his reply was "but it's not natural anymore! Photography isn't about editing the hell out of a picture, it's about capturing something from an interesting angle, or different perspective."
Is this true? Because, I really do believe that none of my pictures mean anything without editing. That's what I like the most about taking pictures.. editing them to give them the feel I want.
So is this considered photography? Good photography?
I think photography is meaningless unless it means something to you. If you find your enjoyment from photography comes from editing a photo until you are happy with the result then that is what you need to stick to! Your shots are brillant- stick to what you are good at, and push yourself everyday!! I personally am very inspired by looking at your shots :D
Of course it's photography! Don't let anyone put you off your own style. I do the same to most of my photos - I tamper with the colours in 95% of the photos I take. Editing a picture is just to get the result your camera cannot always get for you. But I do disagree that your photos are meaningless without these effects - you should have faith in your ability and vision and then worry about the end result :)
Photography is whatever makes YOU, the photographer, happy. If shooting something and editing it makes you happy, then of course that's photography. Art should have no limits.
Dalia, I love the editing part of photography also. My pictures seem to run from sooc to totally abstract. I think it's a personal preference as to what people like. Photographs are pictures in every sense of the word but what we do to them is also part of photography. You are creating art with your pictures. I think your pictures are probably just fine without editing and maybe they all shouldn't be highly edited. I can't say. At the end of the day, are you satisfied with your work? This is your project and that is all that matters.
see, it is true that we all do editing in each and every picture we click but it is a fact that photography is about capturing the world from a different angle.. from the angle the world cannot see...
But the existing phenomenon being used is editing.
You capture nice elements, you can be a nice photographer, but editing kills everything. Refining a picture is totally okay with it, but adding another element where originality of the picture is lost, should be avoided.
The pale element you added, attracts people, but when we want to get into the depth of the picture, we cannot because of this vagueness occured due to this editing.
We are here for sharing the skills we got, wallpapers are found every where..and still wonder when i'll click a picture without any edit.
good day..:)
If you go by a photo contest rules for entry it makes sense. These are the things that you are allowed to do to your photo for it still to be considered a natural photo.
"Examples of digital enhancements that are permitted are limited to:
* Images may be cropped and rotated.
* Images may be resized as long as the aspect ratio is maintained.
* Red-eye removal and spot editing.
* One-step enhancement (such as “AutoFix,” “QuickFix,” “Auto Levels,” etc.).
* Use of filters to sharpen, soften, blur, despeckle, or remove noise.
* Use of corrective functions to improve the natural appearance of the image, such as levels, contrast, brightness, curves, intensity, tone, hue, saturation, lightness, value, color balance, and tint.
* Multiple exposure photography, such as HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, or superimposed exposures are allowed."
I think you could argue both sides. For me, I am challenged to capture an exquisite shot...in the camera. To understand the light and how it is going to end up in my lens and how to use that light and composition in such a stunning way to create something magnificent. That to me, is art.
But- seeing as my degree in photography has a focus in digital graphics, I understand the art of digital editing as well. You can make something equally as important as a piece of artwork from the computer as well.
Just depends on which of these drives your heart. For now, I want as many sooc images as I can get. Maybe later I'll be on a photoshop kick and use my mouse to create art.
The definition of art- Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect.
I think you are doing that, and if it moves you (and it obviously moves everyone else due to your photos popularity) then you are creating art.
Editing is ok - but its true that after too much editing it ceases to be a photograph and becomes digital art.. Nothing wrong with that though, and i don't know where the line is for when it changes from one to the other.
That said, i actually prefer your original from your highly edited version with the texture overlay and editing. I understand you have a style though which you like your pics to have. Still think the original is better in this instance
@annie- hahah so true..but we really got nothing else to do than editing, because a camera cannot do everything we want..:) i am following dalia, i like her photography. i liked her concept of working. We cannot portray the image in a picture what we have in our mind, without editing.
My only idea of this whole conversation is one thing i want to convey. We might be good, but the one who can click what he got in his mind without editing, is a photographer at soul.
By the way, had editing been a crime, then i am one of the convicts. :P
I agree 100% with Annie.
I'm an artist (oil painting), and although I tend to paint in a fairly realistic style, no-one would dare day that paintings are less meaningful when not painted 'true' to the original subject.
Art in any form is often about pushing boundaries.
I think your editing is beautifully and sensitively done and brings out lovely dreamy feeling in your photos.
Trust in your own work, it's wonderful!
