edit or non edit??

M

mark thorne

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
So heres a question. Some people i speak to when sharing my photos say to me "oh that can be easily photoshopped out" or "don't worry you can crop that out" things like that.

my question to you is what do you prefer editing pictures to make them look better or capturing the perfect shot without editing??
 
Odd question as I would think everyone would prefer to capture the perfect shot and not have to edit in any way.

However, as editing digitally is so easy and it can only take 20 seconds to make a picture look far better then it is time well spent. Unless you want to recreate the scene and try some more shots which may be a little more difficult :-)
 
Perhaps you could post a demonstrative selection of the 'perfect shots' you have captured? I've been a photographer for years and have yet to manage even one.

Then, could you demonstrate just how you find 'editing digitally is so easy', please? I've been doing that for years as well, and am still learning how to improve every day. Are you a natural genius or did you have to study like us mere mortals?

I'd always though that processing was just as essential a part of the photographic process as, say, taking a meter reading, or making a correct lens selection. This belief came about when I was doing wet photography and still obtains today.

But I'm sure you can correct me on this.
 
I wish! The camera never sees what I see:shake:
They look good in the viewfinder, they look okayish on the LCD, but when I get on computer, they are "did I take that:thinking:", that wan't what I saw:D
 
I shoot raw. I always have to do some processing, but I try to get it as right as possible in camera.
 
jon ryan said:
could you demonstrate just how you find 'editing digitally is so easy', please? I've been doing that for years as well, and am still learning how to improve every day. Are you a natural genius or did you have to study like us mere mortals?
Click to expand...

I actually find everything on computers pretty easy (worked in IT for 20+ years) and admit I have not taken into consideration those that haven't!

However, the easy editing I am talking about is sharpening, WB, exposure, cropping etc,. i.e. all of the things that are found within the Edit section of iPhoto. I am not referring to in depth Photoshop type changes.

If I can't get a photo to my liking within 20 seconds of using those simple changes then the photo is duff and moved to trash.
 
personally I refuse to edit and do not own photoshop or any other editing programme. If it isn't right in camera it isn't right full stop. Ok it means it may take me longer to get the shot but I prefer it this way.
 
Byker28i said:
I shoot raw. I always have to do some processing, but I try to get it as right as possible in camera.
Click to expand...

Yup, me too. And I think all of us around here try to get it as right as possible in camera. But only some of us seem to understand that exposure is just one of many elements that we need to get `as right as possible.` Processing is part of any photographic process, and yes, this has been done over and over and over, so I'm leaving this one now.
 
ukbigrigger said:
personally I refuse to edit and do not own photoshop or any other editing programme. If it isn't right in camera it isn't right full stop. Ok it means it may take me longer to get the shot but I prefer it this way.
Click to expand...

Comments like that make checking your website compulsory.. however 95% of the images on your site fail to load and are "not available". Although from the 5% I can see, I suspect it's a matter of how you define "edit". I think you have a narrower definition than most, certainly much narrower than mine as I would consider all of the ones I can see to have been edited in some shape or form.
 
ernesto said:
I actually find everything on computers pretty easy (worked in IT for 20+ years) and admit I have not taken into consideration those that haven't!

However, the easy editing I am talking about is sharpening, WB, exposure, cropping etc,. i.e. all of the things that are found within the Edit section of iPhoto. I am not referring to in depth Photoshop type changes.

If I can't get a photo to my liking within 20 seconds of using those simple changes then the photo is duff and moved to trash.
Click to expand...

Ah. Right. So you think needing to carry out four different edits, plus a bit of `etc`, equates to `getting it right in the camera'?

:lol::lol::lol:
 
and sometimes you will "miss the moment" if you start trying to get the perfect shot!
animals, children, sunsets/sunrises , as they say "time and tide wait for no man"
 
Alastair said:
Comments like that make checking your website compulsory.. however 95% of the images on your site fail to load and are "not available". Although from the 5% I can see, I suspect it's a matter of how you define "edit". I think you have a narrower definition than most, certainly much narrower than mine as I would consider all of the ones I can see to have been edited in some shape or form.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's more a case of how one defines "right in camera".

mark4183 said:
The only time i edit is if i really want a tighter crop or to make the picture black and white. These people who just point and click and then sort it out in photoshop do my head in.... no real skill in setting it up properly
Click to expand...

Can't I do both? It's very rare I go out with the camera to shoot a landscape without having a particular shot in mind, and having planned my timing so the light should be right. If the light isn't right for whatever reason, then I usually go back home with the camera having never been taken out of the bag. And generally my planning includes exactly what processing I might need to do once I'm back home with the shot captured.

Anyone that just points and clicks will have nothing to sort out in Photoshop, because without a correctly composed and thought through photo you're just trying to polish a turd. OK, people might get lucky, but they'll never have consistent results. Well, only consistently bad results, at least.
 
