Editing for aesthetics

O

owenpaul

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Name
Owen
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone, having been shooting for a number of years, I've been thinking recently that most photo's that are considered good tend to have to a large extent been edited.
If the main elements, the subject, composition, exposure and focus are all in place, then the editing is what gives the photograph final finish.
With adequate editing, you can take a dull, photo make it something special.
However, although I think I've learned to use Lightroom and its functions, I struggle with the look, if that makes sense.
Too much saturation for example.
So with that in mind, does anyone else have issues or are dissatisfied with their editing, or once had this issue and managed to resolve it?
If so, may I ask how?
Did you go on training courses, or pick up ideas from others?
Kindest regards
Owen
 
There's a misunderstanding in the midst.
This is true...
owenpaul said:
...
If the main elements, the subject, composition, exposure and focus are all in place, then the editing is what gives the photograph final finish...
Click to expand...
This is just not true.
owenpaul said:
...With adequate editing, you can take a dull, photo make it something special.
...
Click to expand...
There's an old phrase 'you can't polish a turd'. A crap picture edited well is still a crap picture, you can't make a crap photo into 'something special'. The elements of a good picture are:
Composition
Lighting
A story

The first 2 of which can be helped with processing, but they have to exist a little in the original image.

In answer to your question; we all learn differently, some from books, some like to be shown, some like to learn for themselves, some like to ask questions of experts. Others value training more if it comes from a 'valid source' or even if it's cost a lot of money.
 
with regards saturation, I normally leave images a day before deciding if the colours are right. Saturation appears to be like sugar; if you keep adding it little by little you normally end up with too much and you can't tell (or is that just me?)
 
owenpaul said:
With adequate editing, you can take a dull, photo make it something special.
Click to expand...

No... you can't. A dull photo will always be a dull photo. You may fool the Flickrverse, but that's a world full of retarded sheep anyway, so why do you wanna play that game?

Some of the best photos ever taken have no editing at all.

I've nothing against editing, but please stop thinking it can make a dull photo into something special. It can't. Even if it could... is that how you wanna roll? IMO that makes you a retoucher, or at best a digital artist. If you have any aspirations to be a photographer can I suggest you change your attitude? As it is, you will just take any old crap as if the camera is merely a recording device to capture raw data for you to then take home and turn into something else. How does that make you a photographer?

Oh.... and welcome :)
 
Last edited:
I sometimes have limited time to catch a scene before the elements disperse or the lighting changes. Not enough time to do a careful composition, get the exposure just right, etc.. So I'll shoot a bit wide, maybe a few quick variations, and hope that later I'll be able to straighten, crop, and adjust.

Sometimes the photograph I want can't be taken by the camera. For example my camera has a high dynamic range, and sometimes I want a reduced range in the final image, e.g. to raise the black level to remove all detail in the shadows. That can only be done in post processing. On the other hand sometimes I want to pull more of the dynamic range the camera captures, but which the reduced dynamic range of screen images or paper prints can't show, and simply reducing overall contrast flattens local and micro contrast too much. I'll do that with some kinds of tone mapping, or in more extreme cases HDR. The camera can do some of that, but post processing can do more of it better.

Then there's panorama shots. Then there's shots whose final intended result will require perspective adjustment.

The point I'm working towards is that only a subset of my photographs are of the simple kind which can be "got right in the camera". Some of them are quite deliberately shot with the aim of a final result which the camera couldn't do without post processing.

Because it's faster, and mostly good enough, I prefer to edit from ex-camera jpegs. In order to extend the range of adjustment I can make from jpeg before I need to go to RAW I deliberately shoot with reduced contrast, reduced saturation, and reduced sharpening. That's one of the several ways in which I deliberately shoot with a view to post processing. For me post processing is not a way of fixing mistakes, it's part of an integrated process of image making done cooperatively between camera settings and post processing.