Honestly, I believe there are no rules in art . . . capturing an image just the way you want it is surely a form of art, and I have some photos I wouldn't ever touch . . . but editing and manipulating the raw material of a photo into an expression of what you want it to say is as much a form of art as painting a canvas or modeling clay . . . do what makes you feel good and happy with the end result!!!!! If it starts with a photo image then its photography!!!!!
i like the raw and the edited one..... both beautiful!
re with "HIS" comment, just ignore him ......or explain the meaning of SOOC. ... =)
just keep it cool, its not a crime, and its your own project ..... =)
@nitishkhureja I think photography itself is a skill - it's all theory, whereas creativity isn't something you can just learn. Combining the two is what makes your style unique :)
And I hear you... but different strokes for different folks :)
'Your" photos are to do with what you want, whether it is edited or not, at least that is my opinion. Most if not all of my photos are 'SOOC' only because I am a new newbie to editing but as I learn who know maybe a lot of 'my' photos will be of the edited kind. I love your photo, Dalia - the edited ones and the NOT edited ones!
bleh, I hate this argument. I think photography is art and like Annie said "art has no boundaries". The thing is before digital photos were manipulated in the dark room to enhance and change things. I feel like processing and editing are similar. I grow a little weary of the sooc elitists. Do what makes you happy Dalia. I actually love your edited version better. It's very dreamy.
For my own pics, I try to edit only for things that will bring it closer to what it really is (ex: fixing the colors), or things I could have done with the camera (make it brighter, apply a filter). But, I also love the results of editing as the one you posted, Dalia. I don't think there is a right answer here, only people who prefer one thing or an other. And we should be open to that to. And I think that if you can't take a good pic first, you'll have nothing to work with for the editing.
It's "your" project - you define what is and what isn't included.
My own two cents thiugh - websters defines photography as:
"the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photography
Eiting work clearly falls within the definition as the end result is produced on a "light sensitive surface".
I say do what makes you happy and lets you express yourself.
thank you everyone out here..i am really grateful to you that i learnt a new lesson today..:) SHUT P THOSE WHO SAY WE CANNOT EDIT...get lost..:P hehahaha..:) i'll try my level best to get you people the best shots i can..:)
My opinion: YES, it is absolutely okay to edit!!! If someone likes the "natural" look, then fine. But show me a Walmart print from one of Ansel Adams negatives, for instance, and I guarantee it will not look like the fabulous, emotive prints we're used to seeing. He manipulated the HECK out of his photos--we just get to do it digitally now without all the harsh chemicals and a huge room full of equipment. It is your vision, don't ever let that be denied!!!
I'm trying to get away from a lot of post editing ! Where does Photography end and where does Graphic Artist start ? I guess it depends on where you post your shots ! I belong to one forum where heavy editing is the norm....including HDR ! To me, that constitutes Graphic Artist ! It also gets old after a while as I believe Photoshop did the work ! I also submit shots to National Geographic....the policy there is NO Heavy Editing ! Cropping is allowed, slight contrast, that's it ! This forum seems to be a mix ! I would rather post shots SOOC...to me that's photography ! But that's just MY opinion ! People can do what they want with their own shots ! I guess they will be judged accordingly ! I use the shots of Ansel Adams as inspiration. They didn't have software back then...or even computers ! And most shots were B&W.....the photographer had to be more creative ! Today the programs are the creative part !
You do whatever makes you smile....it's your project ! Just don't try to impress people with your photography....if it makes you happy, others will be happy !
@daliadestructo the original is awesome as a "real" nature macro shot. Having said that, photography is an art form, and what you make of your pictures is up to you. I've known a woman who takes b&w and then uses a special type of watercolor paint to enhance certain aspects of the pictures. yes, we can do that on the computer now, but she gets her joy from doing it by hand. I've also met an artist who took pictures and then went crazy with acrylics & gels and all kinds of stuff so that the photographs became nothing more than PART of the artwork, as opposed to the artwork itself.
i shop the heck out of my photos, even the ones that i leave fairly natural, i at least get flash glares, distracting background items (like a shoe or stuff on the carpet or a pimple, or a cat's rear-end, etc) out of the picture. if you go to mine & see "Tom & Naomi's 63rd Anniversary" there was REALLY bad flash in the window behind them that highlighted fingerprints, a child's handprint-turned-long-streak, and dog-nose prints all over the window that distracted from their kiss, the focus of the picture. I was able to get most of all that out.
Some people are all about shots being natural, and other people are all about using photography as a base to create more elaborate digital images. And both of those are fine to me. I believe the final product is what matters.
I am also interested in the process, and don't like to over-edit but sometimes a photo calls for a more dramatic edit.
All my shots are sooc, but I love the artistic expression achieved by editing. You all do such great work, and maybe before this project is over, I'll start editing, too.
I consider myself a newbie to this art,I`m still unaware of all the posibilities of my first DSLR,wich I got ten days ago.
At first,I was strongly against any kind of editing,or touching/altering the subjects I take photos of.I thought it would seem fake doing so.
But as I am sinking deep into this hobby of mine,as I learn more and more,I find myself slowly bending and breaking all those "rules".
