How important is editing to a shot?

<p>I have absolutely fallen in love with my new Nikon and cannot wait to learn more about it.</p>

<p>but I do have a question to pose which might seem silly but as I have now been shooting for 5 or 6 days I find this to be a very feasible question to ask.</p>

<p>I am a hobbyist, and will not label myself as anything but until I am happy with my understanding of my camera and equipment. I don't know what RAW even means as of yet as I am still waiting on books such as Understanding Exposure, Digital Photography and the like to show up from Amazon</p>

<p>But I pour through the galleries here and on numerous forums and I need to know, how much of some of the shots taken are the camera and how much is done via editing.</p>

<p>Some shots seem almost surreal and hard to believe could be done with a camera no matter how advanced.</p>

<p>So I have to ask, while getting the perfect shot is important, how much weight is put into editing it via photoshop or editing programs to make a good shot into an absolutely great shot? I have what I think are some good shots for an absolute amateur but I know I could touch them up and make them shine.</p>

<p>And at what stage of development should I look into one. I am thinking about a year from now when I have a base portfolio of about 1000+ shots saved to go over and edit. </p>

<p>Your thoughts on the importance of editing as opposed to just being happy with the shot</p><div></div>

<p>Much depends on a photographer. Some feel that 50% is done in the camera and rest in the edit, tho there are those who only do minor adjustments in the edit. Lots depends on your editing skills and tools that you have at hand.</p>

<p>As to your photo, I'd abstain from taking shots in harsh noon-ish sunlight....unless it fulfills specific purpose. Seeing the quality of light is v. important....and it will help your photos tremendously. </p>

<p>Les</p>

 

<p>Douglas,</p>

<p>ALL digital photos are processed or edited. The original capture by the camera (the raw file), is not viewable. if you shoot jpegs with your camera, you are selecting an editing program that the camera applies and that will apply a specific editing recipe--a certain amount of contrast, a certain color balance, a certain degree of saturation, etc. When you use editing software, YOU take control of the editing, applying the edits that you think make the image best.</p>

<p>Sometimes, a given camera style will produced edited images that the user is happy with. Sometimes, it won't.</p>

<p>You can shoot jpeg and layer your own edits on top of the ones the camera has already done. However, you will have less control than if you shoot raw and do all of the editing yourself.</p>

<p>Les,</p>

<p>I took that shot as a direct example of what I am talking about. I know that via editing that could look like a stunning photo...taking from a moving car on the side of a highway at speed.</p>

<p>But to the root of the question that is what I am wonder. How many new photographers (like me) worry more about the finished result than the actual taking of the shot? how many people lose interest because they cannot replicate shot quality without editing?</p>

<p>I know eventually I will move on to an editing program because I am falling in love with this new hobby and regardless of whether or not I move forward with it in hopes of making any money I will continue to upgrade my skill, equipment and love of it in general.</p>

<p>But I do have to ask that obvious question as I have never before owned a camera like this and I know I cannot replicate some of the shots I am so in love without editing software.</p>

<p>Later on when I am more competent with my camera and have more than a weeks shooting under my belt I will try to take that same shot and see where I am at. </p>

<p>Thanks Les, I appreciate your input :)</p>

<p>It's not either editing, or being happy with the shot - it can be both. One isn't excluding the other. For me, editing is the icing on the cake. But, for me, editing does not make a good photo great, the real impact of the image already has to be there. When I import the photos, I select those I like, and edit them to the extend where I think (hope) they look at their best - but they were already the photos that stood out for me, or those for which I saw a use. Well, that's just my opinion and approach, obviously, and I am very light-handed in editing.</p>

<p>Given your other question in this forum, I'd really recommend to let editing go for now. Focus on the photos themselves first - mastering exposure is challenge, mastering composition is a far bigger challenge - and both lead to significantly better images.<br /> In my experience, people who learn a little about editing as part of 'learning photography', frequently end up editing photos in such a way that they are visibly edited - robbing away qualities the photo may have had (things like using plugins a lot "because the effect is so nice", oversharpening everything, over-the-top HDR etc.). Take photo editing as a serious challenge later on, and learn to do it proper - it'll be more rewarding in the long run.</p>

<p>To use your photo as an example (which I quite like, even if it's not going to sound like it): I don't think editing would make it a significantly better picture, apart from removing the sunflare in the bottom. I do think they are ways by composing the image different (choosing either to make the sky the subject, or the trees) it could have had more impact than it does now. And that's the kind of thing you can not fix in software, but really only when you're there with your camera.<br>

