Editing Images

[persephone]

I was thinking this morning just how many folks are buying PS and other editing programs.......and wondering just how much editing is actually done- why, and what sort ...

I rarely do anything other than crop..maybe some colour work or background blurring sometimes.

Of course I use programs to chnage the look of a pic- create textures,add in objects,do collages etc... but everyday photos.. my editing programs are going rusty

have fun with this one

Edited August 21, 2009 by persephone

[Guest Pandii]

I have photoshop CS4??? maybe and some extra things, no idea what

But I voted

* only some of them

*as little as possible

*No.. I like what my camera produces, but I will fix glaring errors

But will add that is for eveyday photos, if I am taking photos for my signature, display pages, or with a special purpose in mind, i will play around with photos until I get the result I want

[MolassesLass]

I couldn't vote but the only editing I do is to crop a photo, I think the only program I have is Microsoft Photo Editor. I'm not a photographer, I'm just someone with a camera who likes to keep records of her life - I see no need for editing.

Edited August 21, 2009 by molasseslass

[persephone]

I couldn't vote

Oops- what do I need to fix???

[kja]

I think you should have something like "I shoot RAW and choose the editing that is done to my images" If you shoot jpeg, some of your editing is done in camera already so even if you don't think you are editing, you are

And, poop, I meant to check "as little as possible" but I didn't LOL

Edited August 21, 2009 by kja

[TerraNik]

I shoot in raw and have been getting more and more into the editing side of things. I always edit my photos (though there are some that come out perfectly and I don't touch them), but lately it's more to give them a certain feel/look and I've been going nuts with textures and layers.

So my photos are either hardly touched (a bit of exposure/lighting adjustments) or the full hog (tone/exposure/layers/etc)!

[persephone]

Aah- so shooting RAW means you 'have' to edit ... yep.

[MolassesLass]

I couldn't vote

Oops- what do I need to fix???

You don't need to fix anything I simply don't have any options that fit me - I'm neither a "purist" nor do I not have an editing program.

If you shoot jpeg, some of your editing is done in camera already so even if you don't think you are editing, you are

How can you possibly class what a camera does in creating a photo file as editing a photo?

Edited August 21, 2009 by molasseslass

[persephone]

Molasseslass- have a look now

[kja]

If you shoot jpeg, some of your editing is done in camera already so even if you don't think you are editing, you are

How can you possibly class what a camera does in creating a photo file as editing a photo?

Because often what someone will do in an editing program - adding contrast, saturation, curves etc - are things that a camera will apply to a jpeg image IN camera. Many cameras offer options for these and/or other settings that will be applied when you take the photo. I know of some tog's that custom set their styles so they do this step in camera rather than on computer. In camera it's being edited but you have no control or have to choose from presets (in general, some higher end cameras allow user custom settings). Whether you do the step before the shot is fired or after, it's still editing.

Editing is all about choices, it isn't solely about removing a tree from someone's head or fixing a lousy image (see Ashanali's comments in the other thread).

The reason RAW images really need some editing is because it's just data - no sharpening, no contrast, no saturation, no white balance etc is done before you choose to do it. Are there some RAW images that come SOOC and are perfect? Probably. But virtually all RAW images need something.

[Ashanali]

I love the purists... because a true 'purist' will take the photos, process them at home and print them in their own darkroom.

And they dodge and burn, they can push or pull the developing of the film, they can over or underexpose an image to get the outcome they want. They are editing!!

Then when photos go to a lab, they are edited there also. They are put through the machine and the printer who is running through the film will correct exposure and colour as they go. They can increase or decrease the exposure by two stops and they can increase or decrease colour by two steps also. eg, if photos came through the lab from underwater cameras, I would boost the yellow and red channels to take out haze over coral. This is editing!

So now that everything is digital and back in the hands of photographers - 'purists' say, "everything should be perfect in the camera and not need fixing."

There has never been a time when everything has been perfect and not needed fixing, it was just that in the past they had other ways of doing it.

personally, for weddings, we do as little as possible during the proofing process. It will be a colour, exposure and cropping only (if needed, sometimes it isn't).

Portraits and final layout for albums is different. This is where there might be elements removed, wrinkles faded (NEVER removed), effects or textures added, and so on...

[MolassesLass]

Whether you do the step before the shot is fired or after, it's still editing.

Ah ok, a difference in definition of what "editing" is then.

[kja]

Whether you do the step before the shot is fired or after, it's still editing.

Ah ok, a difference in definition of what "editing" is then.

Hopefully it's clearer

[MolassesLass]

I still disagree completely but yes, I understand what you think "editing" means.

[kja]

ROFL I don't really think it's opinion but okie

[Ripley]

I shoot in Raw too. I make most changes there, you can straighten horizons in raw (always needed for me ), crop etc. I leave white balance on Auto on my camera always and adjust it in raw.

I try and get exposure right in camera by playing with exp compensation in tricky conditions, as playing with the exposure slider in the Raw editor can introduce noise in the shadow parts I've found.

In PS I might do a 'mask' for one part to bring out detail or for a pic I took of a DOLer's dog I burned in the background but not using the burn tool to do it, but that's about it. I prefer to spend less time on the computer editing shots as I really don't like doing it on weekends, rather be doing something else.

[rubiton]

I take jpegs since to edit every shot would be ridiculous - what is taken on the day needs to be as correct as possible (and no the camera is not on any special settings though they are there under the menus - its takes the same photos using the same settings I used for the film I used).

But then I came from a film camera background where you had to get it right and only found out a day or two later and couldnt just edit in photoshop.

I do crop most images before printing but with digital images its better to allow that tiny bit of space when taking them as the dimensions for various prints vary a fair bit when you crop them for printing (the out of camera image is the correct size for a 4x6 inch or 8 x 12 inch print but other sizes are a lot different).

[Ashanali]

But then I came from a film camera background where you had to get it right and only found out a day or two later and couldnt just edit in photoshop.

Where you left it in the hands of the printer operators to make any necessary corrections... that's editing. :confused:

[rubiton]

They often ran it through as is on whatever the setting was for the brand of paper (some chains had workers that didnt care) or they darkened them a touch apparently. The latter was once I was a regular customer - most places were so busy on a Monday they printed as is. IF you found someone who had the time and talent to work on the images it was fantastic as even if you missed slightly (since film if you overexposed it was ok) theyd fix it.

[Poo d'état]

I love the purists... because a true 'purist' will take the photos, process them at home and print them in their own darkroom.

And they dodge and burn, they can push or pull the developing of the film, they can over or underexpose an image to get the outcome they want. They are editing!!

I think people who jump straight into digital often forget/don't realise that. With film (and i mean self processing and printing, not done at the shops), there wasn't a 'no edit' option, from the way you process your film to all the work done at the enlarger. Every single step is manually done, with considerations made.

They often ran it through as is on whatever the setting was for the brand of paper (some chains had workers that didnt care) or they darkened them a touch apparently. The latter was once I was a regular customer - most places were so busy on a Monday they printed as is. IF you found someone who had the time and talent to work on the images it was fantastic as even if you missed slightly (since film if you overexposed it was ok) theyd fix it.

Someone had to program the machines to work in a specific way; no matter which way you look at it, someone somewhere down the line made a call and said, "i'm going to make the machine print this way when it reads this part of the film to be that". So it's still editing, just done by someone else.