In my oppinion,it is not cheating as all.And if it is,then you can consider any kind of digital photography cheating as well.
For me photography is an art and you can chose whatever medium you which to use for your photos, whether they are natural or not! Your photos have creativity which is consider photo-art! I like your photos they are wonderful with great embellishing.
I do agree with everyone else in that it's your project and you can do whatever you want to your photos.
For me personally, it becomes graphic arts if you put something in your photo that wasn't originally there. Say you put a fake tree in front of a moon, or add other objects to your picture that were not there when you snapped the shot. To me, that is when it becomes a graphic and is no longer a photograph. I absolutely LOVE editing my pictures and as my teacher says, there aren't many photos that don't deserve a bit of editing. He would never give a client a photo that hasn't been edited in some way. I don't care if I WOW anyone else, I want to look at it myself and think WOW!
Technology has always been a part of photography. So whether or not it's still a photo after it's edited seems to be an irrelevant question to me and to the photo's "realness".
As an aside, I do think, that an increasing number of people are using editing software and other technological advances as a crutch instead of improving their own skills. I'm not at all implying that's what you've done - just saying that I seem to see more and more of editing techniques being used to hide imperfections and bad composition that should be been taken into account when the photo was first taken. And I find that disappointing, but doesn't detract from whether or not something is photography.
i agree with everyone... do what you like and what inspires you. I am trying to get better at taking SOOC shots - it is a true skill!! But i find I have a lot more fun in the editing process. I enjoy a mixture of both and my calendar reflects that. Your work is lovely and just take your friend's opinions in one ear and let it go out the other. :-)
Photography is an artform. Just like painting. And just like with painting, there isn't just one style, and styles also evolve. Look at how rich an art history we have, from realism to abstract painting. Pointillism landscapes to portraits.Watercolors to oilpaintings. Old dutch masters to fingerpainting in school :-)
But it's all painting, and everyone will have their own favourite style. Some people try to achieve photo like realism, others go wild about the technique and skill required to paint an entire scene with dots.
So, what makes photography for me is when I see how someone put everything in it, and some styles I will enjoy more than others within that :-)
@nitishkhureja You can see pictures with no editing in my project :) Mainly because I only have the Windows Photo Gallery and there's not much there. But I do crop, lighten/darken, and color saturate occasionally . That's it.
It seems to me that is only the first step, though. If you like it that way, fine, but now that I've taken pictures for a few months and have seen others' "art" (it is art!) I want to try other ways of expressing the feeling I get looking at things.
So, I say do what you want to do. Everyone has their own idea of what looks good. Art is subjective.
I think everyone will always have a differing opinion on this. I resisted editing my photos for a long time because I thought I was being some kind of purist or something. (That and I needed help figuring out the editing programs :) But then I realized much like a writer never goes with their first draft, editing can help make your picture pop, or can completely change the meaning of it. Its all in your creativity. Also, I realized that what we can do with art and photography has evolved as our technology has evolved, and there is no shame in wanting to use that technology to further your creativity, or to choose not to if that's the way you feel. It's a matter of your perspective. Just because someone elses perspective is different doesn't make yours wrong, they just took their picture from a different angle than yours, to use a photographic metaphor.
i try to keep the original photo whenever possible, unless i'm cropping out someone's stray arm or head.
if it weren't for freeware, i'd feel like i am at a complete disadvantage if i wanted on occasion to do something beyond crop/rotate. some of the things people do with photoshop and other editing software/sites is amazing. at some point though, photos that go through a ton of editing tend to lose their "photo" quality, and become more of a "picture" to me. does that make sense?
anyhoo. i enjoy viewing both, but my primary aim is to learn more about/experiment with the camera and improve my photography skills rather than my ability to edit.
all that really matters in the end is that whoever's behind the lens/computer screen is happy with their finished product.
“I take photographs with love, so I try to make them art objects. But I make them for myself first and foremost - that is important.”
Jacques-Henri Lartigue
I don't really have the skills for all the post-processing shizz - best I can manage beyond levels/contrast/colour rebalance is the odd foreground lightening. I actually really like to see what editing people do with their pics. Variety being the spice of life an' all that!
Agreed with Annie! I edit my pictures too but it's only to enhance the shot - editing should never be seen as a deterrent (sp?) or something that takes away from the original I think! Plus your original shot is beautiful and the post processing of it I think enhanced that beauty even more by adding a dreamy/romantic effect to it! I can also see your have your own style which is linked to your editing! I can point out your pictures among a set of random pictures because it has your style :) Don't let anyone take that away!
Over editing can and is a big fault to me, Putting things in a picture that aren't there to begin with is just a manipulation, not a true shot. Yes, there is a place for this work, but I don't believe it should be considered with (natural) shots. It is like trying to compare apples to oranges. It just isn't a fair thing to do.
