Post Editing..Right or Wrong!!

Phil V said:
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.
Click to expand...

As this is a discussion forum IMVHO it's perfectly ok to express an opinion and solicit other peoples opinions. For example I happen to agree with some of the OP's comments, particularly the ones you quoted. Just because someone is very competent at a mix of photography and post capture processing doesn't mean that everyone has to like the result. One is perfectly free to see an over processed mess where others see an attractive image.

An opinion like this doesn't have to prove that someone has no idea how much they don't know. It could be an indication of a free mind in field full of sheep mindlessly flocking around the Emperor and his new clothes.
 
Pookeyhead said:
LOL. thought not.
Click to expand...

Good. So now I've answered your question, can we move on?

Why do you feel Adams was wrong in his contention that 'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
So you advocate random capturing and rescuing crap in photoshop as a working method so long as you occasionally knock out a good image?
Click to expand...

Well if that were to work - it'd be good enough for many. However, it's unlikely to work at all and we know no-one is really advocating that.
 
jon ryan said:
It's an Ansel Adams quote. But if you know better...
Click to expand...

And as the question following your quote seems to come from another galaxy I don't think I'd answer either.

Signed.
Baffled of Boro.
 
Phil V said:
Well if that were to work - it'd be good enough for many. However, it's unlikely to work at all and we know no-one is really advocating that.
Click to expand...

Then in the context of this thread, how does "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." play a role?

The OP asked specifically..

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.
Click to expand...

(shrug)
 
woof woof said:
And as the question following your quote seems to come from another galaxy I don't think I'd answer either.

Signed.
Baffled of Boro.
Click to expand...

But I did answer. My answer was 'no'.

I'm now waiting to lean how Adams got it wrong.
 
jon ryan said:
But I did answer. My answer was 'no'.

I'm now waiting to lean how Adams got it wrong.
Click to expand...

You answered no to "Are you going to answer my question or what?". Make yourself more clearly understood and you will avoid such confusion in future.


So if you don't think it's appropriate to take any old random crap, and fix it later, and as the OP asked "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. "... what exactly was the point in the Adams quote?
 
All that matters in my mind really is what comes out at the end. Photography is ultimately down to skill, if you have more in post then you do with a camera, then so long as you get a good photo, and it doesn't look photoshopped excessively, why not?

kd
 
Pookeyhead said:
You answered no to "Are you going to answer my question or what?". Make yourself more clearly understood and you will avoid such confusion in future.


So if you don't think it's appropriate to take any old random crap, and fix it later, and as the OP asked "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. "... what exactly was the point in the Adams quote?
Click to expand...

You're making an assumption about which question I was answering, and then jumping to a conclusion. If you didn't understand which question I was answering (and you didn't), you should ask. There is nothing wrong with a failure to understand, but you really should not offer answers until you understand the facts.

So. Let's try again, shall we? Adams said: 'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.' You seem to know more about it that he did, so perhaps you could explain why he was wrong?
 
jon ryan said:
Why do you feel Adams was wrong in his contention that 'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.'?
Click to expand...
Because you're not using that quote in the intended context, which would suggest either:
a) You don't understand what he was saying, or (more likely)
b) You're trolling.

It also doesn't take into account that a "good" photograph is purely subjective.
 
Thankyou..my point exactly,i didn't mean i would go out taking photos willy nilly knowing that i could rescue them in pp i just think that some photographers overdo it and maybe rely to much on editing software to make compositions look better.
Why take a photo of a lovely sunset for instance knowing that in the background there are elements that are going to spoil the composition but thats ok because they can be removed later.
Hence my op..Is this right or wrong.
 
b)

Jon knows full well the point I'm making.


A good photo is a good photo, yes... but if you think that Adams for one second meant that it's OK to abandon all skill and discipline because a good photo is a good photo.. you're clearly missing his point.. and the point of this thread.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the question the OP asked.

You've conveniently side stepped another question, so I'll ask it again.

So if you don't think it's appropriate to take any old random crap, and fix it later, and as the OP asked "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. "... what exactly was the point in the Adams quote?
 
stu59 said:
...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...
Click to expand...

