Hi there,
Just a quick question for you photo guru's here. I'm new getting into digital photography and am wondering how many of you digitally enhance your photos (i.e. photoshop)? There are so many fantastic photos that I have seen, I am curious as to how many of them are altered in some way, more than you are able to do with the camera using f/stop, shutter speed etc. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
I edit many, with photoshop, or in picnik. boosting the color, straightening, etc.
many photographers here, will say if their shot is SOOC (straight out of the camera)
if mine comes out great, SOOC, I leave it, but sometimes it needs to be 'tweaked' a bit. hope that helps!
think its the majority more than the minority even if it is just a bit of colour balancing and the odd crop, in the world of digital photography an editing suite take the place of the darkroom so to me anyway is is an essential tool most pro's that I know use some sort of editing software or other (not all though) in the end it is down to personal choice
Oh man. Now THAT is a big question. I've come across this issue many, many times on this site.
And...my opinion and habits have changed in the last year.
When I first started this project I was mostly working for newspapers. Newspapers...and photojournalists in general...are forbidden from making many changes to photos. You are allowed three basics: white balance correction, exposure adjustment, and cropping. Photojournalists are not allowed to add or remove anything from a photo and they cannot alter a photo far from its natural perception (in other words changing colors, increasing hue/saturation, or special effects).
This is one of my very early photos on this project. When I edited this photo, all I did was correct a little bit of underexposure. To achieve the deep blue skies I used a circular polarizer filters on my lens.
Now we get to some of my more recent photos. I now work for various travel magazines and so my photos are often in print, full page sometimes, and every once in awhile across the fold in a magazine. So, it was necessary to give my photos some extra attention.
In the photo below, I did not need to tweak the white balance or exposure. I did that in-camera when I first took the photo. However, I spent quite a lot of time removing power lines just above the horizon, removing birds that were flying through the air, sharpening the edges just a bit, and enhancing the details of the water. I had a very specific purpose in doing all this: this photo will be used in an HD time lapse video later.
But you were curious about how many of our photos are altered in some way more than you are able to do with a camera? I don't see how that is possible.
Sure, you can do extreme stylizations on photos such as colorization or turning a photo into a sketch-style portrait, but there is nothing really a camera cannot do that you can do in editing. A camera can choose from a variety of white balances that have different effects (have you ever tried using the wrong white balance on purpose?), the f/stop range can have many effects, and ISO can also affect exposure.
The goal of good photography is to get the photo as accurate as you can in the camera. Fact is: every pixel you alter in Photoshop leaves a mark. No matter how good the programs get. Now, if you're just looking at the photo on a computer screen that is one thing.
But imagine that same photo printed at 30"x40"? I sold a panorama a few weeks ago that was printed at 2'x18'. Eighteen feet. Imagine how excessive cloning might have looked?
So...I only edit/alter what I must in a photo. I can't help birds flying in front of a sunset. But I can make sure I get the exposure right to begin with.
I was just talking about this with someone today. Taking the picture is half of photography. The other half is how we present it. Whether it is printed or displayed on the web doesn't matter. Editing used to be in the darkroom now it's on your computer. Everything is within your control to some extent depending on what you decide to do. I think most people do some of everything. We need to treat every picture individually. If you do the same thing all the time people will stop looking and you may get bored. So go outside your comfort zone and learn everything you can you and you will have a fun time.
I edit EVERYTHING. However, next year I MIGHT do all SOOC photos. I've had my camera for almost a year and still don't know how to use the darn thing. In fact, I spent about an hour today googling, "how to use Nikon Coolpix P100 manual mode." Yeah, I know, I'm lame.
---Sure, you can do extreme stylizations on photos such as colorization or turning a photo into a sketch-style portrait, but there is nothing really a camera cannot do that you can do in editing.----
I beg to differ Sir. Creative Suite 5 being £800 begs to differ also. Julia Roberts looking 18 in magazines begs to differ and many fellow 365ers beg to differ.
Sure there are two camps, those who try and make the best picture not caring what that involves and those like Jason who stay true to the thing he photographed as much as possible, but software, whatever you might think, can make huge differences to your picture.
