Post editing - why the hate?
Discussion
Francis85 said:
I will keep it simple:
If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
So, playing devil's advocate....you've capture the perfect photo of someone (not your nan nor your best mate :-) - perfect expression, setting, composition, etc..all spot on but, as you pressed the shutter, the light changed and then, you notice that they have a few specks of their lunch on their chin and bulging zit on their cheek. The moment has passed and you'll never get the same shot again. What then, is the harm in a little rebalancing of the light and spot removal? It's still a cracking shot, is it not?If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
mikeveal said:
Exactly my point. I have the same issue with composing my shots that you guys have. 
Whereas someone more skilled with composition may see a perfect photo in the hedgerow in front of that church and use the church as a blurred background. Something we'd all miss because we were trying to take a picture of the church directly.
The skill and experience to do that consistently is far harder to learn than cloning out a telegraph pole in Photoshop.
Like most things, it's a sliding scale. Some people just use smart phones that do all the processing for them. Some people use digital cameras and manipulate the image, some just tweak the curves and levels. A rare few can nail an image consistently straight out of the camera.
Image manipulation is a different game to photography, taking a telephone pole out, adding motion blur or a ridiculously oversized satellite for me is closer to painting than photography.
Its all art, we all like some art and by definition we don't like the rest.
Speaking as somebody who has, over the last couple of years, developed a modicum of semi-competency in Photoshop, I can tell you that it takes a lot more skill to remove a telegraph pole from an image of a church than it does to take a picture of a hedge instead.Whereas someone more skilled with composition may see a perfect photo in the hedgerow in front of that church and use the church as a blurred background. Something we'd all miss because we were trying to take a picture of the church directly.
The skill and experience to do that consistently is far harder to learn than cloning out a telegraph pole in Photoshop.
Like most things, it's a sliding scale. Some people just use smart phones that do all the processing for them. Some people use digital cameras and manipulate the image, some just tweak the curves and levels. A rare few can nail an image consistently straight out of the camera.
Image manipulation is a different game to photography, taking a telephone pole out, adding motion blur or a ridiculously oversized satellite for me is closer to painting than photography.
Its all art, we all like some art and by definition we don't like the rest.
singlecoil said:
Speaking as somebody who has, over the last couple of years, developed a modicum of semi-competency in Photoshop, I can tell you that it takes a lot more skill to remove a telegraph pole from an image of a church than it does to take a picture of a hedge instead.
We shall have to agree that our opinions differ.mikeveal said:
singlecoil said:
Speaking as somebody who has, over the last couple of years, developed a modicum of semi-competency in Photoshop, I can tell you that it takes a lot more skill to remove a telegraph pole from an image of a church than it does to take a picture of a hedge instead.
We shall have to agree that our opinions differ.mikeveal said:
singlecoil said:
Speaking as somebody who has, over the last couple of years, developed a modicum of semi-competency in Photoshop, I can tell you that it takes a lot more skill to remove a telegraph pole from an image of a church than it does to take a picture of a hedge instead.
We shall have to agree that our opinions differ.If post editing helps to communicate the emotion that the photographer experienced on first viewing the scene then I'm all for it. If its to correct silly mistakes or rescue a poor photo then I'm not so keen.
Making a sunset look like how you felt when you took the picture is a good thing, trying to rescue the overexposed mess you took is something else.
Making a sunset look like how you felt when you took the picture is a good thing, trying to rescue the overexposed mess you took is something else.
Tony1963 said:
I just can’t believe that there are still people that believe the camera records exactly what the eye sees.
Ironically the really good modern smartphones are probably as close as we've ever been to that, and they require a ton of processing (it just happens immediately) to achieve it.StevieBee said:
Francis85 said:
I will keep it simple:
If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
So, playing devil's advocate....you've capture the perfect photo of someone (not your nan nor your best mate :-) - perfect expression, setting, composition, etc..all spot on but, as you pressed the shutter, the light changed and then, you notice that they have a few specks of their lunch on their chin and bulging zit on their cheek. The moment has passed and you'll never get the same shot again. What then, is the harm in a little rebalancing of the light and spot removal? It's still a cracking shot, is it not?If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
I think Gravelben summed this up well. That would be digital art, not photography.