We live in the digital age. We are no longer limited to dark rooms. Editing is a huge piece of photography in this era and will only continue to grow with enhancements in technology. I love editing and am okay with some people not being fans of my work. My work is special to me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, please remember that Impressionists artists were considered rebels in their day for breaking the rules of academic painting. Those of us that choose to edit and enhance our photos may be the current day rebels of photography for what we do. Rules were made to be broken. That is my motto. Dalia, I love your work, creativity and enhanced photos. Do not let anyone try to mold your artistic ability. And on that note, I am off to edit and enhance my photos to my hearts content! Peace!
I rarely edit but when I do it's a crop or to put something in black and white. For me it's about the feeling and the essence of what I captured in the moment. For a lot of others, they strive for the perfection of the shot they see in their head and edit till they get there. Neither is wrong or right. Art is neither wrong or right.
There are so many responses on here, I only skimmed through a few so I hope I'm not repeating anyone!
Honestly, editing is something that is essential to EVERY photographer whether they admit it or not.
Personally, I'm like you, I like editing more than I do photographing. But does that make me a digital artist rather than a photographer? No. I still love photographing, I still love being behind the camera and I still love creating.
I just happen to love editing and turning something completely simple and basic to something out of the ordinary.
It's doesn't mean it's not natural anymore, it's enhanced.
As an aspiring photographer- some day professional ;P- I'm proud to say that I do use photoshop.
And so does the photographer down the street and so do the big names like Joey Lawrence and Lara Jade. Openly, as well!
All in all, I see editing as a way to bring something to a photograph that the camera never could.
@katrinacristy your response brings up darkrooms, but that was 'photoshop' I can increase tonal range, contrast, grain, push and pull all with my chemicals and enlarger... if i can do it on film, why not do it digitally...
then there was double exposure, ect... again... just like photoshop...
EVERY computer... er I mean camera 'edits' the photo... camera like the Rebel use fairly harsh NR and other filters to produce an image that many people will like, hence the market it applies too.
Most pros... like to do as little editing as possible, because editing is time and time is money... so get it as close as possible in camera and tweak... but they will edit... mainly because the settings you need for a screen are different that print than framed....
As for the ART of photography... that is between the artist and the buyer
As for the TRUTH... well truth is always up for discussion...
@icywarm Not sure you understood my post. In any event. I enjoy editing with the technology that is available on my computer. If others do not enjoy editing and prefer SOOC, that is wonderful too. Art is in the eye of the beholder and there is not right nor wrong here. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter.
There are so many photography styles. You have found yours and it is what makes you YOU. I love your style, many others do also. I don't believe that there are any rules to photography, except the rule of thirds, jokes aside, you found your groove, you can only improve.
@rebcastillo77 - i like what rebeccca says here... especially the first line: "I think photography is meaningless unless it means something to you." this is soooooo TRUE for me.... there are shots by others..... edits by others that I love looking at, but know that it is something I will not do/cannot do/do not want to do..... I take photos of what speaks to me - in the angle I like (which dumbfounds alot of my friends!); and edit them as I see fit... sometimes so much - sometimes hardly... But it always boils down to my satisfaction...
Your photos are your babies... you are FREE to do with them as you see FIT!... We in turn can only ADMIRE and give our two cents about them - and it is up to you how far you want to take them..... :))
I went through this when I first started - in fact, I posted a topic on whether I should edit at all or not. I like to focus on photographing nature and try to keep the shots as natural is possible. I was concerned about editing at all and having it change who I was as a photographer. I finally was convinced to dabble in editing a little bit and now I do it quite often. I don't edit every single shot, mind you, but I do edit if the shot needs it. Rotating, cropping, and so on. I don't have Photoshop or anything so the craziest edits come from my iPhone apps but I do use editing to make the photo what I saw when I took it (if that makes sense). I say edit and do what makes you happy. In the end, the only person that has to like your work is you! =D
@katrinacristy I was not disagreeing with you... I fully support what you said... I was just keying in on the darkroom thing... not that you said it in some many words... but sometimes people feel that with film we don't 'edit' when in fact we do... having your own darkroom is like using photoshop, using SOOC is like taking your film to walmart or whatever lab (maybe my pentax DSLR is walmart and a D700 is a local pro lab ;) but both are still labs and you are giving up a measure of control). The rebel artist and all that +1 for your comments!
@aikiuser@icywarm - You both pretty much covered my own thoughts on the matter.
When you take a photo, you are editing - your framing/crop, angle, choice of shutterspeed and aperture, exposure, focal length, all go towards representing what was in front of the camera. If you use a point-and-shoot you may not have total control over all of those things, but your choice of camera plays a part, and you're still the one working out where to point it and where from. Did you use a flash? Oops - edited again.
The darkroom was just Photoshop with chemicals and paper. Adobe Lightroom is actually a fairly good representation of a darkroom, when it comes down to it.
