Thoughts on photo editing

Hi guys i'm new to the forum and new to the dslr photography. Having bought my first dslr a couple of months ago has led me to know about photo editing :D~
From what i know photo editing is generally acceptable and an average person might not even realise if a photo is edited, but what what's a ''pro's'' say on edited photos? From what i understand some people are for and some against, why? I know that at the end of the day is what you like best, but i guess i'm looking for a more ''technical'' opinion on the matter. Finally i would like your comments on iphoto which i have been using..

Any thoughts welcome :D

Welcome to the forums.

Editing runs a huge gammut from mere sharpening to special effects.
Those 'purists' who say editing should not be done often don't realise that editing has been done from early film days, on.
If my image has more eye appeal by doing some color adjustment, cloning out a piece of garbage, sharpening, then I do it. Matter of fact, I at least sharpen every shot. Necessary with digital.

Pretty much all my images are edited. I shoot in raw, so all my images are adjusted for color, sharpening, contrast, white balance, and I think that is it. Depending on the subject in the photo, I'll do some extra skin smoothing or other retouching.

I'm not a pro, but always willing to give my opinion:
- I see no reason to think that the computer in the camera is any different than the computer on the desktop.
- I have noticed that many who disdain post processing simply do like sitting at the computer.
- When I press the shutter button, I consider the job half done.

TF

I agree with everything everyone has said so far.

Some processing is necessary. Huge amounts of processing are possible.

Every photographer eventually seeks his or her own level.

Therefor, the opinions you come across will be many and varied.

- Joe U.

It really depends on what challenge you want to set for yourself. I am sure there is much satisfaction in producing unedited shots with natural light. I would find it satisfying myself. But I don't have the patience to hunt the light. So I make my own and paint, which I like as well.

I will eventually go back to hardcore photomanipulation, but right now I am satisfied just painting with light.

I've actually been disappointed to hear around here that Juco photography teachers are zealous about SOOC (straight-out-of-camera) only.

Adjusting tonality through curves/levels is a huge benefit, even if you nail the exposure dead on. These sorts of tonal adjustments aren't new to digital either, film developers used techniques like those on developing film as well. Theres also, of course, making an image sharper/softer wherever it could help.

I give very little credit to the photographer who is anti-image-development.

It is important to get it like you want it sooc, but at a certain point, the cameras abilities are limited. Push those abilities as far as they can go, then finish the image in development/processing.

If they want you to get composition and exposure right, I suppose they wouldn't want to be bothered with editing concerns but hey...the pics are still yours and you can do whatever you want with them at home.

This discussion could go DEEP.

You asked for a technical opinions: Frog's and Jorgemonkey's responses touch on a characteristic of digital photography where an image requires a certain amount of sharpening. Some cameras have settings to do this in-camera, alas, using a one-size-fits-all approach. Since different photos require different amts of sharpening, that isn't optimal.

A benefit of digital is easy image clean up. Trash, cars, telephone wires are almost never wanted. Now they can be easily removed. Is it cheating? Depends on your perspective.

I've never used iPhoto, but I've heard good things about it.

if it is not manipulated, it is not art.

how is that for controversy?

I'm pretty sure I had to dodge, burn, focus, and do all of that in the darkroom...and wasted a lot of paper and time in the process. I figure digital editing, the basics at least, is no different.

A subject as pat and dry as religion or politics :lol:
My perspective: My images are FICTION, they are designed to tell a story. They're like tiny little single frame movies. Many of the same folks that defend "straight out of the camera" are the same ones that rave about movies like "Matrix" or "Fantastic Four" at the water cooler on Monday mornings. What's the difference? Virtually every commercial image you see in day to day life, from billboards, to fashion magazines, to advertisements for the latest trend in faucets has been photoshopped A LOT. The only place I think it crosses the line is when it's applied to photojournalism - the news should not be fabricated/manipulated (like the famous OJ photo on the cover of Time Magazine) anytime a photographer goes out of their way to assert that a phto is NON FICTION they're obligated to refrain from image editing in a manner that changes people's perception of the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

if it is not manipulated, it is not art.

how is that for controversy?

---

I disagree. All images are manipulated. In the old days with film type and chemicals and now with computer chips and firmware/software. Any camera, film or digital is just a tool for the artist. If you shoot film then just the process of developing manipulates the image and if you shoot digital then the firmware manipulates the image even if you shoot Raw you are working with a manipulated file. So, is there anything really out of camera?

I met a person who was polar opposite of this the other day. She claimed that whatever features a lens has can be simulated in photoshop.

It actually kind of bothered me, that this attitude exists, much like vice versa. Each lens range has a unique behavior to it, with unique features, for most of us this is obvious and goes without saying, but an attitude is prevailing that photoshop is some 'you can do anything with it' thing. I'm going to see her again, I think I'm going to ask her to 'simulate a 100mm f/2.8 macro at maximum magnification'. Obviously 'photography' would then become a whole lot of drawing.

I have a similar frustration with zeal against editing. Like an image has limitations in the number of steps required for a decent image. Is there a time limit an artist has to finish his painting before it can really be called a painting? I really really appreciate the value of getting the exposure right, straight out of camera, but dang, that anti-editing zeal is plain silliness.

I agree with what you are saying. I think it will do with the requirements.