edit or non edit??

u8myufo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, 20 seconds is plenty of time to decide if a picture has potential. If it doesn't strike me by then it clearly has nothing. The brain can assess a picture in under a second, what do you think is going to change after 20 seconds? I do not procrastinate on anything, ever - that is just how I am.
I never said I always get it right in camera by the way (which is why a lot of my editing is cropping to improve the composition)

I did think it was pretty obvious that the 20 seconds is the law comment was made in jest...
 
:lol::lol::lol:

I wish I had something constructive to say, but I don't.

Look - do what you want. Accept that other people do things differently.

Let's do a deal. You do what makes you happy, I'll do what makes me happy, and we can all be happy.

To the OP.

I wish there was a more straightforward answer, but I really think you've got to figure out what works best for you.
 
There seems to be a strange perception that edit = got it wrong in camera. Personally, if the creation of a photograph ended after the shutter was pressed, I never would have taken up the hobby.

As has already been said, in pre digital days, nothing was ever "straight out of camera" (other than polaroids of course). Cameras, unlike the human eye, have a very limited dynamic range so there are certain scenes where you can't get the photograph you require straight out of the camera, does that mean the photographer got it wrong?

The camera is just a tool that we use in the creation of a photograph. We are photographers first and foremost, not camera operators.
 
jon ryan said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

All my shots are perfect jon - I know this because people keep telling me they are perfect crap :lol:

Joking aside I think pretty much every shot needs some editting - the editing applied to a raw file (or the in camera and in photoshop edits applied to a jpeg) are only the equivalent of the darkroom work which is put into creating a decent print

getting it right 'in camera' is something of an intellectual conceit and always has been - as the camera is only the first step in the process of creating a finished image (whether thats print/slide/onscreen or whatever)
 
I very rarely any do pp to my pics, cropping at the most. I'm not saying that they are perfect in any way though.

I generally like how they come out so leave them as they are. I know myself they could be improved using pp, but not my thing to be honest.

Some people are so into the pp stuff and I envy them to a point, as I have no idea how they do most of it lol. I just try harder to improve my tecnique when taking the shot rather pp.

If you can do pp and do it well, well why the heck not do it.

Each to their own and all that.
 
fabs said:
As has already been said, in pre digital days, nothing was ever "straight out of camera"
Click to expand...

I think for most people it actually was (most, not all). They took their shots and then took them to Boots or wherever who would process in a standard way with no editing to make any artistic changes, no cropping nothing.

Now we are using digital everyone can do a bit of darkroom stuff that was certainly more for specialists with film. The software makes it so easy these days (yes so easy I can do it is 20 seconds :) )
 
yeah but the processing was still an out of camera process (much like converting a raw file) - Straight out of camera you only had an undeveloped film which wasnt that much use to anyone without further work (pretty much like a raw file in other words)
 
I am from the generation where all of my 'serious' photography has been digital. Surely, the reason why digital is the more popular format is because of the ease in editing. I dont think that I have taken a shot where I haven't edited it. Don't get me wrong, if I could take the perfect shot and not need to edit it I would be chuffed to bits but even in film format, editing is carried out during the processing stage so I dont see that there should be a stigma attached to post processing. It is part and parcel of photography in my opinion and shouldn't be frowned upon.
 
ernesto said:
I think for most people it actually was (most, not all). They took their shots and then took them to Boots or wherever who would process in a standard way with no editing to make any artistic changes, no cropping nothing.

Now we are using digital everyone can do a bit of darkroom stuff that was certainly more for specialists with film. The software makes it so easy these days (yes so easy I can do it is 20 seconds :) )
Click to expand...



Yes, but I'd argue those are the people who now have their £300 compact (or £500 DSLR that never leaves auto + JPEG) that it comes straight out the camera processed as the camera sees fit.


Whereas the people now who do digital editing (beyond the very very basic) are typically people who would've processed their own film or had it done by somewhere other than boots/tesco/whatever, it's just that there was simply less of them due to accessibility.
 
ernesto said:
I think for most people it actually was (most, not all). They took their shots and then took them to Boots or wherever who would process in a standard way with no editing to make any artistic changes, no cropping nothing.

Now we are using digital everyone can do a bit of darkroom stuff that was certainly more for specialists with film. The software makes it so easy these days
Click to expand...

