To Edit Or Not, It's Part Of The Art Of Photography

[Tartness9094]

I have always enjoyed editing my photos and it's how I give my own photos my own style. I do have software that incorporates some AI tech but only use it for removing distractions in my photos. I really do not like all these AI generated photos that are appearing everywhere and I don't think they should be classed in the same genre as "real" photography because they is nothing creative about typing into Chat GPT or whatever AI program and creating an image

 

[pez1]

This is why I save my RAWs.

Me, too.

 

[smoke665]

on't think they should be classed in the same genre as "real" photography because they is nothing creative about typing into Chat GPT or whatever AI program and creating an image

To my knowledge they aren't, as I pointed out earlier even AI doesn't define itself as photography. As to creativity, I would respectfully disagree. I've created several AI images, there's a lot of thought that goes into a descriptive text to get the image to your vision. It's much like the difference between shooting photography in full auto and saving to JPEG vs manual control, saving RAW and pist editing.

 

[TJMcG112]

As to creativity, I would respectfully disagree. I've created several AI images, there's a lot of thought that goes into a descriptive text to get the image to your vision. It's much like the difference between shooting photography in full auto and saving to JPEG vs manual control, saving RAW and pist editing.

In his famous novel, War of the Worlds, author H.G. Wells described, in great detail, the Martian fighting machines. Since then, there have been dozens of illustrations of the machines, no two the same, and some that could hardly be considered the same thing as he described. All these depictions, created by different people, are based on one description and then reinterpreted by different artists in different media. The Martian fighting machine never existed in life; there were no photographs of one, all are fanciful illustrations of a concept.

Who "created" the Martian fighting machine that you look at in a book or a movie? Do all of the subsequent illustrations accurately depict what Wells envisioned, even though some barely resemble the original description? Who created those drawings, the artist or the author? Without the artist, the author has nothing but a concept. You can't see it. Without the concept, there is nothing to draw. Every time you give the concept to a different artist, you get a different interpretation.

Can you really say that Wells "created" all of those diverse images because he once described a machine in a novel?

 

[AlanKlein79 18]

Actually you may have a little insight into the realities of AI, and why the human mind still rules.

Even if AI can innovate at some point, it will never have a moral basis for its decisions. AI doesn't have a soul or a heart.

 

[smoke665]

Even if AI can innovate at some point, it will never have a moral basis for its decisions. AI doesn't have a soul or a heart.

Yup, some of the new AI models are are able to recognize emotional cues through language processing and facial recognition, allowing them to respond in ways that mimic empathy, however, unlike humans, AI lacks subjective experience, emotions, and genuine concern for others’ well-being.

 

[AlanKlein79 18]

Yup, some of the new AI models are are able to recognize emotional cues through language processing and facial recognition, allowing them to respond in ways that mimic empathy, however, unlike humans, AI lacks subjective experience, emotions, and genuine concern for others’ well-being.

Who would appoint their AI program to make end-of-life medical decisions for them?

 

[Ysarex83 77]

My editing thus far has been limited to an occasional cropping.

I have downloaded the Canon Editing Software but had no raw files to play with. I have now switched my camera to shoot in Raw and JPeg so I will get something to play with.

Good start -- it's worth the effort and keep at it.

I would prefer not to have to edit much but can see the utility of denoising and getting rid of chromatic aberration or, in the case of my "crooked" shoreline pictures, getting them better lined up. Still though, I hope to have a great image that doesn't need much editing if any.

You heavily edit every digital photo that you take. The camera is in your hands and it is both a recording instrument as well as an image processing instrument. You are in control of much of the image editing that the camera does. You have all kinds of editing tools and options built into the camera and you're using them even if all you ever do is leave them at their defaults. After you click the shutter the camera records this:

That is fully unprocessed raw data. Obviously it needs some work. You can download it, zoom in and see the undemosiacied red, blue, green pixels. The camera then under your control goes to work editing that data. My camera edited that data and made this image which completely sucks:

One of the reasons it's so bad is because I dialed in a -2.7 exposure comp when I took the photo. The camera would have exposed the scene 2 and 2/3 stops more than I did. The camera's choice in that case would have completely nuked the sky into pure white oblivion and I didn't want that. The brightness difference between the sky and foreground is too severe for the camera to handle. I wanted to record both the foreground and the sky. So I did that and managed to make full use of the camera's sensor. But I recorded a result that the camera software can't successfully edit. There are some cameras now that are a bit more capable and they could get closer (e.g. built-in HDR), but none of them are as capable as I am or have access to the tools that I can use. Here's the photo that I took:

I have too many cameras including cameras with some of those extended editing features like HDR, but none of my cameras could have taken the photo I took. If I had to rely on the editing capabilities of my cameras I'd probably have to give up as much as 40% of what I regularly photograph and that would really upset me.

Since all digital photos must be edited and we're doing that editing already because we control the cameras, then why not do it better using better tools and create our photos as we want them.

 

[RScottie112 26]

Good start -- it's worth the effort and keep at it.

You heavily edit every digital photo that you take. The camera is in your hands and it is both a recording instrument as well as an image processing instrument. You are in control of much of the image editing that the camera does. You have all kinds of editing tools and options built into the camera and you're using them even if all you ever do is leave them at their defaults. After you click the shutter the camera records this:

View attachment 292067

That is fully unprocessed raw data. Obviously it needs some work. You can download it, zoom in and see the undemosiacied red, blue, green pixels. The camera then under your control goes to work editing that data. My camera edited that data and made this image which completely sucks:

View attachment 292068

One of the reasons it's so bad is because I dialed in a -2.7 exposure comp when I took the photo. The camera would have exposed the scene 2 and 2/3 stops more than I did. The camera's choice in that case would have completely nuked the sky into pure white oblivion and I didn't want that. The brightness difference between the sky and foreground is too severe for the camera to handle. I wanted to record both the foreground and the sky. So I did that and managed to make full use of the camera's sensor. But I recorded a result that the camera software can't successfully edit. There are some cameras now that are a bit more capable and they could get closer (e.g. built-in HDR), but none of them are as capable as I am or have access to the tools that I can use. Here's the photo that I took:

View attachment 292069

I have too many cameras including cameras with some of those extended editing features like HDR, but none of my cameras could have taken the photo I took. If I had to rely on the editing capabilities of my cameras I'd probably have to give up as much as 40% of what I regularly photograph and that would really upset me.

Since all digital photos must be edited and we're doing that editing already because we control the cameras, then why not do it better using better tools and create our photos as we want them.

I had never thought of the settings on the Camera as being editing but you do have a valid point.

Thank you for the perspective!

 

[smoke665]

The camera is in your hands and it is both a recording instrument as well as an image processing instrument. You are in control of much of the image editing that the camera does. You have all kinds of editing tools and options built into the camera and you're using them even if all you ever do is leave them at their defaults. After you click

While most camera editing function capabilities apply only to JPEGs, every manufacturer who hasn't adopted the DNG file format seems to slip a little extra into the RAW file. Some examples of the goobledegook from manufacturer's that haven't adopted the DNG file format; "Canon uses a propriety RAW format because it allows our proprietary information to be added to RAW without being restricted by the standardization, and data can be handled freely, enabling optimum processing during image development", "Sony Alpha cameras use a proprietary ARW format “to maximize performance based on device characteristics such as the image sensor and image processing engine”, "Panasonic claims their proprietary format enables better optimization and supports unique camera functions", Nikon, Fuji and others won't say. So just "how many" proprietary edits go into the RAW file....no one knows.

 

[DanOstergren24]

This is why I save my RAWs.

I would hope we all do.