Jump to content

When to edit, when to leave alone


amandadeanne

Recommended Posts

A question just popped into my head while I was looking over my pictures. Most I've touched up a bit...not really a whole lot...but at what point do you say, "No, this one doesn't need anything done to it, leave it alone"? I'm really trying not to overdo it, but my poor little smartphone camera can only do so much.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh. That's a tricky one Amanda.

 

I think it's a matter of personal choice that only you can answer. And your decision will probably change over time and with growing skill and experience.

 

Personally, I've sometimes edited pictures well into the night, then looked at them the following day with some horror. 'What was I thinking?!' And had to re-edit some of them. This is especially true of tweaking colour saturation or exposure.

 

Sometimes you're in the mood for fillet steak, and sometimes hamburger!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the feeling (and question)! I agree with [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER]. I think the answer depends on things like:

- how important is the photo to you and how are you going to use/share it?

- does the unedited photo look OK to you? If not, what edits/enhancements do you feel are needed to improve it?

 

I'm all for playing around with photos (either on a desktop on my smartphone) before 'finalizing' them. But I do this very selectively. My approach, I guess, is to only edit photos that I'm delivering to or share with people as an 'amateur photographer' (rather than just as an average person). I also only edit my final selection of photos before delivering/sharing/publishing them. This amounts to perhaps 5%-10% of the shots I take.

 

Mike

 

PS, If you edit on your mobile phone too, check out the free (non-destructive) mobile Adobe Lightroom editing tool.

 

 

A question just popped into my head while I was looking over my pictures. Most I've touched up a bit...not really a whole lot...but at what point do you say, "No, this one doesn't need anything done to it, leave it alone"? I'm really trying not to overdo it, but my poor little smartphone camera can only do so much.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a matter of personal choice that only you can answer. And your decision will probably change over time and with growing skill and experience.

+1

Personally, I've sometimes edited pictures well into the night, then looked at them the following day with some horror. 'What was I thinking?!' And had to re-edit some of them. This is especially true of tweaking colour saturation or exposure.

+1

But I do this very selectively. My approach, I guess, is to only edit photos that I'm delivering to or share with people as an 'amateur photographer' (rather than just as an average person). I also only edit my final selection of photos before delivering/sharing/publishing them. This amounts to perhaps 5%-10% of the shots I take.

+1

I only edit the images I intent to share - the rest gets archived (after being culled). How far I take an edit depends mostly on my mood - sometimes, it takes all of 1 minute and sometimes I spend hours on a single image. There's a whole slew of editing options I'd like to try and learn but they have proven to be too time consuming.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are times when what and how I will edit occur to me when I'm actually taking the picture. I may or may not stick to what I'm thinking at the time once I get the picture in front of me. It's worth challenging yourself to do that every now and then. As you're looking at a scene and deciding to take a picture, think about the final photo you'll produce and see if you can imagine some post processing you'll do that will get you where you might want to be. Imagine the thing or scene before you when taking the picture as a photo rather than something you're taking a picture of. Foresee what you can of the entire process. In other words, don't necessarily think of what you do after the picture's been taken as after-the-fact. Think of it as part of the process. It's more likely to feel integrated that way.
  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago I was under the misimpression that the shots should stand on their own...but like a side of beef which has improved with aging, these days I edit everything I intend to keep. But I also keep an original...who knows when I may want it for another purpose, like a 3x4 ft. print instead of something to share on a smallish digital screen. For me editing typically consists of some degree of cropping, spot removal/healing, color adjustment and sharpening (as most digital algorithms need at least a touch). Think of the 1950's glamour shots which were universally airbrushed. When is too much...a matter of personal preference, and occasionally assisted by the keen eye of others, as my eyesight continues to fade. So, trial and error and learning on your part, and keep up the good questions.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great suggestions. I know there was one picture I took today (it's the one on my profile called "A Burst of Bloom" if you want to see what I'm talking about) that I'm driving myself up the wall trying to find the right look for. The problem is, since there's so much going on in terms of the subject, it doesn't matter what I do--something's going to get sacrificed even though I might not want it to.There's only so much I can do with it and still have it look halfway decent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A Burst of Bloom" if you want to see what I'm talking about.....The problem is, since there's so much going on in terms of the subject

I agree. It's probably the weakest picture in your portfolio, but you already know what the issue is. There's too much in there. Too 'busy' with no point of focus.

