I usually don't edit my photos, but I want to know if you guys think I /should/.
So,here is a photo I edited (and the original in a link below).
Tell me what you think, please? [:
I have to agree with what Craigy said, and add that I think editing adds more of an artistic feel to the picture; a personal feel, I feel that editing helps you to be able to add to your picture! Both of your images are beautiful!
I edit all photos, especially for color vibrance and sharpness. A digital camera records a wealth of information each time you take a shot and most of it is never fully realized without editing. I love rich colors, not dull straight from the camera. Picnik and Picasa are my favorites. :)
Definitely the edited version! I agree, it's more of how you see things than how the camera sees them. I agree that most pictures are kind of dull when they come out of the camera because the camera doesn't have the ability to pick up all of the lighting and shadows.
My teacher always tells us that every photo deserves to be edited. Even if it is just lighting, contrast, temperature, or sharpness.
I seldom edit, but I find it fun when I do. I tend to edit shots of just random items, like one I took of coloured pencils at work, rather than shots of people or events.
I Don't know when editing became such a taboo, people think its cheating, or they like the "natuaral beauty", well last time I checked the world wasn't so flat and gray. The digital camera is trying to capture as you see it but no current digital camera is as good as the human eye, color correcting is needed to show your viewers how the image really looked. Now editing can do way more then that as we have all seen and I'm all for it, I just wish people would change their minds about even the simple edits like color corrections.
I'm with Travis. I have as much fun editing a photo as I do taking it. Playing with the color saturation, cropping, etc., makes it more of a personal expression to me.
I am with Craigy, too! The edited version has more of an artistic feel to it. It's all about what you want your photo to show. Sometimes editing is fun, and can bring out the best of your subject, other times it's better not to mess with the original :-)
I too must agree with Craigy....it's all about what you want to express....everyone gets a different feel from other people's photos...and thats what I like about it...I owuld keep the edited version
I like both of these pics :-)
As for editing, sometimes pictures look better for it, and sometimes they dont. Its all about knowing which pics suit a bit of tweaking! Something I get wrong requently, lol.
I am with , I find it rather funny that people view PP work as cheating. I guess they think Masters like Ansel Adams were the biggest cheaters. My point photog have been dodging and burning since they figured it out. The entire dark room is no different then todays PP. Edit it. Heck I might edit it for you so you can see my vision. But ultimately my vote is EDIT, EDIT to your minds creative Eye.
i enjoy editing my photographs, but i also like the satisfaction of taking a photograph, and being happy with it just the way it is!
jeff is right, when your in the darkroom printing, you are manipulating the photos from the word go, changing exposure, time in the developer etc, till you get it perfect.
its not about one answer being right, its about having fun with your photography and developing your own work!
Edit it if you want, if it comes out of the camera exactly how you like it: don't edit it. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve with the picture. If it were me, I'd add a slight vignet and selectively brighten up the colors a ton.
I believe that post processing is a vital step to good end results, and I also think that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your skills as a photographer. To put it another way, you can still see how you're progressing as a photographer if you edit your images. Photography skills and editing skills are two separate and distinct skill sets, and one does not detract from the other.
Editing can't give you an eye for the shot . . . that you do all on your own. Why not use the tools at your disposal to help realize your artistic vision? It seems silly to me to stubbornly refuse to do something that could make your photograph better.
My mother and I were just talking about this yesterday. She was saying that she thinks it's wrong for some people to edit their photos and that too many people are using programs like Photoshop. My opinion on the subject is that this is meant to be a personal art project, with the limits or rules set by the photographer his/herself. She agreed and we decided to let those who edit do what they do, and we will remain authentic to our photographs and not edit over much, if at all.
But on the other side of the coin - a year is a long time - and at some point in your journey on 365 we might all get bored and need the extra challenge of adding some editing and embellishments to our photos as a way of being artistic.
All in all, it's our own decision, our own project, and our own happiness with the outcome that matters.
One of the goals for my project is to enhance my editing skills. I've always been happy with my framing and composition but I know I could better share my vision if I had more post-processing skills. Personally, I prefer the processing to do the job invisibly. I'd rather not notice the processing until I'm studying the image.
I like your edited shot but I think I would bring out the red in the rose more strongly and reduce the density of the vignette.
It honestly depends on what you're going for. I find that basically the style I found most pleasing for my own photographs entail some editing to adjust the color, the lighting, the contrast, etc etc. And I'm a sucker for weird or extreme colors.
I'd personally make the colors pop out more on your edited picture. Post-processing generally is fine: colors, contrast, sharpness, cropping etc, maybe removing small stains or that little odd piece of branch leading nowhere on the edge of the photo. Some photos are perfect right from the camera. If you add texture or other elements on the photo, it's not a photo any more, it's artwork imo.
I will go with above comments...adjust the picture to what you saw and more important to what YOU like.
Take a look at Ansel Adams photography. He put himself in the right place and framed well. His equipment was ancient by today's standards but he did get great scenes. BUT, most of his work was in the dark room. He dodged and burned til his brain was nearly numb but that's how he got such captivating pictures. I've tried my hand at B&W shooting, developing and all that's in involved. It's hard work and in his day it was even harder. But if he had tried to sell his pictures as he took them without any 'post-editing' we never would have heard of him. IMHO...