When I create a photograph my intent is to show people what I saw. Not what they would see, had they been there, but through my eyes, with my perspective, my attachment, my emotion. The more I can control in-camera, the better, but it is still editing. A better capture gives me far more options with my editing later, and allows me a better opportunity to achieve in showing what it is I saw in my own mind when I took it. I do not always succeed, but I always try. And no matter how well I think I've done, someone will always interpret my work differently than I intended. And I love that, too. :)
I firmly believe what Bill Brandt, a British photographer and photojournalist said; "Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!"
To me the camera does not always capture what I see when I take that photograph. In those cases, I take my image into Photoshop and make changes to get the photograph that I saw when I took that shot. What is natural after all. If you make any adjustments to the camera or move to a different angle, it is not natural anymore. Are you recording an image or creating art?
Personally I prefer my photos SOOC. That is what I am setting out to do, but that doesn't mean that i can't appreciate an edited photo or won't edit a photo (even then i keep it at a minimal).
I think that photography and graphic arts/graphic design are two separate skills. I think your original photo is pretty - great perspective, great color, nice use of depth of field. the edited one is very dreamlike and is heavily manipulated this way to bring out whatever your vision of the image is. Each has a very different feel.
It is very difficult to determine when an image is considered a photo and when it crosses over to a graphic design. I think I would consider many of your photos graphic design. I think your friend's comment that it is no longer "natural" is valid but it boils down to what you want to accomplish. Be clear with what you want to do, and develop that. Whatever you choose is more than okay. :)
I am all about art and freedoms when expressing it but this is not just an open art site. This is a photography focused sited. Why bother using a camera at all and not just finding an interesting picture on the web and editing it. Photograph is the art of using a camera. When you start to use the graphics editor more then the camera then it starts to became graphic design art. Nothing wrong with that its just not photography.
@nitishkhureja
I follow a lot of people who don't manipulate their photos with any software. I myself rarely do so (all my photos as SOOC unless indicated). I am sure you can find a lot of great photos on the site without any editing. :)
i prefer natural pics i dont mind cropping etc but when its not like the real pic anymore its more art than photography....and this is a photo site supposed to be of something about your day..but its not really being used this way...but thats just my opinion...i dont take pics of my art work or the makeup i do sfx or otherwise as i feel its art...but what ever floats your boat go for it
my friend judges me and makes fun of me for editing my pics too much. i'm like "oh hey i took some awesome pics yesterday" and he goes, "oh cool. and you're going to edit the hell out of them after school?" i used to let him get to me, but honestly- i agree with what most people are saying on this- it's about what it means to you. if other people don't like it- screw them :) because someone out there likes it. :) also- whoever told you that was probably just jealous. :P i get that vibe from my friend because he doesn't have photoshop or anything to edit his pics... so maybe he/she is trying to bring you down to make them feel better? not cool but ya know (: ps. i
I think you need a nice photo to get a nice edited photo. it's not like you're mindlessly pointing the camera anywhere. plus you need skills to edit, the computer doesn't create the photo, you do. so don't mind him. :D
Pablo Picasso says: "Satisfy your own eyes not the viewer.."Well,i'm not sure if it is picasso or Van goh or Matisse or Warhol or Basquiat..who said this quotes..but you know exactly what i mean here ,right ?
I spent an entire week of fieldwork with a guy arguing over this same thing! He was a "purist" who didn't quite get that editing is the same whether you do it in a darkroom or on a computer. I'm all for editing - I'm especially in favour of it when you take a shot with a certain end result in mind or mild tinkering to make it look like what it was you saw in your mind. That said, many of my favourite edited shots have been serendipitous excursions in Photoshop :)
I don't tend to do much editing to my photos, other than crop, contrast and brightness, but there are some I've played with more. That said, I don't think there's really anything wrong with it. I like the results you've got with yours and I might try editing more in the future, once I've got the hang on using my camera to get the best results I can and I have some time to learn to edit.
The camera rarely captures what our eyes - and minds - see. I'll edit my photos to reflect what I see in my head, while still keeping true to the photo's original content.
Hi Dalla:) photography is a personal expression, inner satisfaction and sharing your insight of what you want others to perceive and never be bothered with what others have to tell you the criteria for this PROJECT :) With modern tools ,gives more room for personal expression..so just do it!:) have fun! and you have me.and us who simply share and enjoy the projects:) and continue exploring the art of photography too!:)
Art is in the eye of the artist! It has no rules in my mind.....you can't tame the creative process, so enjoy yourself expression in whatever way suits you :o)
@bui How come it's not Photography :)? I am the one who took the photo.. i am the one who takes all of the pictures in my project, and i am the one who edits them?
I like the edited version but the original also looks great. I love editing, but sometime it's about knowing when to stop and the original can often look better than the over processed finished product.
