Post Editing..Right or Wrong!!

[stu59]

Hi...Im new to photography and would like to pose the question...is post editing right or wrong.
I ask this question because would it not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo knowing that it can be manipulated later in post editing.
Landscape photos especially seem over done and unatural in a lot of cases
Your opinions please
stu

 

[Pookeyhead]

Taking a not so good photo because it's easier with the intention of attempting to polish a turd later in Photoshop is wrong yes. Using post processing to enhance an already well exposed, composed, and thought out out image is not wrong if what your mind's eye sees can not be achieved with in camera means only.


Learn photography... not how to polish turds.


Landscape photography is replete with over processed crap yes... don't follow the crowd.

 

[specialman]

Post edited because I'm sick of needless correction by members when its the OP we are trying to help...

 

[Pookeyhead]

There's no right or wrong.

There is if it's used to try and mask poor photography.

 

[tezmed]

i dont think its wrong, as its handy to rectify mistakes, and to crop etc etc

however i find it alot more satisfying knowing you've good a gem of a photo without any pp at all.....

sadly none of us are perfect so were always going to get good and bad shots and pp is there in some instances as a safety blanket....

 

[modchild]

Most of the processing work for me is done in the camera. I very rarely feel the need to alter my photos after I've taken them, apart from cropping the image that is, to improve the look of them. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but if you get a good enough image you really shouldn't feel the need to change it. Show it how your eye sees it, and everyone elses could, instead of showing how your mind sees it.

 

[AshleyC]

not wrong at all, its been done since the dawn of photography so why stop now.

if you can take a turd of a photo and turn into something less turd like then all then better. Its whats pleasing to the eye that counts, never mind how you get there.

 

[Pookeyhead]

i dont think its wrong, as its handy to rectify mistakes, and to crop etc etc

Crop? That's not really post processing IMO. It's just a natural evolution of an image. Why be restricted to a set aspect ratio? Rectify mistakes.. Hmm... if the shot can not be taken again, then yes, of course.. as we all make mistakes, but if it's a landscape or a studio shot, no... if it's not right, you reshoot it.. not try to rescue it.

however i find it alot more satisfying knowing you've good a gem of a photo without any pp at all.....

Of course... but not necessarily because you did no post processing... but because you got everything possible right in camera and the post processing is necessary to realise your vision.

sadly none of us are perfect so were always going to get good and bad shots and pp is there in some instances as a safety blanket....

If it's something that can't be reshot, then yes, of course... only a rabid purist who's lost the plot would argue against this.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

My view of post processing is taking a well composed and exposed shot and enhancing the appeal and adding more artistic impact to the shot. Cropping can help a poorish composition however a badly exposed photo cannot be rescued effectively.

Also I would rather spend more time behind the camera not in front of a screen. All photographers process and edit images, always have always will do. I used to frown on it and then wondered why their pics were so much better. Then I embrace the computer.

 

[stu59]

But surely your eye does not see the sky for instance as red with pink hues when in actual fact it was blue when the photo was taken!! surely this is over doing the pp

 

[Pookeyhead]

My view of post processing is taking a well composed and exposed shot and enhancing the appeal and adding more artistic impact to the shot.

If necessary, yes. Some people just need to step away from the computer. Some work reminds me of how some people have their TVs set. To much colour, too much contrast, to much everything. It looks like hell.

Less is often more. Subtlety can sometimes be more powerful than brashness. Most of the landscapes I see these days remind me of chav cars.. you know the type.. looks like they've been heavily magnetised and driven through a branch of Halfords. Some people just don't know when to stop.

 

[Yellowbelly]

Look upon PP as a tool in your toolbox. Along with the wide angle lens or the polarising filter.

Sure it would be great to take the perfect shot without resorting to your extra tools, but we aren't perfect photographers. I see nothing wrong with using tools where necessary.

 

[stu59]

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

 

[Yellowbelly]

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

Do we?

I'd like to think that all photographers have their own touch, not only in composition, but PP too. Sure we all look at others' work but hopefully use it as a launch pad for our own interpretations.

I would rather give up photography than rely on plagiarising images produced by others.

 

[Phil V]

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

Forgive me if I've got this completely wrong, but I'd guess that when you're looking at pro's work you have no idea what came out of the camera and how much PP work it's had.

Landscape photographers are dedicated to light and form, they get up at ridiculous hours and trek miles to wait for the right light in the right spot. Your assumption that all those pink and red skies is the result of PP is based on what knowledge and experience?

