I keep going back and forth on this in my head so I am bringing it up here... I mean, what better place to discuss this then with other photographers, right?
I have always enjoyed photography but it was last October that I feel like I really found my "voice" and decided to try and pursue it seriously. Recently, I have started playing with editing with some encouragement from a dear friend. I have been fairly resistant to this though and I think he may have nailed it in that I am concerned about looking like I am cheating. I think there may be a bit of that to it but I am also concerned about losing some of what I do well naturally to the editing. I don't want to get lazy in my shooting because I know I can go in and fix it later but I do see the value in editing as well. There is some seriously amazing work out here!
So, how do you feel about editing? Is it really a case of "Don't worry about it! Everyone is doing it!"? Am I right in my concern over losing some of my natural talent? I want to be known for my pictures - not my editing. At this point the vast majority of the photos I have posted are exactly as I took them - no cropping or editing at all. While others have been either cropped, straightened or have had the color tweaked to correct over exposure, etc.
Your thoughts are appreciated. Maybe I just need to know I am not the only one with these concerns. Or maybe I am just weird. LOL!
I'm all for it - we live in a digital age. Photography is now digital. So use all the digital tools of photography including the digital darkroom.
For me at least its all about the final image - if its edited and its cool then i have no problem with it. If i can achieve it direct from the camera even better but i don't lose any sleep over editing, as you can see from many of my shots which are heavily edited.
I don;t think you will stop trying to improve the initial photograph just because you start to edit your photos.
Throughout most of the history of photography, there has always been "editing" involved in the photographic process. Photographers in the darkroom enlarge, crop, dodge, burn, add colored filters to change the contrast, and many other things like double exposing negatives to create a layered effect, or solarizing the film. It's just a way of making your photo become closer to what you envision it to be. I don't think Ansel Adams would have gotten noticed if he hadn't been so meticulous about his darkroom techniques. (Search the internet...I've watched movies where they show just how long and crazy it can be for photographic assistants to rerun and redo an entire wall-sized photo just because one little spot on a face isn't dark enough for the photographer's liking.)
And think about it this way - aren't you "editing" the photograph by choosing what to compose in the frame? What about "editing" when you choose which photos to upload to this website, for example? The creative process always has to refine its work to become better and better.
You don't have to consider yourself in such black and white terms. You can be something in between a straight photographer and a photographic illustrator. That's what I try to strive for. I try to get it as perfect as I can in camera, but if post processing will help the image become stronger, I'll do it. I don't think it's made me lazy. Sometimes you can only make your camera do so much in the white balance department, and you have only so much time to make the shot happen, so you fix it in Photoshop.
I don't think it's really a big deal. If I start relying wholly on editing, I make sure the next day that I do some straight photography. (And yes, this has happened before.) It's all a balancing act. Good luck with yours! :)
I say edit, do all the editing you want. I edit a lot of my pictures, but not to the point of insanity. I'll just go into photoshop and tweak a few things. Usually I just adjust the contrast, or I change the balance in the highlights and shadows.
But more so over the past few days I've been experimenting with a few techniques that I may start using all the time as "my style". So yeah, edit away you may, like me, find something that you really enjoy doing that you may decide to do all the time now!
The variety of photographic styles displayed here is what makes the site interesting to me. But, while I've had a camera in my hand for most of my life, I'm much less familiar with the editing programs I hear spoken about here & I'm only beginning to grasp some of the terminology. I do have Photoshop, but I've only learned the most basic of it's capabilities. If I learn something new and I think it might make a better picture, I'll be keen to give it a try. Having always loved taking classes (in other fields), I appreciate the time people take to give constructive critism, and I hope I'll learn, make adjustments & become more creative this year through sharing with others, For now, my photos will be a piece of my world as I see it through my lens.
I only adjust the brightness/contrast if need be and maybe some cropping when using Photoshop. Generally its best to stay away from the filters, in my opinion. I think that if you start getting carried away with the filters/lots of editing then it becomes more digital art than photography.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I do want to be known for my photography - not necessarily for being a digital artist so I can see that it is really going to be about striking a balance. I think I will just continue on my current path of getting the best shot I can with minimal editing and see where it goes from here. I guess my biggest fear is losing /me/ in the editing. =)
I consider the photos I take just to be the start of the creative work. The photo is my canvas. Sometimes, almost nothing is needed, but if i see ways to create something I have in my mind by editing, I will not neglect it. It's a whole new skillset to develop, opening up many more creative options to you. Just like when first starting to play around with shuttertime or aperture sizes.
The risk is, and I do agree here, that it is very easy to over-edit. You do need to know when to stop. But I believe it is something I hear most painters say as well when working on a canvas. You need to know when you've gotten there, or when editing will no longer 'add' anything to the painting. Same goes for photos.