For my project, I'm doing pictures without editing. But, with that being said, I love what editing can do to a photo. I've loved learning how to edit them. Next year, I may actually edit my photos. I just think you need to do what's good for you and if you're happy with your pictures, then that's all that's important.
I don't know how to do the editing beyond auto fix or changing it to B&W so I try to make every photo the way I want it with the camera, but that is only my personal preference. I love a lot of the edited photos that I have seen and people really have a great imagination and skill to do the things they to photos have they have taken the shot. They always say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I think it is true about all art including photography.
Editing can be used to improve the look of a photo right up to changing it completely and how you use it (or not) is up to each individual and their taste. Generally I prefer photos to be as unedited as possible and I actually prefer the unedited version of your photo but that is only my own personal taste.
My take on photography is that for the first +- 150 years there was a very clear two step process... take picture and develop. Then DTP/Digital arrived, and the line between taking the picture and developing blurred. But there still remains a critical element to the art and science of photography called "develop". The processing you do is development of the photograph. Surely that's fundamental to what photography is? The fact is that some like minimal development, and will even leave it the computer in their camera (called SOOC!), but others prefer to have greater control over their development is a matter of artistic interpretation. But even those proudly proclaiming that their picture is SOOC have gone through a development process... it was just automated by their camera, rather than guided by their hand.
Photography is nothing more than an attempt to create and convey meaning. To that end edit as you wish, it doesn't make your image any more or less valid. It is you telling us your story through the image(s) you wish to share.
That was a really great discussion everyone wow doesn't it bring people out of the woodworki, that we haven't seen. Great discussion Thanks Dalia, I'm enjoying reading all the variations of
opinions.
Please ask you friend what he/she thinks of the photography of Ansel Adams.
If he/she love AA, then ask him what the difference is between your pictures and AA? Most of the work that Adams did was in the dark room, its been documented.
My favorite Ansel Adams quote about processing/developing, "Push it until it looks good, then back off a hair." Art is art! Some nerds (like me) thrive in the technical minutiae and strive to achieve what their mind sees as much in the camera as out. That being said, I sometimes 'over-edit' my pics to get the look I want. Other times I go SOOC. Makes no dif to me.
This is a great topic, Dalia. Photography is huge. There are many styles, philosphies and uses of photography. And there are dang few really wonderful images out there that haven't been tinkered with in some way. People who assume that the perfect photo happens when the photographer sets up the shot and waits for the light and poof....don't know how much of Ansel Adam's work was done in the darkroom, as Dave, above mentions. Yes, he was a master and framing a great shot and getting great lighting. But the result never matched his VISION...and that is where manipulation begins. A true artist has a vision. You have a vision for what you want and you work hard to accomplish that.
I think of photography as art for those of us who don't have the right synapses to draw. The camera can catch the shapes, but then we have to do something with them.
Sometimes, I get a bit tired of over-manipulated work, but I understand that the manipulation is an art in itself and people are always going to push the limits.
IMO - if it STARTS as a photograph, then it IS a photograph. You can't take that away from it no matter how much editing is done. I doubt this would even be a discussion if Ansel Adams had Photoshop at his disposal. Because as much time as he spent in the darkroom - he would probably have loved PS :-)
I can only agree with what many others have said... it depends on what the photo is for... for instance if I was going to photograph a dog for a breeder's website I would not edit the photo as to give the dog richer pigment, fix an uneven ruff or pull in a pot belly... because that would not be ethical... on the other hand, if the goal is to play and have fun and creative something artistic, then I don't think editing is a problem at all. I do often appreciate when the photographer mention if extensive editing has been done (not including smaller edits like cropping, fixing contrast etc).
I think you will always find this discussion in any artistic media. Because, as has been mentioned, there are no real rules here, you will find different classifications depending on who you ask. Some people don't think pictures drawn on the computer is art. Some don't think photography is art. People are debating whether graffiti is art or not. Is it art to work with clay? With fabric? With food?
As far as I'm concerned, if you consider it art, it is. If you consider it true photography, it is :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
But the existing phenomenon being used is editing.
You capture nice elements, you can be a nice photographer, but editing kills everything. Refining a picture is totally okay with it, but adding another element where originality of the picture is lost, should be avoided.
The pale element you added, attracts people, but when we want to get into the depth of the picture, we cannot because of this vagueness occured due to this editing.
We are here for sharing the skills we got, wallpapers are found every where..and still wonder when i'll click a picture without any edit.
good day..:)
"Examples of digital enhancements that are permitted are limited to:
* Images may be cropped and rotated.
* Images may be resized as long as the aspect ratio is maintained.
* Red-eye removal and spot editing.
* One-step enhancement (such as “AutoFix,” “QuickFix,” “Auto Levels,” etc.).
