Straight from the camera

[zulu42]

Different editing tasks should also garner varied levels of disdain. If I create an adjustment brush and "paint" some highlight boost on a pretty foreground, I am making a specific artistic choice. It should be held in higher regard than clicking a preset - even though they're both edits.
Maybe photoshop should add a scoring system in the exif data based on how many sliders you move. That way, the viewer will know how much they like the image.

 

[Derrel]

What are your thoughts I know this is a no editing site but I would be interested to know. Thanks xx

I'm also curious about where you got the idea that this is a 'no editing site.'

There is a wide spectrum of what is considered 'editing', ranging from minor tweaks to significant manipulations that add and/or subtract and/or alter major elements that were not in the original. Everyone has their preferences. Personally, I find most images that are significantly manipulated to be quite boring (exceptions - I am amused at giant cats photoshopped into city scapes https://www.boredpanda.com/giant-ca...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) I try to create the image as much as possible in camera, not only because I shoot film and don't want to waste it, but also because I find digital editing to be incredibly tedious. I'll crop, adjust levels or tones (I prefer black and white. Color editing does my head in.) but then I'm done.

Giant cat guy has an amazing Instagram at fransditaa

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The only non-post processing photography I can think of, are the digital cards that go from camera to the Walgreens/Wal-Mart/ etc. for photo processing and those few folks that still shoot color film slides.

Technology has changes things forever. We are free to use as little or as much as we enjoy.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

The only non-post processing photography I can think of, are the digital cards that go from camera to the Walgreens/Wal-Mart/ etc. for photo processing and those few folks that still shoot color film slides.

Technology has changes things forever. We are free to use as little or as much as we enjoy.

Agree. I generally do minimal edits, but sometimes I go overboard just to see the result.

There's a fun Flickr Group called 'Sliders Sunday' that is just for people to go crazy with the edits.

 

[The_Traveler]

IME, it's usually people who do nature or landscape images who are do no-edit virtue signaling because they can wait around for better light and conditions.
The rest of us who must take what Mother Nature chooses to dole out at the moment are the ones who edit to match up with what we saw in our mind's eye.
Ansel Adams is known for his zone system and his meticulous darkroom work. You don't really think that 'Moonrise over Hernandez, Mexico' actually looked that way, do you?
If you shoot jpegs and use them sooc, you may be composing and then pressing the shutter button but it is Japanese engineers who are deciding on all the rest of the edits as your camera translates sensor data into jpegs.

Which would you rather - top or bottom?
(shot from slow moving train in rural Myanmar)

 

[SquarePeg]

You do you. To me, photography is art and as such I can do whatever I want to make the photo fit my vision of it. As long as people are not misrepresenting a composite as real or using the photos as news or in a documentary capacity, I don’t have any rules or lines in the sand when it comes to editing.

 

[smoke665]

You do you. To me, photography is art and as such I can do whatever I want to make the photo fit my vision of it. As long as people are not misrepresenting a composite as real or using the photos as news or in a documentary capacity, I don’t have any rules or lines in the sand when it comes to editing.

Great explanation of my thoughts on editing except for one minor difference. When talking about composites not being real, you're painting with a broad brush. If I combine 30 images in a focus stack post, is that not real? What if I use an HDR stack to capture a wide dynamic range in a landscape, is that not real? What if I use in camera features to do HDR or "Additive " exposures, do they suddenly become real because I did it in camera? Finally when painting, drawing, or carving, I don't capture an exact replica of the subject but rather the essence of what I see, is that creation not real? Should I be required to put a disclaimer on it? When I do a composite in Ps I'm doing the same thing, creating an entirely new image based on my vision. Now I will agree that the use of composites to mislead in news or marketing is wrong, but in marketing at least there might be a blurred line between right and wrong. Part of marketing is to create a vision of what the individual would look like if they were to use the advertised product. Why would I buy something that made me look like the overweight old man I see every morning in the mirror.

 

[Designer]

What are your thoughts I know this is a no editing site but I would be interested to know.

Welcome!

Most of us (seemingly) don't care for the outlandish over-editing that you see on other sites, but most of us also will do at least the minimum of editing to improve the basic image. Frankly, one of the main reasons that I like digital photography is the ease of editing. I will nearly always straighten and crop even if nothing else.

 

[mjcmt]

IME, it's usually people who do nature or landscape images who are do no-edit virtue signaling because they can wait around for better light and conditions.
View attachment 193456

Works very well as a B&W...dramatic. Maybe a vertical crop on road.

 

[SquarePeg]

You do you. To me, photography is art and as such I can do whatever I want to make the photo fit my vision of it. As long as people are not misrepresenting a composite as real or using the photos as news or in a documentary capacity, I don’t have any rules or lines in the sand when it comes to editing.

