I have a question for pro photographers, semi-pro photographers, and/or freelance photographers: do you edit your photos?
I'm referring to the photos you sell mostly, but I'm also curious about what you upload to your project.
There are levels of editing, and I describe them as follows:
SOOC-straight out of the camera: not edited or touched up in any way
In-camera editing: with digital cameras today, you can edit the brightness, contrast, correct red eye, convert to B&W etc.
Touch-ups: Pretty much the same as in camera editing. Maybe add a sepia filter or something...?
Editing: I guess I would describe this as what magazine photographers do: like...altering the image vs adding a simple filter, or something (sorry, I don't really know how to describe it)
Photo-manip: completely changing the image. Digital art.
I don't describle photo manipulation as photography, but I'd like to hear some opinions about this.
All my photos, with the exception of my instagram photos, are SOOC. I don't crop, I don't touch-up (at least for 365, anyway). I have the skill and software to edit my photos, but I think it takes away from the skill of the photography itself. Is this a good way of going about it if I want to do some freelance photography in the future?
Thanks @nadaa for the references! I will respond that photography is art and quite limitless in its possibilities as any other art medium. With paintings, for example, an artist may decide to add water, chemicals, paper, other things to the paint to make the work reach its final stage. For myself, I started with auto in my camera and let if decide things for me, and then I learned how to work fully in manual settings (still do for the most part) in an attempt to reach the best quality before I load it into my computer. I then work with the image cropping sometimes, aligning it better (to make sure my lines are correct), and I also use manipulation with graduated filters and radial filters when I want. In fact, I use the entire gamut of techniques I want to make the photo reach the concept I had as I took the image. And I sometimes intentionally take photos with the idea to crop afterwards, because in the end, my vision for the art is mine! I took a look at your photos (the most recent ones) and if I were to offer critique as far as a SOOC quality, they are nice, but if I were being honest, I would probably advise some cropping or some angling (to get a photo level, for example). You would then need to push yourself to get the colors, lighting, composition set in your mind with the manual settings to achieve the best result without touching it.
I have no issues with anyone going for the full manipulation. I love the work of those who use Photoshop with their own images to create very surreal themes. I don't know if this link will work from Facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=741499042561958 , but Tracy Williams has this great video showing her work as she does it (all from her images). Not calling it photography would be like saying a surrealist painter was not a painter.
I would dare to guess that every professional photograph, except for some journalist on a deadline, is run through an editor. Not "manipulated" if that is the term you use for altering content, but tone recovery and broadening (the human eye sees much wider than does the digital sensor), sharpening, lens distortion and aberration correction and noise reduction. As a minimum. In fact, what the camera would like to do to jpegs "SOOC" that it cannot.
I think pros also always consider adjusting perspective and straightness, and of course will always not think twice about cropping an image.
Would you not want a portrait photographer to "retouch?"
Another point, black and white is "edited" in the sense of manipulating the tonal values, right?
And please remember that "what the camera sees" (what is recorded by the digital sensor) is *nothing* like the jpeg that comes out of the camera that you might think is not processed but "SOOC." It is, severely. Color is all "calculated" not "real" (read about Breyer Filter Arrays), and tone is captured by the sensor *linearly" but the eye sees "logarithmically." (You might want to read about "demosaicing.")
As Daryl and Nada above point out, the theme comes up every six months or so, and nothing really ever seems to be added to the discussion.
Anyway, good shooting however you want to present it.
You have good answers above. It is important to know that editing/manipulation of photo's has been happening since the beginning of photography. Terms used to describe certain aspects used in the darkroom we still use in the digital (i.e. dodge and burn).
SOOC only is missing the wonderful things now available through digital. This is about the art/craft of photography. Getting things correct in the camera before your press the shutter is just as important as is post-processing, meaning you have to start with a good image.
As has been mentioned, the merits of a 'SOOC' vs. edited approach have been well-discussed, so I'll not rehash.
From a strictly business point of view, I think you will struggle to be competitive in most fields with an SOOC approach, simply because you're not using all of the tools available to you, and being used by your competition.