[edit] Saw the replies posted as I was writing mine; I much agree on the advice on learning to see light properly. Though for this photo, it's not bothering me much.<br>

Sometimes it is about just getting the shot, and taking a quick photo without a lot of thought and preparation. If you're lucky, you can polish it up in editing to something more - but luck is the name of the game. Getting a good feel for composition and light will have much more effect, as you learn to compose a compelling photo much faster, and/or decide it's not worth taking. That's skill, instead of trying to get lucky in editing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how many people lose interest because they cannot replicate shot quality without editing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably very few - editing isn't "extra work", it's an inherent part of the process of modern photography.</p>

<p>Think of it like this: the files that comes off the camera are the ingredients, editing is cooking the dish - you need both for a great meal.</p>

<p>Sure, you can eat your ingredients raw, but you're not getting the best out them that way.</p>

<p>Overall I'm with Wouter on this. Your interest in this art form will certainly help. I can appreciate your drive and you should (as it's been stated) put lots of emphasis on creating or seeing interesting compositions, etc etc. You can start out with some handy books, but make sure you practice what you've learned. Also, check out local galleries, "lift those stones" and discover the emotion that the painter/photog tried to get across to the viewer....eventually these things will become part of your own style. So practice and enjoy.</p>

<p>What I was saying is, that edit is a tool and use it as you wish. You can enhance a photo or even save some.....tho v. often people ruin perfectly good shots by over-using the sliders (in edit). I tend to do as much as I can in the camera....and the edit goes much smoother later. I prefer being out there shooting vs tweaking images in computer. We all approach these things somewhat differently....and that's OK.</p>

<p>If you shoot in RAW, most edit programs will not harm the "camera original", though that is entirely up to the photographer. Anyway, it will give you a chance to replicate or adjust the same photo over and over.....and if you don't like the results....you can start all over again.</p>

<p>Yes, editing is important, but it helps to have a good image as a starting point.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Every shot I take goes through my editor to be treated very little or quite a bit. Hopefully the photographer develops both skill in editing and the camera becuase in the digital age they are companion tools.<br />You may be able to wait for perfect or even good conditions but I would suggest that is rare except for the government photographer getting paid whatever so a moderate skill in editing does help for when you are working in less than ideal circumstances.<br>

Faced with that scene I would have looked for something to place in the foreground so that the horizon didn't cut the picture in two and to hold the sky and ground together while helping to establish a sense of depth to the photo. Though come dediting time that would have made my job much harder so in a situation like this a Graduated Neutral Density filter to hold back the sky is probably the normal suggestion. I also wonder how you have your camera set up and suggest if you keep it set with contrast minimised this is something one can add in editing after shooting in conditions like this.<br>

<br />It helps if you have an editor to resize your photo to no more than 700 pixels across with a file size of no more than 100Kb so that what you post shows here rather than posting camera files as you possibly did above.<br />Here is your photograph after a little treatment in editing</p><div></div>

<p>PS that bright spot centre bottom of picture ... with subject matter like foliage it would have been simple enough to clone so foliage over it to hide it but sorry I missed it :-(</p>

<p>It's all very good advice above. I'll give my 2¢ none the less.</p>

<p>For quite a while I didn't edit my images and I was happy with what I got out of camera as a jpeg. Then I started playing with GIMP, which is a free editing program that I highly recommend (but many people don't like it). Nowadays, some of my images come out of my camera needing little to no editing. But the majority will see significant improvement after editing. I would say get your feet wet as soon as you can, just make sure you save the original unaltered file. Most peoples first attempts at editing tend to be heavy handed, so it's nice to be able to go back to your favorite images after getting more experienced and re-edit them.<br>

As far as RAW goes, I'm going to go a bit against the grain here and say that the results I get from editing a RAW image versus edited Jpegs from my camera are generally not significantly better. RAW has one big advantage over Jpeg for me though, fixing an image where I messed up the exposure value. You can lighten a RAW image far more than a Jpeg without running into problems.</p>

<p>Again thank you all so much, I know it is early for me to be asking about this but after seeing before, after edit photos on a few other forums and sites I figured I had to ask.</p>

<p>I am as I said a year or more away from even considering something like this but the curiosity in me had to know.</p>

<p>I will continue exploring this and hope Amazon sends me that literature sooner than later so I can move on past the manual.</p>

<p>Also, JC that's what I was wondering about, minor touch ups. Thanks for the example I really appreciate.</p>