 

Personally I'd crop away the bottom to make a square format, and in the absence of having a wide aperture lens, 'fake' a shallow depth of field in the edit to focus attention on the largest bloom.

 

Or just forget it and move on to something with more potential.

 

Maybe poke the camera right in among the flowers? Use a darker exposure? I dunno, it's your picture and your choice.

 

I like your gallery BTW. Nicely observed pictures of light on water.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's probably the weakest picture in your portfolio, but you already know what the issue is. There's too much in there. Too 'busy' with no point of focus.

 

Personally I'd crop away the bottom to make a square format, and in the absence of having a wide aperture lens, 'fake' a shallow depth of field in the edit to focus attention on the largest bloom.

 

Or just forget it and move on to something with more potential.

 

Maybe poke the camera right in among the flowers? Use a darker exposure? I dunno, it's your picture and your choice.

 

I like your gallery BTW. Nicely observed pictures of light on water.

 

I'm about ready to give up on that picture for the time being, to be honest. I don't plan on deleting it; just going to set it aside until I recover some sense of sanity from trying to finagle it to where I'm happy with it.

 

Of course, here's another version. I just did something completely different. I cropped it and changed the saturation and highlights, and to me, it looks like there's more of a focus leading up to the large bloom at the top right of the image. What say you?

 

953424949_ABurstOfBloom(desat)(1).thumb.jpg.ac9cdbb046a378d84da2699a1f0121fd.jpg

Edited by amandadeanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is that I make some edits on images to see if they are worth continuing with (in most cases, not !), then do a semi-final edit on those I feel confident enough to share, then leave them, as has been suggested, returning to them when I have a little time to assess them more fully, and see which are actually worth keeping. While trying to produce the JPG I intend to display, I keep the original DNG files, save the intermediate edits as TIFF files (sometimes saving these multiple times as I work them, with unique file names), then finally (for now !) reduce in size for posting and save as JPG.

 

With regard to your image, I can see its appeal, but you might find a closer crop (maybe just the two large blooms and the semi-opened one beneath them) would give a more pleasing and balanced result. I must admit that, when I am faced with such a colourful display, I have to stop and think what result I want, and sometimes (I know options are limited on a Smartphone) I will shoot the same subject from different angles, with a variety of lenses, to give me scope for editing later. As they say 'Any photograph is better than the one you didn't take' ! Also, don't forget, in editing you can flip any image horizontally (if it does not contain writing, obviously) to give a result which, while it may not be a true reflection of the scene, provides a more pleasing result.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is that I make some edits on images to see if they are worth continuing with (in most cases, not !), then do a semi-final edit on those I feel confident enough to share, then leave them, as has been suggested, returning to them when I have a little time to assess them more fully, and see which are actually worth keeping. While trying to produce the JPG I intend to display, I keep the original DNG files, save the intermediate edits as TIFF files (sometimes saving these multiple times as I work them, with unique file names), then finally (for now !) reduce in size for posting and save as JPG.

 

With regard to your image, I can see its appeal, but you might find a closer crop (maybe just the two large blooms and the semi-opened one beneath them) would give a more pleasing and balanced result. I must admit that, when I am faced with such a colourful display, I have to stop and think what result I want, and sometimes (I know options are limited on a Smartphone) I will shoot the same subject from different angles, with a variety of lenses, to give me scope for editing later. As they say 'Any photograph is better than the one you didn't take' ! Also, don't forget, in editing you can flip any image horizontally (if it does not contain writing, obviously) to give a result which, while it may not be a true reflection of the scene, provides a more pleasing result.

 

This is one the picture that's been giving me such a headache, but I'll do some more creative work on it in a while (probably not today...I need to re-grow the hair I pulled out trying to edit it!). Great suggestions...I was just afraid that the people in the store I was in would have thought me off my rocker if I'd done anything more than what I did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'll forgive the liberty taken:

[ATTACH=full]1363270[/ATTACH]

Drastic crop and a more graphic treatment.

 

But that would be my own 'rescue' job. Not yours. And dangerously close to a wallpaper pattern I'm afraid.

 

What if it were cropped to where only the triangle of blooms was the focus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, and not just for photography, I tend to do minimal editing.

 

I keep the tone controls on my stereo amplifier at the neutral position,

and can often hear the effect of them being wrong.