Most of my pics have editing - normally less than 1 min per pic and normally just WB, brightness, saturation, NR type of thing. I try to get the right shot if I can but will sometimes take a pic knowing I can edit something out.
 
jon ryan said:
Ah. Right. So you think needing to carry out four different edits, plus a bit of `etc`, equates to `getting it right in the camera'?

:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing me with someone else. What have I said that leads to that comment?

I said that probably everyone would prefer to get their shot dead right without teh need for editing, I didn't say that I ever do!

I see a small amount of editing as part of the overall image production and enjoy doing it.
 
Last edited:
ukbigrigger said:
personally I refuse to edit and do not own photoshop or any other editing programme. If it isn't right in camera it isn't right full stop. Ok it means it may take me longer to get the shot but I prefer it this way.
Click to expand...

Even shooting film the guys *(usually the printer) "edited" images (by dodging/burning/exposing the film/adding vignettes etc). You are doing your photography a disservice - Digital images HAVE to be edited even if it's just small things like sharpening!
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
I actually find everything on computers pretty easy (worked in IT for 20+ years) and admit I have not taken into consideration those that haven't!

However, the easy editing I am talking about is sharpening, WB, exposure, cropping etc,. i.e. all of the things that are found within the Edit section of iPhoto. I am not referring to in depth Photoshop type changes.

If I can't get a photo to my liking within 20 seconds of using those simple changes then the photo is duff and moved to trash.
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
I think you are confusing me with someone else. What have I said that leads to that comment?

I said that probably everyone would prefer to get their shot dead right without teh need for editing, I didn't say that I ever do!

I see a small amount of editing as part of the overall image production and enjoy doing it.
Click to expand...

I've bolded/underlined the relevant bits for you.

Incidentally, why do you think that time taken to edit equates to quality of final result? Do you use similar criteria when taking a photo? That is, if it takes you longer than 20 second to frame, set and expose the shot, do you give up? And if not, why is time in editing germane, but not in other aspects of the process? Have you ever considered that the right amount of time taken to produce a shot is as long as it takes to get it right?
 
jon ryan said:
I've bolded/underlined the relevant bits for you.

Incidentally, why do you think that time taken to edit equates to quality of final result? Do you use similar criteria when taking a photo? That is, if it takes you longer than 20 second to frame, set and expose the shot, do you give up? And if not, why is time in editing germane, but not in other aspects of the process? Have you ever considered that the right amount of time taken to produce a shot is as long as it takes to get it right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I said I do simple editing in 20 seconds but not sure what you are referring to in your statement about straight out of camera?

How long I taking originally getting the shot is irrelevant, what I am saying is that if I spend 20 seconds messing around with the image and am not happy with it I move on and accept that it isn't any good and never will be. Spending another 30 minutes on it won't help.
 
Unsubscribing as these threads just end up in the same place.....!
 
ernesto said:
you must make an easy comedy show audience member...
Click to expand...

Depends on the comedian......

I'm laughing at the nonsense about shots needing processing not being good enough....

Expecting an image to be edited in 20 seconds is ridiculous and shows an ignorance to the skill of editing that is becoming all too common on TP....
 
Last edited:
Wow i didnt expect this to be such a big hit :p. some interesting points raised though.
 
Personally i only ever like to edit to change my photos into black and white but apart from that i only ever use the raw image
 
I think the problem lies between what is being photographed and what we are going to do with the image.
A studio portrait will involve possibly liquify and skin smoothing maybe? They have plenty of time to set up their shot and sort of have a motion of shots they take as it is pretty much a repeated process over an over.

A Landscape shooter will have his style, lightling may not be perfect or what they wanted on that day they went out so they will tweak the colours etc. maybe some sharpening.

Event people will have things set to increase speed, maybe a slight cropping but they don't want to be messing about editing images.

Sports may boost contrast and crop to highlight the person or crop for composition. and a little sharpening maybe.

Most people edit to what they like, I often find some images to look a little cold with automatic white ballance so I warm them up a little, Im not a huge fan of sharpening.

I did nearly 700 images last night, it was an event situation so working for speed just make sure you get what you want in the fram and crop later yes you get as many as you can right in camera but minor tweaks are fine a little contrast boost on some and brighten a few of them due to mad bright sunshine playing with metering but it took a few hours maybe where some people may spend 15 minutes maybe more on a single image thats fine as they may have only shot 10 images all day but 700 your not looking for works of art.
 
Little John said:
I think the problem lies between what is being photographed and what we are going to do with the image.
A studio portrait will involve possibly liquify and skin smoothing maybe? They have plenty of time to set up their shot and sort of have a motion of shots they take as it is pretty much a repeated process over an over.

