Do you not edit your photos?

Naturenut · 05-04-2010, 12:11 PM

Last edited by Naturenut; 05-06-2010 at 05:22 AM.

clmonk · 05-04-2010, 12:16 PM

Naturenut wrote: Do you not edit your photos?

My answer is simple: Fortunately I only edit those photos that need to be edited. Unfortunately, every photo that I want to keep needs to be edited.

If only to sharpen it a bit!

Naturenut · 05-04-2010, 12:20 PM

lol @slmonk. I hear ya.

cabstar · 05-04-2010, 12:31 PM

OK how about looking another way, if you where shooting film would you process yourself or just leave it to a local store to process for you???

Taking the image is just the start of the image creating process, whilst it would be nice to not have to use pp, it is a necessary requirement, no top photographer would allow an unprocessed image to go to a client.

I would love to meet a photographer who can get the image they want in camera & be truly happy with it.

Nesster · 05-04-2010, 12:37 PM

"Editing" has always been an aspect of fine photography. "Default Edits" have always been an aspect of snapshot photography, whether mini lab, Mystic/Kodak/Seattle mail-processing, or equivalent. All 'fine' photographers, even the most sincere straight photography advocates, since the earliest film days, have paid attention to the variables ('manipulated') in order to produce a better print.

But perhaps digital is more like slide film? Here the opportunity to 'improve' things is mainly pre-shot rather than post - lighting etc is important, and the photographer's experience in understanding how film would respond was paramount.

hangu · 05-04-2010, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Naturenut

...I had someone say to me recently after they asked if I did a lot of editing (quote is what they said to me): "I strive to take a picture that I really love and not have to edit if I don’t have to. So I’m capturing history, taking a picture rather than making a picture."

Whenever I hear people belittle the use of flash/photoshop/lighting/manual focus lenses/whatever, 99% of the time, it's because they're too ignorant to know how to use it and too stupid to admit it. It's as simple as that.

Chances are, his camera is doing some in-camera editing on the photos he's taking, he's just too stupid to realize it. Also, people have been "editing" their photos since the day of film. Photography isn't just a documentary form, but an art form.

The guy sounds like a pompous jackass with his "capturing history" schtick. He sounds like he was trying too hard to impress somebody.

**blackcloudbrew** · 05-04-2010, 12:56 PM

Honestly, I do something to every image I take and keep. While I shoot in RAW 99% now the same is true for my jpegs. What's different is that I used to think when I took a shot - ok, I'll fix that in the computer, now I try to get it right in the camera - as much as possible. That does help with post processing but sometimes there is a lot more to do with an image. I just depends. When I've heard comments like that it's generally in reference to an image being 'Photoshopped.' That's where the image is changed significantly (like heads switched or other silly stuff) beyond what the image was 'really.'

Finally, I'll echo all the comments above about the commenter and motives. I don't worry about this anymore - art is what it is.

r0ckstarr · 05-04-2010, 12:59 PM

Tell him to go take a picture of something, then compare the picture itself, with the real thing. I bet it doesn't look identical to what the human eye see's when compared with what he just shot with the camera only.

Better yet, tell him to go do it at night under the street lights.

As said above, the people that say this crap are the ones too ignorant to try a decent editing program.

Parallax · 05-04-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

I had someone say to me recently after they asked if I did a lot of editing

Every one of that person's photos are edited. If not manually then by the settings that the person chose in-camera, and if no choice was made then by the default settings. ALL pictures are edited/processed. The only choice you get to make is whether you want to process them yourself, or leave it up to the software written by someone who wasn't there when the picture was taken so doesn't know exactly what the scene looked like.
I occasionally have people make the same or similar claim to me. My answer to them is usually something like: "Yeah, sometimes I get lazy myself and let the camera make the decisions". Or, "I used to feel like that, too, until I came to fully understand the process". That usually ends the debate.

graphicgr8s · 05-04-2010, 01:26 PM

Have to say I spend less time editing now than when I was developing my own film. Back then to cut a mask could take hours. Now just a few minutes to an hour depending on complexity. I would spend a lot of time figuring the right exposures for comp shots. Like has been said, if he's not editing then the camera is to get a jpeg.

khardur · 05-04-2010, 02:03 PM

Yes, just the simple fact of this person shooting raw means he does some sort of developing after the exposure. I call BS just like the rest of us have been so far.

Maybe he's an anti-manipulation guy, as in skewing the photo so far from the original, and then passing it off as original. Or he's got bad technique and therefore assumes all these other nice pictures he sees are somehow edited/shopped to make them good.
I was asked at an art show last fall "how much do you photoshop your stuff?"

It was hard for me to answer, since I do surprisingly little to most of my pictures. There are some that I go all out and mess with, but it's clear that's not how the scene was IRL.
I'm not against it, but many people are - they think "photoshopping" is somehow cheating. I guess they never worked in a darkroom with smelly chemicals and did some of that work by hand. Like Nesster said - even if you didn't do your own "editing" before and just sent your film out - someone did.