I know some photographers have strong moral feelings about getting it right in the camera and regard more than a certain amount of post processing as cheating. In fact I know a few who regard any kind of post processing as cheating; they insist that it must be got right in the camera. That's a choice, just like choosing to shoot only monochrome or only film. It's not my choice. I like to push the technology I've got as far as I can.

Of course in the early days of learning how to use image editors of various kinds I overcooked things. I over saturated, oversharpened, etc.. I cooled that tendency by a rule that when I was adjusting a slider back and forth to get the best result I'd pull it back by 50%. As practice improved my eye that turned into just backing it off a little. Now, years later, my eye seems to have settled in and I no longer need to compensate for overenthusiasm.

In other words, it takes practice. Lots of practice. Just like learning how to get the best from your camera :-)
 
chris malcolm said:
I sometimes have limited time to catch a scene before the elements disperse or the lighting changes. Not enough time to do a careful composition, get the exposure just right, etc.. So I'll shoot a bit wide, maybe a few quick variations, and hope that later I'll be able to straighten, crop, and adjust.

Sometimes the photograph I want can't be taken by the camera. For example my camera has a high dynamic range, and sometimes I want a reduced range in the final image, e.g. to raise the black level to remove all detail in the shadows. That can only be done in post processing. On the other hand sometimes I want to pull more of the dynamic range the camera captures, but which the reduced dynamic range of screen images or paper prints can't show, and simply reducing overall contrast flattens local and micro contrast too much. I'll do that with some kinds of tone mapping, or in more extreme cases HDR. The camera can do some of that, but post processing can do more of it better.

Then there's panorama shots. Then there's shots whose final intended result will require perspective adjustment.

The point I'm working towards is that only a subset of my photographs are of the simple kind which can be "got right in the camera". Some of them are quite deliberately shot with the aim of a final result which the camera couldn't do without post processing.

Because it's faster, and mostly good enough, I prefer to edit from ex-camera jpegs. In order to extend the range of adjustment I can make from jpeg before I need to go to RAW I deliberately shoot with reduced contrast, reduced saturation, and reduced sharpening. That's one of the several ways in which I deliberately shoot with a view to post processing. For me post processing is not a way of fixing mistakes, it's part of an integrated process of image making done cooperatively between camera settings and post processing.

I know some photographers have strong moral feelings about getting it right in the camera and regard more than a certain amount of post processing as cheating. In fact I know a few who regard any kind of post processing as cheating; they insist that it must be got right in the camera. That's a choice, just like choosing to shoot only monochrome or only film. It's not my choice. I like to push the technology I've got as far as I can.

Of course in the early days of learning how to use image editors of various kinds I overcooked things. I over saturated, oversharpened, etc.. I cooled that tendency by a rule that when I was adjusting a slider back and forth to get the best result I'd pull it back by 50%. As practice improved my eye that turned into just backing it off a little. Now, years later, my eye seems to have settled in and I no longer need to compensate for overenthusiasm.

In other words, it takes practice. Lots of practice. Just like learning how to get the best from your camera :)
Click to expand...

There's a massive difference between shooting with the specific intent to significantly alter an image in post, and shooting any old crap hoping that you might be able to 'fix it in post'.
 
Phil V said:
There's a massive difference between shooting with the specific intent to significantly alter an image in post, and shooting any old crap hoping that you might be able to 'fix it in post'.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of what Chris says makes sense, but it bears no resemblance to the OP's description of post processing turning a dull shot into "Something special".
 
Surely it depends on what the OP means when he says "dull"?
'Dull' as in pointless/uninteresting/waste of a file ... then yes, nothing can be done to make it better.
But 'Dull' as in too dark/muted colours/ ... yes of course something can be done to make it better, maybe a simple tweak to Levels.
 
gramps said:
But 'Dull' as in too dark/muted colours/ ... yes of course something can be done to make it better, maybe a simple tweak to Levels.
Click to expand...

Which should have been done in camera at the exposing stage.


Steve.
 