I rarely edit, just the occasional crop...I try to make the photo do what I want it to do when I'm taking it, but that doesn't mean I'm against editing as others have said there are some amazing pictures on here which show just what talent is also needed for some of the editing tools.
I suppose this means i kind of agree with you in that i try not to make editing options make me lazy when i'm using the camera
Personally I also often have that dilemma going through my head. My editing is also mostly adjusting levels & contrasts/ highlights. Also, I take photos for fun, to learn new photogrpahy techniques and document our family memories, so in my world, it's not a serious career or anything.
I find it fun to learn editing and to play around extracting colour, giving photos a vintage look etc. I love the artsy thing behind editing.
It really all depends on what YOU are looking for! There is some amazing editing going on that may move the subject into digital art, but, IMO, it's all good. I'm thinking that it's more about developing your own style, whatever that looks like. (For instance, I personally LOVE Kevin Kidder and Peter Van Allen's shots and both have quite distinctive styles! Most of their shots are processed. If some would say that they are no longer photos, I would argue that they are clearly art.)
I am glad to hear I am not the only one struggling (I use that word loosely) with this. I am having fun playing with the editing and have come up with some interesting results to be sure. And Kevin Kidder and Peter Van Allen are BRILLIANT. I certainly don't want to come off as being a snob about editing! Quite the opposite - I am just trying to find the best way to make it work (if needed) with what I do. I am just being cautious if and when I edit. I am surrounded by such extraordinary beauty that I don't want to edit out what makes it so amazing naturally.
Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond. It is nice to know that I am not alone in my thinking about this. I kept mulling it over mentally and figured it would be best to just put it out there.
Most of my pictures here have little to no editing. I tend to not do a lot of editing but that's more about me keeping up with a husband, 4 small kids and a full time job. LOL
I'm hoping to get more comfortable ( and quicker) with editing programs this year.
don't know how many of these we are going to do on this site but....
Editing is just as much as photography as taking the photo, no photo looks its best straight out of the camera, how much editing you do may put you into a new class other then straight photography but in the end it is what you like.
Sorry, Travis. I am relatively new to this site and had checked through the discussions but did not see one so I posted. At any rate, I think I am just going to keep doing what I am doing - a little tweaking, if and when it is needed, to make the picture better. =) At this point I would say that less than 15% of my photos have been edited other than to resize the photo so I am not exceeding the upload size limit.
I guess I just needed some reassurance that I am not the only one that struggles with this and that, yes, it is okay!
i think my mindset is similar to yours. I'm a relative newbie so i feel like i should get the hang of taking a good shot before i add an extra element of complexity. Then i see others wonderful processing and think maybe it could help me move my shots up to the next level :) either way i'm probably too computer illiterate to get my head around it properly anyway.
I think it's a bit funny. I was having this conversation with an ex-friend a few months ago. She's a graphic designer and I'm a photo enthusiast. She made a comment to me, that if you use photoshop or any other editing programs at all, that you're not a "photographer" but a "photoshopper". It was further clarified, that that includes just changing brightness/exposure by a quarter stop. If you touch it, then you're an editor, not a photographer. That comment really tweaked me but that's another rant, for another day.
I think that editing is a part of the process and that it can really add a different dynamic (although I do understand that sometimes it can be a bit overwhelming at first).
Why not? Editing does not necessarily make a great photo. Composition and all that does. Editing helps one define their side of creativity. Even when people shot film, if they did their own darkroom processing, they were editing as they developed. It just done by buttons now. Let er rip!
It can be a very useful tool. It can bring new life to photos that wasn't necessarily captured when the photo was snapped. Personally, I like to touch-up, but not too much, just to my liking. I like to add a little extra pop to the photo to give it a wow factor. :)
Kiwi - 99% of pro photos are edited even when no expense was spared on the equipment and the photographer has miles of talents. You think those National Geographic photos you see are straight out of the camera or think they have a Kodak Point and shoot?
I don't see the problem with editing, we all use digital cameras (I should think most of these are digital taken on 365) so why not use a form of digital editing, especially if it looks better edited. The idea is to post your best photo; you wouldn’t post a rubbish one over a good edited one. I tend to use Google’s freebie Picasa just for simple editing such as shadows, highlights, contrast and cropping.
Although if you flick through mine, I have a quite few black and white photos with a focal point of colour, these ones are actually achieved through the colour accent option on my Canon IXUS, so is part of the original camera options anyway. Although I’ve noticed if I end up editing a picture, I can spend ages messing around with it......until I am finally content to post it. But that’s the joy of it!
I'm pro-editing. I'll go so far as to say I think it's silly to be anti-editing. If some post-processing can make a photo look better, I don't see any reason not to take advantage of the opportunity.