I had a point and shoot for the first three quarters of the project and I learnt to jazz my pictures up because they just weren't as good as an expensive camera takes. Now I have a canon I try to balance between fun effects and a photo-record. @jasonbarnette
My advice, don't spend too much, in the UK CS5.5 is nearly £900 but the earlier edition of Photoshop is £70, pixlr, gimp and picnik are free, as are hugin and you can get hDR software on trial for a month.
@dmortega
Thanks for the advice! My stand by mode seems to be the "close up" mode or on a rare occasion the portrait mode. I tried getting pictures of a hawk in a tree today and the stupid camera wouldn't let me focus on anything aside from the leaves on the tree. Eventually I got pictures that were OKAY, but not great. This has happened to me many times. The manual that came with the camera is worthless. What would you define as a "rare" occasion that might require automatic?
@jackiez Hi, I'm not a big editor, but I will crop...and change to b/white or sepia. i just use Picasa's free download one. Have been known to press the auto contrast button to see if it improves or not, but otherwise I like what i clicked...or don't like it. I would love photoshop but my husband prefers we stay married...ie...I get off the computer occasionally!
@mej2011 --- set to the mountains (inifinity). That will help to start. You need to practice using the different settings for the different distances and light. Practice!!!
@mej2011 You may have a switch on or near the lens that allows you to switch to manual focus. This, while daunting, is the best way to get the focus on the area you want. A rare occasion in my book is a sport or movement oriented subject where continually adjusting the aperture or shutter would result in missing "the shot" where as Aperture priority or shutter priority might aid in catching the right shot. I have a D90 so I don' t know your camera specifically....but you might check it out and see.
As far as editing photos....you are balancing on the whole SOOC (straight out of camera) vs editied vs photoshopped debate. There have been many discussion on here about it and it seems to me to boil down to a few points. SOOC is never a true representation of what you actually see: the camera always alters the image when it saves it, usually in a JPEG format that optimizes it based on algorithms that the specific camera has, even if you shoot in RAW mode the view on the LCD screen is in JPEG format so you adjust based off of what you see there, not the actual image, even the "greats" edited their photos somewhat i.e. dodging, burning, exposure in the dark room, etc.
Anybody insists that SOOC is "the only" way to go or a variation of "if you can't do it in camera, it shouldn't be done" mentality is un-informed about how photos are and have been processed. When film was processed the chemicals used mattered as much as exposure time and sharpness. I think that in some situations the film photos have been edited more than some of todays digital photos simply because with digital you can see your results and adjust the settings until you get the photo you were trying to achieve with camera settings.
I think that some editing of photos is necessary. It may be as simple as adjusting exposure, brightness or sharpness. It really all depends on the end result the photographer is going for. If you can get what you were going for SOOC, good for you, if not but you achieve it in post-processing, great! IMO anyway
@shadesofgrey
Thanks for the response! I know how to switch the camera from any mode to manual. It's the actual focus part I can't figure. I know which buttons change the aperture and shutter speeds, but nothing seems to focus. I guess as, @dmortega said, I just need to practice more. Thanks again!
I can't find all the info on your camera so I can't be sure but I'm sure there is some way to switch your camera from auto focus to manual focus...if not, You will have to mess with the settings but it might be worth investigating.
Sorry guys but not editing a photograph is like banning salt from cooking!
If I had one wish it would for people to stop thinking that Photoshop is a verb! And that it is evil! It is not and is purely a well known and over used tradename for a program which is the most valuable everyday tool of my job. Photoshop is my digital darkroom where I process my RAW files and make the decisions instead of my camera deciding for me. Photoshop is NOT just somewhere where people are made thinner/prettier/taller!! lol In fact in my nearly seven years doing photography for a living I have never done any of these things!
My Photoshop journey has been self taught and is probably one of the most fulfilling tools I use because I have developed a style which I am happy to see in my work. We must all realise that photography is an artform and is subjective. Yes, some processes can look obvious but can also look very very cool!
