My get Pushed Challenge this week is in part about getting a SOOC shot, and that coupled with some comments in other threads lately has got me thinking... I don't believe there is anything 'cheating' in editing a picture. What surprises me most when people think like that is - you think film isn't manipulated in the dark room? I am no expert, but I spent 6 months in the darkroom daily (a LONG time ago!) and I found it really exciting how I could manipulate my images, burning, dodging, cropping, messing with the contrast, cross processing, using bits of stuff to create texture on my prints... It was really satisfying to experiment and to improve what was in the negative.
The urge to improve what I've taken is still there - sometimes just by cropping a little, or lightening the exposure or making the colour pop a little more, or giving it a b&w treatment... sometimes by really playing around. For me, knowing when to stop experimenting is crucial - I don't always get this right! But in the play is lots of learning, and sometimes a shot really is improved no end. (Sometimes it's not, but there's even more learning in those ones!)
So while I am appreciating this challenge, which is making me think about my set up and framing etc. when I take the shot, (and also making me take more control of my camera settings, which is great), it's also making me aware that for me there is nothing wrong with editing and processing. I know there are purists who would disagree with this... I'd love to know what other people think, on either side! What do you think?
@spankyjane I think that this subject is always going to be one to ignite some debates lol. When I first started on 365 I couldn't edit, didn't even know where to start and wasn't interested. I wanted to get the best SOOC shots I could... and I did... then... I started to play around with some free programs and I can see the value in editing. In general I don't edit in an extreme way, I have on occasion though. I have seen how you can definitely enhance and make a shot really pop by doing that. I think also, there is a degree of ingnorance with some (and I don't mean that in a bad way, I was one of them)... I had NO clue that adjustments could be made in the darkroom, like you point out. It is something I learnt here.. now I "get it".
I still think that like your get pushed challenge, that the more you can get right in camera (fantastic way to learn and know your camera), the less you have to do post, the more time for shooting :)
@ozziehoffy@jsw0109 I have a feeling I have started a discussion that has been done to death before? Apologies if this is the case... I'm just interested in people's views all round. Should probably have searched the discussion threads first, oops!
@jsw0109 Pandora's box... oooh yeah! That said though, it is true what I said... I thought very much like... editing wasn't right ... but as I learnt and developed myself and learnt more about my camera and things that I could do post production to enhance what my eye sees.. my mind was changed. Even with that though, I think that learning how far you can go SOOC helps a lot with the rest too.
@ozziehoffy I agree with you, getting better at what's in the camera can only ever make things better, for sure! I appreciate your comments all over, thank you, insightful.
Well, editing pictures for me is an art form in photography! I really think that editing is necessary in Photography. Photography, in my mind, is capturing the world as YOU see it, and sharing it with others. If no one edited pictures there would be so much less imagination in the world. Photographers develop their own styles through editing their pictures, and it shows people a part of their personality.
Any picture I've ever shown to anyone has been processed. I don't let anyone look at my pictures on camera because then they'll think "Well anyone can do that." I use Manual mode, but most people think it's the camera that does all of the work. Once, I took a picture of a classmate and she wanted to see the picture. So I showed it to her on camera, and she told me "That's not you who makes me look good, that's the camera. Anybody can do that." This actually hurt my feelings, because I chose the settings on the camera in manual mode, something she knew nothing of. But I said nothing to her.
This is why I say editing is necessary in photography. Giving a simple out-of-camera picture can make people say "Oh, he has good pictures because he has a professional camera". When you edit a picture, people can't possibly think that the picture came out of the camera looking polished like that. Instead they look at you and think "An artist."
Most of my photos have post processing (pp) to some degree but my Pp has changed dramtically from when I first started my project Jan 12.
When I started I used pp to fix up what I did not get right SOOC now I used pp to enhance what I did get right SOOC.
Learn your camera, the exposure triangle, composition, lighting all make a big difference to your image, it is much easier to enhance a little than to fix :)
My point of view is thinking how wonderful it is to have the same subject for a shot taken by multiple photographers and have varied results due to post processing and different styles. Anything goes as far as creativity goes. I'm learning and I know sooc is a long way off for me, nevertheless, I am treating it as an important stepping stone before I attempt to make my photography an art form and challenge the boundaries :)
If you capture in raw most software other then the camera manufacturer's will not use the settings such as contrast or saturation from the camera. So it takes some processing just to make the image match what was displayed on the lcd of the camera. If you capture both jpg and raw it is quite apparent. So if you only capture raw there will always be processing even if it is as simple as converting the raw file to a jpg.
As a fellow newbie I recently attended a photo course just to get to grips with the basics of using my camera on manual settings. I admit to being a bit shocked when told "most" pictures published were photoshopped or edited in some way. I remember feeling despondent at the time thinking there was no way I could ever emulate some of the fab pictures I had seen if even the professionals couldn't do it without what I viewed at the time as "cheating". Since starting this project though and getting some proper editing software for Christmas I understand its use a lot more and am desperate to get to grips with it. However, first I am trying to understand the fundamentals of photography and get a lot of satisfaction out of seeing something I really like that has used the manual settings and come out sooc half decent!! My opinion has changed from probably quite a naive one through this site and I love seeing what others do with post processing.