Have a proper read through the comments above - there's probably hundreds of years of experience there - and the general gist of the attitude to PP is that it's part of the process to enhance a photograph that was taken - not to completely change it.

Photographers know that an image starts with planning, then capture, processing and presentation.

Some people who've just bought a camera think that it starts at the capture stage and then get wrapped up in how much PP is necessary to 'make it right', deciding either to throw loads of effort into it, or eschew PP for mediocre results and pat themselves on the back for their honesty

All of that heartache and soul searching can be ignored by putting the right amount of effort into planning and capture.

I don't really shoot landscapes, but recently arranged a pre wedding shoot, it was timed for sunset at a location I knew would be interesting if we were lucky enough to get any colour in the sky. A couple of hours before setting out I knew that the sunset would be nice - because of the cloud formations. I packed off camera flash to make an interesting balance with the sky, and the shoot gave me exactly what I wanted.

Most people's instant reaction to the result is 'it's amazing what can be done with photoshop'. Any experienced photographer would tell you exactly the planning and effort required (not great) to achieve the same result. That shot is the result of planning not processing.

Back to the PP bit though, when processing that image I had quite a free hand with the depth of colour in the sky, because it'd been carefully exposed and because I'd put separate lighting on the couple. The shot SOOC was nice, the end result was an improvement on that.

 

[Krisstiffer]

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

I suggest you have a look at some of the photos in "First Light" by Joe Cornish. ALL done on slide film so no digital jiggery pokery. Blue sand and yellow water - on a slide............

Then realise that the combination of the human eye and brain does a fair amount of alteration of what is actually perceived versus what is actually happening before making sweeping statements like this.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of over processed stuff out there but you need to be a bit more selective in your criticism.

 

[Krisstiffer]

Hi...Im new to photography and would like to pose the question...is post editing right or wrong.
I ask this question because would it not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo knowing that it can be manipulated later in post editing.
Landscape photos especially seem over done and unatural in a lot of cases
Your opinions please
stu

Now to answer the original question - PP is not wrong. Depending on how you shoot - if you use RAW - then at least some PP will be required. How far you take it is a personal choice - and as with all personal choices be prepared for others to want to make different choices.

As for the view of taking a less than OK shot with a view to sorting it afterwards - this is completely the wrong attitude. Turd polishing has already been mentioned. I work in IT - we have a saying "Garbage in - garbage out" - it applies to photography too.

You're new to photography - the best advice you will hear is to understand light and composition - and how these apply to what you want to convey in your photographs. No amount of clever PP will ever be a substitute for this.

 

[woof woof]

I don't see post capture processing as an issue. It's always happened and it always will and it isn't a new thing that just came along with digital photogrpahy, some people forget what went on in the film days.

Even if you shoot JPEG the image is being manipulated in some way as decided by a technician at Canon or Nikon or some other place.

 

[HMansfield]

Whatever post processing you're thinking of using, have it in your thoughts when you take the photo. That way you're working on that processed image right from the start.

Taking a photo, and then thinking "Hmmm, that's a bit crap. I'll Photoshop it better" is not a good mindset to be in, as the weak image will usually show through whatever you do to it.

You'll (probably) find that by concentrating on getting the first part right, you'll need a lighter touch with the post processing to get the effect you desire.

After all, you wouldn't buy manky vegetables and then cover them in loads of different sauces to try and rescue them.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

Whilst I agree that each shot needs to be captured as well as the photographer is capable of, what every photographer will be left with regardless is a digital negative, a RAW file. That file will require processing, just as film negatives did.

"Manipulating" the results has always been part of the process. Those who shoot film choose their favourites films according to what how they want the eventual image to look. Digital processing is no different except the film type is applied to the file after instead of during the capture.

Throwing a few cows into an empty field is something completely different and has nothing to do with processing. Processing is processing. It's up to each photographer to get that processing "right" but only his brain can tell him what is "right".

If you do not "process" your files you simply will not get the best out of them. Nikon, for example, essentially leaves the sharpening process to the photographer to do during post processing.

 

[antihero]

Nothing wrong with post processing, as long as the intent isn't "to try and turn a poor shot into a decent one".

 

[simonblue]

Look upon PP as a tool in your toolbox. Along with the wide angle lens or the polarising filter.

Sure it would be great to take the perfect shot without resorting to your extra tools, but we aren't perfect photographers. I see nothing wrong with using tools where necessary.