It is important to do what you like as butterfly suggested. I personally edit most of my shots to get them just right, usually darkening highlights and adjusting colour a bit. Just do what you feel the photo calls for, if you're not completely happy with a shot as is, it's always fun to experiment with photoshop to get it just how you like it.
I don't do much editing to my shots, but occasionally I'll adjust contrast or add a little bit of color. Those are more like refining rather than actually changing the picture. Remember how you saw it in your mind, and adjust accordingly, just don't go overboard.
There's nothing wrong with editing; even in the days of film photography, pros did more in their dark rooms then you realise, it's just that back then photography and having your own dark room was the hobby or profession of the few!
i love em both! but the edited one does look cooler i have to admit. i edit almost all of mine, even if it's just to sharpen up one that i took with my phone
edited pictures look cooler.hehe but in my opinion. it doesnt matter if its edited or not as long the picture has a meaning. just like old pictures on nat geo.
I'm conflicted about editing, but lets face it, all really good photographers have been editing in the darkroom for years. Just study Ansel Adams and realize how much he tweaked the images that he cared about.
Editing is an art in and of itself. It is worth exploring. And how can you learn anything about except to try. This project has forced me to look deeper into the tools provided in Photoshop. The results are rarely great cuz I'm just a kid with crayons. But there is always the promise of improvement and practice.
I'm still out on this one.
I look at some photos on here and they have lost the 'realness' of the original image due to over editing. Some start to look like a painted picture and l think at that point you have lost it. Are we saying 'Hey, awesome shot' and, without realizing it, saying it about the editing?
I'm in favour of some editing, a tweak here, a tweak there, but try to keep the originality of the image.
I think it depends on what you want to achieve with your shots. I have a policy of doing minimal editing because I like taking "everyday" shots. I only do what I feel is necessary to improve the shot, which is usually something along the lines of cropping out a detail, adjusting contrast, straightening, etc.
I draw the line at improvements which I feel become noticeable as obvious enhancements. Anything that's "invisible", I'm happy with.
In my opinion, the original is better because I'm totally against frames and mattes. It makes the photo look unnatural. But, I love photos in their edited versions, also. But make sure never to over-edit anything.
you can't really say nay or yay for all of your photos at the same time. true, some photos need not be tampered with once the shutter release has been pressed, but some do. i say "need" grudgingly, try, before you even take the picture, to visualize the end result. you'll know then if you can gather everything you need without tweaking it later on, but in the end it's the result that matters, not so much the ways you get there. that being said, i would normally prefer to do as little editing as possible -- if any -- for qualities sake if nothing else.
but that's just meh opinion haha.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
My teacher always tells us that every photo deserves to be edited. Even if it is just lighting, contrast, temperature, or sharpness.
PS. Edit this photo
As for editing, sometimes pictures look better for it, and sometimes they dont. Its all about knowing which pics suit a bit of tweaking! Something I get wrong requently, lol.
jeff is right, when your in the darkroom printing, you are manipulating the photos from the word go, changing exposure, time in the developer etc, till you get it perfect.
its not about one answer being right, its about having fun with your photography and developing your own work!
Editing can't give you an eye for the shot . . . that you do all on your own. Why not use the tools at your disposal to help realize your artistic vision? It seems silly to me to stubbornly refuse to do something that could make your photograph better.
But on the other side of the coin - a year is a long time - and at some point in your journey on 365 we might all get bored and need the extra challenge of adding some editing and embellishments to our photos as a way of being artistic.
All in all, it's our own decision, our own project, and our own happiness with the outcome that matters.
I like your edited shot but I think I would bring out the red in the rose more strongly and reduce the density of the vignette.
I like the edited version, personally.
Take a look at Ansel Adams photography. He put himself in the right place and framed well. His equipment was ancient by today's standards but he did get great scenes. BUT, most of his work was in the dark room. He dodged and burned til his brain was nearly numb but that's how he got such captivating pictures. I've tried my hand at B&W shooting, developing and all that's in involved. It's hard work and in his day it was even harder. But if he had tried to sell his pictures as he took them without any 'post-editing' we never would have heard of him. IMHO...
Editing is an art in and of itself. It is worth exploring. And how can you learn anything about except to try. This project has forced me to look deeper into the tools provided in Photoshop. The results are rarely great cuz I'm just a kid with crayons. But there is always the promise of improvement and practice.
I look at some photos on here and they have lost the 'realness' of the original image due to over editing. Some start to look like a painted picture and l think at that point you have lost it. Are we saying 'Hey, awesome shot' and, without realizing it, saying it about the editing?
I'm in favour of some editing, a tweak here, a tweak there, but try to keep the originality of the image.
I draw the line at improvements which I feel become noticeable as obvious enhancements. Anything that's "invisible", I'm happy with.
in regards to these two specific images, id go unedited though - the edited one seems flatter.
but that's just meh opinion haha.