You need to have a certain element of SOOC to help you learn your camera and how to take half way decent photos in the first place. You shouldn't come straight into photography thinking "oh, I'll just shoot in auto and fix everything in post processing later" because you aren't likely to improve very much. I like post processing myself, but knowing how I got to the base picture in the first place is important to me.
@izayaa I agree. Back in the days of film, you would drop your roll off and they would adjust the density, contrast and color as they thought was needed. Now that we're all digital we have the control however it's very easy to go a little overboard ......I'm certainly guilty of that!
Someone recently told me that "I must have a great camera" ....can you imagine having someone cook you a fantastic meal and then saying " thanks, you must have a great stove". Lol. :)
I freely admit it. I "cheat". I crop, I straighten, but until last night that was pretty much all I'd done.
I'll always prefer to get the shot I want sooc though, whatever editing I might be capable of doing now or in the future. That's just the way I am. Not to say the "other" way is wrong, and in fact there's a hell of a lot of creative people out there adding lots to artistic input during editing, and I admire their ability to do it.
Put another way, I play guitar ("lead" as opposed to rhythm), but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate someone's rhythm guitar work or bass playing without wanting to do them myself and without telling them they are "wrong" to do so.
Let's first understand that a digital camera doesn't "see" anything and doesn't "produce" anything without the assistance of technology, engineering, computation and processing in the camera itself. Film cameras "sort of" do, but that is another subject for later.
The sensor registers minute voltage changes on each of its millions of pixels, one pixel at a time depending on the number of light photons that hit it. It takes lots of engineering technology and processing within the camera's software to produce anything resembling an image. And that doesn't even address color production which is not "seen" directly at all, but computed from a neighborhood of individual pixel prime color filters over each pixel, one filter per pixel, distributed in a complex pattern over the whole sensor. Every camera manufacturer does it differently, and indeed that is often why some prefer "color" in one manufacturer or model over another. Different (and usually proprietary and patented) processing techniques, in camera.
Even the manufacturer's processing is not "fixed" but depends on many user parameter settings within the camera itself.
Noise? Many folks don't even think about it. Take any of your images and enlarge it 200% and just look for those speckles and grain. Leave that in? Surely not if you can get it out.
I read recently a quotation that talked about the "arbitrary engineering and technology of the digital camera" and why relying on just that to form your images appears to be just quitting after half the job is done.
Not to say by any means that anything can be "fixed" in an editor and the shoot doesn't matter. Far from it. Bad focus and motion (unintentional subject or camera) and poor aperture selection can usually not be edited out. Shadows and especially highlights completely blown can never be recovered. Also understanding what should be done post (perspective correction is a big one) will often guide you on your initial framing.
Final point, uploading to any internet site involves "post post" processing at the destination site, if only to re-sample to a specific pixel count, or several different ones. Some sites do it well (Flickr is brilliant) some not so good (unfortunately 365 is one of those). There are things you can do to the image before you upload (re-sample yourself for instance) to improve the situation. Why would you not do that and take charge?
Yes, it has been "done to death" before. It's like any other issue ... there are advocates on both sides. But, as you say, there was sure a lot of stuff going on in the darkroom years ago. Ansel Adams once said that he spent more time printing each picture than he did taking the picture. He also said that there will never be two prints alike because of the subtle differences in dodging and burning that occur with each print.
I think the big deal now is the extent that changes can be made. And the "prints" that can be made that are far from the original. So, is that manipulation or is it a second form of artistic expression. Photogoraphy being the first form and artistic processing being the second. If so, then where is the line between photographic processing and artistic processing? Or is there one?
Personally I think its all in how you present it. If you are using what are we calling it now post processing to fake something like hey I can lose those last stubborn 20 pounds in post then meh but if you're just making it look better then I don't see the issue.
It remember getting my last batch of film pictures back and discovering that I had a spot on my lens. Beautiful pictures of Yosemite with a spot in the clear, blue sky. Now that would annoy me because I'd have to erase that out but it wouldn't ruin the entire roll.
There was some newspaper photographer around here who got sacked some time back for manipulating a picture that was published in the paper. I'm not sure the details on that though. I'll see what I can scare up.