Nothing wrong with trying to take the perfect shot in the camera,some people do,i have seen many what i would call a perfect shot,without its side touching any pp

 

[Surrey Weddings]

getting it right in camera is much much quicker than taking a bad photo and correcting it.... but there are no right and wrongs

 

[HughTFall]

I think this is the matter of skills and how long your patience will be. Even though post editing is fine, the ideal thing to do is get the right photos by means of your camera.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

There is if it's used to try and mask poor photography.

Sometimes you just can't help it and haven't got a choice.

You know how many amazing wedding venues I've shot at where they have massive fire extinguishers/fire exit signs all over the place? Sometimes you take a photo knowing you'll have to edit the **** out afterwards.

For me, the best comparison is cars.

Crap photo = a corsa, there's only so much tuning and modifying you can do, it's always going to be a corsa.

Having a good photo as your base is like improving a Audi R4, it's damn good to start with but you can still improve it a little and make it better



e: Yes I could have said some supercar, but there's not a lot you can do with one of those

 

[Pookeyhead]

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

Really? Which pros you talking about?

Sometimes you just can't help it and haven't got a choice.

You've clearly not read what I said elsewhere in this thread have you. I said if something can't be reshot, then yes, post processing to correct mistakes is valid.. it sands to reason therefore that a fire extinguisher or exit sign at a wedding venue is also covered by this. It's not your fault it's there.. you didn't chose the wedding venue, and therefore there's nothing wrong with removing it.

Having a fire extinguisher in your shot because you have no choice but to include it, is not your fault, nor does it make you a bad photographer.

Where did I say that it did? I said using it to mask bad photography is wrong.

I often even composite models into a shot. I'm working on a series now. The backgrounds were shot in Scotland, but the models will be shot in the studio. They have to be because the background shots were long exposures in the dead of night up a mountain. That's fine too... because I have no choice. That's what I need to do in order to create what's in my head.

getting it right in camera is much much quicker than taking a bad photo and correcting it.... but there are no right and wrongs

Really? Both valid for you? I'm sorry, but good photographers don't work like that. I'm not saying god photographers get everything right 100% of the time, but, but unless it's a press or sports shot that absolutely has to be rescued (or anything else unrepeatable), a good photographer will reshoot it it's not right. However.. a good photographer is far less likely to get it wrong in the first place. If you are constantly having to correct things in post processing, how does that make you a good photographer?

Good photographer don't need to "correct" anything. Do good plumbers need to come back to your house to correct things after a job? No.. and when that happens you will undoubtedly think the plumber is crap as he had to come back to fix something. Good photographers use post processing as part of the workflow to create their vision... they don't "correct" anything.

Whatever post processing you're thinking of using, have it in your thoughts when you take the photo. That way you're working on that processed image right from the start.

Taking a photo, and then thinking "Hmmm, that's a bit crap. I'll Photoshop it better" is not a good mindset to be in, as the weak image will usually show through whatever you do to it.

You'll (probably) find that by concentrating on getting the first part right, you'll need a lighter touch with the post processing to get the effect you desire.

After all, you wouldn't buy manky vegetables and then cover them in loads of different sauces to try and rescue them.

This^^^ This a hundred times... Exactly.

 

[iamchrisphoto]

First off, I'll admit any photographer can be guilty of over doing it in PP.

But my personal bug bear, is when people post photos and say "no processing" or SOOC! As if it is some kind of badge of honour.

Post processing happens whether you want it to or not. Either the camera decides what todo, based on preset algorithms written in some lab, or you can actually get of your bum and do the PP yourself and have all the control and all the input.

Approaching photography like art, if you we're to sign off on of your images that you shot in jpeg or didn't bother to process you self, you might as well put:

Photo by J Bloggs. (Colour, Contrast, Sharpening and Crop by Canon Ltd)

When you capture a photograph, I assume we are all capturing it for the viewer, who 95% of the time isn't another photographer. No one cares how or why you got to the final product, all people will care about is if they like the photo or not. Art critics don't critique the brand of paint used to make a picture.

PP is just another tool in the box. Of course it helps to capture a stunning image to begin with, but I don't think it's essential. It's the final output, the image people see that matters.

 

[Pookeyhead]

First off, I'll admit any photographer can be guilty of over doing it in PP.

But my personal bug bear, is when people post photos and say "no processing" or SOOC! As if it is some kind of badge of honour.

That is slightly annoying. Even if you shot on film and hand printed in a darkroom you would still choose your papers for their characteristics and you'd still adjust colour via the enlarger's filters. In black and white you would still choose your developer, and adjust the development times to give desired results and chose your grade and type of paper accordingly (Ansel Adams anyone?)