You have to understand, there's a big difference between "editing" and "adjusting". Almost every photographer adjusts for color balance, exposure, etc., usually both in the camera and in the darkroom/computer. This is very normal and usually enhances the picture, which rarely looks the way we saw it in the real world, mainly due to the fact that our eyes see a larger spectrum of light and color than our cameras do. Even changing the white balance setting on your camera is adjusting an image, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Editing, in the other hand, such as to remove an object from the photo, change the color or shape entirely of an object in the photo, etc., is quite another story. Most commercial advertisements are edited (commonly known as "photoshopping") to make them look the way the art director wanted but was probably not achievable in the natural world. Models appear thiner, taller, etc., in the magazine than they actually are in real life.
While there's nothing necessarily wrong w/ editing an image in such a manner, it's probably not a good practice for the average photographer to solely rely on changing an image afterwards to get the results they wanted. It's much better, in my opinion, to set up the shot beforehand so that the end result is much closer to what you actually saw in real life. Adjusting for balance in light and color is still used in these cases to make an image that appears natural and pleasing.
Personal i only use what help my camera has. I belive in the moment more then perfection. After the photo is taken i do no more cause if i did the emotion and moment should be lost or so the soul of the picture. I have rather a slighly bad foto with emotion.
If you can take a photo and it looks awesome just the way it is...GREAT. but if photo editing can make it just THAT much better? then I say...WHY NOT!! lol Also, editing doesnt necessarily take away the natralness if you know what I mean. YOU still snapped the shot. YOU angled it. YOU positioned it where you wanted it. ....So people will also notice you for YOUR work as well :)
I try to keep editing at a minimum. If I need to crop something, take out red eye, or color correct I am all for that. Personally, I generally don't like heavily edited photos. I want to see something that is at least in the ballpark of what was originally photographed.The photos I've seen that are morphed together through Photoshop and are so far removed from the original shot I hardly even consider photography, but something completely different. Of course that's just my opinion.
Excellent break down, Jennifer M.! And @Lauren Dahlhauser - you are right! Thank you so much for all of your responses everyone! Your feedback is greatly appreciated! I will keep playing and doing what makes me happy. Hopefully the end results will make you happy, too. =)
I agree with Rebecca, of course its all about the quality of the final image and photography has always been subject to editing techniques, but I think that often overly edited pictures lose something in the process and sometimes risk becoming a bit screen saver-ish. Also, I've just downloaded photoshop - and its very complicated! Good luck!
Autumn, though I don't edit a single image (HA), I think the final product (your vision) is what it is all about.
Sometimes we don't always have the perfect lighting, and those stray hairs, etc. that your image could benefit from a little help.
At the same token, crap in, crap out.
If you don't start with something decent to work with, the end result is going to just be a more colorful (or not) version of junk.
And as others have said, adding filters, darkroom dodge & burn, etc were all "editing" techniques to get the photo as invisioned.
Simply put, there isn't an image in publication that has not been edited/enhanced. True some pureist try their best to do everything SOOC but even those get some post process. Nothing is wrong with some TLC in post.
Editing is NOT cheating! Ansel Adams negatives are so marked up you can hardly see what all he did! Every single professional photographer I know edits a lot or a little.... but most of them a LOT.
When you are learning, you definitely need to work at making the best possible image (negative or digital) because it's the professional thing to do and will save you time and money in the long run. Retouching is costly and time consuming so get the original as perfect as you can.
But do not EVER be afraid to edit, whether it's in a darkroom or in Photoshop. It is professional to edit. Everyone does it and I mean everyone... all the pros.
I also want to add that professional photographer take lots and lots of photos and then decide which one or ones to use. Never be afraid to shoot and shoot and shoot the same subject ... then edit down to the best of the bunch. Good luck and have fun on the trip to being a professional!
I absolutely do not think that editing is cheating, AT ALL!
I can honestly say that about 95% of my photographs on here are edited.
I personally believe that anybody can take a picture and call it artsy photography, but not many people have the ability to take a great picture and then turn it into something, you know?
-and no, I'm not speaking highly of myself here or less of anyone else, hahha
It's definitely your own personal decision.
I don't think that by cropping, or adding light and colour correcting make you a photo-shopper rather than a photographer, I think it still makes you a photographer but just one that would just like to enhance their photos.
It's kind of a complicated thing, you know what I mean?
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I'm all for it - we live in a digital age. Photography is now digital. So use all the digital tools of photography including the digital darkroom.
For me at least its all about the final image - if its edited and its cool then i have no problem with it. If i can achieve it direct from the camera even better but i don't lose any sleep over editing, as you can see from many of my shots which are heavily edited.
I don;t think you will stop trying to improve the initial photograph just because you start to edit your photos.
And think about it this way - aren't you "editing" the photograph by choosing what to compose in the frame? What about "editing" when you choose which photos to upload to this website, for example? The creative process always has to refine its work to become better and better.
