I wondered if there was some term for a SOOC-like picture that has actually been edited quite a bit. If SOOC is something to claim about a picture then surely masterful editing that can't be detected is more of an achievement.
One of my images has been extensively edited to remove a figure from it. At web resolution you just can't tell, although a forensic examination would spot my clone brush abuse. It looks SOOC though.
I sometimes think it would be interesting if there was a trail of info about what edits had been done on an image, a bit like the exif data tells how the image was originally captured...
It would be nice to have data to tell if/what editing was done. IMO, there are photography skills and editing skills. Both are art but I don't consider editing skills in the photographic art category. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure many of my photos would be more appealing if I'd edited them, but I didn't because I want to improve my photography, not my editing.
I agree with Annie - I rarely edit any of my photos and rarely even crop most of them. I guess I'm a purist when it comes to photography. Art is art and there are incredible edited photos in the world but to me I prefer the "take what you see" school of thought which makes it become about how you see your subject, framing, lighting, angles and your own personal skills. It's what you actually see as a photographer...but some have a way of photographing a scene with the edits already in their mind while they're taking the photo. I'm also in agreement that many of my own photos would be improved by editing but my mind just doesn't work that way and to me it's cheating! :)
@laurinovakphoto It depends on what kind of editing you're doing. Although digital cameras have come a long way in the past couple years, they still aren't capable of capturing a scene as faithfully as film can, no matter how skilled a photographer one is (consumer-level cameras can degrade reality, while some high-end cameras even make images "cleaner" and sharper that life really is!).
As I said in another thread on "SOOC", because there is software and mechanics involved in the sensor itself and between the sensor and the memory card, a digital photographer never has 100% control over the initially captured image. Because of that, basic edits, such as adjusting levels, curves, colour saturation, etc. should not be thought of as "cheating", rather as an integral part of the "developing" process.
The way I see it, to say that basic digital editing is cheating is equivalent to saying that the film photographer who develops photos in his/her home dark room -controlling the final image through chemicals, time, paper, etc., instead of just "downloading" the photos directly at a 1-hour photo lab, is also cheating. And I don't agree with that.
As to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting if Photoshop (or whatever image editing software) would offer an option to embed the processing details in an image file, in a way similar to te Exif data. But I wonder how many people would actually activate an option like that and give away their secrets... ;-)
I think it would be great if people (here on 365) would once in a while tell their "edit" story and tag it "edit" (or something like that) so that folks like me could browse the tag and learn. :)
@meggageg Digital photography has been around how many years...20 max? Lots of spectacular (unedited) photos done before then with film cameras.
@ellen I can't always tell when a photo here has been edited. Did they patiently wait for the light to be just right, or did they edit it? Was everything really that colour or texture? Do I compliment then on a great shot or great editing?
@davidchrtrans great points! A film photographer must use chemicals and specific film to make a black and white photo- as I'm pretty sure that in most cases what they were photographing weren't originally b&w. Why is that considered different than converting in digital?
For my project, the end result is the main objective. I don’t consider post processing to be a negative aspect of that objective; in fact, I’m often envious of the post processing skills that I see in some of the 365 photographers. I understand the desire to capture the perfect photograph without post processing, and when it happens it’s just as impressive to me as a great photo that has been edited. I’d rather have a great photo that has been enhanced than a mediocre photo SOOC. I agree, it would be nice to see the trail of edits, if only to be able to learn from those steps…and because the editing info is the missing piece to the exit data. But then, some may not want to give away their secrets.
@DavidCHR - I only just switched from film 2 years ago and I did it kicking and screaming! I agree with your points actually. I know that developing film processes can also be considered editing with filters/color adjustment/cropping/enlarging/adjusting etc.
@Nod - speaking of Ansel Adams - he did all of these things when developing his film. I went to an exhibition celebrating his 100 year birthday and it showed all of that. Up until that point I had always just figured he took what he saw and of course, had incredible scenery and subjects to shoot!
I think it would be so neat knowing some peoples editing secrets! I have seen so many wonderful things that I would love to try out but have no idea how to go about it
@rebcastillo77 That is an awesome point. The same goes for sepia toning.
And to add to it, there is no such thing as SOOC for film photographers because when they develop film they have to determine how long to leave the photo in the chemicals. If they leave it too long its over-exposed, too short, its under-exposed. Many film photographers admit to using different darkroom techniques such as burning and dodging to edit their photos, similar to that of Photoshop. They use different filters on their enlargers to change the contrast of b&w photos. Photoshop is just a digital form of a dark room. So why is it bad to edit photos with PS?
@viranod are you asking who Ansel Adams is? He is one of the most famous photographers of all time - if not the most famous.
@laurinovakphoto thats not how you tag people, just using their name/display name doesn't work. Their name is usually different than their username. See the link on the top left in blue where it says reply. Click on that to tag people.