A Landscape shooter will have his style, lightling may not be perfect or what they wanted on that day they went out so they will tweak the colours etc. maybe some sharpening.

Event people will have things set to increase speed, maybe a slight cropping but they don't want to be messing about editing images.

Sports may boost contrast and crop to highlight the person or crop for composition. and a little sharpening maybe.

Most people edit to what they like, I often find some images to look a little cold with automatic white ballance so I warm them up a little, Im not a huge fan of sharpening.

I did nearly 700 images last night, it was an event situation so working for speed just make sure you get what you want in the fram and crop later yes you get as many as you can right in camera but minor tweaks are fine a little contrast boost on some and brighten a few of them due to mad bright sunshine playing with metering but it took a few hours maybe where some people may spend 15 minutes maybe more on a single image thats fine as they may have only shot 10 images all day but 700 your not looking for works of art.
Click to expand...

That is a great point i didnt really think of that most of my shots are landcape images of woodlands and rivers etc. i just feel that if you can capture shots that make people say oh thats good or thats really nice without any editing then thats an accomplishment for me.
 
mark thorne said:
Personally i only ever like to edit to change my photos into black and white but apart from that i only ever use the raw image
Click to expand...

Raw files on the whole (unless you are using software that reads the camera applied settings) are soft and low contrast, so if you aren't doing any manipulation to your raw files you probably aren't getting the best final image.
 
specialman said:
Expecting an image to be edited in 20 seconds is ridiculous and shows an ignorance to the skill of editing that is becoming all too common on TP....
Click to expand...

Not at all. What it shows is very quick decision making and knowing what can be made of an image. More of an assessment of time spent versus gains.
I am in photography for fun and enjoyment and if my enjoyment wains after x seconds of editing then I move on.
I am fully aware that editing can take many hours but they are not the sort of photographs I am remotely interested in.
 
redddraggon said:
Raw files on the whole (unless you are using software that reads the camera applied settings) are soft and low contrast, so if you aren't doing any manipulation to your raw files you probably aren't getting the best final image.
Click to expand...

I dont think it does usually just drag and drop them into the folder i want them in.
 
Could always test it and try manipulating one of your RAW files and seeing if you like it more. Slight sharpening is usually a minimum. Remember, don't spend more than 20 seconds on it, it's the law.
 
mark4183 said:
The only time i edit is if i really want a tighter crop or to make the picture black and white. These people who just point and click and then sort it out in photoshop do my head in.... no real skill in setting it up properly
Click to expand...

ukbigrigger said:
personally I refuse to edit and do not own photoshop or any other editing programme. If it isn't right in camera it isn't right full stop. Ok it means it may take me longer to get the shot but I prefer it this way.
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
what I am saying is that if I spend 20 seconds messing around with the image and am not happy with it I move on and accept that it isn't any good and never will be. Spending another 30 minutes on it won't help.
Click to expand...

A complete lack of understanding of what it is all about imo.
 
u8myufo said:
A complete lack of understanding of what it is all about imo.
Click to expand...

Yes, when you take it out of context! My comment is in response to the further comments/questions not necessarily back to the OP.

You know that is how forums work don't you?:)
 
ernesto said:
Yes, when you take it out of context! My comment is in response to the further comments/questions not necessarily back to the OP.

You know that is how forums work don't you?:)
Click to expand...

There I was thinking You said " If I spend 20 seconds messing around with the image and am not happy with it I move on and accept that it isn't any good and never will be. Spending another 30 minutes on it won't help. " So you think 20 seconds is enough time to decide if a picture has potential or not then? And " Remember, don't spend more than 20 seconds on it, it's the law. " Maybe I have got it wrong so perhaps you could just run it past me one time ;) You take your shots, get it right as much as possible in camera and then after 20 seconds of PP if you dont like it you bin it?
 
mark thorne said:
Personally i only ever like to edit to change my photos into black and white but apart from that i only ever use the raw image
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as the raw image - but there is raw data which requires processing to create the image. Even if you don't change the settings when converting a raw file to an image file, there are still settings being applied.​

In the context of the opening post of this thread, I would say that changing to black and white is not editing but is processing (the original post referring to 'photoshopping out' and 'cropping out').

So, processing aside, I would prefer to get it right in the shot but sometimes that ain't possible - sometimes when seeing the shot, I see it in a 1:4 ratio but my camera doesn't do that - I need to edit and crop to that ratio out of camera. Also, sometimes I see what I want to take but I also see a telegraph post/wire 'spoiling' the shot and I do think before taking the shot if it will be possible to clone out or if I should just not bother with the shot. Marks in the sky caused by muck on the sensor absolutely have to be cloned out, in my opinion - why would anyone insist on leaving them in the image?
 
I'm a newbie here - can someone tell me where I get the popcorn please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top