I've been thinking since I start loving photography that editing shots isn't photography. Why? Well, I think that the good photographer is the one that knows how to take gorgeus shots, and that is the final work, without any post-proccesing time. It's easy to change the parameters of the shot with any picture editor (lightroom, photoshop...) even without knowing about hose, applying a filter that makes magic; but the hard part is to change the settings on the camera to get a wonderful result. Of course, there are shots impossible to take without post.processing, as HDR or panoramas. Wel..this is what I think, what do you think about this?
I'd say this is an endless debate... interesting nonetheless, but you don't find a definitive answer. In my opinion, to each its own.
Myself, I'm not against editing, and I'm discovering I both enjoy taking pics with old manual lenses on one side, and doing the editing on the other (but I'm a computer nerd, so...). But then, I usually limit myself to cropping, doing levels, adjusting colours (including black and white) and such things. I don't (usually...) do heavily "shopped" pics (but maybe it's because I'm not skilled to do that).
But as I said, to each its own: photography is such a big field that everyone can find one (or many) focus of interest.
Even definitions of photography leave it open to interpretation. I also agree that we all should create aortas we see fit. This topic will always lead to "lively" debate.
I believe that photography is an art. Even when all your work is done behind the camera - you are still setting up the shot, choosing what to frame, how to represent the light... So a photo will always have your slant of representation.
We have tools that we can use - sometimes they might enhance things or even help create what we remember seeing better. Sometimes not.
I go after creating a mood, feeling or memory. Sometimes that happens naturally. Sometimes I use other artistic ability to get there.
I don't see why you can't have both - there are times when i aim to take the shot straight off and others when i just take photos of things around me and if they are sooc it's cool but i love processing too to create other images as well
I'm joining this endless debate - The darkroom was also an editing room - a bit of dodging and burning here and change of chemicals there - a vignette here - a filter there. Photos being manipulated after they come out of the camera is as old as photography itself. I'm all for editing but I agree you also have to take the very best photograph you can in camera first - but even the best photo can always be enhanced with a little tweak.
I must admit I don't really do editing because like you, my challenge is to get a good pic by making adjustments on my camera. I do sometimes tweak the exposure if I've taken an action shot that I haven't had time to change the settings otherwise I would have missed the shot - mainly with birds! I do crop pics as well but apart from that I try to take good shots that don't need editing. I'm also not good at using software to correct things either. I bought Elements 11 but never use it and I think that it is only part of the software anyway so I'm not bothered that I bought it and don't use it.
here is the deal... If you shoot RAW you are capturing a digital negative that has to be processed, If you shoot JPEG and don't edit you are doing the equivalent of taking your film to the local one hour photo to print however there printer is set up to print.
If you shoot JPEG you are just letting your camera decide WB contrast saturation and others.
Personally I like to have control over my image from capture to final output.
I can alter raw files on my camera after the shot is taken, change colours, stack, crop and other effects ,before uploading to my PC, is this editing or is it still SOOC?
Photography: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays. (Dictionary.com)
Pretty dry. How about:
The art or practice of taking and processing photographs. (Oxford)
Closer, I think.
Photographers have been processing and editing after capture, for a long time. Pretty much forever. Man Ray and Ansel Adams heavily edited their images prior to releasing them. WHether it's analog or digital editing, editing has always been part of the photographic process. I would argue that SOOC is an offshoot, a sub specialty of the art, not the art itself.
Does software today make it more accessible to more people? Absolutely - and I think it's a great thing. I've seen more phenomenal images made by people who had the vision and creativity to conjure it up, and then had the tools that allowed them to create it. I think that's great! ANd, it pushes more "traditional" photographers to amp up their game, relish the challenge to stand out from the crowd.
GO here and listen closely at 2:15 on .... Ansel Adams spent a lot of time making his original pics different in the darkroom ... at 4.20 on it discusses what he takes out of the original and what he adds in ... and shows the original versus the print we all see ...
To me photography is art...anything goes. If you are truely hoping to be a purist and only use your camera to make images then what about all those other tools photographers use? Does that mean filters, external flash, stobes, backdrops, lightboxes etc, should be thrown away? Nope! Photography is a process of creation. I say, no limits :)
I will just say this... if someone can take an ugly out of focused, over exposed image and turn it into something beautiful... well that is part of the art of photography. Photography truly has no limits.