* Use of filters to sharpen, soften, blur, despeckle, or remove noise.
* Use of corrective functions to improve the natural appearance of the image, such as levels, contrast, brightness, curves, intensity, tone, hue, saturation, lightness, value, color balance, and tint.
* Multiple exposure photography, such as HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, or superimposed exposures are allowed."
But- seeing as my degree in photography has a focus in digital graphics, I understand the art of digital editing as well. You can make something equally as important as a piece of artwork from the computer as well.
Just depends on which of these drives your heart. For now, I want as many sooc images as I can get. Maybe later I'll be on a photoshop kick and use my mouse to create art.
The definition of art- Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect.
I think you are doing that, and if it moves you (and it obviously moves everyone else due to your photos popularity) then you are creating art.
That said, i actually prefer your original from your highly edited version with the texture overlay and editing. I understand you have a style though which you like your pics to have. Still think the original is better in this instance
My only idea of this whole conversation is one thing i want to convey. We might be good, but the one who can click what he got in his mind without editing, is a photographer at soul.
By the way, had editing been a crime, then i am one of the convicts. :P
I'm an artist (oil painting), and although I tend to paint in a fairly realistic style, no-one would dare day that paintings are less meaningful when not painted 'true' to the original subject.
Art in any form is often about pushing boundaries.
I think your editing is beautifully and sensitively done and brings out lovely dreamy feeling in your photos.
Trust in your own work, it's wonderful!
re with "HIS" comment, just ignore him ......or explain the meaning of SOOC. ... =)
just keep it cool, its not a crime, and its your own project ..... =)
And I hear you... but different strokes for different folks :)
'Your" photos are to do with what you want, whether it is edited or not, at least that is my opinion. Most if not all of my photos are 'SOOC' only because I am a new newbie to editing but as I learn who know maybe a lot of 'my' photos will be of the edited kind. I love your photo, Dalia - the edited ones and the NOT edited ones!
My own two cents thiugh - websters defines photography as:
"the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photography
Eiting work clearly falls within the definition as the end result is produced on a "light sensitive surface".
I say do what makes you happy and lets you express yourself.
You do whatever makes you smile....it's your project ! Just don't try to impress people with your photography....if it makes you happy, others will be happy !
i shop the heck out of my photos, even the ones that i leave fairly natural, i at least get flash glares, distracting background items (like a shoe or stuff on the carpet or a pimple, or a cat's rear-end, etc) out of the picture. if you go to mine & see "Tom & Naomi's 63rd Anniversary" there was REALLY bad flash in the window behind them that highlighted fingerprints, a child's handprint-turned-long-streak, and dog-nose prints all over the window that distracted from their kiss, the focus of the picture. I was able to get most of all that out.
Do what'cha wanna!!
~jaydee hiroyito
I am also interested in the process, and don't like to over-edit but sometimes a photo calls for a more dramatic edit.
At first,I was strongly against any kind of editing,or touching/altering the subjects I take photos of.I thought it would seem fake doing so.
But as I am sinking deep into this hobby of mine,as I learn more and more,I find myself slowly bending and breaking all those "rules".
In my oppinion,it is not cheating as all.And if it is,then you can consider any kind of digital photography cheating as well.
For me personally, it becomes graphic arts if you put something in your photo that wasn't originally there. Say you put a fake tree in front of a moon, or add other objects to your picture that were not there when you snapped the shot. To me, that is when it becomes a graphic and is no longer a photograph. I absolutely LOVE editing my pictures and as my teacher says, there aren't many photos that don't deserve a bit of editing. He would never give a client a photo that hasn't been edited in some way. I don't care if I WOW anyone else, I want to look at it myself and think WOW!
As an aside, I do think, that an increasing number of people are using editing software and other technological advances as a crutch instead of improving their own skills. I'm not at all implying that's what you've done - just saying that I seem to see more and more of editing techniques being used to hide imperfections and bad composition that should be been taken into account when the photo was first taken. And I find that disappointing, but doesn't detract from whether or not something is photography.
But it's all painting, and everyone will have their own favourite style. Some people try to achieve photo like realism, others go wild about the technique and skill required to paint an entire scene with dots.
So, what makes photography for me is when I see how someone put everything in it, and some styles I will enjoy more than others within that :-)
Interesting topic to discuss though :-)
It seems to me that is only the first step, though. If you like it that way, fine, but now that I've taken pictures for a few months and have seen others' "art" (it is art!) I want to try other ways of expressing the feeling I get looking at things.
So, I say do what you want to do. Everyone has their own idea of what looks good. Art is subjective.
if it weren't for freeware, i'd feel like i am at a complete disadvantage if i wanted on occasion to do something beyond crop/rotate. some of the things people do with photoshop and other editing software/sites is amazing. at some point though, photos that go through a ton of editing tend to lose their "photo" quality, and become more of a "picture" to me. does that make sense?
anyhoo. i enjoy viewing both, but my primary aim is to learn more about/experiment with the camera and improve my photography skills rather than my ability to edit.
all that really matters in the end is that whoever's behind the lens/computer screen is happy with their finished product.
