[fstopfanatic]

I'm curious if most photos are edited in some way or another. Let's not include cropping in this discussion. I'm talking adding applications such as brightness, contrast etc. I shoot all my photos in jpeg and never edit them other than cropping at times. Is this normal or do most folks do some tweaking. I talked to a fellow photographer and he told me I take photographs and he creates images. I understood his comment, and wonder if most feel the same as he does. What is your take on this thought?

[FantasticMrFox]

I'm curious if most photos are edited in some way or another. Let's not include cropping in this discussion. I'm talking adding applications such as brightness, contrast etc. I shoot all my photos in jpeg and never edit them other than cropping at times.

Your images are still edited, just by your camera, not you. Your camera takes the original RAW, decides on a white balance, increases contrast, saturation etc. and then gives you the final JPEG.

[robthebloke]

The camera will have a greater depth range in the colours it's capturing compared to the 8bit per channel available in JPEG. So it could easily be argued that everyone who just outputs JPEG, is in fact editing those colours to some degree, i.e. have you selected 'bright', 'vivid', 'natural', etc.

Personally, I shoot raw, and do edit the photos to some extent. Not to an extreme degree, but adjusting shadows and highlights in Lightroom after taking the shot, does allow me to adjust the RAW->JPEG conversion so it matches my impression of the scene when I clicked the shutter.

[fstopfanatic]

Both are interesting and enlightening comments. Yes, I have tweaked a few settings in the camera menu from default settings. I also use exposure compensation at times. I guess I'm editing more than I realize.

[mattb123]

I almost always shoot raw so my answer is yes. I try to make the final image look like what I visualized when I shot it so that often requires a little adjustment. I try not to change it into something else but just match my visualization as much as I can in a couple of minutes max.

[robthebloke]

Both are interesting and enlightening comments. Yes, I have tweaked a few settings in the camera menu from default settings. I also use exposure compensation at times. I guess I'm editing more than I realize.

To be honest, the main reason I shoot raw is so that I can minimise the number of things I care about when shooting - just the framing, focus, ISO, aperture, and to some extent the exposure (just to make sure I don't blow the highlights). Literally everything else can be chosen later in LR, so it frees you up a little bit when you're in the field...

[jrpower10]

Just a guess, but probably a higher percent of forum members edit than general population. Shooting JPEG with no editing would be the equivalent of shooting a roll of film and having the drugstore develop and print it. Nothing wrong with that and most people will be satisfied. Editing yourself gives you control instead of the camera but does require commitment of time, particularly up front to learn the editing tools.

[jatrax]

I shoot all my photos in jpeg and never edit them other than cropping at times.

As MrFox says your jpegs are 'cooked' or 'edited' by the camera. Take a look and you will find a wide range of settings in the camera that allow you to change how the camera develops the RAW into the final jpeg.

There is nothing wrong with shooting jpegs if you are happy with the results. Most modern cameras do a good job. However, the RAW file does have more latitude for manipulation or adjustment and I have not shot a straight jpeg in years. So in my case, yes every image is adjusted in Lightroom, Photoshop or other programs.

Either workflow is fine depending on what your needs are. And I wouldn't put much stock in your fellow photographer's comment. If you do your job correctly a jpeg can be as much 'art' as anything somebody does from the RAW on the computer.

I am in a gallery with a number of other photographers and one of the best there, whose work really stands out, shoots jpeg only. But he understands the limits of his camera and workflow, how to get the light and composition the way he wants. So when he presses the shutter button, he is done.

[pathdoc]

I was a hardcore factory-settings-JPEG shooter until a couple of months ago, when I started dabbling in RAW. Mostly because I am shooting subjects at rapidly varying ranges with direct flash (no opportunity to bounce) and a camera (the K-5) which I have since learned has problems dealing with its own proprietary first-line tilt-swivel WR flashgun (long after I bought the camera). Ouch. So exposure, at the very least, required correcting - and when the flash occasionally failed (because I shot before it had recycled), so did the colour balance. Switching to RAW enabled me to save well-composed shots with underexposure issues. I like it very much when I get a RAW file I don't have to touch before JPEG conversion (I have set Raw Therapee not to apply automatic corrections on import), but the ability to salvage suboptimal exposures is very handy to have.

At first I started out with the "save the RAW data" option on the back of the camera whenever the exposure looked a bit dodgy on the post-shot preview. But in a fast moving situation that won't do, so the first couple of trials were shot RAW and then developed in-camera (K-5). Now everything gets done in Raw Therapee unless I need it right then and there, in which case I can get a stop or so of exposure correction in camera before sticking it in a card reader and exporting it for upload.

Generally speaking, I try to alter what the RAW file gives me to match what I remember seeing in terms of light and colour balance. I don't add things in or take things out. But occasionally I will go so far as to create visual art for Flickr, and then I generally admit to major massaging of the RAW.

[TaoMaas]

In the digital age, it's almost impossible to escape some degree of editing of images. Plus, it's such an integral part of the digital advantage, why would you want to avoid it?

[Madaboutpix]

Readily agree with most of what has been posted so far, as that is pretty much my view on editing too.

I essentially perform the edits on my DNGs necessary to make them match my memory of what I saw. I adjust for imperfections due to optical flaws of the lenses, contrast, exposure and tonality, and I may add a little "punch" or "pop" to help get across the visual story. I have occasionally edited out tiny birds in the distance that could have been taken for sensor dust. But I usually avoid telling fine-artsy fairy tales. (Don't get me wrong: fine art, or whatever you want to call it, is a perfectly legitimate genre of photography - it's just not what I'm trying to do most of the time.)

[Murfy]

I used to use a darkroom, so yes they have to be edited. Once you print, either black and white or color, you are burning, dodging, changing color, using filters for contrast. I am not sure why people are against doing that for digital photography. It's part of the process. I guess people who shot transparency film didn't edit files, so maybe it is the same theory.

[THoog]

he told me I take photographs and he creates images

Nonsense. Unless he's doing from-scratch CGI, you are both taking photographs and both creating images. He is just putting more time and effort into getting an image that satisfies his tastes. If you are satisfied with what you are getting, that is all that matters (exception: if someone is paying you, they should be satisfied as well). One person's amazing image is another's overcooked mess.

I shoot RAW almost all the time these days (and regret it while waiting for the files to copy, or with every "there is not enough room to copy these files" message ). A lot of what I shoot really would be "good enough" SOOC, especially since I'm probably the only person who will look at them for any length of time. Some shots need some work, whether it be a quick crop, EV correction, or contrast boost, and some shots need a LOT of work to be "good enough", but the content makes me think it's worth it. In demanding situations (or, to be honest, "I forgot to reset my settings" situations), RAW can give you more to work with - the question is whether it is worth the extra time, effort, tools, and storage.

[Adam]

Editing, especially in the digital age, is just as important as composition and shooting technique, in my opinion. Even crazy filters which might look silly at first (retro vignette effects, HDR, etc.) can have an artistic appeal if you're able to find it

[honey bo bo]

I used to spend more time in the Dark Room (way more in the 80's) than shooting and now it is completely reverse because of technology most of what I used to do is in camera and I loved it! The only relief was shooting Slides in the 80's but I would end up printing enlargements and it it became the same old same old. Digital era I do a little cropping & contrast rarely anything else and I feel much more artistic and a story teller shooting with no limits on film or waiting to see what the results are post processing. I ended up feeling lke a factory worker grinding away for the same results I can see instantly now.But you must work on composing what you are trying to say with that 1000 WORDS WORTH