I personally have never ever agreed with SOOC but that is my personal choice, but would like to stress in a politely, friendly and cuddly way that editing does not make you a bad person! lol
I'd also like to say this is a wonderful community and everyone's difference of opinion is healthy and if you are a SOOC person, good for you and for standing up for what you believe :)
I shoot raw image files. When one shoots jpeg, the camera is making saturation, tone curve, sharpening (etc) decisions for you. Shooting raw is a lot like shooting film, and then doing the darkroom work yourself. Shooting jpeg (and not doing post-processing) is a lot like shooting film, and then taking the roll to Walmart / K-mart.
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you want to control every aspect of the final image, or if you're happy to let someone you have never met do the final touches with some generic algorithm.
There are a few reasons however why I like to have as many of my photos as possible being SOOC. Firstly, I'm still learning how to use my camera and I don't feel that my use of the camera will improve if all I'm saying is "oh I can edit the white balance/exposure/edit that wire out later". I just think that that makes me a bit lazy - get as much of it right in camera as possible, learning about which white balance setting to use, which ISO you need and learn about composing the shot. Obviously for people who are well acquainted with their camera, this is unnecessary.
Secondly, I'm not great at editing. This is a skill I need to learn, but its secondary to learning about the camera. This is something that I am intending to work on with a photography course next year. I am picking things up when editing photos that didn't come out right (I do still edit if a shot is wrong in some way), but its a slow process and my eye isn't very well developed yet towards seeing what looks better or not without going too far.
Thirdly, I'm lazy. I don't want to sit at a computer and edit photos. I will do on occasion, but I'm not inclined to do it more than I have to. Just another reason to me to try and get it right in the camera :-)
That being said, I don't mind if people edit their photos at all. It's part of their process of taking photos and is a personal preference. I think I will probably edit more when I have more of a clue about what I am doing.
@gavincci . I thought as much.. although there was 1 photo where I thought hmmm I think this one may be edited , but then saw the Exif info and knew it was SOOC..
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
many photographers here, will say if their shot is SOOC (straight out of the camera)
if mine comes out great, SOOC, I leave it, but sometimes it needs to be 'tweaked' a bit. hope that helps!
And...my opinion and habits have changed in the last year.
When I first started this project I was mostly working for newspapers. Newspapers...and photojournalists in general...are forbidden from making many changes to photos. You are allowed three basics: white balance correction, exposure adjustment, and cropping. Photojournalists are not allowed to add or remove anything from a photo and they cannot alter a photo far from its natural perception (in other words changing colors, increasing hue/saturation, or special effects).
This is one of my very early photos on this project. When I edited this photo, all I did was correct a little bit of underexposure. To achieve the deep blue skies I used a circular polarizer filters on my lens.
Now we get to some of my more recent photos. I now work for various travel magazines and so my photos are often in print, full page sometimes, and every once in awhile across the fold in a magazine. So, it was necessary to give my photos some extra attention.
In the photo below, I did not need to tweak the white balance or exposure. I did that in-camera when I first took the photo. However, I spent quite a lot of time removing power lines just above the horizon, removing birds that were flying through the air, sharpening the edges just a bit, and enhancing the details of the water. I had a very specific purpose in doing all this: this photo will be used in an HD time lapse video later.
But you were curious about how many of our photos are altered in some way more than you are able to do with a camera? I don't see how that is possible.
Sure, you can do extreme stylizations on photos such as colorization or turning a photo into a sketch-style portrait, but there is nothing really a camera cannot do that you can do in editing. A camera can choose from a variety of white balances that have different effects (have you ever tried using the wrong white balance on purpose?), the f/stop range can have many effects, and ISO can also affect exposure.
The goal of good photography is to get the photo as accurate as you can in the camera. Fact is: every pixel you alter in Photoshop leaves a mark. No matter how good the programs get. Now, if you're just looking at the photo on a computer screen that is one thing.
But imagine that same photo printed at 30"x40"? I sold a panorama a few weeks ago that was printed at 2'x18'. Eighteen feet. Imagine how excessive cloning might have looked?
So...I only edit/alter what I must in a photo. I can't help birds flying in front of a sunset. But I can make sure I get the exposure right to begin with.
