I'm wondering the same...partly the reason I just posted my input post.....I like slightly processed I guess because it makes the photo pop...but i'm no expert. I'll be waiting for the responses too!!!
I think it depends on the subject. Who doesn't appreciate a great sunrise or sunset SOOC? But atmospheric street scenes and portraits cry out for B&W or sepia. And then of course there are those witty and imaginative artistic compositions where the creator puts her stamp on the photo in what ever way she can. What I love is the freedom to appreciate a great photograph however it was conceived.
I post both and get good responses for either, depending on the subject. I definitely have a lot of fun processing a photo and seeing what can be done with it. It's like painting your own brush over a picture:)
Personally, I prefer really processed pictures. Honestly, I feel that the reason for this is because I am better at editing/processing than I am at actual photo taking. I enjoy taking a photo and making it different from what it originally was.
i like and do all of the above. depends on the photo, the subject, the message i want to convey, and the feelings i want to evoke. sometimes i process a photo for 10 or 15 minutes, and sometimes it's just a few adjustments or none at all. i've often thought of doing a before/after week or month to show my original image vs. finished product. also, i don't like hitting the shift key when i type. :)
for me I do what the shot tells me to do...(ok I sound like the crazy art lady here...) but seriously. Depends so much on the story I'm trying to tell with the photo, what I want the end result and end emotional response to be. I'm totally up for all three, personally.
I personally don't like photos that are super obviously edited. I think that if it's going to be edited, it should just be a little bit to enhance the photo.
I think people need to get back to the basics and capture the image in the camera. Don't rely on heavy editing after you down load it. Take time to get a good exposure and enhance the image but not over process it.
Can we talk about the added textures. I don't like them. It is the same way I feel about frames around the image. Most people have gotten away from the frame thing but the textures drive me crazy.
Its all about the image :) it depends what you are trying to get across in your photo, and if you see your photography as a way to capture an image or a way to express yourself artistically,
if a photo is brilliant straight out of the camera then I see no point in editing it there are some shots that can be enhanced by a couple of tweeks and there are those that need a complete overhaul, shots that set a scene often dont need a lot doing to them but shots that capture a feeling or a thought often do the photo should let you know what to do and what not to do in the same way a sculptor can see figures in the stone he is carving, if a tweek looks bad then dont do it.
i like it both ......
and i think it depends also......
"IF" im a "pro" photographer, i rather choose not to edit......
if ur a graphic artist, u manage to edit OR process the image into "MORE" interesting image .....
in short , its BOTH talent , to processed or not to process ..... ♥
I think it all has a place... Photography is an art form and one that is both personal yet shared... It can be so subjective to one's personal taste- both the viewer and the taker. Personally I love playing with edits( it is very new to me so I find it exciting ) but I highly respect those who get amazing stuff sooc or barely tweaked.
The human eye has a greater dynamic range than any camera sensor.
The visuals that you take in on location are very rarely accurately reproduced SOOC.
A little editing can go a long way to better showing the scene how you saw it when you pressed the shutter release.
This isn't always the case, though just my thoughts for certain situations.
..... obviously those of us who shoot in RAW inherently edit every single shot that we publish, I guess the extent of the editing is very dependent on the frame and what you're trying to share
For now, I prefer natural. But that is mostly because I am not all that great at editing or processing photos. I am still learning, so it might be a while. Until then, just natural.
I like them all....and I use them all......alot of my "processing" though is actually done by whatever app I'm using on my phone and any tweaking/editing or cropping done in picnik if I upload to computer rather than emailing stright from my cell to 365.
Im all for post processing, I think you need to be VERY good to get away with a SOOC shot looking fab! Im not there yet, so all of mine are post processed. And if you shoot in JPEG then your shots are already processed by the in camera firmware.
I also think post processing is taken out of context in this digital age, its always been around even in the times of film camera, but instead of a dark room we use computer software.