If I shoot something miles away through hazy air with a 500mm lens the image is always very flat and dull due to very reduced dynamic range. Boosting the jpeg contrast setting in camera to maximum isn't nearly enough. Appropriate post processing makes a dramatic difference.
 
Considering the OP said "most photo's that are considered good tend to have to a large extent been edited." I think we can assume he means dull as in not very visually exciting. That's usually poor lighting, composition and exposure that contribute to that.
 
Ah, the old "assume" response ... but since he appears to have been frightened off, we will probably never know :)
 
gramps said:
Ah, the old "assume" response ... but since he appears to have been frightened off, we will probably never know :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps
 
Last edited:
Six of one & half a dozen of the other isn't it this topic. Yes most photos are edited. Some very subtly & others way over the top. To a certain degree, yes you can make a dull photo look better but I wouldn't say you could make it something special - with regard to a landscape shot for example no matter of editing will give you out of this world lighting ;) Plenty of times I've been out/at sunset/by the coast & because the light has been crap I've not even taken a photo because I KNOW that editing won't be able to give me the perfect shot that I can see in my mind.

If you are talking editing in general, then I think you just need to settle into something you are comfortable with rather than picking a style others want to see - Plenty of people do the latter though ;) The best way to do this with LR is to keep playing with it ;)
 
gramps said:
Ah, the old "assume" response ... but since he appears to have been frightened off, we will probably never know :)
Click to expand...
We don't know that yet, he hasn't returned since he asked the question.:)
 
Things that can make great photos.

Lighting. Can't be edited in.
Subject. Can't be edited in (Well.. it can, but unless you have a need to... why would you?)
Composition. Can't be edited in. (Don't confuse framing with composition)
Narrative. Can't be edited in.
Timing. Can't be edited in.

The end.

Careful, subtle and sensitive editing can add sparkle and finish to an image, but if you're images are relying on post processing, then you're probably crap... unless you've found a niche thing... like Dave Hill... but then you're a one trick pony. Take away the Dave Hill effect from Dave Hill's photos and there's not much left, which is why he's probably never heard from these days - once your processing style goes out of fashion, so do you.

If you had a dull image, and think you've rescued it by processing, you're fooling yourself. What you are admiring when you do that is the processing... not the photograph.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Careful, subtle and sensitive editing can add sparkle and finish to an image, but if you're images are relying on post processing, then you're probably crap... unless you've found a niche thing... like Dave Hill... but then you're a one trick pony. Take away the Dave Hill effect from Dave Hill's photos and there's not much left, which is why he's probably never heard from these days - once your processing style goes out of fashion, so do you.
Click to expand...

Wondered what he'd been doing since Slade stopped touring because Noddy wanted to be an Actor... ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
. like Dave Hill... but then you're a one trick pony. Take away the Dave Hill effect from Dave Hill's photos and there's not much left,
Click to expand...

Except all the other stuff he does that doesn't have the 'Dave Hill effect'…..
 
DT01 said:
He's got a website with a ton of stuff on it….not much of it in the style which got so much attention a few years back.
Click to expand...


Link? Quite a few Dave Hills... sure it's the same person? He shot teh latest Fiat ads in the US if it's the same on, yes.
 
Last edited:
DT01 said:
Thats the fella ;)
Click to expand...

He's still struggling to shake off that "look" though... I wish he would. Some of his more documentary stuff is good. Clients will probably just want the same old Dave Hill though.
 
Pookeyhead said:
He's still struggling to shake off that "look" though... I wish he would. Some of his more documentary stuff is good. Clients will probably just want the same old Dave Hill though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But given the likely budget for the Vanity Fair/Fiat shoot, he probably isn't losing any sleep over it. :)
 
DT01 said:
Agreed. But given the likely budget for the Vanity Fair/Fiat shoot, he probably isn't losing any sleep over it. :)
Click to expand...

My point is, just as actors can get typecast, so can photographers. He probably just smiles and carries on taking the money, sure, but you and I don't earn that kind of money, so how annoying would it be if all anyone wanted was your processing?
 
