Jump to content

Is it always necessary edit photo in some programms after shoot?


lila

Recommended Posts

<p>Since i have my first camera and start to shoot, i`m wondering, if its always necessary after edit each photo. In last few years i hear it all the time, that photo wont be enough good if i wont make retouch with some kind of program on pc. And it makes me think, what is really photographer? Is it person who capture moments of life and world or is ir person who sits 24 hour a day by pc and make moments of life? I understand that some photos need to be made, like fantasy photos, but the thing i dont understand why retouch portrait photos, landscape photos etc. For me its sad when pure photos critique together with retouch photos.<br>

I believe that good photographer will make good photo only make right settings on cam before photo, not after!<br>

What You think about this? is it right to make our would better on photos as it is, people less wrinkles, thinner, colors more bright?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ansel Adams liked to compare photography to music: "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." He manipulated the tone scale of most of his images. If you have ever seen a straight print of "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" you have an idea how much interpretation he used in his prints. </p>

<p>There are some photographers who can deliver quality images without post processing. For years, people who shot slides worked this way. If you are good enough to set your camera with the settings that will produce exactly the look you imagine, then you should continue working this way. I find that 99% of my images can be improved by editing. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We go through this about once a month. It is a LONG way between adjusting a landscape to bring out detail, and creating a 'fantasy image'. Most images benefit from editing. Portraits are retouched (and have been since the 19th century) because this is what clients WANT and will PAY for. When I shoot a landscape, I have in mind the emotional effect I want to produce in the viewer--that may require a little or a lot of editing. 'Getting it right in camera' is a myth. Even in the days of Kodachrome, a great deal of darkroom work was required to get a perfect print. You can get the <em>exposure</em> right in camera, and then discover that the shadows need to be raised in value, the highlights require pulling back a bit, and selective sharpening is needed to focus attention on the subject.</p>

<p>Camera settings are global, not local. On an image where soft blur is needed, sharpening globally is a big mistake. You have to sharpen only the part of the image that you want to be sharp. This goes for many, many things that contribute to getting the result the photographer wants.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At some level, editing has been necessary since the dawn of photography, with the exception of shooting slides. You simply never thought about basic editing (color, contrast, exposure) when taking your film to be processed, because someone else did it for you.</p>

<p>You ask whether more invasive editing should be done, e.g. to hide wrinkles? It's funny that we didn't ask this question back in the film era, even though the practice was commonplace.</p>

<p>Digital photography has given us the best tools, so far, for achieving natural, unedited results right out of the camera. If you choose to shoot that way, then do!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's up to you and how you want your images to look. If they look acceptable straight out of camera, then leave them alone. Other people will do as they see fit. Do most people edit & tweak? Yes, but it's not a universal requirement. These changes can be subtle and mostly indetectible, or huge and, as you called them, "fantasy pictures". Do as you see fit.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> I believe that good photographer will make good photo only make right settings on cam before photo,

not after!

 

A good photographer will do what is needed to create a strong photograph. A good part of that is done in post

processing.

 

 

For me, on editing: From my cellphone cam, rarely. Other cams, always.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I come back from vacation, i do the same thing with film or digital -. I drop the film or SD card off at the lab and pick up the prints later. My wife selects the ones she wants to put into albums. I select a few that I want to do some work on and either fire up the darkroom and chemicals for film or the computer and Photoshop for digital.

 

The only difference today is most people have computers and image editing programs. Back before digital, few people had darkrooms

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I generally (but not always) want my photos to be a good representation of what I saw with my eyes. But my camera sees the world differently than do my eyes. To get a photo that best approximates the real world, editing is necessary; it's necessary to overcome the limitations of the camera. There is a general misconception that an edited landscape photograph is an altered or unreal depiction of the natural world. This is simply not the case.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good point, Stephen! I'd add that some differences between camera vision and human vision occur because of perceptual processing that is executed in real life and not when viewing a flat photograph. An excellent example is vertical perspective. If we sit on the floor and look at the doorways around us, they look rectangular. If we then photograph them, they all look like trapezoids, often barreled to a greater or lesser extent. However, if we return to the floor and look at the doorways again with a critical eye, we can see that they are indeed trapezoidal in appearance, as we would draw them on a sheet of paper. If we are close to them, we can see the barreling too.</p>

<p>The difference lies in the loss of perceptual cues of depth in the printed photograph, combined with the discrepancy of the doorframe shapes with the rectangular border of the print. We can make the photograph look more realistic either by using a tilt/shift lens to correct the image by re-distorting it onto the focal plane, or by doing a perspective correction in postprocessing. Either way, the photograph will appear more natural, even though it's really not. I think it would be a strange argument that the postprocessing approach is inferior because a photo should not be edited or that neither approach is valid because distorted images are somehow dishonest.</p>

<p>As you suggest, the photographer must sometimes cheat to re-create the illusion of realism (owing to the limitations of the medium).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I totally agree with Luis G on this matter:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 26, 2011; 10:44 a.m.</p>

 

<p>It's up to you and how you want your images to look. If they look acceptable straight out of camera, then leave them alone. Other people will do as they see fit. Do most people edit & tweak? Yes, but it's not a universal requirement. These changes can be subtle and mostly indetectible, or huge and, as you called them, "fantasy pictures". Do as you see fit.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Since taking up Digital Photography in 2007, I have only a handful of shots from tens of thousands that could NOT be improved with a bit of Photoshop. It is a fact of the modern digital photography world that I grudgingly accept.</p>