It is an endless debate. But don't you realize that the camera software "edits" or "processes" the image just as surely as does Photoshop? And if my camera only takes 3x2 crop, I should limit myself to taking only images that fit that? What about Black and White? Is that photography under your definition? It is certainly heavily processed. You would have it that, for instance, Ansel Adams did not produce photographs because his prints were heavily edited?
Pretty futile debate IMHO, but there's a lot of good feedback here. In particular, I'm with @frankhymus on camera processing.
We actually did a comparison on my camera between RAW and JPEG straight out the camera and the JPEG is clearly processed. So do you limit yourself to a JPEG taken straight from the RAW in that case? I think not, as @soren says, you do need to look at things like.white balance with RAW, as it has no effect in camera.
As a lot of the others have said, its a creative art - editing is part of that creativity for sure.
As others have said above - Ansel Adams. A good photo starts in camera, and if you want to make your personal challenge create good photos by accepting the jpegs your camera gives you, more power to you! But any definition of photography that leaves out the greats who made ther own prints is a pretty useless definition, I'd say.
I always tweak my photos on Picmonkey before making them public, but it's usually just to crop, add a frame, or play around with the colors. I see editing as an art form too.
I try to get a good composition, because I don't have time to learn Photoshop and compositing. But once I have a decent start, I will edit the crap out of any picture I post. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not, but I always do it because every picture can be improved by editing.
@soren I really, really like what you said. Not that I own any software,or know how to use it..but that is an excellent argument to make learning at least the basics of post processing one of my goals!
@jocasta I agree, photographers have always manipulated images in the darkroom and using Lightroom or Aperture to do the digital equivalent is just as valid as what I used to do 40 years ago with b&w negatives. I'm not so keen on heavy manipulation of images with Photoshop or its equivalent though.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Myself, I'm not against editing, and I'm discovering I both enjoy taking pics with old manual lenses on one side, and doing the editing on the other (but I'm a computer nerd, so...). But then, I usually limit myself to cropping, doing levels, adjusting colours (including black and white) and such things. I don't (usually...) do heavily "shopped" pics (but maybe it's because I'm not skilled to do that).
But as I said, to each its own: photography is such a big field that everyone can find one (or many) focus of interest.
I believe that photography is an art. Even when all your work is done behind the camera - you are still setting up the shot, choosing what to frame, how to represent the light... So a photo will always have your slant of representation.
We have tools that we can use - sometimes they might enhance things or even help create what we remember seeing better. Sometimes not.
I go after creating a mood, feeling or memory. Sometimes that happens naturally. Sometimes I use other artistic ability to get there.
If you shoot JPEG you are just letting your camera decide WB contrast saturation and others.
Personally I like to have control over my image from capture to final output.
Pretty dry. How about:
The art or practice of taking and processing photographs. (Oxford)
Closer, I think.
Photographers have been processing and editing after capture, for a long time. Pretty much forever. Man Ray and Ansel Adams heavily edited their images prior to releasing them. WHether it's analog or digital editing, editing has always been part of the photographic process. I would argue that SOOC is an offshoot, a sub specialty of the art, not the art itself.
Does software today make it more accessible to more people? Absolutely - and I think it's a great thing. I've seen more phenomenal images made by people who had the vision and creativity to conjure it up, and then had the tools that allowed them to create it. I think that's great! ANd, it pushes more "traditional" photographers to amp up their game, relish the challenge to stand out from the crowd.
A rising tide raises all ships.
End of rant.
http://digital-photography-school.com/moon-over-hernandez-an-insight-into-ansel-adams
We actually did a comparison on my camera between RAW and JPEG straight out the camera and the JPEG is clearly processed. So do you limit yourself to a JPEG taken straight from the RAW in that case? I think not, as @soren says, you do need to look at things like.white balance with RAW, as it has no effect in camera.
As a lot of the others have said, its a creative art - editing is part of that creativity for sure.
That is all.
@danielwsc @aprilmilani
Hi @danielwsc
welcome
@aprilmilani