<p>Enjoying this site and happy that I am getting some solid information instead of normal internet advice which would have people telling me to burn my camera or throw myself off of a cliff and take a selfie on the way down.</p>

<p>Again thanks a ton.<br>

Douglas</p>

<p>Douglas, <a href="/photos/LenMarriott">Every shot I have posted</a> has been edited to suit my tastes. If you don't like a particular shot of mine imagine how you'd feel had I not attempted to 'improve' it. It's always desirable to come as close as you can in camera but seldom achievable. (my opinion) I figure it's all part of the routine in getting an image from camera capture to screen or print. The key is to keep any post exposure to a minimum, making any changes transparent or invisible to the viewer. Welcome to PN, by the way! Don't be a stranger! Best, LM.</p>

<p>Douglas, I think the first challenge is to get the workflow right. I shoot in RAW. This gives me an opportunity to make some fixes more easily than with a JPEG. I recommend View NX (free) in the first instance. If you feel you need to do more, there's GIMP (as others have recommended) or Photoshop Elements if you want to spend a bit more money.</p>

<p>After the RAW conversion, my fixes are usually limited to fixing wonky horizons and cropping, with perhaps some cloning out of very minor unwanted details.</p>

<p>Also, don't forget to back up your images!! I use an external hard drive for this.</p>

<p>Even film pictures were "edited" to some degree, if only by the automatic settings on the old mass printers, processors, etc.<br /> With digital it's simply so much easier for "everyone" to do. In the old days, only the darkroom masters could "postprocess".<br /> As in all such cases, the trick is to not go too far, to not overdo the process.</p>

<p>There were promises that the amateur could learn to "post process":</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Len, again advice I will take to heart. Initially I am not trying to do anything but move on as a hobby and possibly later on maybe move on as more than that. I appreciate your advice immensely and from those on this site as it has already proved to be beneficial.</p>

<p>But as it stands I will be happy to take a shot I can be happy with and understand the simple things my camera does as well as the lingo and features I don't understand first.</p>

<p>baby steps here with an eye to the future</p>

<p>Thanks again</p>

<p>You've received lots of good advice here, douglas. Mine is to read your camera manual thoroughly. Keep it with you and refer to it as necessary. I reread mine all the time as there are so many different settings and custom functions available I can't remember them all.<br>

My other contribution is this. Set your camera up to record each shot in both raw and jpeg formats. This way when you do get a handle on post production later down the line you will have all your work in the best possible format for manipulating. <br>

Currently I am scanning negatives I took in the mid 70's on a Nikon scanner and then working them in Photoshop. I am achieving fantastic results printing some of them right here on my desk that surpass any of the original prints I ever received from the 'lab'. I predict you too will refer back to your own archives further down the road and find some nuggets. </p>

<p>I believe that you are referring to "post processing" work, not "editing." Editing has a somewhat different meaning. You can edit a portfolio simply by selecting which works to show and which to reject. Or you can edit a photo by changing it in some way, e.g. removing a distracting person or sign from the background.</p>

<p>Post processing is a way to maximize the impact of an image without making acute changes to it. This falls into three categories of adjustments:</p>

<p><strong>1. Global Adjustments</strong></p>

 

<ul>

<li>Lighten or Darken the entire frame (typically an Exposure control in your raw processor)</li>

<li>Add or lessen Contrast (the level of change between the brighter and darker parts of the image)</li>

<li>Sharpening (compensation for anti-aliasing filters and other limitations of digital sensors)</li>

<li>White balance (remove blue or yellow casts from the photo, most noticeable with white, but impacting all colors)</li>

<li>Tint (remove green or violet casts)</li>

<li>Saturation (the relative vibrance of the colors in the image)</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>2. Local Adjustments</strong></p>

 

<ul>

<li>Lightening or darkening specific areas in the image (burning and dodging in darkroom terms)</li>

<li>Creative sharpening</li>

<li>Gradient filters</li>

<li>Vignetting (increase or lessen)</li>

<li>Removing dust spots</li>

<li>Smoothing out or removing imperfections in the subject's skin</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>3. Specialized Adjustments</strong></p>

 

<ul>

<li>Lens correction (compensation for distortion or vignetting)</li>

<li>Perspective correction</li>

</ul>

<p>Any or all can be applied creatively to a raw file. How much you use is up to you, your taste, and what you and/or your clients are trying to achieve. I have used all of them, and some, such as White Balance and Contrast, I adjust to taste on almost every image.</p>