<p>Even at that, most of what I change is cropping, and other minor things that could have been done in a darkroom in the "old days"</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shoot mostly color negative film. I processed the negative (or have the lab processes) normally no push/pull etc.. I make my prints in the darkroom and here is where I always make adjustment for color balance and density (exposure). I rarely do any burning or dodging...<br>

I sometimes shoot digital with a P&S and I shoot mostly RAW. I would do the same. I would first making color balance adjustment and some exposure adjustment when converting the RAW file. I sometimes make adjustment for highlight or shadows but very rarely.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"Cheat" what? "Cheat" whom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, I'm surprised that you are unaware of the rules. If you want to know how to avoid cheating, you need to pick up a copy of the Photographer's International Rulebook, ISBN 978-0345501127, 2003 Edition. It runs about $25 at Amazon, but there are special editions. There is a red toad leather Leica Special Edition for only $650, and if you are financially hurting, there is the Holga-Lomo edition for $12, made entirely from recycled flip-flops. Once you have the book, you will know how, what, when and whom you are cheating.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Getting back to the original question...many of us worked tirelessly in the darkroom to make our photos much our vision. We didn't use the computer, but the work was essentially the same - taking a desired end product and using the tools to get there. This whole notion that people use post-processing because they "didn't get it right" in the camera seems to come mostly from people who didn't work in the days before Photoshop, didn't study the history of photography, and have no idea how so many of the photos that grace the walls of museums got there. A great example is Avedon - the amount of processing in some of his prints ("In the American West" in particular) far exceeds what most people will expend the effort to do today with a computer. I recommend starting over, get some classes in traditional photography and study the photographs of the last century. Then you will understand why many of us see post-processing as an essential component of the creative process.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Daina, good photography <em>IS</em> good editing. Editing not only entails making changes to the individual frame but also means selecting the right frame in the first place. The difference between frame 1 and frame 2 of a nature or portrait session, for example, can mean the difference between ho-hum and genius. In the film world, contact sheets are made and a wax pencil is used to indicate the right frame and approximate crop. In, digital, your favorite image viewer can be used the same way. Did you know that a Photo Editor is a professional person with unique skills? Most of us have to serve as our own photo editor. It is an integral part of the photography process. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stephen....the scene you <em>"saw with my eyes" </em>does <em><strong>not</strong></em> exist. It's your brain that sees.....and interprets and edits too. PP is just you editing what the camera saw, much as your mind edits what you eyes saw....</p>

<p>Then too.....the output straight from camera needs <em>some </em>editing because of the very nature of the process. How far you want to take it is another issue.....and up to you. Regards, Robert</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I believe that good photographer will make good photo only make right settings on cam before photo, not after!"

 

No question... I believe that, too. In fact, there's no way to make any setting on the camera after the photo is shot.

 

Of course, as others have pointed out, even Ansel Adams, photography is an art form that involves many technical steps, of which what happens at the time of the shot is only one.

 

The later steps can be one's you've planned for, or attempts at fixing up what you thought might have occurred at the time of the shot. Once you know how things work, you're likely to be less willing to believe that the camera can do the whole job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It is a fact of the modern digital photography world that I grudgingly accept.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a fact of the modern digital photography world that I genuinely cherish.</p>

<p>Perhaps it is because I spent 25 years in the film darkroom before I handled a digital camera that I feel this way. It has even carried over to my film/scanner photography. I have the tools that allow me to fulfill my vision. Who would want anything less?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"I believe that good photographer will make good photo only make right settings on cam before photo, not after!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We manipulate photos with every decision we make.</p>

<p>When I choose one color film over another for its unique qualities, and choose to have it processed at a lab that produces results that I prefer over that of another lab, I have made choices that manipulate the photos according to my preferences.</p>

<p>When I choose to process and print my own b&w film and prints because I prefer my own darkroom results over those produced by a commercial lab, I have made choices that manipulate the photos according to my preferences.</p>

<p>When I choose certain in-camera JPEG settings over another and, as a result, am satisfied enough with the results that I don't feel a need to edit the raw files, I have again made choices that manipulate the photos according to my preferences. The fact that I made the choices in the camera rather than on a different type of computer with a larger screen and more convenient keyboard and mouse interface devices does not negate the fact that I have manipulated my photos.</p>

<p>If I later decide that the same photograph - let's say of a landscape with a brilliant blue sky - would look better in a larger print when prepared from the raw file rather than from the in-camera JPEG, the choices I've made are no better or worse based merely on the process. All that matters is the result.</p>

<p>The same philosophy would apply equally to Ansel Adams and William Mortensen. Both used techniques that in some cases heavily manipulated the "raw" negative to achieve the desired results. But their desired results differed so greatly that to this day some people labor under the mistaken impression that Adams produced "pure" photographs, as if nothing more was needed than a straightforward enlargement, while Mortensen was somehow guilty of impure techniques because he chose obvious manipulations to suit his fancy.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"What You think about this?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think your photographs will improve after you quit worrying about imposing some false constraints on your photography to meet some non-existent standard for reality or purity, and instead pursue the method that makes you happiest.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...