Why Do People Hate "Editing"?

[CowgirlMama]

I "edit" (process) every photo I take. Since I shoot raw, that's kind of a must. My aunt believes that all processing is evil and ruins the truth of the photo and has trained her children to recognize an "edited" photo. Not that any of them (some adults) actually can. But they're all quick to comment on pictures on my PERSONAL facebook (not trying to sell anything, just taking pictures of friends, family and animals) asking why I "ruin" my pictures with editing. Now, sometimes, on silly pictures with no real technical quality, I do use some more crazy actions and end up with funky results. It's just for fun.

But, here's the question. Which picture would you prefer to have? (Yes, I know this is just a family snapshot. It's what I'm processing today.)

Straight jpg conversion from raw, not even basic adjustments made. It is exactly as it loaded in the software.


"Edited" (lighting and white balance corrections--oh, and some sharpening/curves, I always forget about those because they're automatic.)


Can someone explain to me what makes the raw version better? Please? Because I'm just not seeing it. The excuse I always hear for not processed is that "film isn't edited". Umm... Film is *developed*. As in, carefully exposed and altered to make it look perfect. "Dodge and burn" is named for a film process, if I remember correctly!

Two of my cousins want to be photographers, but they'll never get *anywhere* if they shoot raw, then convert straight to jpg. They also frame for what they want in the shot, leaving no room for different crop ratios. So, whatever they take had best be printed 4X6 or they have a problem.

 

[cgipson1]

People that know how to edit don't hate editing... they realize it is necessary and very much needed to optimize photos. If the editing is over the top, or poorly done.. then yes, "Hating" is ok! lol! Most non-photographers don't have a clue anyway, why worry about it!

 

[CowgirlMama]

My aunt wants to print a picture my cousin took of her little sister on my camera, but won't print it if I've edited it. Umm... She already saw and *loved* the edited version. But she won't frame it, even though she loves it because it's edited. Sorry, but my teenage cousin knows nothing about photography and it was way underexposed. Yes, I edited. (Different shot) The final shot was gorgeous. NOW she's asking and likely won't frame the best shot to date of her daughter.

 

[cgipson1]

My aunt wants to print a picture my cousin took of her little sister on my camera, but won't print it if I've edited it. Umm... She already saw and *loved* the edited version. But she won't frame it, even though she loves it because it's edited. Sorry, but my teenage cousin knows nothing about photography and it was way underexposed. Yes, I edited. (Different shot) The final shot was gorgeous. NOW she's asking and likely won't frame the best shot to date of her daughter.

Not to be rude.. but she is an IDIOT!

 

[480sparky]

Haters gonna hate. Let 'em hate, and let 'em be.

Move on.

 

[cynicaster]

I think your aunt's opinion is pretty ignorant, and it makes me question how much she even knows about what she's talking about. Post processing raw files is the whole point of them existing in the first place.

If you don't want to post process, there is jpeg, but even there, the camera is applying some aftertouches, many of which are configurable by the user. So what, exactly, constitutes the "pure and honest" standard that your aunt's OCD craves?

I liken post processing to salt on food. It almost always helps in some kind of quantity, up until the point where it's too strong and starts to become a detriment to the result.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Just a personal opinion...edit as much as you like. In the wet days we edited as well with dodge & burn and contrast grades . Seldom is something unedited that is any good. It is just like the photogs that say they never crop or jsut use primes or never use digital...so what if your shot is garbage. It is all ego.

 

[Ilovemycam]

People that know how to edit don't hate editing... they realize it is necessary and very much needed to optimize photos. If the editing is over the top, or poorly done.. then yes, "Hating" is ok! lol! Most non-photographers don't have a clue anyway, why worry about it!

V. Nice work on the websites!

 

[TimothyJinx]

These are the same type of people who have issues with using pitch correction in a recording studio (I'm not talking about autotune). Personally I feel editing is an extension of the creative process.

 

[KmH]

With film, it's known as photo finishing.

In the original you posted, the subject is badly under exposed, which is not a fault of a file type.