Great explanation of my thoughts on editing except for one minor difference. When talking about composites not being real, you're painting with a broad brush. If I combine 30 images in a focus stack post, is that not real? What if I use an HDR stack to capture a wide dynamic range in a landscape, is that not real? What if I use in camera features to do HDR or "Additive " exposures, do they suddenly become real because I did it in camera? Finally when painting, drawing, or carving, I don't capture an exact replica of the subject but rather the essence of what I see, is that creation not real? Should I be required to put a disclaimer on it? When I do a composite in Ps I'm doing the same thing, creating an entirely new image based on my vision. Now I will agree that the use of composites to mislead in news or marketing is wrong, but in marketing at least there might be a blurred line between right and wrong. Part of marketing is to create a vision of what the individual would look like if they were to use the advertised product. Why would I buy something that made me look like the overweight old man I see every morning in the mirror.

I was referring to a composite in the sense where a sky is replaced or an object is added in a place where it wasn’t. Or for example Cheryl’s miniatures. I wasn’t really thinking of focus stacking or even exposure blends or panos as composites in this sense as those, IMO, are not fantasy — just enhanced reality.

 

[smoke665]

I wasn’t really thinking of focus stacking or even exposure blends or panos as composites in this sense as those, IMO, are not fantasy — just enhanced reality.

I'm not being argumentative with you, because I suspect we are pretty much on the same page in most respects for editing, the only difference being in the definition of "real". I feel that the term "real" is subjective to the artist who created the image, not the viewer, except where it might be used to mislead or commit fraud in the news or in the case of advertising, cross the gray line so far as to be misleading the consumer. Manipulation of images in advertising is a really sticky issue, some countries have passed legislation regarding the boundaries, but here in the US there's nothing on the books, yet. In 2014 they tried here's an interesting read, Truth in Advertising: Should America Ban Photoshop? but it failed, it was brought up again in 2016 but appears to still be languishing in the introduction stage. Since then you have the "social influencers" hit the scene, who I find disturbing in their reality, and the latest are the AI created images, so that "real" definition is getting wider and wider every day.

As to the choice to edit or SOOC IMO that's a personal choice of the artist, no right or wrong, somewhat like the choice to use film vs digital. As Derrel said earlier "whatever floats your boat". The other thing that may be happening is that the digital world has expanded beyond the WYSIWG world of click the shutter, view the image. Digital graphics gets lumped into photography, because it's the only media close.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Part of my photographic bias stems from the fact that I like subject matter over the technique.

An old photo of almost any past event can be a rich source of information, be it the old west, a city, people or customs. Old can be decades or a century or more. My pleasure comes from gleaning over the subject matter, not how technically superb it is.

Fine art is a totally different ball game.

 

[otherprof]

You do realize that none of these things are new, that edits (major and minor) have been going on since photography was invented? That said, I will usually edit almost everything: tweak the exposure, crop, remove dust spots, straighten horizons, correct lens distortion, remove chromatic aberration, etc. it is very rare that I will remove or add an actual object.

I'm not sure where you heard this was a no-edit site.

I can't count the times I've tried to remove a dust spot or other small artifact and, after a number of tries, realized it was on my computer monitor! I've also made a number of cities look cleaner than they were by removing loads of gum from their sidewalks (but only virtually).

 

[RichardProtium]

Your question has been thoroughly answered, but I would like to throw in my two cents. One of the things I love about photography is its ability to show us things we can't see with the naked eye. Consider astrophotography, near infra-red, long exposure night time photography, macro DOF stacking, just to name a few techniques. They all reveal beautiful worlds we normally wouldn't see and all rely on heavy post-processing. I love a photograph that looks surreal. That being said, I think there is a fine line that once crossed ruins the image for me. However, that is just personal preference, and that is really what it all comes down to.

 

[wannabe photog]

Photography is a personal talent, like playing an instrument. Many genres, many ways you can articulate your art.

You certainly don't have to do anything they way anyone else does it. With photography, it's fully encouraged to find your own path, and that means you can edit, or not edit your images all you like.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to edit your photos. You WILL find, however, the more you learn, the more you grow, the more you WILL want to edit your photos some. Even just some simple things like colour balance adjust / a little dodge and burn here and there / some exposure tweaks.

No great photo is unedited. Even top pros like Lee Frost / Helen Dixon / Ross Hoddinott edit their photos - even just a little.

Your analogy causes me to think it is just as there are many different ways to explain a point via verbal illustration, also, and I thank you for it.
I have read many comments over the past many months which point out the same emphasis you have. However, for some reason, your little description hit the mark in my understanding in a clear way that other well-stated comments have not:
- "personal talent" -- Not everyone has talent to play an instrument. There are widely varying degrees of talent (and experience) among those who are talented instumentalists.
- "many genres" -- Not all genres appeal to all people.
- "many ways you can articulate your art" -- The absence or lack of sufficient talent to enable someone to fulfill a desire to suitably accomplish expression of an art, may determine that person's role is to be only an appreciater of the art of others, not an artist.
I may forever be only a wannabe, if I lack the basic essentials in the realm of talent.