What is your response to editing?

[nbsunshine]

Hi, so I'm proudly saying to a friend that I've made the background blue'r and instantly get criticism that 'should't the photo show exactly what you took'? Well, the way I see it, is that its art, and if I personally feel that the sky needed to be a bit blue'r then I make it more blue. I know that there is nothing wrong with doing that, yet, I can't seem to find a better response than 'its art'. Yet the same person will say to me that its ok to edit out blemishes...I need a better response. Any ideas?

 

[Designer]

In "artful" editing, the downfall that most neophytes make is to not go far enough. If your first attempt is just a bit off, it will look as if you simply made a mistake, rather than pushing the envelope. I say if you're going to make something that is "out there", then you should not hold back and make your statement boldly.

 

[tirediron]

It doesn't even need to be 'out there'. Often I will shoot a scene where the rendered colours don't have enough 'pop' for my taste. I have no compunction about adjusting them 'til they look the way I want. I am CREATING an image, and when I improve upon nature, that is simply part of the CREATIVE process. It's no different than if you were creating a painting.

 

[photoguy72]

Hi, so I'm proudly saying to a friend that I've made the background blue'r and instantly get criticism that 'should't the photo show exactly what you took'? Well, the way I see it, is that its art, and if I personally feel that the sky needed to be a bit blue'r then I make it more blue. I know that there is nothing wrong with doing that, yet, I can't seem to find a better response than 'its art'. Yet the same person will say to me that its ok to edit out blemishes...I need a better response. Any ideas?

I agree with I think it is part of the creative process. Even in the days of film you could make adjustments to the photo just not to the extent we can today.

I had this conversation with a friend, I think the one think that really makes a photo great is its composition...I take plenty of regular photos, but for that really special one I put my own person touch in it...so in other words keep making that sky blue'r [emoji4].


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg36 7]

I try not to worry so much about what others think, especially non photographers! These same people will use crappy instagram filters or post some random out of focus poorly lit shot with the hashtag #nofilter like they just created the most amazing photo ever. If you really must have a response, tell them you edit the photos to represent your vision and leave it at that.

 

[Gary A.]

The colors capture by the camera aren't precisely true to nature. The colors of the same scene taken at the same time with different cameras will render differences in colors. The blue I see with my eyes may/will be different than the blue you see with your eyes. So where does "truth" lie?

Photo manipulation has been implemented since the beginning of photography. Ansel Adams spent as much time in the darkroom manipulating his images as he did in the field, making the photo 'his'.

So what you are doing is making the image yours ...

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi, so I'm proudly saying to a friend that I've made the background blue'r and instantly get criticism that 'should't the photo show exactly what you took'? Well, the way I see it, is that its art, and if I personally feel that the sky needed to be a bit blue'r then I make it more blue. I know that there is nothing wrong with doing that, yet, I can't seem to find a better response than 'its art'. Yet the same person will say to me that its ok to edit out blemishes...I need a better response. Any ideas?

Explain to your friend that the photo cannot show "exactly what you took" because what we see is based on our minds ability to construct images from information provided by our eyes as opposed to the actual light received by our eyes.

Then, when he gets a confused look on his face and is trying to come up with a retort, hit him over the head with a large metal object and abscond with his wallet. Eventually he will realize that asking you such silly questions is a costly exercise and he'll stop doing that.

 

[nbsunshine]

thanks everyone! I feel better already Love this forum!!

 

[vintagesnaps]

But something isn't art just because you say it is... making the sky more blue doesn't make a photo art. If you can't explain what you did or why then you probably need to have a reason for what you did, and know enough about art to explain why you made the adjustments you did.

 

[zombiesniper112 12]

'should't the photo show exactly what you took'?

This is only true when that's the product the photographer wanted. With that type of thinking almost every great painter in history sucks.

 

[TheLibrarian]

'should't the photo show exactly what you took'?

This is only true when that's the product the photographer wanted. With that type of thinking almost every great painter in history sucks.

2 contrarian things:

1. you say he'll tell you its ok to edit out blemishes et al ok. I'm a bit of an sooc snob not because I have great technical skill or care about the purity of it all I just can't be bothered to edit things, thats not why i got in the game.

2. Mostly want to challenge the assertion that the great painters didn't suck. I will suggest they did and those daily artists painting realistic portraits had more talent and technical skill. Take van gogh, impressionism, picaso and abstract art and jackson pollack the guy who we forgot and whatever they did was called.

Van Gogh's stary night, very classic takes some skill to make but we generally teach 3rd graders to make a passable version in that style. Like the rest their mark came from dont let me say good pr but for being the first or successfully claiming to be the first in some style or pushing the boundaries of what was considered art and good art. However it takes more technical skill to paint exactly as it looks.

