I'm starting to get into photography when I found a free online easy editing software (pixlr express) and I'm starting to edit EVERYTHING and I was wondering if the public thinks editing counts as photography or art and whever they should at least say 'edit' the ideas go on have a 'discussion' :D
There is one simple test - do they look edited? - if the answer is yes, then you have gone too far, if, however, you have gently enhanced them, and still have a natural looking pic - then go for it!!
actually i'm going to add a bit more to this. From my perspective, i think to move forward as a photographer, you've got to give it a shot. Edit the bejeebers out of it, see what you think.. go through a month of it. Then go back to the theoretic "SOOC". Then try editing again. You'll get to an equilibrium where you're happy with what you do
Enhancing is making the most out of what you have.....I'm not much on overprocessing, but I am learning to appreciate some applications of it.@kestergriffiths
I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish... Editing has its place for certain sure... I would say (a) as a goal and to develop one's skills, there is value in getting as much "right" in camera as possible...
And (b) in terms of art, there is also value in understanding and being able to use editing tools...
Appreciation of the result will vary... Some will like it and some will not... The key is for you to be able to get the result you are looking for in terms of the end product...
Editing the $h!t out of something is an artform into itself btw... Just do a search in the tag "etsooi". ;)
The final image is the most important thing here and it is the author's choice (i.e. yours) whether to edit or not, and if you do, when to stop.
Don't get bogged down by this issue of 'real photography = zero editing' that some people spout - even in the days of wet processing and darkrooms pictures were edited, cropped, rotated, made lighter, darker, B&W from colour - all the sorts of things that we do today in Photoshop, Picassa, Gimp or whatever you chosen software.
Ultimately, it is your picture, you are the author, it is your choice. If you like it and others don't, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.
And by the same token, this is your project, your way.
As others have said, don't sweat the issue. For myself, every shot I publish gets the Camera Raw and Photoshop treatment, sometimes just a conversion to jpeg/tiff, most often a lot more. If I have the time and the image merits working on. That's why people shoot RAW in the first place. More options available than were in the camera that produces a jpeg.
Many people forget, or just refuse to acknowledge, that every jpeg "out of the camera" is significantly processed "post shoot" for color, tone, contrast, noise... By the camera software, driven by all those many parameters that you can set in the "shooting menu" and "picture controls" of your camera. But they are "fixed" and without significant hassle aren't changed from shot to shot. Isn't it much better to be able to take a (raw) image into an editor and individually process it to get the optimal effect for different shooting conditions?
Yes, there are things that have to be right in the camera at time of shooting - all the focus parameters and camera or subject motion for example - and that an editor can't fix, or can't fix easily or well. But color and tone and exposure and sharpness and contrast and frame and aspect ratio can all be significantly adjusted, even selectively on pieces of the image only, especially if no highlights or shadows are initially blown away.
This was always the case though, even with film as Ian above points out. All the masters did this as they produced prints, and still do, especially if not pressed for deadlines, significantly and often. Why should we not, especially with the fine software that is now available to us in the digital world? Several great teachers in the new digital world have likened the raw file to a film negative, and the jpeg to the final print. I think the analogy is very instructive.
Image manipulation is a completely different animal, and I'll leave that discussion for another time. But "editing" is definitely not "manipulation" as I think of the two terms.
I edit most everything... at least a tiny bit like others have said about RAW you have to do a little something to it before you convert it. I also use pixlr some times its a great program, I would however start using the pixlr editor instead of the pixlr express, there are tons more options and its more of a true editor then the express which is just lots of filters and not a lot of do it yourself stuff. Photography is art, it is open to interpretation, edit it the way you like it its your art!
You have opened one the pandora boxes of photography. Lets think through this issue a little. You want to picture to look like what you first saw. The camera sees things differently than you do. All images since photography began have been post-processed or edited, either in the darkroom or computer. SOOC is an oximoron because even your camera has processed the information to make the image. How much you do to the image is a personal choice, some may like it others may hate it.
As I mentioned on the above, Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom burning and dodging his prints as well as meticulously choosing the correct paper to print them on. He once said no two of his prints were exactly alike. Post processing has been going on for decades ... just not digitally.
