Photo-editing

Q

Quack18

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Edit My Images
No
Does being very skilled at photo editing make you a better photographer?
Ive noticed what makes alot of photos look really good, is the post processing that takes places afterwards. Not just colors, but all the effects that are added to it.

So, if having really good photos, but not that many skills in photo editing a bad thing? and does it give those that are skilled editors an edge?

Your thoughts?

Thanks!!
 
Well, I think you could be the best whizz at photoshop, but if you can't take good pictures then you're simply not a good photographer. Some things, such as composition, depth of field etc just can't be fixed with photoshop.

While I was at college, I had a photography assignment. I didn't have photoshop are a dSLR at the time, I used a point and shoot while others had fancy Nikons and Canons, and had the latest photoshop. Yet, my pictures had one of the highest grades, and my work got framed and put on display on the corridors at the college.

Having really good photos, but not that many skills in photo editing sure isn't a bad thing, I think it's a good thing! You've created good photos without having to change them =)
 
I think 99 % of the photos you see in newspapers, magazines and websites have had at least the basics done to them in post processing. So yes i would say it does give you the edge.
 
I don't think I am a very good photographer, but I suppose I have a reasonable eye - I reckon I am reasonably good though at picking the more interesting shots out of the hundreds I take, and making them look a lot better in Lightroom/PS.

I guess some people can get it right in camera a lot of the time, but not me!
 
Editing is an integral part of producing the finished image....so it will not make you a better photographer, but it will make your photographs better ;)
 
I think the saying goes 'you cant polish a turd!'.

I have 'rescued' an over/under exposed image through PP, and with cropping you can make level (or angle it) and get a nice composition. You do need a nice image in the first place though. In my case (babies) I am generally looking for some expression and eye contact, if thats there and its in focus then I can improve it. But if the image is blurry and not right it doesnt matter what I do, it just wont look good.
 
Confession - I shot an 80th birthday 2 weeks ago. While editing some pictures last night I was appalled at how underexposed a few on them were. Not good on my part at all and I stern talking to required.

BUT a quick exposure increase in Camera Raw and my underexposed images looked perfect. That's just a basic example but without that "skill" to increase exposure those pics would have been binned.

We can then take this example further and look at some of the post processing by the likes of Yervant et al. Great compositions and light for sure. But some of his final images must look SO different from what they started as......

It's that old debate again I suppose.
 
As already said, some basic PS skills are handy for the odd rescue but if the essentials aren't already captured, then not much point.

I would use PS to 'enhance' the odd photo. For day to day stuff, much easier & less time consuming to make sure they're as close to perfect (as in 'fit for purpose') from the off.
 
resources usually are combined to effect a chosen objective

your shot could just be the first stage of an artistic event..and not just a record shot

pp for me helps a great deal just to compensate for my inaccuracies in exposure and composition and some basic effects like +/- saturation and contrast...and perhaps to add the odd filter effect...or change to black to white mode

its all in the mix what comes out...good or bad
 
I think the saying goes 'you cant polish a turd!'.
Click to expand...

Mythbusters proved you can.
 
Even the best chefs need good ingredients to produce the finest meals.

To me, a good raw file is the same as a good negative. The darkroom has been replaced by the desktop and post-processing is an important part of being a digital photographer.
 
cambsno said:
I think the saying goes 'you cant polish a turd!'.
Click to expand...

what if your imaging objective is to be a turd...polished...
no harm in that

in the eye of the beholder etc:lol:

what a load of krappe..as in von
 
Its a question of semantics. It depends on how you understand the term photographer. If photography is image capture, then, PP skills won't make you a better photographer, but good PP skills might get you a more pleasing/acceptable/stand out image. Getting it right in camera will most likely get you the desired result more quickly, but it depends on your ultimate goal. Having good PP skills is unlikely to harm the final image and may even make an otherwise mediocre image worthy of hanging on your wall.

Gid
 
I do quite a lot of music production etc for my job, and I see it like mixing a record - you can have a great song and great performances, but if the recording is muddy sounding and the parts can'e be heard clearly, it's just not going to sound anywhere near as good. A good mix can make everything really shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top