To edit or not to edit?

[swiminjane]

Do you edit your pictures? I didn't used to buy I am not and am finding it really spruces up my photos but I have a bit of guilt when I do it because it's not my raw image.

 

[Big Mike]

Why feel guilty?

Photographers have been tweaking their images since photography was invented.
Photographers used to (some still do) spend a lot of time in the darkroom.
Now it's the 'digital darkroom'...but many of the tweaks are the same.

Most people didn't realize, but when they took their film to the photo lab and waited for prints...the lab techs (or at least the machines on auto) were making tweaks to the images.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Editing is part of making a good photograph better.
We didn't call it 'editing' when we were still in the darkroom, but adjusting exposure time, time in developer solution and much more were just part of the process.
Don't feel guilty.
Do feel guilty if you pass off a mediocre print that could have been made great with editing. Pros show only their best.

 

[AtlPikMan]

For Me, The Question has been Why Do People Post Images that are unedited? The Like to say "Its straight out of the Camera"? I think you should never post a pic until its looking its best. I would never post an unedited pic.

 

[mtfd635]

I am very proud that many of my pics stand alone without editing. Nut just like in my film days, many need a little tweak here, boost there. I take quite a few photos knowing what it will need done later.
I keepthe camera settings fairly neutral, save the 'picture style' for later when I have full control.
Just about all edit processes grew out of darkroom procedures.
Stepping into digital PP was easy transition for darkroom veterans

 

[Gabriel]

For my fashion and model stuff, I would eliminate pimples or whatnot, sharpen the image a little (shouldn't need a lot), and play with curves till the contrast looks like what I saw when I was composing the image. Some cropping may be done as well.

For anything else, I mostly just play with curves till the scene looks more like what I actually saw. Every once in a while, I'll punch up the colors just a little, but it's the same as when I used Kodak E100SW or Agfa Ultra 50. It's true that photographers have always enhanced their images in some way, but it used to be little tweaks - filters, film selection, darkroom tricks -and not the outright ridiculousness that I see now (but that's another thread, albeit a rehashed one, lol).

My only "guilty" shots are these two (may not be work safe!!!!): Gabriel J. Diaz Photography. A bikini, and a towel on the pavement (to protect the uber-pricey new shoes we had on loan) had to be removed to make the picture that I wanted.

On the other hand, my current avatar is pretty much straight out of the camera, as are 99% of my images.

 

[boogschd]

try not to overdo it i guess ...

your more of a digital graphic artist than a photographer that way IMO

 

[Garbz]

No photographer posts images that are unedited.

If you take a roll of film to a lab, they edit your images.
If you shoot in JPEG format on a Nikon D200 and then plug the camera straight in to your printer, Nikon edited your pictures.

If you take a RAW file edit it yourself, and send it to the printer with your own colour management settings YOU edited the image.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should lookup the threads here on why the colour looks different in AdobeCameraRAW compared to Nikon JPEG, or why a Nikon D3s will produce a picture with different colours to a Canon 1DMkIII even given 100% identical settings.

The only difference is who do you submit control to, some code junkie sitting at Nikon who doesn't have a clue what you're pointing your camera at when he designed those algorithms in your camera? Or do you take control yourself.

 

[ann]

for me there is a big difference in making an image and doing pp as i would do in the darkroom and the attitude "I don't need to learn my craft because i will just fix it in Photoshop".

I try to make the correct decision before firing the shutter to enable me to have lots of options for creative vision.

Ansel Adams negatives allow him to make choice as they were well made . A lousy negative is limiting, as is a poor file.

 

[RMThompson]

Find me a photographer who is making a living off of his or her work and I'll show you someone who "edits" their image.

 

[adamcoupe]

Hi
Any pro who shoots in RAW edits each image either individually or in batches for basic adjustments and makes enhancements before converting to TIFF and JPEG for client.

Adam
Commercial Photography - Portfolio - Adam Coupe Photography

 

[IgsEMT]

If you shoot film and drop your film at REAL lab, not the corner drug store, lab-techs do minor manipulation. As Mike said

Why feel guilty?

 

[ajpicture]

There is no such thing as an unprocessed picture. Even in film you have to figure out how you're going to process it. At some level of processing you might argue that its no longer a photograph anymore and has become a collage/photopainting/abstract but people who claim that they don't do processing are just claiming that they limit it to white balance and exposure.

 

[KmH]

Dodging and Burning cannot be done on negatives, it can only be done on prints.

Negatives are developed inside a container that doesn't allow light to get in. The one linked to is for 8x10 inch negatives, which Ansel Adams used a lot.

Ansel Adams used complex darkroom recipes to create the tone scale mapping that was his goal. Tri-X film, HC-110 developer, and selenium toner were notorious parts of the tool kit he used to create his signature "look." Throughout his life Ansel was constantly revising the rendering of even his most famous images. New technology and greater experience allowed him, over time, to come closer to his ultimate vision.

 

[Garbz]

True dodging and burning, could be thought of per pixel refinements in photoshop preparing the final work.

However pushing and pulling, tone control, contrast, colour, crossprocessing and many other adjustments are made to the negatives in the canister. These image wide manipulations could be thought of the RAW conversion.