Take Ansel Adams for example, his shots were excellent, but he was the master in the dark room, and thats what made his images spectacular...something to think about.
when I shoot film I need post and that carries to digital... to me photography without post is like baking a cake without a oven... you get a sticky mess that doesn't spring off the page... but most entry level DSLR and many P&S assume people are two lazy to edit and what to look like a pro and not edit (mind you I don't know any pros who do not edit) and give you contrasty files with a clipped histro that looks 'better' than a flat RAW file... which is fine... but you can often do much more with that RAW file vs the punchy JPG...
As to the artist post (such as textures, ect) photography and good photographers is about putting on canvas what you see with your own eyes... for some people that is a clear blue sky over a green forest... for others it is a pink sky with tree made out of words... both are valid... interesting...
I have the most fun when I shoot the same scene with other photogs, we end up with drasitcally different images... my 'blad with 12500 pushed B&W will look totally different than some FF 35 DSLR with great sharpness vs a pinhole camera....
anyone who says one is better sooc vs edit than the other is an idiot is what I am really trying to say :)
@amyhughes TOTALLY agree. it all depends on the shot i have in front of me. Whats the fun in sticking to one way, what a limitation that would be... well for me atleast it would be.
I would like to add one thing... setting the camera to take great colour correct images for say taking 1000 head shots at a grad or something is just moving the post into the camera... and well there maybe little post out of the camera.. there is still post... it is just really really close to when the image is taken... like a 1/10 of a second after... kinda like a polaroid...
I prefer natural or slightly processed (or black and white). My ethos is to photograph something and emphasise/enhance tones, colour and shadows using a bit of processing, but not so much that it introduces things that aren't naturally in the photo, and takes away from the naturalness of the photo content itself.
I think very few photographs can be really satisfying without some processing, such as a bit of remedial dodge and burn, sharpening where necessary, removal of blemishes, etc. It was always so in the pre-digital age when it all had to be done by hand with a paint brush or scraped with a fine scalpel or perhaps have the shadows olpened up with a touch of potassium ferricyanide, and it is so much easier now to produce a result much more close to perfection.
I believe it is always worth taking a little bit of time to make the photograph more presentable, as long as it is not noticeable, in the same way that women (and some men!) who spend five careful minutes on their daily make-up are almost invariably so much more attractive than some who spend an hour covering their faces with ghastly paint.
I do however sometimes have a bit of fun colour-shifting my photographs to produce a deliberately unnatural effect ... and sometimes regret it.
@triptych_angel I agree, I did photography abit at college and we used the dark room to do many of the same things that we do now using photoshop and other software. Obviously some things get overdone, but they always have.
We drove our tutor crazy with solarized shots when we learned how to do them at college but we did develop from there afetr we got it out of our system.
I love sooc and edited shots and the only thing I don't like is when people try to say the shot was sooc when it wasn't, because they think that is superior to edited work. :)
Other than family snaps on 35mm that I've delivered to the lab for processing, I've never "used" a SOOC shot. Not even when all I shot (when all anyone shot) was film. Everything was post-processed, even if it was just the deciding of the paper on which it was to be printed - anyone who has spent time in a darkroom will know the incredible range of results you get from that one, supposedly simple, choice.
Everything is processed. If not, it's a half-baked cake.
That's not to say you shouldn't, always, start with a good shot SOOC. You can't fix a bad photo with great post-processing, just like you can't fix a bad cake mixture with a Miele oven and perfect timing.
i like them all...sooc makes me smile because it shows me that i can take a good photo just myself, no tweaking. but editing is half the fun!!! i enjoy all of the above :)
This discussion reminds me of the days of plate cameras when it took about ten seconds to change plates. We were often delighted to get a shot at all, and anyone who was good enough (or fortunate ebough) to do so and earn the nickname "one-shot" could rightly revel in their fame.
When the Rolleflex replaced the traditional 'VN' plate cameras as the standard for Fleet street, some veterans were too proud to take advantage of the possibility of shooting twelve shots at about half-second intervals with a single rotation of the handle until they were persuaded by their picture editors that however clever they may be, there was always room for improvement.