I say please yourself... Who cares what others think. There is so much imagery out there and on our doorsteps. I like that everyone can have a go. Explore, create and find your own way
Thought-provoking discussion! I have wondered this myself. I, too, am new to photography, and one of the biggest reasons I use an editing program is because I want to get the biggest bang out of each picture. Every photograph, even the ones that some would argue are NOT, is edited/processed. If you pick up a camera and shoot something, you are determining what the viewer sees. You are the author and the artist of that shot. So, enhancing it just depends on what you want the viewer to see. I agree with many that too much processing can get downright absurd, but then again, like Northy said, that is also an artform in itself. One of the best things you can do as a photographer, and believe me I am a novice, is learn how to use these processes and then make that picture zoom to new heights if, and only if, it pleases you! Because in the end, if you don't enjoy what you are doing, why do it???
do what seems "right" to you....and you'll always come out on top. I personally do not edit at all, but that's not to say i won't change my mind about it in a couple more months or days or seconds....lol. For me, I would rather take the time on the front end.......than to give myself the "out" to say i can just fix it in Photoshop when i get home....but that's just me.
I edit all my photos as I shoot in RAW, but I think that it isn't a reason to not learn how to use your camera. A lot of the time, it is impossible to change some fundamental mistakes without an inordinate amount of work or at all if you haven't got it right in camera - the example that springs to mind is using f/16 for a portrait or f/2.8 for a landscape. Obviously a very, very basic example!
@soren you got that right! Kick?, Ruuunnn! I love to ETSOOI some pics, I would say it is still photography ...."photo" means light". And "graphy" means writing. You are writing with light.
I dont want to tag myself as "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER" coz really... Im not ! all I can say is We're ALL ARTIST here with diffent styes and strokes, the important is you inspire yourself, and you inspire others.... remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. =) keep shootin!
@kestergriffiths Edited/retouched/enhanced photographs are not art. It's too easy and too quick to do. Look at the work of some of the great old masters like Goya - he spent 30 YEARS on some individual pieces alone - THAT'S ART! He also mixed the paints, constructed and stretched his own canvasses, and created a unique image from scratch. Art comes from the eyes and the brain, not from a piece of software. Don't overthink it, though - just do what you feel you want to do.
Photographers have "cheated" in the darkroom since the year dot almost so why is "editing" digital images any different?
In the case of Raw images there will always need to be a small degree of editing. For example sharpening to counter the effects of the anti-aliasing filter in your DSLR (unless you have one of the latest Nikon DSLRs that doesn't have a built-in anti-aliasing filter - I forget which model).
I tend to agree with the proponents above about using editing to enhance a picture and if you can see that something has been edited then it has gone too far but then I can also see that there are times when intense editing could be seen to be an art form in its own right. Just do what feels right to you.
I think editing and photo shopping are fine and good fun, but you have to admit to doing it. I call a photograph something that has not been touched in any way and anything else a picture. Any views on this?
I started my project a real purist and quite loudly boasted to my hubby that i wont be editing my photos.... Lol... I do have edited photos in my project though... Some techniques i wanted to try (like the multiple images of one person in a photo) require a lot of photo shopping.... Most of my pics are SOOC with maybe some cropping... I think its to each their own.... Good luck with your project..
post processing is an art entirely in it self. Photography is art. Its what ever it takes to make the vision in your head come to life. Learning high end post processing is just as hard as learning photography and can take many many years to learn. This topic has been beaten to death. Every picture is edited either by the camera or on the computer. Everyone that shot film edited their shots. Just do what you want. Its your art.
I've gone through some phases on this site. One, I started using my phone camera. Then I picked up my DSLR and used auto. Then I started to learn how the camera could function in manual. Then I tried to work with "sooc" and see how I could approximate the best photos without processing--I can pinpoint the day I did my best all manual day. It was exciting, but it was not an "end goal." Then I started using processing and decided that I wanted to embrace that. I did some of what @toast suggested--editing the bejeebers out of it! :) and now I've bought LR5 and hope to really learn photoshop. I still attempt to really use my camera to its fullest pre-processing (meaning, I have an idea I want to create as best as possible before I hit the edit stage). I agree with everyone--it's what you want to do. I've learned so much and love my abilities with the camera in manual mode, using other settings, using my processing program and thinking beyond the view frame! Have fun with it. The only judge is yourself! Hope this helps.
i love hos this becomes a hot topic every few months! Having spent many hours in the darkroom post processing my photos, now i can do it in my den with my kids around and with out all the chemicals. Although I miss the smell of D76...
