for sharpness and contrast. Recently I've gone to HDR for my work shots. I'm much more careful regarding staying true to the colors, and find the process gives me lighter shadows and rich highlights. For some reason, I've block out undesireable elements- Most of the time. Just a couple weeks ago, a seller had a horrible blue tarp covering something-or-other on a front porch. It was partially blocked but the bright blue looked trashy sticking out. I desaturated the little bits and was very happy with the product in the end. Plus, I didn't go beyond my personal guidelines. The seller and the broker were very happy also. I didn't present a misleading shot that will slight a potential buyer.

(Killer job on that portrait)

 

[JayJay65]

Converting the picture to B&W doesnt count towards editing, ill edit that into the first post..

I guess if your not majorly changing the sole color, and just tampering with the brightness, ect, then its fine..

And yeah, i started using my Olympus FE-190 on.. December 24, 2006.. thats about 5 months..


Does anybody have some ideas for an editing program for me thats basic, and can start me off using more complex programs?? (i need something very easy to learn.. i use "Paint" right now, just for cropping, resizing, ect..)

Also, I guess I made a good post, seems to stir up some discussion

 

[his4ever]

Funny.... I get bored sometimes if I cannot play around with a picture. But then... I want to get to the point where I do not have to... then I will feel I am improving.

 

[JayJay65]

"Cameras can only do so much Jesse, editing a picture helps the photo come out more realistic" - My brother..

Do you guys agree? (I do).

 

[Digital Matt]

I never edit mine

To say that, is like a poet or writer saying they never edit themselves, or a painter saying that he never edits what he does, never strays from where he started. Everything must be edited. It's part of the creative process. To think that photographs aren't edited, that they are somehow a slice of reality, is a misunderstanding of the process. Capturing a moment in time, and printing onto paper is already an edit of reality.