I feel that applies today, and even more so, when a bit of post processing can make so much difference so easily and there is no longer the same degree of pride attached to 'getting it right first time.' Using the facilities that are available does not in my opinion detract from one's camera skills but enhances one's recognition as striving for the best.
All of the above, yep. I always strive for the perfect SOOC, but there are many times where editing made it better or more interesting. There are also times where editing ruined the photo and I reprocessed back to SOOC. Personal choice, do what works best for you.
There's really no such thing as an "unprocessed" shot. The camera's does all sorts of things before it spits out a jpeg: from interpolating the Bayer filtered raw data into RGB values to white balance, noise removal and sharpening.
Shooting RAW and making these edits yourself is just making explicit what was happening implicitly already.
Here is an example, as also posted to the discussion 'Before and After'. I don't mind anyone seeing what it looked like SOOC, but prefer not to post anything without first checking to see whether it might be improved.
I think the answer is probably yes in this case. I can't shoot RAW with my little point-and-shoot, but I think it produces passable results.
I do try to work on pure capture and sooc occasionally; however merely to practice composition my main aim is to pull fantasy out of source material...I am a remixer and people with major talent such as Lee Gordon only inspire me to go deeper...if I can process 1/10th of the talent I have seen other photo artists do on 365 I will be one happy camper...
There are very few heavily edited photo's that appeal to me so I try to keep my processing to making a photo look natural where possible.
One of the latest was a shot of the super moon, I did have to take several shots with different levels of exposure and cut and paste the moon from one to another to get a photo that was close to what I could see.
I have though also used some heavily edited shots to create an idea in my mind that is not/will never be there.
I suppose this is a long winded way of saying it will depend on what you are looking for from each shot. :-)
I've worked with many professional photographers as a design studio client and I don't think I've ever been given a SOOC image even at proofing stage. Utilising post processing does not mean that the photographer is lacking in skill or that the SOOC image is defective, it just recognises that post is as integral to the process as is the shooting stage. In fact, it is just as important to get the best quality image one can get, as your end result is only as good as your starting image.
It's important though to recognise the difference between remedial and creative processing, although they are two sides of the same coin. Some processing aims for a result that looks as natural or 'as the eye sees it' as possible, other processing adds or enhances some other dimension that cannot be achieved in-camera. Ie, some processing is invisible, some is designed to be highly visible.
I think the best result is gained when a shot is processed according to what it needs, rather than using a particular treatment just because we like the treatment itself. This is (in my opinion) the issue that some people have with textures, as an example (selective colouring or HDR are other good examples of 'in-vogue' treatments), is that they are sometimes used indiscriminately rather than as one in a very large arsenal of tools that we have at our disposal.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Can we talk about the added textures. I don't like them. It is the same way I feel about frames around the image. Most people have gotten away from the frame thing but the textures drive me crazy.
Ok I feel better now.
if a photo is brilliant straight out of the camera then I see no point in editing it there are some shots that can be enhanced by a couple of tweeks and there are those that need a complete overhaul, shots that set a scene often dont need a lot doing to them but shots that capture a feeling or a thought often do the photo should let you know what to do and what not to do in the same way a sculptor can see figures in the stone he is carving, if a tweek looks bad then dont do it.
and i think it depends also......
"IF" im a "pro" photographer, i rather choose not to edit......
if ur a graphic artist, u manage to edit OR process the image into "MORE" interesting image .....
in short , its BOTH talent , to processed or not to process ..... ♥
The visuals that you take in on location are very rarely accurately reproduced SOOC.
A little editing can go a long way to better showing the scene how you saw it when you pressed the shutter release.
This isn't always the case, though just my thoughts for certain situations.
