Pictures without editing

[Jim C.]

While cruising Pinterest I saw a posting titled How to take pictures without editing them, or something like that. It got me thinking. Photographers have always diddled with their photos from darkroom days to the computer of today. For the most part I do not "edit" my shots. I didn't with film and I don't with digital. Part of the reason is I try to get a good shot in the initial take and I am not really good with editing software. I simply use Nikon free software that is limited in it's creative abilities. Then I got to looking at some shots of downtown and thought how good that picture would be with a little tweaking. What I came up with is editing only adds to our creative abilities It doesn't take anything away it completes the process.

Jim

 

[Jim C.]

Obviously that should be without not withour

 

[Overread]

Aye editing is but one part of the process, however digital made every lay person have the affordable tools to do anything. Then TV made it sound like all you had to do was click a button and BAM you can turn that blurry shot of the back of someone's head into a sharp arty shot of their face, whilst also adding in 3 posing models, a fantastic backdrop and a nuclear explosion all without any skill.

Suffice to say some people got a bit worried because part of what they see as the "Art" of photography is capturing the moment with the camera. Ergo getting it right in camera. Many of them who had little computing understanding don't quite get that to do all of what I just said and make it look good typically requires a lot of work; and also often very good source photographs. In fact most of the people I know who edit heavily DO have to get it right in camera - often very well - so that they've the material to work with.

In the end "no editing" mostly translates to "didn't go nuts in photoshop".

 

[Braineack]

ironic as there's no unedited pictures on Pinterest.

 

[407370]

There is an photo editing spectrum ranging from "cropping is failure...." to "its just another image, 500 layers is OK!!"
Every single person who ever took a photograph will personally decide where they sit on the photo editing spectrum on a photo by photo basis.
Personally I have a very high tolerance for HDR / Tone Mapping that makes some photographers lose breath.

 

[480sparky]

 

[Derrel]

Your conclusion surprise me. I thought you were going to go a different way.

 

[terri]

Obviously that should be without not withour

Hmm, I don't see a problem here.

 

[407370]

Then TV made it sound like all you had to do was click a button and BAM you can turn that blurry shot of the back of someone's head into a sharp arty shot of their face, whilst also adding in 3 posing models, a fantastic backdrop and a nuclear explosion all without any skill.

3 Minutes pheeeww!!!

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I rarely post process, simply because I find no enjoyment in sitting behind a computer screen diddling with the photos I have taken. I usually crop, adjust for exposure and I am good to go.

On the other hand, some of the members of the camera club find great pleasure in post processing. Their work is really quite impressive.

I look at photography as an art form and post processing software is the new easel.

It may not be for everyone, but a lot of folks really like it.

It's a big tent.

 

[wsetser]

Pictures without editing, we used to call that "slide film". Talk about "straight out of camera."

 

[Jeff15]

My eldest son always says you should get it right in the camera but Photoshop often disagrees........

 

[smoke665]

I started with film in the late 60's, between the film and developing there was a cost associated with each shot, and there was a substantial delay between the time you snapped the shutter and when you saw the image, so you learned early on to get as close as possible to right in camera. As I became more proficient and the need for images quicker became the norm, I started developing and printing my own B&W. Now I have to chuckle at the purists talk about shooting SOOC just like the film days, when I think of all the "post processing" hours spent in a dark smelly little room manually creating what I can now do in digital processing in a fraction of the time.

There isn't much difference between film days and digital as to the amount of time you can actualy spend on each and every image, especially if you have a lot to process. Having them as close to SOOC as possible is still important, because the last thing I want to do is spend time trying to "recover" a bad shot, but for those images where I have the luxury to expand on the creative process, digital makes it possible to quickly create something beyond the capability of a SOOC image.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

No PP?
That's like Dolly Parton going out with NO makeup!!! THAT doesn't happen either!!! LoL
SS

 

[Christie Photo]

Old guy here. It was POUNDED into my head, "Get it on the negative." This was largely in part to the fact very few of us were making our own prints. So, for consistency (especially in re-orders), it was always better if you did not have to rely on the lab for any enhancements. And as said earlier, shooting reversal film (slide film) left no practical choices. Color balance was done when shooting; exposure had to be correct. Removing elements from a photo was a huge deal with a huge price tag.

Even shooting an event was SO very different. When I quit shooting film, it cost me $1 in film, processing and proofing every time I tripped the shutter. 4x5 chromes cost a lot more than that.

All this did make me a better photographer.

So NOW... I feel editing/post processing is fine. It's just many more tools added to our toolbox. Don't be reluctant to use them.

-Pete