I beg to differ Sir. Creative Suite 5 being £800 begs to differ also. Julia Roberts looking 18 in magazines begs to differ and many fellow 365ers beg to differ.
Sure there are two camps, those who try and make the best picture not caring what that involves and those like Jason who stay true to the thing he photographed as much as possible, but software, whatever you might think, can make huge differences to your picture.
I had a point and shoot for the first three quarters of the project and I learnt to jazz my pictures up because they just weren't as good as an expensive camera takes. Now I have a canon I try to balance between fun effects and a photo-record. @jasonbarnette
My advice, don't spend too much, in the UK CS5.5 is nearly £900 but the earlier edition of Photoshop is £70, pixlr, gimp and picnik are free, as are hugin and you can get hDR software on trial for a month.
I edit my photos A LOT. Your mouth would drop at the before and after.
Thanks for the advice! My stand by mode seems to be the "close up" mode or on a rare occasion the portrait mode. I tried getting pictures of a hawk in a tree today and the stupid camera wouldn't let me focus on anything aside from the leaves on the tree. Eventually I got pictures that were OKAY, but not great. This has happened to me many times. The manual that came with the camera is worthless. What would you define as a "rare" occasion that might require automatic?
Anybody insists that SOOC is "the only" way to go or a variation of "if you can't do it in camera, it shouldn't be done" mentality is un-informed about how photos are and have been processed. When film was processed the chemicals used mattered as much as exposure time and sharpness. I think that in some situations the film photos have been edited more than some of todays digital photos simply because with digital you can see your results and adjust the settings until you get the photo you were trying to achieve with camera settings.
I think that some editing of photos is necessary. It may be as simple as adjusting exposure, brightness or sharpness. It really all depends on the end result the photographer is going for. If you can get what you were going for SOOC, good for you, if not but you achieve it in post-processing, great! IMO anyway
Thanks for the response! I know how to switch the camera from any mode to manual. It's the actual focus part I can't figure. I know which buttons change the aperture and shutter speeds, but nothing seems to focus. I guess as, @dmortega said, I just need to practice more. Thanks again!
If I had one wish it would for people to stop thinking that Photoshop is a verb! And that it is evil! It is not and is purely a well known and over used tradename for a program which is the most valuable everyday tool of my job. Photoshop is my digital darkroom where I process my RAW files and make the decisions instead of my camera deciding for me. Photoshop is NOT just somewhere where people are made thinner/prettier/taller!! lol In fact in my nearly seven years doing photography for a living I have never done any of these things!
My Photoshop journey has been self taught and is probably one of the most fulfilling tools I use because I have developed a style which I am happy to see in my work. We must all realise that photography is an artform and is subjective. Yes, some processes can look obvious but can also look very very cool!
I personally have never ever agreed with SOOC but that is my personal choice, but would like to stress in a politely, friendly and cuddly way that editing does not make you a bad person! lol
I'd also like to say this is a wonderful community and everyone's difference of opinion is healthy and if you are a SOOC person, good for you and for standing up for what you believe :)
Happy snapping and editing everyone :)
"WTF"
I shoot raw image files. When one shoots jpeg, the camera is making saturation, tone curve, sharpening (etc) decisions for you. Shooting raw is a lot like shooting film, and then doing the darkroom work yourself. Shooting jpeg (and not doing post-processing) is a lot like shooting film, and then taking the roll to Walmart / K-mart.
I guess it just comes down to whether or not you want to control every aspect of the final image, or if you're happy to let someone you have never met do the final touches with some generic algorithm.
Secondly, I'm not great at editing. This is a skill I need to learn, but its secondary to learning about the camera. This is something that I am intending to work on with a photography course next year. I am picking things up when editing photos that didn't come out right (I do still edit if a shot is wrong in some way), but its a slow process and my eye isn't very well developed yet towards seeing what looks better or not without going too far.
Thirdly, I'm lazy. I don't want to sit at a computer and edit photos. I will do on occasion, but I'm not inclined to do it more than I have to. Just another reason to me to try and get it right in the camera :-)
That being said, I don't mind if people edit their photos at all. It's part of their process of taking photos and is a personal preference. I think I will probably edit more when I have more of a clue about what I am doing.