You may have better luck in photojournalism, but bear in mind that even the strict ethics of photojournalists would, by your list of definitions, most closely fit into the 'editing' category. As an example, the winner of the 2012 World Press Photo competition used HDR software to process his photojournalistic image: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/14/gaza-funeral-photograph-world-press
Always a fascinating subject more, to my mind, in what it says about an individual's outlook than about the actual place of editing in photography.
It does open up a whole area of questions for me. For instance; What is the difference in ethical, moral, or artistic value between a picture that has been shot using a very narrow DOF to produce a blurred background and one that has had a blur filter applied, in Photoshop, to similarly produce a blurred background?
In both cases the photographer is manipulating the situation to draw attention to a certain part of his image and de-emphasize another part and yet I get the feeling that some people look on it as better or "more correct" if the manipulation is done in camera. I've never been able to understand why.
I love looking at all types of images... in today's market you can find a thousand blue birds... what is going to make your blue bird stand out? Sometimes the only way to achieve that is with some sort of manipulation. Most photographers shoot in RAW. The reason for this is so they have more control of the ending result. Even photojournalist will edit out something if it takes your eye away from the main subject.
In the end, do what pleases you, what makes you happy... it is your view, your art. I'm guilty of each and every one of the choices. I like them all and appreciate them all as well.
@gardencat If the final result is the same, what does it matter one way or the other? I have the same discussions with Lens Baby "sweet spot" efforts, or Photoshop efforts. It simply doesn't matter "how" a "what" is done. Surely...
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Some of the older discussion may not answer your question directly but may be helpful:
http://365project.org/discuss/general/20769/natural-vs-editing-photosconfused
http://365project.org/discuss/general/19103/debate-edit-pictures-or-not
http://365project.org/discuss/general/18026/take-it-or-make-it-which-do-you-prefer
I have no issues with anyone going for the full manipulation. I love the work of those who use Photoshop with their own images to create very surreal themes. I don't know if this link will work from Facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=741499042561958 , but Tracy Williams has this great video showing her work as she does it (all from her images). Not calling it photography would be like saying a surrealist painter was not a painter.
Hope this helps as a response. :)
I think pros also always consider adjusting perspective and straightness, and of course will always not think twice about cropping an image.
Would you not want a portrait photographer to "retouch?"
Another point, black and white is "edited" in the sense of manipulating the tonal values, right?
And please remember that "what the camera sees" (what is recorded by the digital sensor) is *nothing* like the jpeg that comes out of the camera that you might think is not processed but "SOOC." It is, severely. Color is all "calculated" not "real" (read about Breyer Filter Arrays), and tone is captured by the sensor *linearly" but the eye sees "logarithmically." (You might want to read about "demosaicing.")
As Daryl and Nada above point out, the theme comes up every six months or so, and nothing really ever seems to be added to the discussion.
Anyway, good shooting however you want to present it.
SOOC only is missing the wonderful things now available through digital. This is about the art/craft of photography. Getting things correct in the camera before your press the shutter is just as important as is post-processing, meaning you have to start with a good image.
From a strictly business point of view, I think you will struggle to be competitive in most fields with an SOOC approach, simply because you're not using all of the tools available to you, and being used by your competition.
You may have better luck in photojournalism, but bear in mind that even the strict ethics of photojournalists would, by your list of definitions, most closely fit into the 'editing' category. As an example, the winner of the 2012 World Press Photo competition used HDR software to process his photojournalistic image: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/14/gaza-funeral-photograph-world-press
It does open up a whole area of questions for me. For instance; What is the difference in ethical, moral, or artistic value between a picture that has been shot using a very narrow DOF to produce a blurred background and one that has had a blur filter applied, in Photoshop, to similarly produce a blurred background?
In both cases the photographer is manipulating the situation to draw attention to a certain part of his image and de-emphasize another part and yet I get the feeling that some people look on it as better or "more correct" if the manipulation is done in camera. I've never been able to understand why.
In the end, do what pleases you, what makes you happy... it is your view, your art. I'm guilty of each and every one of the choices. I like them all and appreciate them all as well.