<p>Photoshop and other programs offer other adjustments, including layering, masking, compositing, and several ways to combine multiple images into one. These actions also belong to the post-processing family, but they are more specialized and will be used in fewer cases. </p>

<p>You have gotten a lot of good feedback. I suggest shooting RAW images - so that you have more contraol in "processing" or editing them. All images need to be processed. Doing this as "editing" on a computer with a program like Photoshop or another application is no diffierent than what Ansel Adams did in processing his images, especially in the darkroom printing process. Perhaps one of the simplest and easy to appreciate adjustments is light balance. By adjusting light balance to auto, you notic how the blue cast in your imges goes away, leaving a more natural looking image, that's truer to the real rook of the scene. Hope you find this helpful. Larry</p>

<p><em>"So I have to ask, while </em><strong><em>getting the perfect shot</em></strong><em> is important, how much weight is put into editing it via photoshop or editing programs to make a good shot into an absolutely great shot?"</em></p>

<p>Getting the perfect shot may not be that important. Depends how you're thinking of perfection. If you're considering there is an objective standard of perfection, getting the perfect shot will probably severely limit your possibilities and your vision. You will tailor your work to the standards that have already been set, to work you've seen, to what is already accepted by "most people" as good, and you will likely become just another face in the crowd of photographers who produce boringly "perfect" work. Think imperfect. Think personal. Think something unique to yourself. Think how YOU see the world, differently from how others might. The more willing you are not to be perfect and to make mistakes, the more you are liable to become a good photographer and an interesting one. Some qualities that could be more important or valuable than perfection: honesty, authenticity, originality, creativity, expressiveness, surprise, unexpected, mystery, ambiguity, human, imaginative.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Composition is everything in a good photo, so getting the shot, to me, means getting that special composition. The rest of it is simply embellishments to enhance the composition - not always necessary but available if it's thought to improve the photo. </p>

Before you jump into raw processing, buy yourself a monitor calibration system like one of the Spyder models - you don't need the most

expensive version. For under a hundred bucks, you'll have a tools that can calibrate your monitor regularly for years to come.

 

Processing photos without monitor calibration is a waste of time. In fact, it's worse than a waste of time. It can do more harm than good.

 

Always keep at least one copy of your unedited raw file. Some programs are non destructive, but others will write changes into the file.

Keep an unedited copy backed up somewhere.

 

Make certain that you keep copies of ALL of your photos, before and after adjustments, on MULTIPLE hard drives. If a drive fails, you

don't want to lose countless hours of processing or worse, your original raw files. Mark my words. You need to calibrate your monitor, and

you need backups.

"The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." - Ansel Adams

 

Or, try to get the best negative possible and create the best print possible in the darkroom.

 

In the old days of film most people would just drop off the film at the lab and take whatever the lab gave them. Following Adams' credo many photographers would set up a darkroom and create a better print with the use of paper selection, filtration, burning, dodging, etc. etc. Now with Photoshop, everyone can have a dry darkroom for the final performance.

<p>If photo.net had a question of the week (just as it used to have a photo of the week), this one from Douglas might be it. A Qotw. It's an important question, lots of good advice has been offered, and some interesting perspectives have been shared.</p>

Yes... a "question of the week", as in "the question that has been, and continues to be, asked every single week. Week in week out. Forever.".<br>We're 'editing' all the way, in thinking about and deciding what to attempt to turn into a photograph, in the selection of the means we could or should use to accomplish that, in trying to use those tools the most effectively given the goal, and in deciding - at the end of the process - whether we accomplished what we set out to do (or accidentally stumpled upon another thing we didn't set out to create).<br>Deciding what to do, at each and every single step along the way from idea to final result, is what we do, is not an optional thing we can ask "should we?"-type question about.<br><br>The idea that a photo should, or even could, be finished the moment the shutter has closed is (with all respect) a rathe naive one. Unless you want to look at the camera itself, imagine the images it might have captured, further steps have to be taken. Steps in which more decisions are made. Even if one possible decision is to let the camera and computer software do the editing the way they do when left to their default configuration (or let the lab develop and print the film they way they happen to do it): we're still editing.<br><br>So how important is editing to a shot?

<p>Sometimes we forget the steps we've taken along our journey, but the reality is, most of us have shared the same journey through our respective timeline. </p>

<p>The same questions seem to emerge constantly because we don't progress at the same rate or at the same time. What we need is a Gantt chart of a typical photographer's progression tagged to various relevant forum posts to avoid repetition - unless some new insight is developed. </p>