And unfortunately there are those amongst us who think if you've got a totally knock-your-socks-off picture (that they didn't take) somehow you must have done that in PS, and you really didn't "work" for it since digital is soooo easy. (/sarcasm off)

I wouldn't worry about what you're doing at all. Just my .02.

Hemi345 · 05-04-2010, 03:47 PM

When I read the OP, I thought the same as blackcloudbrew in thinking that the person interpreted the word "edit" as photoshopping the picture, like removing a bush or tree, to change the picture from how it was captured. If someone was to ask me if I edit my pictures, I'd probably say the same thing.

Naturenut · 05-04-2010, 04:07 PM

Okay I pretty much thought it was a line of stupid BS too, but I had to see if it was just me. lol Yeah this person, I think, is full of shyte and was trying to make themselves feel better by 'bashing' me. Kinda sad really (and not the first time they've done it either). Oh well. And of course I always try to compose the best shot I can, that much is a given. But editing/processing goes hand in hand with photography, as some of you have already noted.

Naturenut · 05-04-2010, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by hangu

Whenever I hear people belittle the use of flash/photoshop/lighting/manual focus lenses/whatever, 99% of the time, it's because they're too ignorant to know how to use it and too stupid to admit it. It's as simple as that.

Chances are, his camera is doing some in-camera editing on the photos he's taking, he's just too stupid to realize it. Also, people have been "editing" their photos since the day of film. Photography isn't just a documentary form, but an art form.

The guy sounds like a pompous jackass with his "capturing history" schtick. He sounds like he was trying too hard to impress somebody.

Pompous jackass...lol Now that's funny! And I think your statement was pretty much dead on.

Naturenut · 05-04-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by cabstar

OK how about looking another way, if you where shooting film would you process yourself or just leave it to a local store to process for you???

Taking the image is just the start of the image creating process, whilst it would be nice to not have to use pp, it is a necessary requirement, no top photographer would allow an unprocessed image to go to a client.

I would love to meet a photographer who can get the image they want in camera & be truly happy with it.

This person fancys themselves as a photographer and sells stuff to local yokels who don't know any better. Personally, I couldn't accept money for an inferior product and maintain a clear conscience. Apparently, some people can though. lol

05-04-2010, 12:11 PM	#1
Naturenut Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast USA Posts: 273	Do you not edit your photos? Do you not edit your photos? Last edited by Naturenut; 05-06-2010 at 05:22 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Sunrise on Mt Baker, PP edit	cb750r	Post Your Photos!	7	02-14-2010 10:18 AM
Best Software to Edit Out CA Problems	Macca35	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	12-02-2009 11:21 AM
Error edit bug	rparmar	Site Suggestions and Help	20	12-01-2009 10:43 PM
Edit Exif on iphoto	bestdayz	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	03-16-2009 07:23 AM
OT How do I edit the title???	tstowell	Site Suggestions and Help	5	09-11-2007 05:43 PM

05-04-2010, 12:16 PM	#2
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Naturenut wrote: Do you not edit your photos? My answer is simple: Fortunately I only edit those photos that need to be edited. Unfortunately, every photo that I want to keep needs to be edited. If only to sharpen it a bit!

05-04-2010, 12:20 PM	#3
Naturenut Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast USA Posts: 273 Original Poster	lol @slmonk. I hear ya.

05-04-2010, 12:31 PM	#4
cabstar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Grimsby UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 224	OK how about looking another way, if you where shooting film would you process yourself or just leave it to a local store to process for you??? Taking the image is just the start of the image creating process, whilst it would be nice to not have to use pp, it is a necessary requirement, no top photographer would allow an unprocessed image to go to a client. I would love to meet a photographer who can get the image they want in camera & be truly happy with it.

05-04-2010, 12:37 PM	#5
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	"Editing" has always been an aspect of fine photography. "Default Edits" have always been an aspect of snapshot photography, whether mini lab, Mystic/Kodak/Seattle mail-processing, or equivalent. All 'fine' photographers, even the most sincere straight photography advocates, since the earliest film days, have paid attention to the variables ('manipulated') in order to produce a better print. But perhaps digital is more like slide film? Here the opportunity to 'improve' things is mainly pre-shot rather than post - lighting etc is important, and the photographer's experience in understanding how film would respond was paramount.

05-04-2010, 12:41 PM	#6
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Originally posted by Naturenut ...I had someone say to me recently after they asked if I did a lot of editing (quote is what they said to me): "I strive to take a picture that I really love and not have to edit if I don’t have to. So I’m capturing history, taking a picture rather than making a picture." Whenever I hear people belittle the use of flash/photoshop/lighting/manual focus lenses/whatever, 99% of the time, it's because they're too ignorant to know how to use it and too stupid to admit it. It's as simple as that. Chances are, his camera is doing some in-camera editing on the photos he's taking, he's just too stupid to realize it. Also, people have been "editing" their photos since the day of film. Photography isn't just a documentary form, but an art form. The guy sounds like a pompous jackass with his "capturing history" schtick. He sounds like he was trying too hard to impress somebody.