True to a certain point, I used film before anything else. Yes you could get a 10x4 print done in Boots for a couple of quid, you could also send it off to a decent lab and get it done for a lot more, and you would certainly see the difference as you still can today. No different imo than spending a bit of time in PP, I dont expect everybody to be good at editing or have an understanding of it, it took me months and I am still envious of a lot of other peoples skills, what is odd is the attitude that a lot seem to have towards editing. Going back to what you said in your reply " The brain can assess a picture in under a second " :thinking: Is that something else said in jest :shrug: or have you read that somewhere or just made it up? Again I have never heard so much toss in all my life. I guess when you bin your pictures after looking at them for a second it does it to the tune of "Whoops there goes another Rubber Tree plant " :D ;)
 
The one second comment was not made in jest. The brain works incredibly quickly and within a second (either consciously or maybe almost subconciously) a picture can be deemed as having something that you like or not at all. Whether you want to spend more time thinking about it is up to you/how you like to do things and I am at no time suggesting it is for everyone.
A good example is speed reading. With practice and training advice you can read at speeds which initially were thought as so fast you can't possibly be taking it in. It is only when testing afterwards it becomes clear that you did take it all in and can playback the text, answer questions about it etc,..
 
littlemonster said:
Yes, but I'd argue those are the people who now have their £300 compact (or £500 DSLR that never leaves auto + JPEG) that it comes straight out the camera processed as the camera sees fit.
Click to expand...

I would agree most probably do. But with such easy to use tools around such as iPhoto there may be more editing done that you may think. If you are loading your images into iPhoto anyway to get them onto computer it would be tempting to press the edit button wouldn't it? Even for those that would never have partaken in the whole darkroom process.
 
I'd estimate I spend a second or less deciding on most photos for work. If I come home with about 1,000 of them to sort through, process and get to the client in usually about 12 hours or so (including sleep) I don't want to be spending much longer than that.

Spend 30 seconds looking at it, then another minute processing each image and you're a couple of days behind schedule.

On the other hand, I've spent a few days processing one image in the past.

Horses for courses with stuff like this. Always funny that people manage to make an argument out of how other people work or spend their hobby time. :shrug:
 
I kinda regret creating this thread really the aim was for it too be a discussion thread but kinda hasnt turned out that way.
 
Jayst84 said:
I'd estimate I spend a second or less deciding on most photos for work. If I come home with about 1,000 of them to sort through, process and get to the client in usually about 12 hours or so (including sleep) I don't want to be spending much longer than that.

Spend 30 seconds looking at it, then another minute processing each image and you're a couple of days behind schedule.

On the other hand, I've spent a few days processing one image in the past.

Horses for courses with stuff like this. Always funny that people manage to make an argument out of how other people work or spend their hobby time. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I for onecertainly aint arguing James :D, and people can spend what time they want doing what. All I was pointing out and apologies if it came across wrong was the attitued towards those that do edit and as mentioned it is like they believe you got it wrong in camera to start with. It will also depend as you mention on your workload or if you are doing it for your own pleasure.
 
I used to be against editing other than the very basics (crop/rotate etc) but I think that was just because I was jealous that I didn't know how to get the same results :lol:. I do edit now but probably only very basic stuff by a lot of your standards. I have Photoshop and do edit most of my images. I use:

  • Curves - to fix exposure or to give some more contrast and I "think" I understand this tool.
  • Brightness/Contrast - as above but if I am feeling lazy or only need a minor change
  • Colour Balance - only recently started using this and still trying to get to grasps with it, especially regards to whether I should be using highlights/midtones/shadows
  • Spot Removal - I have only just worked out how to use this and mostly use it for removing drool/eye goop from dog photos!
  • Noise Reduction - I don't quite understand what I'm doing with this but am playing about :thinking:
  • Sharpening - Generally I just press the button without much thought and hope it improves!
  • Vibrance/Saturation - If the image looks a bit dull
Do I sound like a clueless tool yet :p? I still have no idea how to use the clone tool! I would love to learn to use it though. Embarrassingly I also don't know how to crop or rotate in PS either so do that after I have uploaded it to the web :bonk:. It is all just a bit of fun for me though and I just sort of learn as I go along and play with the different settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top