@Laurinovakphoto No problem, just letting you know you typed the wrong part of their name Just typing @Lauri Novak wont tag you. @Laurinovakphoto tags you! :)
@laurinovakphoto I'd love to go to an exhibition of his work!! @kcphotography Thank you. I know who he is. Just kind of saying (without saying) that he is an expert at post processing :-)
His quote...“The (photographic) negative is the equivalent of the composers score… and the print is the equivalent of the conductors performance.” — Ansel Adams
Forgot to add: (which may have already been said above, I don't have time to read back through) The camera doesn't always pick up everything exactly how is it is in real life. I have noticed that with mine I often find myself using the "Vibrance" effect in Picnik to bring back the colors that were lost/faded. Sometimes post processing is inevitable, not to change the whole look of the photo, but to restore what was lost between the actual event photographed and the end result in front of you. Even with the correct set-up and all the right settings, pictures still may need a tiny bit of tweaking. Its not my fault the camera can't accurately depict all of the color tones in one shot. It sees it for a split second. I'll give you a paintbrush and a canvas and I will show you a scene for 5 seconds even, then I want you to accurately paint that scene from memory. Its kinda like that...
In my opinion (and I understand that everyone's is different), a good photographer is one who knows when to tweak a photograph and when to leave it alone.
One last point before I go: Say you go to a photographer and have professional photographs taken and you have a giant red pussing zit right smack dab in the middle of your forehead...wouldn't you want the "Pro-Photographer" to edit that out for you? If you answered yes, then explain to me why its ok for them to edit that photograph but nothing else. So by your definition a photographer who is nice enough to do that favor for you, isn't a photographer, but rather a pro-editor. But you wanted a photographer not an editor, so I guess you are stuck with that nasty zit on all your pictures.
@ukcam I don't think there's a term for it. I wish there was. I haven't posted any like that yet, but I've worked on some in the past. Photos where people say they're nice, and I want to be like "No no no. I spent four hours getting a car out of the background!"
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I understand a lot of people on here do SOOC to better their photography skills and I think that is lovely challenge, though.
As I said in another thread on "SOOC", because there is software and mechanics involved in the sensor itself and between the sensor and the memory card, a digital photographer never has 100% control over the initially captured image. Because of that, basic edits, such as adjusting levels, curves, colour saturation, etc. should not be thought of as "cheating", rather as an integral part of the "developing" process.
The way I see it, to say that basic digital editing is cheating is equivalent to saying that the film photographer who develops photos in his/her home dark room -controlling the final image through chemicals, time, paper, etc., instead of just "downloading" the photos directly at a 1-hour photo lab, is also cheating. And I don't agree with that.
As to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting if Photoshop (or whatever image editing software) would offer an option to embed the processing details in an image file, in a way similar to te Exif data. But I wonder how many people would actually activate an option like that and give away their secrets... ;-)
@ellen I can't always tell when a photo here has been edited. Did they patiently wait for the light to be just right, or did they edit it? Was everything really that colour or texture? Do I compliment then on a great shot or great editing?
@Nod - speaking of Ansel Adams - he did all of these things when developing his film. I went to an exhibition celebrating his 100 year birthday and it showed all of that. Up until that point I had always just figured he took what he saw and of course, had incredible scenery and subjects to shoot!
And to add to it, there is no such thing as SOOC for film photographers because when they develop film they have to determine how long to leave the photo in the chemicals. If they leave it too long its over-exposed, too short, its under-exposed. Many film photographers admit to using different darkroom techniques such as burning and dodging to edit their photos, similar to that of Photoshop. They use different filters on their enlargers to change the contrast of b&w photos. Photoshop is just a digital form of a dark room. So why is it bad to edit photos with PS?
@viranod are you asking who Ansel Adams is? He is one of the most famous photographers of all time - if not the most famous.
@laurinovakphoto thats not how you tag people, just using their name/display name doesn't work. Their name is usually different than their username. See the link on the top left in blue where it says reply. Click on that to tag people.
@kcphotography Thank you. I know who he is. Just kind of saying (without saying) that he is an expert at post processing :-)
His quote...“The (photographic) negative is the equivalent of the composers score… and the print is the equivalent of the conductors performance.” — Ansel Adams
In my opinion (and I understand that everyone's is different), a good photographer is one who knows when to tweak a photograph and when to leave it alone.
One last point before I go: Say you go to a photographer and have professional photographs taken and you have a giant red pussing zit right smack dab in the middle of your forehead...wouldn't you want the "Pro-Photographer" to edit that out for you? If you answered yes, then explain to me why its ok for them to edit that photograph but nothing else. So by your definition a photographer who is nice enough to do that favor for you, isn't a photographer, but rather a pro-editor. But you wanted a photographer not an editor, so I guess you are stuck with that nasty zit on all your pictures.