Taking it to it's extreme... those who only shot on E6 would still choose their films to give the results they wanted. As digital sensors are pretty flat in their response, post processing for colour, contrast curves etc is not exactly a million miles away from what photographers have always done.

Even compositing separate elements from other images is nothing new... The Hicks portrait of Abraham Lincoln (c.1860) springs to mind.

None of these thinsg are doing so to correct mistakes however. They are methods by which the artist has achieved their vision and were planned from the outset. Where PP is wrong is when you go out, take a load of snapshots without any preconceived idea of what you want, then rescue dull or poor images by arsing about with it in Photoshop or Lightroom when that wasn't even your intention. That's poor photography.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Post processing is neither right or wrong. This is not maths or physics. There are no absolutes, it's all subjective. In my opinion, most HDR is either completely overdone or totally unnecessary, however, that's how the photographer wanted it to look like. Just because we don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It's wrong if it's done to correct mistakes made through poor photography skills though, surely? I think that's the drive of the discussion, and the point the OP was making (I think).

 

[viewfromthenorth]

TBH, the wording of original post confused me a bit. Post processing in itself is neither right nor wrong, it's just a tool, ditto it's application. How well it's applied is a subjective thing. Should it be used retrospectively to correct mistakes, or to clone out things that were unavoidable when taking the photo? Well it's a good an application as any. Should it be used as a crutch for lazy photography? This is the moot point. In my opinion, no, but, that's entirely the choice of the individual photographer, and is in itself neither right or wrong.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Should it be used as a crutch for lazy photography? This is the moot point. In my opinion, no, but, that's entirely the choice of the individual photographer, and is in itself neither right or wrong.

Of course it's up to them... so long as they KNOW that they're lazy and using it as a crutch. Many actually don't even realise that's what they're doing.

 

[PaulF]

Hi...Im new to photography and would like to pose the question...is post editing right or wrong.
I ask this question because would it not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo knowing that it can be manipulated later in post editing.
Landscape photos especially seem over done and unatural in a lot of cases
Your opinions please
stu

Hi,

Welcome to TP, it's generally a helpful and friendly place

This thread seems to have moved in a few directions, but to answer your question:
No, it would not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo in order to correct it later. That 'correcting' requires a certain amount of post processing skills and can be time consuming.
I know you said you are new to photography but once you have more experience you'll realise that it's far simpler to take a 'good one' in the first place then as others have said, process to improve not to rescue.

There are no 'rights or wrongs' though really, each to their own. Some people love to spend hours post processing

 

[graphilly]

I don't think there is any right or wrong. It depends how each individual likes to produce their images.

 

[Phil V]

Hi...Im new to photography and would like to pose the question...is post editing right or wrong.
I ask this question because would it not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo knowing that it can be manipulated later in post editing.
Landscape photos especially seem over done and unatural in a lot of cases
Your opinions please
stu

But surely your eye does not see the sky for instance as red with pink hues when in actual fact it was blue when the photo was taken!! surely this is over doing the pp

yes i understand what your all saying, its just that i find landscapes in particular done by the pro's so unatural looking yet we all strive to achieve the same look.

I think that you know so little about this that you have no idea how little you know. Your posts are filled with incorrect assumptions and I'm hoping that you're taking on board the information provided above to improve your knowledge of the subject, rather than looking for people who agree / disagree in short posts, as if it's something a simple poll could cover.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't think there is any right or wrong. It depends how each individual likes to produce their images.

So shooting almost at random with little thought or skill and chimping away until you get something and then correcting the myriad of exposure, sharpness and compositional errors in post process is not wrong, just because the author of the work chooses to do so?

It's his/her right to do so if they want... if that's what you mean, but it's clearly the wrong way to do it, merely because it produces crap results, inevitably involves far more work, and in the long run, produces an inferior result.

If I was a dentist, I could perhaps more easily remove someone tooth by hitting them in the face with a hammer... but I'd then have to spend an awfully long time repairing the other damage inflicted as a result of my laziness and lack of knowledge/correct procedure.... and the results would not be as good... there'd be scarring and permanent tissue damage... but hey... the tooth is gone.

:bang:

 

[jon ryan]

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So you advocate random capturing and rescuing crap in photoshop as a working method so long as you occasionally knock out a good image?

 

[jon ryan]

So you advocate random capturing and rescuing crap in photoshop as a working method so long as you occasionally knock out a good image?

It's an Ansel Adams quote. But if you know better...

 

[buckas]

All photos need some sorts of PP as RAW files have nothing done to them

I always keep images true to life with natural colours and would rather get everything right in camera instead of 'fix it later'.