You don't have to consider yourself in such black and white terms. You can be something in between a straight photographer and a photographic illustrator. That's what I try to strive for. I try to get it as perfect as I can in camera, but if post processing will help the image become stronger, I'll do it. I don't think it's made me lazy. Sometimes you can only make your camera do so much in the white balance department, and you have only so much time to make the shot happen, so you fix it in Photoshop.
I don't think it's really a big deal. If I start relying wholly on editing, I make sure the next day that I do some straight photography. (And yes, this has happened before.) It's all a balancing act. Good luck with yours! :)
But more so over the past few days I've been experimenting with a few techniques that I may start using all the time as "my style". So yeah, edit away you may, like me, find something that you really enjoy doing that you may decide to do all the time now!
The risk is, and I do agree here, that it is very easy to over-edit. You do need to know when to stop. But I believe it is something I hear most painters say as well when working on a canvas. You need to know when you've gotten there, or when editing will no longer 'add' anything to the painting. Same goes for photos.
I suppose this means i kind of agree with you in that i try not to make editing options make me lazy when i'm using the camera
I find it fun to learn editing and to play around extracting colour, giving photos a vintage look etc. I love the artsy thing behind editing.
Thank you for reading and taking the time to respond. It is nice to know that I am not alone in my thinking about this. I kept mulling it over mentally and figured it would be best to just put it out there.
I'm hoping to get more comfortable ( and quicker) with editing programs this year.
Editing is just as much as photography as taking the photo, no photo looks its best straight out of the camera, how much editing you do may put you into a new class other then straight photography but in the end it is what you like.
I guess I just needed some reassurance that I am not the only one that struggles with this and that, yes, it is okay!
I think that editing is a part of the process and that it can really add a different dynamic (although I do understand that sometimes it can be a bit overwhelming at first).
Hope that was somewhat coherent lol
@Chris and Shutterlove - I agree. I have just had to work on getting comfortable with it. =)
I have to say, I just love this community! You guys are so amazing. I am glad to be here!!! =D
Although if you flick through mine, I have a quite few black and white photos with a focal point of colour, these ones are actually achieved through the colour accent option on my Canon IXUS, so is part of the original camera options anyway. Although I’ve noticed if I end up editing a picture, I can spend ages messing around with it......until I am finally content to post it. But that’s the joy of it!
But (shrug) just my opinion of course.
Editing, in the other hand, such as to remove an object from the photo, change the color or shape entirely of an object in the photo, etc., is quite another story. Most commercial advertisements are edited (commonly known as "photoshopping") to make them look the way the art director wanted but was probably not achievable in the natural world. Models appear thiner, taller, etc., in the magazine than they actually are in real life.
While there's nothing necessarily wrong w/ editing an image in such a manner, it's probably not a good practice for the average photographer to solely rely on changing an image afterwards to get the results they wanted. It's much better, in my opinion, to set up the shot beforehand so that the end result is much closer to what you actually saw in real life. Adjusting for balance in light and color is still used in these cases to make an image that appears natural and pleasing.
I have been known to adjust a lot of photos just to get that extra bit of ...ompfh? lol
@Autumn - yea it was a bit extreme...but everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Sometimes we don't always have the perfect lighting, and those stray hairs, etc. that your image could benefit from a little help.
At the same token, crap in, crap out.
If you don't start with something decent to work with, the end result is going to just be a more colorful (or not) version of junk.
And as others have said, adding filters, darkroom dodge & burn, etc were all "editing" techniques to get the photo as invisioned.
I remember I tried to take a photo and it was pretty crappy...I tried to salvage it but in the end...crap is crap
Lesson learned :)
When you are learning, you definitely need to work at making the best possible image (negative or digital) because it's the professional thing to do and will save you time and money in the long run. Retouching is costly and time consuming so get the original as perfect as you can.
But do not EVER be afraid to edit, whether it's in a darkroom or in Photoshop. It is professional to edit. Everyone does it and I mean everyone... all the pros.
I also want to add that professional photographer take lots and lots of photos and then decide which one or ones to use. Never be afraid to shoot and shoot and shoot the same subject ... then edit down to the best of the bunch. Good luck and have fun on the trip to being a professional!
I can honestly say that about 95% of my photographs on here are edited.
I personally believe that anybody can take a picture and call it artsy photography, but not many people have the ability to take a great picture and then turn it into something, you know?
-and no, I'm not speaking highly of myself here or less of anyone else, hahha
It's definitely your own personal decision.
I don't think that by cropping, or adding light and colour correcting make you a photo-shopper rather than a photographer, I think it still makes you a photographer but just one that would just like to enhance their photos.
It's kind of a complicated thing, you know what I mean?