It's more likely caused by using a metering mode inappropriate for the the scene.
Why shoot it horizontal, and then crop it to vertical? Why not shoot it as a vertical, and get closer so you can spot meter the boy's face?

A Raw file has way more editing headroom (bit depth) than an already edited in the camera JPEG.

Bit Depth
Tutorials ? The RAW File Format

 

[480sparky]

To me, post is just another tool. Same as my lens choice, using a certain filter, selecting a given shutter speed or aperture to create what I want to, using a flash, employing a tripod for long exposures..... heck, even taking a step to the left and crouching down just to get the subject where I want it...... it's just another tool to use. Back in the film days, you even had to make a decision on what film you're going to load up with. How is that any different? I wanted a black & white image, so I loaded up TriX. I wanted slides, so I used K25. Given that the various sizes of standard prints have different aspect ratios, even cropping an image to fit a given enlargement size could be construed as impure.

Next thing you know, the 'purists' will say that matting & framing is verboten. God help me if I ever sign a print!

Back in the days of film, if you really wanted to 'take control' of your images, you got your own darkroom. You walled off a part of the basement, bought an enlarger, got some trays and a film reel & canister, loaded up with chemicals and you would absolutely revel in the total command of the process you had. No more relying on some far-off lab to interpret your written instructions and hope the final image was what you intended. You suddenly found yourself adrift in an ocean of choices and possibilities. Dodging and burning. Paper choices. Cross-developing. Pushing film. Vignetting. Sepia. Solarization. Reticulation.

Someone with a darkroom was considered a dedicated pupil of the craft, not just 'someone with a camera'.











Then along came digital, and suddenly the modern equivalents became 'dirty'.

 

[SCraig]

Show me a photograph that hasn't been edited in some way and I'll show you a blank piece of white paper. The purists who demand completely unedited photographs are doomed to disappointment because they don't exist. The only question to be asked is whether they want the editing done in the camera under the control of a machine or afterwards under the control of a human. Their call, but either way the images are going to be edited.

I agree with Charlie in that as long as the editing doesn't go over the top then there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it. I edit virtually everything I shoot because my goal is to present the photograph the way I want it presented. If I see a way to make it look better with some edits then I'll do so. If a viewer doesn't approve that is entirely up to them, but they need to keep in mind that it's my photograph and not theirs.

 

[kathyt]

My aunt wants to print a picture my cousin took of her little sister on my camera, but won't print it if I've edited it. Umm... She already saw and *loved* the edited version. But she won't frame it, even though she loves it because it's edited. Sorry, but my teenage cousin knows nothing about photography and it was way underexposed. Yes, I edited. (Different shot) The final shot was gorgeous. NOW she's asking and likely won't frame the best shot to date of her daughter.

And you care because why?

 

[vintagesnaps]

If someone's that insistent on what photos they'll display then I guess they might just have some empty picture frames... is the aunt a photographer herself? just curious as to what the reasoning is behind no editing.

Your photo looks like the exposure was off and that the camera may have been metering for the sun in the background. Sometimes I face the camera somewhat downwards to meter and adjust settings, then reframe the shot and focus.

I shoot film so I learned that using the meter is what's necessary to determine exposure. I shoot Raw (my digital camera is actually DNG so it produces a Raw and JPEG version of each photo automatically) but I don't do much editing/post processing. Of course there's a process to creating a photo, a work of art - for that matter in doing the dishes or mowing the lawn (it doesn't happen on its own!) but I sometimes put the media card in the computer and print images directly from the camera (I just open it in Photoshop and look it at - that's sometimes the extent of my editing/PP.) It just depends on the photo, sometimes I need to lighten or adjust contrast, which is basically what I'd do in the darkroom too (just in a chemical process instead of a digital process).

It might be good if someone doesn't have to edit a lot or can do so to create specific effects for a reason, but it seems limiting to insist on no editing at all.

 

[o hey tyler]

Some people hate editing for the same reason some people hate seasoning food. They're too naive or oblivious to see the difference and the impact for the better.