05-04-2010, 12:56 PM	#7
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Honestly, I do something to every image I take and keep. While I shoot in RAW 99% now the same is true for my jpegs. What's different is that I used to think when I took a shot - ok, I'll fix that in the computer, now I try to get it right in the camera - as much as possible. That does help with post processing but sometimes there is a lot more to do with an image. I just depends. When I've heard comments like that it's generally in reference to an image being 'Photoshopped.' That's where the image is changed significantly (like heads switched or other silly stuff) beyond what the image was 'really.' Finally, I'll echo all the comments above about the commenter and motives. I don't worry about this anymore - art is what it is.

05-04-2010, 12:59 PM	#8
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	Tell him to go take a picture of something, then compare the picture itself, with the real thing. I bet it doesn't look identical to what the human eye see's when compared with what he just shot with the camera only. Better yet, tell him to go do it at night under the street lights. As said above, the people that say this crap are the ones too ignorant to try a decent editing program.

05-04-2010, 01:22 PM	#9
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Quote: I had someone say to me recently after they asked if I did a lot of editing Every one of that person's photos are edited. If not manually then by the settings that the person chose in-camera, and if no choice was made then by the default settings. ALL pictures are edited/processed. The only choice you get to make is whether you want to process them yourself, or leave it up to the software written by someone who wasn't there when the picture was taken so doesn't know exactly what the scene looked like. I occasionally have people make the same or similar claim to me. My answer to them is usually something like: "Yeah, sometimes I get lazy myself and let the camera make the decisions". Or, "I used to feel like that, too, until I came to fully understand the process". That usually ends the debate.

05-04-2010, 01:26 PM	#10
graphicgr8s Guest	Have to say I spend less time editing now than when I was developing my own film. Back then to cut a mask could take hours. Now just a few minutes to an hour depending on complexity. I would spend a lot of time figuring the right exposures for comp shots. Like has been said, if he's not editing then the camera is to get a jpeg.

05-04-2010, 02:03 PM	#11
khardur Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: NW Massachusetts Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,560	Yes, just the simple fact of this person shooting raw means he does some sort of developing after the exposure. I call BS just like the rest of us have been so far. Maybe he's an anti-manipulation guy, as in skewing the photo so far from the original, and then passing it off as original. Or he's got bad technique and therefore assumes all these other nice pictures he sees are somehow edited/shopped to make them good. I was asked at an art show last fall "how much do you photoshop your stuff?" It was hard for me to answer, since I do surprisingly little to most of my pictures. There are some that I go all out and mess with, but it's clear that's not how the scene was IRL. I'm not against it, but many people are - they think "photoshopping" is somehow cheating. I guess they never worked in a darkroom with smelly chemicals and did some of that work by hand. Like Nesster said - even if you didn't do your own "editing" before and just sent your film out - someone did. And unfortunately there are those amongst us who think if you've got a totally knock-your-socks-off picture (that they didn't take) somehow you must have done that in PS, and you really didn't "work" for it since digital is soooo easy. (/sarcasm off) I wouldn't worry about what you're doing at all. Just my .02.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2010, 03:47 PM	#12
Hemi345 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 127	When I read the OP, I thought the same as blackcloudbrew in thinking that the person interpreted the word "edit" as photoshopping the picture, like removing a bush or tree, to change the picture from how it was captured. If someone was to ask me if I edit my pictures, I'd probably say the same thing.

05-04-2010, 04:07 PM	#13
Naturenut Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast USA Posts: 273 Original Poster	Okay I pretty much thought it was a line of stupid BS too, but I had to see if it was just me. lol Yeah this person, I think, is full of shyte and was trying to make themselves feel better by 'bashing' me. Kinda sad really (and not the first time they've done it either). Oh well. And of course I always try to compose the best shot I can, that much is a given. But editing/processing goes hand in hand with photography, as some of you have already noted.

05-04-2010, 04:10 PM	#14
Naturenut Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast USA Posts: 273 Original Poster	Originally posted by hangu Whenever I hear people belittle the use of flash/photoshop/lighting/manual focus lenses/whatever, 99% of the time, it's because they're too ignorant to know how to use it and too stupid to admit it. It's as simple as that. Chances are, his camera is doing some in-camera editing on the photos he's taking, he's just too stupid to realize it. Also, people have been "editing" their photos since the day of film. Photography isn't just a documentary form, but an art form. The guy sounds like a pompous jackass with his "capturing history" schtick. He sounds like he was trying too hard to impress somebody. Pompous jackass...lol Now that's funny! And I think your statement was pretty much dead on.

05-04-2010, 04:19 PM	#15
Naturenut Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast USA Posts: 273 Original Poster	Originally posted by cabstar OK how about looking another way, if you where shooting film would you process yourself or just leave it to a local store to process for you??? Taking the image is just the start of the image creating process, whilst it would be nice to not have to use pp, it is a necessary requirement, no top photographer would allow an unprocessed image to go to a client. I would love to meet a photographer who can get the image they want in camera & be truly happy with it. This person fancys themselves as a photographer and sells stuff to local yokels who don't know any better. Personally, I couldn't accept money for an inferior product and maintain a clear conscience. Apparently, some people can though. lol