Jacques-Henri Lartigue
Honestly, editing is something that is essential to EVERY photographer whether they admit it or not.
Personally, I'm like you, I like editing more than I do photographing. But does that make me a digital artist rather than a photographer? No. I still love photographing, I still love being behind the camera and I still love creating.
I just happen to love editing and turning something completely simple and basic to something out of the ordinary.
It's doesn't mean it's not natural anymore, it's enhanced.
As an aspiring photographer- some day professional ;P- I'm proud to say that I do use photoshop.
And so does the photographer down the street and so do the big names like Joey Lawrence and Lara Jade. Openly, as well!
All in all, I see editing as a way to bring something to a photograph that the camera never could.
then there was double exposure, ect... again... just like photoshop...
EVERY computer... er I mean camera 'edits' the photo... camera like the Rebel use fairly harsh NR and other filters to produce an image that many people will like, hence the market it applies too.
Most pros... like to do as little editing as possible, because editing is time and time is money... so get it as close as possible in camera and tweak... but they will edit... mainly because the settings you need for a screen are different that print than framed....
As for the ART of photography... that is between the artist and the buyer
As for the TRUTH... well truth is always up for discussion...
Your photos are your babies... you are FREE to do with them as you see FIT!... We in turn can only ADMIRE and give our two cents about them - and it is up to you how far you want to take them..... :))
When you take a photo, you are editing - your framing/crop, angle, choice of shutterspeed and aperture, exposure, focal length, all go towards representing what was in front of the camera. If you use a point-and-shoot you may not have total control over all of those things, but your choice of camera plays a part, and you're still the one working out where to point it and where from. Did you use a flash? Oops - edited again.
The darkroom was just Photoshop with chemicals and paper. Adobe Lightroom is actually a fairly good representation of a darkroom, when it comes down to it.
When I create a photograph my intent is to show people what I saw. Not what they would see, had they been there, but through my eyes, with my perspective, my attachment, my emotion. The more I can control in-camera, the better, but it is still editing. A better capture gives me far more options with my editing later, and allows me a better opportunity to achieve in showing what it is I saw in my own mind when I took it. I do not always succeed, but I always try. And no matter how well I think I've done, someone will always interpret my work differently than I intended. And I love that, too. :)
To me the camera does not always capture what I see when I take that photograph. In those cases, I take my image into Photoshop and make changes to get the photograph that I saw when I took that shot. What is natural after all. If you make any adjustments to the camera or move to a different angle, it is not natural anymore. Are you recording an image or creating art?
Thanks for all of the feedback guys!!
Personally I prefer my photos SOOC. That is what I am setting out to do, but that doesn't mean that i can't appreciate an edited photo or won't edit a photo (even then i keep it at a minimal).
I think that photography and graphic arts/graphic design are two separate skills. I think your original photo is pretty - great perspective, great color, nice use of depth of field. the edited one is very dreamlike and is heavily manipulated this way to bring out whatever your vision of the image is. Each has a very different feel.
It is very difficult to determine when an image is considered a photo and when it crosses over to a graphic design. I think I would consider many of your photos graphic design. I think your friend's comment that it is no longer "natural" is valid but it boils down to what you want to accomplish. Be clear with what you want to do, and develop that. Whatever you choose is more than okay. :)
I follow a lot of people who don't manipulate their photos with any software. I myself rarely do so (all my photos as SOOC unless indicated). I am sure you can find a lot of great photos on the site without any editing. :)
Thanks again guys for all the feedback :)
Learn. Share. and Enliven our Passion. which is PHOTOGRAPHY.
Peace y'all.
opinions.
I mean whatever you do your photograph is your own interpretation of it. PERIOD.
rather than rant about what's this and not.. Go out and shoot! Process if you may..heavilly or not. Then share it here or anywhere :D
Peace out!
If he/she love AA, then ask him what the difference is between your pictures and AA? Most of the work that Adams did was in the dark room, its been documented.
Have fun
I think of photography as art for those of us who don't have the right synapses to draw. The camera can catch the shapes, but then we have to do something with them.
Sometimes, I get a bit tired of over-manipulated work, but I understand that the manipulation is an art in itself and people are always going to push the limits.
I think you will always find this discussion in any artistic media. Because, as has been mentioned, there are no real rules here, you will find different classifications depending on who you ask. Some people don't think pictures drawn on the computer is art. Some don't think photography is art. People are debating whether graffiti is art or not. Is it art to work with clay? With fabric? With food?
As far as I'm concerned, if you consider it art, it is. If you consider it true photography, it is :)