Picaso, not that I stared at many but looking quickly they're easily childish. Finally Jackson pollock and the other guy. Splattered paint on canvas, I could explain why and why people thought it had meaning. I'm not a total ludite but hardly takes skill or technique. Maybe he knew something or tried to prove a point... not to say he sucks but he doesn't have or at least his art doesn't demonstrate great skill. The other guy with him went the opposite direction... just as clever and both went to school together and were reacting to the same teacher and debate but the 'other guy' didn't get famous. Admittedly line design is less exciting and less unusual that formless color. The other guy probably had to try a lot harder and think more.

Not to mention early 20th century New York movement that was talentless. I see a drawer or painter make a caricature of a bob marley head and i'm like that takes skill, I can;'t do that. By the same token as an sooc snob I can say it takes skill and talent to get your color, wb and exposure right the first time. We would also mostly agree that editing too much and making things look unnatural is rarely preferred.

 

[robbins.photo]

'should't the photo show exactly what you took'?

This is only true when that's the product the photographer wanted. With that type of thinking almost every great painter in history sucks.

2 contrarian things:

1. you say he'll tell you its ok to edit out blemishes et al ok. I'm a bit of an sooc snob not because I have great technical skill or care about the purity of it all I just can't be bothered to edit things, thats not why i got in the game.

2. Mostly want to challenge the assertion that the great painters didn't suck. I will suggest they did and those daily artists painting realistic portraits had more talent and technical skill. Take van gogh, impressionism, picaso and abstract art and jackson pollack the guy who we forgot and whatever they did was called.

Van Gogh's stary night, very classic takes some skill to make but we generally teach 3rd graders to make a passable version in that style. Like the rest their mark came from dont let me say good pr but for being the first or successfully claiming to be the first in some style or pushing the boundaries of what was considered art and good art. However it takes more technical skill to paint exactly as it looks.

Picaso, not that I stared at many but looking quickly they're easily childish. Finally Jackson pollock and the other guy. Splattered paint on canvas, I could explain why and why people thought it had meaning. I'm not a total ludite but hardly takes skill or technique. Maybe he knew something or tried to prove a point... not to say he sucks but he doesn't have or at least his art doesn't demonstrate great skill. The other guy with him went the opposite direction... just as clever and both went to school together and were reacting to the same teacher and debate but the 'other guy' didn't get famous. Admittedly line design is less exciting and less unusual that formless color. The other guy probably had to try a lot harder and think more.

Not to mention early 20th century New York movement that was talentless. I see a drawer or painter make a caricature of a bob marley head and i'm like that takes skill, I can;'t do that. By the same token as an sooc snob I can say it takes skill and talent to get your color, wb and exposure right the first time. We would also mostly agree that editing too much and making things look unnatural is rarely preferred.

Oh thank goodness! For about 5 nanoseconds there I was terrified that this wasn't going to degenerate into yet another 30 page argument about what is and isn't art, because wow.. it's been just way too long since that particular dead horse got drug out and properly flogged... again.

Lol

 

[The_Traveler]

1. you say he'll tell you its ok to edit out blemishes et al ok. I'm a bit of an sooc snob not because I have great technical skill or care about the purity of it all I just can't be bothered to edit things, thats not why i got in the game.

'Snob' is not the word that would immediately come to mind. Same number of letters though.

2. Mostly want to challenge the assertion that the great painters didn't suck. I will suggest they did and those daily artists painting realistic portraits had more talent and technical skill. Take van gogh, impressionism, picaso and abstract art and jackson pollack the guy who we forgot and whatever they did was called.

Again, wrong.
Great painters usually/ often start out with a more realistic style and then, seeking to find their own niche, moved away from realism. You don't develop fine motor skills unless you actually exercise them.

Could PICASSO “really” paint? YES…he really could, as the evidence shows.

Is it true that technically Pablo Picasso's painting skills are better than Van Gogh's? - Quora

 

[Ysarex85 79]

2 contrarian things:

1. you say he'll tell you its ok to edit out blemishes et al ok. I'm a bit of an sooc snob not because I have great technical skill or care about the purity of it all I just can't be bothered to edit things, thats not why i got in the game.

blah blah blah

By the same token as an sooc snob I can say it takes skill and talent to get your color, wb and exposure right the first time.

Skill which you started off telling us you don't have. So why are you an SOOC snob? And what the bleep does SOOC have to do with purity? We are talking about digital cameras here right?

Joe

 

[Dave442]

I'll stick with "When Pigasso Met Mootisse"


Anyway, we are taking 3d scenes and making them 2d so not sure how the OP's friend is going to make the image just like what he was looking at. What do you want the person to feel that is looking at the image? They can't feel the same as what the photographer did, we have to cut things out (everything outside the frame) and leave those to the viewers imagination.

Each viewer can put their own little twist on what they are looking at, just like each photographer has taken a different path though life to arrive at the same location to take a picture and then incorporates that knowledge into the process of making their individual image.

Or not.