Straight from the camera

[Luke_Learniffy]

I think editing an image is a continuation of the creative process, for example, I took a photo of the Killing Feilds in Cambodia, which was a horrific part of history and to do the scene justice and tell a true story I edited the images to reflect the mood, grainy, high contrast and in black and white to make it look glum and bleak.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

It is almost impossible not to edit these days, unless you are just taking pictures. As soon as you crop, or increase the contrast or saturation you have modified the image.

It is a rare photo that exactly matches what I saw and almost never does it have the perfect 3:2 ratio of the view finder.

I still prefer an "as shot" photo so I try to capture it with minimal editing or post processing. The biggest reason for me is I do not like sit in from of a monitor and diddle with the photo.

Like an artist at their easel, others love to digitally enhance their photo artwork.

Photography is a big tent full of many diverse ideas.

 

[fmw]

Of course. We used to "edit" in the darkroom in the film days. Take a look at any of Ansel Adams' images. He was a true master at "editing" in the darkroom. The results were nothing like a straight print of his negatives.

 

[zombiesniper]

I can only answer yes......and no.

All depends on what I'm doing. Oh and what you consider editing.

If you mean the ever proud SOOC club. Nope, that's dumb. I don't care how great you got it in camera, something needs to be touched up. Happened when I shot film. Still going to happen now.

If you mean changing it to the point it's unrecognizable to the out of camera image. Mostly no but sometimes yes.

Can we get a sometimes option?

 

[johngpt]

I can only answer yes......and no.

All depends on what I'm doing. Oh and what you consider editing.

So, just like my underwear, it Depends...

 

[SquarePeg]

Always.

I don’t get the whole SOOC bragging rights bit.

 

[Original katomi]

Depends on what I am doing. I try and get as much “correct” in camera prob from my film days when my darkroom skills were very limited. These days I still try and do as much in camera, as my photoshop skills are somewhat limited....but you could say that when I am shooting tethered, I am constantly “editing” as I look at the live view image on the pc and “edit” the way the image looks before I capture /press the shutter release.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

After reading the Ansel Adams' camera, negative, and print trilogy, in which he stresses the need to the visualize the print you want from the scene in front of you; I came to realize that that is what most photographers do.

Based on decades of photographic experiments and insight, Adams was a master of photographic technology. This allowed him to master camera angles and filters, developer/film alterations and printing techniques and thus attain his goal of a photograph of the subject as he envisioned it, not necessarily as it looked at the moment.

As I stated previously, digital technology has made photo editing easier if not mandatory. Few folks can resist the ease of cropping or tweaking the saturation or contrast, to get the "as shot" images as they thought they saw it.

Other look at the same image, as a base to create what they envision the subject could be.

 

[webestang64]

95% of my color film shooting is as shot, black-n-white film on the other hand gets tons of manipulation printing in the darkroom.

 

[Dave Maciak]

I've done sports and events, who has time? who's going to wait for edits? (That's rhetorical...).

That's how I photograph anyway. I get it the way I want it. I know how to get proper exposures. I know how to frame and compose images, fast. Even in general taking pictures, some of my best that got submitted for juried art exhibits have been done on the fly, out the car window, and so on.

And even if there is time, once I take the picture I'm done with it and on to the next. If I'm using my digital camera I may need to brighten up the photos some for printing. That's about it most of the time.

To me it's similar to writing in that if you need to spend more time editing and rewriting than writing, you probably need to bring up your skill level in writing.

I've done some alternate processes. I agree if you do a composite, or double exposure, etc. it needs to be made clear that it's a composite or a photo illustration, etc.

Me too---I might crop it but that's all. If it's a stinker toss it. Now I fully expect to have those who labor hours in front of a computer excoriate me. Learning the mechanics, developing a sense of imagination, being able to "see" through a lens---are the way to go.

 

[Derrel]

Photography and digital imaging are two related but somewhat different fields of endeavor.

 

[deeky]

I may be a little late, but I'm going to jump in because this is a subject that kind of gets my dander up - because most people that brag about sooc don't understand. Unless you are shooting raw and printing/posting the raw images, YOUR IMAGES ARE EDITED. For most people I've come across who talk up sooc, they just shoot jpeg and don't edit the photo further. The photo IS edited and adjusted, but by some preset algorithms inside your camera.

Do I shoot and let the camera do the fixing? Yes. When I shoot hundreds of photos at my daughter's softball games, I don't have time or need to custom edit each of 40 kept photos. JPEG it is.
Do I shoot raw and take the control of editing for my own? Yes. When I'm shooting more 'fine art' or when I have a very specific image I want to recreate, I keep the control for myself.

All of my keeper photos end up edited one way or another. And I'm willing to bet pretty much EVERY SINGLE PHOTO shared on this site is edited. It just may not be intentionally done by you if you let the camera do it for you.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Deeky,

You are correct, that even if you do no touch the photo and simply down load it, it had been edited by the camera programing team. That is why some folk prefer the RAW image. Indeed, if you take time to read the manual you will find even in the different dial positions, Auto, Portrait, Landscape etc. apply different algorithms to the photo.

This is nothing new, in the film days we selected the Brand of film we wanted. Each brand and type had been chemically compounded to give the photographer what they wanted to see in the picture print. Kodachrome and Ektachrome being two of the more popular.

Those digital Gurus are trying to do the same, they develop an algorithm for each setting that they believe the public will like. And, they do a good job most of the time. So the answer to the Ops question is not so clear. As I mentioned before, once you get beyond snapshot shooting, you will almost always have to crop or tweak contrast or saturation, so the picture on your monitor looks like what you saw. This is not the same as Post Processing to develop a work of Photo-art based on what you saw.

Both are perfectly fine ways of approaching the same hobby.