Pookeyhead said:
My point is, just as actors can get typecast, so can photographers. He probably just smiles and carries on taking the money, sure, but you and I don't earn that kind of money, so how annoying would it be if all anyone wanted was your processing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, if that was all it was, I agree. In his case, just from watching the btw video, I would say that it's clearly more than just his processing they want. It's rarely as simple as that is it?
 
DT01 said:
Yeah, if that was all it was, I agree. In his case, just from watching the btw video, I would say that it's clearly more than just his processing they want. It's rarely as simple as that is it?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it's not that simple. Clients want a safe, known quantity. Clients, especially big ones, are VERY risk averse unless you're a huge name. That's why I'd be annoyed if I was a big name trying new stuff and clients just wanted what I was doing 10 years ago.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not so sure it's not that simple. Clients want a safe, known quantity. Clients, especially big ones, are VERY risk averse unless you're a huge name. That's why I'd be annoyed if I was a big name trying new stuff and clients just wanted what I was doing 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Not knowing the guy personally, I don't know for sure, but from the video, it looks like he's coping ok with it. If I were in his shoes, with all that it entails (clients/budgets etc.) I dare say that I'd deal with it too (as you might as well). Another side to that coin is that such additions to his client list will no doubt at least put him in the frame to pitch for a great variety of shoots where the dialogue could lead to all sorts of creative scenarios.

The Fiat campaign is a good example of the processing being the 'polish' and the component parts not being a turd!

https://vimeo.com/album/98351/video/85987867

The stuff he did for one of the other ads is as bog standard as you can get (for that sort of thing) So much so that it could be classed as just 'photography' ;) You, me or any number of people could probably have done that but Dave bloody Hill got in there first!

http://davehillphoto.com/fiat-cattiva/
 
DT01 said:
Not knowing the guy personally, I don't know for sure, but from the video, it looks like he's coping ok with it.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he is :)

DT01 said:
If I were in his shoes, with all that it entails (clients/budgets etc.)
Click to expand...

I'd be very annoyed that my personal work is not what anyone wants, and most of my commissioned work still looks pretty much as it it did 10 years ago.. That's just me though. I'd smile and take the money of course, but I'd still be annoyed. Then again I'm not very financially ambitious. I don#'t care about money. For some it's their sole motivation for doing what they do.

DT01 said:
The Fiat campaign is a good example of the processing being the 'polish' and the component parts not being a turd!
Click to expand...

I disagree. Compared to his stuff that made him famous, there's no longer anything there unique at all. Take away this already outdated weak black processing, and the model.... what's really going on here?

Seems to me it's just pretty straight photography.. available light... bit of contre jour, the odd reflector and scrim... and the same weak black processing we've all seen a million times. This was my initial point. If this is where he started, and NOT his outrageous image manipulation, he's not be where he is now. Stuff like that fiat add can be found on Flickr by the tonne. Nothing at all wrong with it... nice images.. clearly technically perfect.. but nothing outstanding.

The Fiat Vans work is the same... as is the Fiat GQ. The GQ set is actually pretty ordinary, bordering on decidedly average. Look at the Fiat Concepts section... there we see him doing what he does again... processing.

Those Scion sets are again.. pretty boring, editorial imagery you'd see in a colour supplement in the guardian, not high end advertising. The Hyundai work relies completely on processing, but it's not exactly cutting edge processing.


I like his skateboarding stuff... but it's of no commercial value and it's nothing anyone else couldn't do. The rest of his stuff is clearly personal documentary work, and I'm sorry... his street photography is pretty crap.

So on balance... I disagree. Dave Hill IS the Dave Hill Effect.. take that away and there's not really that much left.

Here is a man trying to re-invent himself.... he's having a difficult second album moment... and he's not found what he's going need to follow his own act.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sure he is :)



I'd be very annoyed that my personal work is not what anyone wants, and most of my commissioned work still looks pretty much as it it did 10 years ago.. That's just me though. I'd smile and take the money of course, but I'd still be annoyed. Then again I'm not very financially ambitious. I don#'t care about money. For some it's their sole motivation for doing what they do.