 

This doesn't include actual mistakes, such as having the color balance

be accidentally set wrong. Also, cropping is often needed, as even with

a zoom lens, one doesn't always frame what one wants to print.

 

It could be that I am lazy, but I believe it is more that I like things to

be the most natural, and so least changed.

 

Without any actual examples, if it looks mostly like it should look, I wouldn't

worry about how it might be better.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main issue with the blooms picture is the scatter of white buds. These, being bright spots, draw the eye, and in all directions at once. Distracting from any point of focus.

 

Maybe if the camera exposure was lowered to make them less bright, that might help?

 

Personally, I'd just use 'Blooms' as a learning experience and move on. Every shot can't be a winner!

 

I'm kind of with Glen in that a photograph should ideally remain faithful to its subject, but OTOH we shouldn't deny ourselves access to tools that can get us closer to a personal vision of that subject.

 

The analogy of HiFi controls isn't really the same, because performing artists and engineers have previously crafted that sound the way they want it to be heard. And messing about with that balance afterwards is no better than my editing of Amanda's picture. It can only detract from the artist's intention, or distort it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

 

The analogy of HiFi controls isn't really the same, because performing artists and engineers have previously crafted that sound the way they want it to be heard. And messing about with that balance afterwards is no better than my editing of Amanda's picture. It can only detract from the artist's intention, or distort it.

 

I also don't write in books and don't get tattoos, but maybe that is even less applicable.

 

Much of rock/pop music only really exists after recording engineers have processed it, so I agree that doesn't apply.

 

Classical music in a symphony hall still has the conductor influence, which I suppose could be related to tone controls.

One might emphasize the cello section, for example.

 

But there are people who turn the bass knob all the way up for everything, so maybe don't want it the way it was meant to be heard.

 

Analog vinyl and analog magnetic tape both have limits on bass amplitude that can cause problems. That might cause artists and engineers, maybe not consciously, to limit the bass amplitude. That might even apply to CDs from an analog master tape.

 

But otherwise, one might faithfully record what someone sitting in the audience of a real concert might hear.

 

Reminds me that I have known about binaural recording, but never had a chance to try it.

One can record a symphony orchestra with microphones inside a dummy head, with appropriately shaped pinna (outer ear), so closer to what one actually hears than with the usual microphones. Then listen with headphones, so no other outside sound influences.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's Is different. However, I try not to go past the point when someone will say it seems too much, that it doesn;t seem like it existed in nature. If after editing I'm not sure, than I'll take it down a notch. I believe if the viewer is overwhelmed by the processing, then my editing failed. A light touch is better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the film days, a not so unusual thing was to add clouds to a cloudless sky.

 

I never did it, but it is fairly easy to do with the enlarger, as a separate exposure.

 

Everything that could be done with film, can also be done with digital and more.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main issue with the blooms picture is the scatter of white buds. These, being bright spots, draw the eye, and in all directions at once. Distracting from any point of focus.

 

Maybe if the camera exposure was lowered to make them less bright, that might help?

 

Personally, I'd just use 'Blooms' as a learning experience and move on. Every shot can't be a winner!

 

I'm kind of with Glen in that a photograph should ideally remain faithful to its subject, but OTOH we shouldn't deny ourselves access to tools that can get us closer to a personal vision of that subject.

 

The analogy of HiFi controls isn't really the same, because performing artists and engineers have previously crafted that sound the way they want it to be heard. And messing about with that balance afterwards is no better than my editing of Amanda's picture. It can only detract from the artist's intention, or distort it.

 

I'm starting to think that way. Honestly, this picture's given me so much trouble that I might just archive it and take it out later to see if anything can be done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I grew up in a family of artists, many of them painters. I also know a lot of painters and writers.

 

Every painter I know of, academically or personally, always wants to go one more step -- very often to detriment of the work as a whole. To do their best work painters and writers benefit from an "editor" to tell them when to stop.

 

That's the magic of the computer. With the proper software and proper guidance from a good critic, you can go back to earlier stages before overdoing the thing>

 

Not quite the same thing, but OH for an "undo"

Behold The 'Potato Head' Of Palencia, Another Botched Art Restoration In Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in a family of artists, many of them painters. I also know a lot of painters and writers.

 

(snip)

 

I have more of a science and engineering background, and less artistic.

 

I have heard about the restoration, I believe on a PBS show.

-- glen

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...