@darylo getting it right in camera is defo the best approach. Something that may take you 10 seconds to see and correct in real life may take you 10 minutes to get rid of in post :)
I don't edit for 365. Everything is SOOC (with the exception of my Instagram shots. I don't save the originals).
I think the less editing the better. I think it shows off more the photographer's skill. I use my project to showcase my photography skill (or lack there of) and blog about my life. So I like to show things as is.
If I'm doing something that needs a certain look, I edit it. But those I don't use here.
Do I think editing counts as photography? To a certain degree. It really depends. Do I think it's art? DEFINITLY! I use Photoshop, and to use it is for sure an art form. :P
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
....................
Feeling Blue - my 365 days of one colour - Click HERE
I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish... Editing has its place for certain sure... I would say (a) as a goal and to develop one's skills, there is value in getting as much "right" in camera as possible...
And (b) in terms of art, there is also value in understanding and being able to use editing tools...
Appreciation of the result will vary... Some will like it and some will not... The key is for you to be able to get the result you are looking for in terms of the end product...
Editing the $h!t out of something is an artform into itself btw... Just do a search in the tag "etsooi". ;)
Don't get bogged down by this issue of 'real photography = zero editing' that some people spout - even in the days of wet processing and darkrooms pictures were edited, cropped, rotated, made lighter, darker, B&W from colour - all the sorts of things that we do today in Photoshop, Picassa, Gimp or whatever you chosen software.
Ultimately, it is your picture, you are the author, it is your choice. If you like it and others don't, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.
And by the same token, this is your project, your way.
Welcome to 365Project - have fun!
Many people forget, or just refuse to acknowledge, that every jpeg "out of the camera" is significantly processed "post shoot" for color, tone, contrast, noise... By the camera software, driven by all those many parameters that you can set in the "shooting menu" and "picture controls" of your camera. But they are "fixed" and without significant hassle aren't changed from shot to shot. Isn't it much better to be able to take a (raw) image into an editor and individually process it to get the optimal effect for different shooting conditions?
Yes, there are things that have to be right in the camera at time of shooting - all the focus parameters and camera or subject motion for example - and that an editor can't fix, or can't fix easily or well. But color and tone and exposure and sharpness and contrast and frame and aspect ratio can all be significantly adjusted, even selectively on pieces of the image only, especially if no highlights or shadows are initially blown away.
This was always the case though, even with film as Ian above points out. All the masters did this as they produced prints, and still do, especially if not pressed for deadlines, significantly and often. Why should we not, especially with the fine software that is now available to us in the digital world? Several great teachers in the new digital world have likened the raw file to a film negative, and the jpeg to the final print. I think the analogy is very instructive.
Image manipulation is a completely different animal, and I'll leave that discussion for another time. But "editing" is definitely not "manipulation" as I think of the two terms.
a lot
As I mentioned on the above, Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom burning and dodging his prints as well as meticulously choosing the correct paper to print them on. He once said no two of his prints were exactly alike. Post processing has been going on for decades ... just not digitally.
I dont want to tag myself as "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER" coz really... Im not ! all I can say is We're ALL ARTIST here with diffent styes and strokes, the important is you inspire yourself, and you inspire others.... remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. =) keep shootin!
In the case of Raw images there will always need to be a small degree of editing. For example sharpening to counter the effects of the anti-aliasing filter in your DSLR (unless you have one of the latest Nikon DSLRs that doesn't have a built-in anti-aliasing filter - I forget which model).
I tend to agree with the proponents above about using editing to enhance a picture and if you can see that something has been edited then it has gone too far but then I can also see that there are times when intense editing could be seen to be an art form in its own right. Just do what feels right to you.
I think I've covered all the answers you're likely to get :)
I think the less editing the better. I think it shows off more the photographer's skill. I use my project to showcase my photography skill (or lack there of) and blog about my life. So I like to show things as is.
If I'm doing something that needs a certain look, I edit it. But those I don't use here.
Do I think editing counts as photography? To a certain degree. It really depends. Do I think it's art? DEFINITLY! I use Photoshop, and to use it is for sure an art form. :P
Then again, I'm not a professional, so...yeah. :)