I disagree. Compared to his stuff that made him famous, there's no longer anything there unique at all. Take away this already outdated weak black processing, and the model.... what's really going on here?

Seems to me it's just pretty straight photography.. available light... bit of contre jour, the odd reflector and scrim... and the same weak black processing we've all seen a million times. This was my initial point. If this is where he started, and NOT his outrageous image manipulation, he's not be where he is now. Stuff like that fiat add can be found on Flickr by the tonne. Nothing at all wrong with it... nice images.. clearly technically perfect.. but nothing outstanding.

The Fiat Vans work is the same... as is the Fiat GQ. The GQ set is actually pretty ordinary, bordering on decidedly average. Look at the Fiat Concepts section... there we see him doing what he does again... processing.

Those Scion sets are again.. pretty boring, editorial imagery you'd see in a colour supplement in the guardian, not high end advertising. The Hyundai work relies completely on processing, but it's not exactly cutting edge processing.


I like his skateboarding stuff... but it's of no commercial value and it's nothing anyone else couldn't do. The rest of his stuff is clearly personal documentary work, and I'm sorry... his street photography is pretty crap.

So on balance... I disagree. Dave Hill IS the Dave Hill Effect.. take that away and there's not really that much left.

Here is a man trying to re-invent himself.... he's having a difficult second album moment... and he's not found what he's going need to follow his own act.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I didn't say any of it was unique, just that it wasn't bad photography saved by processing. It is what it is. It's just photography. As I said, 'bog standard' and we seem to agree, stuff that 'anyone' can do. I see the 'Dave Hill effect' as something that he does, just part of his repertoire, rather than defining who he is.

If he was defined by that effect and that alone, he wouldn't show anything else, like Joel Grimes, for example. I may have missed it but I don't see much from Joel Grimes that doesn't have the 'Joel Grimes effect' and he even refers to it as such.

Whether Dave Hill is consciously 'trying' to reinvent himself or just taking the jobs that pay, then playing about in his spare time, who can say? He could probably tell us, but he doesn't seem to be on the kind of trip where he feels the need to give commentary about his motivation or his 'art'. He's getting the job done and sharing stuff that might be useful, interesting or both, to a fair few people.

Who knows what his next challenge will be and how he will meet it. Sometimes you don't know you can do something until someone asks you to do it.

He may even be like most freelancers, living one job at a time and having to hustle to get the next one (or maybe not!)
 
Last edited:
It's not "bad", no. Processing is not part of his repertoire though... it IS his repertoire, and it certainly DOES define who he is. That's the only reason we know who he is. Same with Joel Grimes (who's work is almost identical).

He is almost certainly not worried about this conversation, you're right. He's earning money, and that's all that matters. The point of this thread was not to discuss Dave Hill, but just to make a point about processing, and that images that rely on it, are not necessarily, or likely to be great images as a result: That if you take that processing away, there's usually not much left. Dave Hill may be famous... but for what? His photography, or his Photoshop work? Take his processing away and he's hardly Steven Klein or Gregory Crewdson is he? So is he a good photographer, or a good Photoshop artist? I'm not even saying that actually matters either before anyone starts :) The fact is though, if your images are dull (as the OP described it) after you remove the processing, then it was all processing, and little photography that was getting you the attention. If you're cool with that, then more power to you... knock yourself out. However.... As you've been saying, there is a difference between Dave Hill and people polishing turds. Dave Hills photography is fundamentally sound underneath. Yes, I do realise that's the point you're making. Whereas the amateur tends to just plaster over the cracks with processing... but even Dave Hill is really making his images in Photoshop after merely capturing raw material with a camera. Dave Hill is a digital artist. That's what he's famous for. Take his photoshop away, and he's quite unremarkable as a photographer. That's the danger of relying on processing to make your images instead of merely using it as garnish for an already great image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top