No, it's not wrong - it's not like you're randomly pulling someones teeth out hoping to get the bad one or anything.
If you are simply taking a photo for yourself and do not have the time to study the subject and assess the best time to get the best photo, then PP might be a simpler solution. It depends on your goal though :)
 
new2me said:
No, it's not wrong - it's not like you're randomly pulling someones teeth out hoping to get the bad one or anything.
If you are simply taking a photo for yourself and do not have the time to study the subject and assess the best time to get the best photo, then PP might be a simpler solution. It depends on your goal though :)
Click to expand...



So when someone new to photography asks ""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. ". we answer No, it's not wrong.


Brilliant.

It's NOT simpler for a start, is it? Secondly, is this the advice we give to new photographers these days? If so, then of course they're not going to learn anything... we've just endorsed taking "not so good" photographs and fixing them later because it's easier.
 
Last edited:
stu59 said:
Thankyou..my point exactly,i didn't mean i would go out taking photos willy nilly knowing that i could rescue them in pp i just think that some photographers overdo it and maybe rely to much on editing software to make compositions look better.
Why take a photo of a lovely sunset for instance knowing that in the background there are elements that are going to spoil the composition but thats ok because they can be removed later.
Hence my op..Is this right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Photography is subjective - For this question, if the photo is for 'art' and you have no other control over the background object other than removing it in post? I'd remove it in a heartbeat. Particularly if it's going to turn a good photo into a great one. Whether that's right or wrong is subjective. Whether it's a legitimate part of the photographic process; Yes it is.

But this post bears no resemblance to the sweeping generalisations you put up earlier, accusing talented photographers of creating images by completely altering large parts of the image.
 
Personally, end result matters most. I don't care how you got there. There is an art to processing too. If it's not so obvious and/or manipulated, then it's fine.
 
In responce to the quote made by phil v..yes i am new to photography that is why i asked the question.
My intent was not to have a go at photographers but to try and understand how you look at things and pp in particular.
Maybe i should take up fishing instead!!
 
stu59 said:
In responce to the quote made by phil v..yes i am new to photography that is why i asked the question.
My intent was not to have a go at photographers but to try and understand how you look at things and pp in particular.
Maybe i should take up fishing instead!!
Click to expand...

Don't get put off, debate is just debate and some are more diplomatic than others.

Post capture processing is an essential part of fine-tuning your digital negative (RAW file).

Randomly shooting without much thought with the hope of using photoshop to later create something worthwhile will probably harm you as a photographer more than it will help you.

That's probably the gist of what most photographers will agree with.
 
Having spent time reading through most of the posts, this is a flawed debate and here's why:

Let's take 2 types of images taken by 2 photographers.

The first, an image clearly meant for art: over processed skys, dramatic "god" like sun rays, plush greens and a stupidly blue water. This photographer clearly wanted to make a creative end product. Is it still an image/photograph? Yes.

The second, taken by a photographer that doesn't "believe" so much in PP to make an image anything more than how it was when you saw it. Is this still an image/photograph? Yes.

The first photographer will accept the second photographers work but to me it is unlikely that the second will accept the first, hence you will always get the warriors of what they perceive to be true as the only right way.

To me Ansel Adams was correct in his quote and you can either like or dislike work but there is no right or wrong way.
 
Cagey75 said:
Personally, end result matters most. I don't care how you got there. There is an art to processing too. If it's not so obvious and/or manipulated, then it's fine.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. If you do your PP with skill, then no one will even care how you got there. They will be too busy looking at that amazing image on the wall.
 
Cagey75 said:
Personally, end result matters most. I don't care how you got there. There is an art to processing too. If it's not so obvious and/or manipulated, then it's fine.
Click to expand...

You or I saying that now we're competent, time served and knowledgeable is just an academic exercise, but are you really suggesting that this is advice we give beginners? Really? If you were to teach photography, you;d say.. "Do whatever you want.. so long as it looks OK in the end, who cares?"


iamchrisphoto said:
Agree completely. If you do your PP with skill, then no one will even care how you got there. They will be too busy looking at that amazing image on the wall.
Click to expand...


Someone new to photography started this thread and asked if it's OK to take rubbish images and fix them after. Leave your egos to one side for a minute and consider the advice you are giving please.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Having spent time reading through most of the posts, this is a flawed debate and here's why:

Let's take 2 types of images taken by 2 photographers.

The first, an image clearly meant for art: over processed skys, dramatic "god" like sun rays, plush greens and a stupidly blue water. This photographer clearly wanted to make a creative end product. Is it still an image/photograph? Yes.