The SOOC debate lol. Well for those that actually learned photography shooting film like i did, know that there is no such thing as sooc. Film was pushed, pulled, cross processed, prints were dodged, burned, cropped, toned, hand touched up with special dyes to get rid of dust marks, multiple images combined, contrast filters, vignettes, etc, etc. That is part of the creative process. Master print makers back in the day could produce amazing prints that looked nothing like how your print would turn out at a lab. Yes you had to frame your shot correctly and expose correctly but then the magic happened in the dark room. Print makers were artists and craftsman. Same happens with digital except its much easier and more creative options are available. This debate is so long in the tooth now. Its great that people want to learn to frame their shots correctly and expose correctly. Those are the very basics of photography. We had a whole class on the zone system in school in the mid 90's before digital. But i still cant understand what the debate is about. Its seems like a lot of people just blindly are against processing for some reason as if it makes their pictures more pure or something. To me photography is about envisioning something then creating it. I dont want my pictures to show what is true to the "scene" but what is true to my vision of what i want the picture to look like. So just do what you do and who cares what snobby "purest" say because its all BS. Every picture gets some processing whether people let their camera decide or they take control and decide what it looks like. It has been this ways since the film days and is no different now. Its art just do what makes you happy.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I still think that like your get pushed challenge, that the more you can get right in camera (fantastic way to learn and know your camera), the less you have to do post, the more time for shooting :)
@spankyjane
Any picture I've ever shown to anyone has been processed. I don't let anyone look at my pictures on camera because then they'll think "Well anyone can do that." I use Manual mode, but most people think it's the camera that does all of the work. Once, I took a picture of a classmate and she wanted to see the picture. So I showed it to her on camera, and she told me "That's not you who makes me look good, that's the camera. Anybody can do that." This actually hurt my feelings, because I chose the settings on the camera in manual mode, something she knew nothing of. But I said nothing to her.
This is why I say editing is necessary in photography. Giving a simple out-of-camera picture can make people say "Oh, he has good pictures because he has a professional camera". When you edit a picture, people can't possibly think that the picture came out of the camera looking polished like that. Instead they look at you and think "An artist."
When I started I used pp to fix up what I did not get right SOOC now I used pp to enhance what I did get right SOOC.
Learn your camera, the exposure triangle, composition, lighting all make a big difference to your image, it is much easier to enhance a little than to fix :)
They both are the same in terms of creativity. :)
@orangecrush Oh totes!
is as silly as saying
"One-hour photo finishing is the only honest photography; I'd never process my own film in a darkroom."
Period.
Someone recently told me that "I must have a great camera" ....can you imagine having someone cook you a fantastic meal and then saying " thanks, you must have a great stove". Lol. :)
I'll always prefer to get the shot I want sooc though, whatever editing I might be capable of doing now or in the future. That's just the way I am. Not to say the "other" way is wrong, and in fact there's a hell of a lot of creative people out there adding lots to artistic input during editing, and I admire their ability to do it.
Put another way, I play guitar ("lead" as opposed to rhythm), but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate someone's rhythm guitar work or bass playing without wanting to do them myself and without telling them they are "wrong" to do so.
@cally You always will have a certain element of SOOC unless you didn't take the photo yourself :-)
I thought SOOC meant shaking all bits out of your DLSR and than carefully reorganize those bits again to reach a new dimension.
Let's first understand that a digital camera doesn't "see" anything and doesn't "produce" anything without the assistance of technology, engineering, computation and processing in the camera itself. Film cameras "sort of" do, but that is another subject for later.
The sensor registers minute voltage changes on each of its millions of pixels, one pixel at a time depending on the number of light photons that hit it. It takes lots of engineering technology and processing within the camera's software to produce anything resembling an image. And that doesn't even address color production which is not "seen" directly at all, but computed from a neighborhood of individual pixel prime color filters over each pixel, one filter per pixel, distributed in a complex pattern over the whole sensor. Every camera manufacturer does it differently, and indeed that is often why some prefer "color" in one manufacturer or model over another. Different (and usually proprietary and patented) processing techniques, in camera.
Even the manufacturer's processing is not "fixed" but depends on many user parameter settings within the camera itself.
Noise? Many folks don't even think about it. Take any of your images and enlarge it 200% and just look for those speckles and grain. Leave that in? Surely not if you can get it out.
I read recently a quotation that talked about the "arbitrary engineering and technology of the digital camera" and why relying on just that to form your images appears to be just quitting after half the job is done.
Not to say by any means that anything can be "fixed" in an editor and the shoot doesn't matter. Far from it. Bad focus and motion (unintentional subject or camera) and poor aperture selection can usually not be edited out. Shadows and especially highlights completely blown can never be recovered. Also understanding what should be done post (perspective correction is a big one) will often guide you on your initial framing.
Final point, uploading to any internet site involves "post post" processing at the destination site, if only to re-sample to a specific pixel count, or several different ones. Some sites do it well (Flickr is brilliant) some not so good (unfortunately 365 is one of those). There are things you can do to the image before you upload (re-sample yourself for instance) to improve the situation. Why would you not do that and take charge?
I think the big deal now is the extent that changes can be made. And the "prints" that can be made that are far from the original. So, is that manipulation or is it a second form of artistic expression. Photogoraphy being the first form and artistic processing being the second. If so, then where is the line between photographic processing and artistic processing? Or is there one?
http://365project.org/discuss/general/8396/colour-spaces-rant-alert
It remember getting my last batch of film pictures back and discovering that I had a spot on my lens. Beautiful pictures of Yosemite with a spot in the clear, blue sky. Now that would annoy me because I'd have to erase that out but it wouldn't ruin the entire roll.
There was some newspaper photographer around here who got sacked some time back for manipulating a picture that was published in the paper. I'm not sure the details on that though. I'll see what I can scare up.
(Not altogether sure about that attribution). ;-)
Must. Step. Away.
Carry on.