..... obviously those of us who shoot in RAW inherently edit every single shot that we publish, I guess the extent of the editing is very dependent on the frame and what you're trying to share
Cheers,
Dan
----
http://www.facebook.com/DanielFisherPhotography
I also think post processing is taken out of context in this digital age, its always been around even in the times of film camera, but instead of a dark room we use computer software.
Take Ansel Adams for example, his shots were excellent, but he was the master in the dark room, and thats what made his images spectacular...something to think about.
As to the artist post (such as textures, ect) photography and good photographers is about putting on canvas what you see with your own eyes... for some people that is a clear blue sky over a green forest... for others it is a pink sky with tree made out of words... both are valid... interesting...
I have the most fun when I shoot the same scene with other photogs, we end up with drasitcally different images... my 'blad with 12500 pushed B&W will look totally different than some FF 35 DSLR with great sharpness vs a pinhole camera....
anyone who says one is better sooc vs edit than the other is an idiot is what I am really trying to say :)
That being said, my fresh new copy of Lightroom is burning a hole in my computer and I HAVE to process everything lately, just for fun :)
AND I am still learning so sometimes I do need to do at least a little WB adjustment and cropping for a more desirable composition.
I believe it is always worth taking a little bit of time to make the photograph more presentable, as long as it is not noticeable, in the same way that women (and some men!) who spend five careful minutes on their daily make-up are almost invariably so much more attractive than some who spend an hour covering their faces with ghastly paint.
I do however sometimes have a bit of fun colour-shifting my photographs to produce a deliberately unnatural effect ... and sometimes regret it.
We drove our tutor crazy with solarized shots when we learned how to do them at college but we did develop from there afetr we got it out of our system.
I love sooc and edited shots and the only thing I don't like is when people try to say the shot was sooc when it wasn't, because they think that is superior to edited work. :)
Other than family snaps on 35mm that I've delivered to the lab for processing, I've never "used" a SOOC shot. Not even when all I shot (when all anyone shot) was film. Everything was post-processed, even if it was just the deciding of the paper on which it was to be printed - anyone who has spent time in a darkroom will know the incredible range of results you get from that one, supposedly simple, choice.
Everything is processed. If not, it's a half-baked cake.
That's not to say you shouldn't, always, start with a good shot SOOC. You can't fix a bad photo with great post-processing, just like you can't fix a bad cake mixture with a Miele oven and perfect timing.
When the Rolleflex replaced the traditional 'VN' plate cameras as the standard for Fleet street, some veterans were too proud to take advantage of the possibility of shooting twelve shots at about half-second intervals with a single rotation of the handle until they were persuaded by their picture editors that however clever they may be, there was always room for improvement.
I feel that applies today, and even more so, when a bit of post processing can make so much difference so easily and there is no longer the same degree of pride attached to 'getting it right first time.' Using the facilities that are available does not in my opinion detract from one's camera skills but enhances one's recognition as striving for the best.
Shooting RAW and making these edits yourself is just making explicit what was happening implicitly already.
I think the answer is probably yes in this case. I can't shoot RAW with my little point-and-shoot, but I think it produces passable results.
One of the latest was a shot of the super moon, I did have to take several shots with different levels of exposure and cut and paste the moon from one to another to get a photo that was close to what I could see.
I have though also used some heavily edited shots to create an idea in my mind that is not/will never be there.
I suppose this is a long winded way of saying it will depend on what you are looking for from each shot. :-)
It's important though to recognise the difference between remedial and creative processing, although they are two sides of the same coin. Some processing aims for a result that looks as natural or 'as the eye sees it' as possible, other processing adds or enhances some other dimension that cannot be achieved in-camera. Ie, some processing is invisible, some is designed to be highly visible.
I think the best result is gained when a shot is processed according to what it needs, rather than using a particular treatment just because we like the treatment itself. This is (in my opinion) the issue that some people have with textures, as an example (selective colouring or HDR are other good examples of 'in-vogue' treatments), is that they are sometimes used indiscriminately rather than as one in a very large arsenal of tools that we have at our disposal.