The second, taken by a photographer that doesn't "believe" so much in PP to make an image anything more than how it was when you saw it. Is this still an image/photograph? Yes.

The first photographer will accept the second photographers work but to me it is unlikely that the second will accept the first, hence you will always get the warriors of what they perceive to be true as the only right way.

To me Ansel Adams was correct in his quote and you can either like or dislike work but there is no right or wrong way.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You or I saying that now we're competent, time served and knowledgeable is just an academic exercise, but are you really suggesting that this is advice we give beginners? Really? If you were to teach photography, you;d say.. "Do whatever you want.. so long as it looks OK in the end, who cares?"

Someone new to photography started this thread and asked if it's OK to take rubbish images and fix them after. Leave your egos to one side for a minute and consider the advice you are giving please.
Click to expand...

What do you think of my post David?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Someone new to photography started this thread and asked if it's OK to take rubbish images and fix them after. .
Click to expand...

I dont think that's what he said, but I wont argue over a minor detail :shrug:
 
Phil Young said:
What do you think of my post David?
Click to expand...

I think you make a good point, as a matter of debate amongst photographers, but what everyone is missing, is that while we can debate whether a processed image is "better" than a non processed image.... the beginner (please bear this in mind) really shouldn't be advised that it's OK to take a rubbish image and then fix it post... and THAT'S the question he asked.


new2me said:
I dont think that's what he said, but I wont argue over a minor detail :shrug:
Click to expand...

Actually... he did.

stu59 said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Martyn... said:
He actually said "not so good" he did not say "rubbish".
Click to expand...

Are you not splitting hairs here? Not so good/rubbish/less that perfect/not great..... please.. stop being pedantic.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Are you not splitting hairs here? Not so good/rubbish/less that perfect/not great..... please.. stop being pedantic.
Click to expand...
:lol:

You, Mr Pedant himself, accuse Martyn of pedantry?

:lol:
 
Well, was it not a little pedantic?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Are you not splitting hairs here? Not so good/rubbish/less that perfect/not great..... please.. stop being pedantic.
Click to expand...

Sorry for correcting your error.

You chose to sensationalise the statement by using the word "rubbish", whilst open to interpretation there is a vast difference between "not so good" and "rubbish".
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well, was it not a little pedantic?
Click to expand...

A little? Yes, I suppose so. But compared to quite a few over opinionated, argumentative and bombastic posters on here, hardly worth pulling him up for it. He is one of the most helpful guys on here.
 
Martyn... said:
Sorry for correcting your error.

You chose to sensationalise the statement by using the word "rubbish", whilst open to interpretation there is a vast difference between "not so good" and "rubbish".
Click to expand...

My point still stands, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong to use the word rubbish...

so... assuming I never used the word rubbish, and instead used the phrase "Not so good".. respond to my point.... which was..

.......what everyone is missing, is that while we can debate whether a processed image is "better" than a non processed image.... the beginner (please bear this in mind) really shouldn't be advised that it's OK to take a rubbish not so good image and then fix it post... and THAT'S the question he asked.
 
stu59 said:
In responce to the quote made by phil v..yes i am new to photography that is why i asked the question.
My intent was not to have a go at photographers but to try and understand how you look at things and pp in particular.
Maybe i should take up fishing instead!!
Click to expand...

I hope this comes across more as advice than argumentative, but if you join one of those fishing forums, don't start off by accusing the pro's of cheating, they won't like it either:thumbs:.

Seriously, this is a friendly place, I might use too many words generally, but I find that it's the people with the lower word counts that most often get misconstrued. You'll see it in some responses above as well as in the way I answered your question.

Anyway the answer is all over this thread - It's OK to take an image sometimes that you intend to improve in post, but everything that you can control in camera should be done as well as you can.

We have a local wedding venue that has 'something' on the wall at head height every 3 feet (wall lights or pictures). It's too narrow to knock them out with just lighting or depth of field, I always edit the photo's to clean up the background. The only other option is untidy pictures which the customer would like OK - but 'like OK' isn't good enough:thumbs:.
 
Martyn... said:
No as it makes a big difference to the context of the responses.

Would I fix a rubbish image ... no

Would I fix a not so good image ... probably yes

Carry on
Click to expand...

But is it not best to advise a beginner that while it may be OK to fix mistakes if there's no other recourse, it is better to learn, practice, and be disciplined and not take "not so good" images in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top