To take your example further:
"you've capture the perfect photo of someone (not your nan nor your best mate :-) - perfect expression, setting, composition, etc..all spot on but, as you pressed the shutter...."
...you realise that Scarlett Johansson isn't actually in the photo. So you decide to post edit her into the shot.
Perhaps it is because i was brought up on Fujichrome etc that the current fad of making pictures look like oil paintings get my urine up to 100 Degrees C
The Railway Magazine is guilty of this. ( or is it the photographers who think they are Van Gogh.) to me it doesn't look like a photo.Although i do admire what they can do
The Railway Magazine is guilty of this. ( or is it the photographers who think they are Van Gogh.) to me it doesn't look like a photo.Although i do admire what they can do
StevieBee said:
Francis85 said:
I will keep it simple:
If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
So, playing devil's advocate....you've capture the perfect photo of someone (not your nan nor your best mate :-) - perfect expression, setting, composition, etc..all spot on but, as you pressed the shutter, the light changed and then, you notice that they have a few specks of their lunch on their chin and bulging zit on their cheek. The moment has passed and you'll never get the same shot again. What then, is the harm in a little rebalancing of the light and spot removal? It's still a cracking shot, is it not?If you want people (not your nan nor your best mate) to appreciate your photographic skills and the good luck/timing you had on one shot, never post edit.
It’s one massive grey area where everyone have their own line drawn in the sand at some point
Technically, unless you use a 50mm lens and zero processsing then maybe that’s as accurate as original as you can get, everything else is manipulation, 17mm lenses, burning in, etcetc.
For me, I don’t like adding things into a photo that was not there( or sky) or removing anything that I consider significant.
I see photography as art, as such totally subjective and you can do what you want , but if you show it, accept criticism as not everyone will like it
Technically, unless you use a 50mm lens and zero processsing then maybe that’s as accurate as original as you can get, everything else is manipulation, 17mm lenses, burning in, etcetc.
For me, I don’t like adding things into a photo that was not there( or sky) or removing anything that I consider significant.
I see photography as art, as such totally subjective and you can do what you want , but if you show it, accept criticism as not everyone will like it
It's an odd discussion. Firstly, as some have pointed out, an image is not reality. Secondly, the camera does things to what comes through the lens. In the days of film, one would choose a particular type of film for a specific type of image. With digital, the electronic gubbins does all sorts of clever stuff to what it receives. It is not a faithful representation. Two different makes of camera will give different results.
Thirdly, who makes the rules to say that one mustn’t do something one wants to? A journo faking an image is one thing, but every amateur has his or her own reasons for being a photographer.
Fourthly, the colour is always different. Are these ‘purists’ unhappy if an image is colour-corrected to make it more like reality?
If you feel PhotoShop or Affinity Photo is cheating, don’t do it. I don’t mind. The thing I would mind is being told to do it a certain way because someone else says so.
In the late forties and early fifties my father was a chauffeur to a film start. My mother took a job ‘photoshopping’ press images. A picture was show on a massive ground glass screen and my mother painted out ‘blemishes’. When I used to do my own printing I had a little disc on a stick that I would want over the bits that were overexposed. The method was in Amateur Photographer. I had different coloured filters as well. Come to that, I often just pick a bit of a pciture to leave out extraneous detail.
There’s no such thing as a true image. It is all trickery, no matter how much you kid yourself.
Thirdly, who makes the rules to say that one mustn’t do something one wants to? A journo faking an image is one thing, but every amateur has his or her own reasons for being a photographer.
Fourthly, the colour is always different. Are these ‘purists’ unhappy if an image is colour-corrected to make it more like reality?
If you feel PhotoShop or Affinity Photo is cheating, don’t do it. I don’t mind. The thing I would mind is being told to do it a certain way because someone else says so.
In the late forties and early fifties my father was a chauffeur to a film start. My mother took a job ‘photoshopping’ press images. A picture was show on a massive ground glass screen and my mother painted out ‘blemishes’. When I used to do my own printing I had a little disc on a stick that I would want over the bits that were overexposed. The method was in Amateur Photographer. I had different coloured filters as well. Come to that, I often just pick a bit of a pciture to leave out extraneous detail.
There’s no such thing as a true image. It is all trickery, no matter how much you kid yourself.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff