 Noel Bermejo |
No Fakes, Just Real Image Hi. I'm a newbie in photography and here in BetterPhoto. I would like to ask if one can really capture great photos without the need for photo-editing software. I want to see some unedited, but awesome pics. And is there a site the shows only original images (without using Photoshop)?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
The answer is yes. But you're a little naive in your question. You need photo editing software the same way you need a one hour lab to develop a roll of film, or an in home darkroom. If you were familiar with all the different types of color film that are available that have different characteristics of color saturation, neutrality, skin tone rendition, plus the blank slate ability of black and white that allows you to make or take a print in different directions of mood and feel, you'd realize that equating a digital image with needing something to be done to it that makes it fake is a falsehood. It's brought up often, but it doesn't have as much merit as the people who do bring it up think it does. Stories about paste jobs ending up as news photos get a lot of attention, but unless you're easily swayed but the common flickr type photos of plain photos that just have a heavy does of increased color saturation, then there's still a good chance that if you see a photo that actually is good, then it's good without being fake.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Noel Bermejo |
Thank you for your reply. I guess I will consider your idea about it.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
The answer is no, Noel: just like good photos couldn't be made without good darkroom work in the chemical film days, so can good photos only be made with good post production work ('editing') in the digital age. If you shoot and then print the images straight from the memory card you'll get snapshots at best. Not photos. Have fun!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Take a snapshot, get a snapshot.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bernard |
Noel look in my gallery, I never do editing on my photos, never, never, never,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
As someone who pretty much works with their head in photoshop, I'd have to say yes, and then why, and what is the issue? And then if I step back I wonder if it is really even possible or what the benefit is. If you think there is some value in historic preservation of the moment you shot an image and that makes it worth not adjusting the exposure for the sixth of a stop you underexposed because you or your camera chose those settings at the time the shutter was released, then, by all means, leave the image flawed, the color unadjusted, and the image not optimized for its purpose. But I do wonder as well when it is that taking a photo itself is not altering a scene. For the most part, a snapshot is a 2D interpretation of a 3D space, not a view valid from all perspectives or the ultimate rendering of a scene. It is distorted by glass and filters, and affected by the quality of light and choices in exposure. If being terribly strict about processing, you could argue that opening any image from any digital camera is not really showing the capture as it was caught, because in order to see the RAW data that is captured processing has to occur to make sense of the image. (If you are not clear on what I mean, see this article on Bayer Filters.) In this sense EVERY digital image is altered (one could say edited) from its original state. Then I'd have to wonder what the optimal capture itself would represent. Is the image supposed to represent what you see? Generally cameras are not very good at that. Their dynamic range and response to light and color in a scene is much different than the human eye. It could be argued that what you see can never be captured quite the way you see it and that any scene is distorted in capture, and must be edited to match or even approximate what you thought you saw with your eye. If you have a digital image shot in RGB, and you go to print in CMYK as most people will, that is an alteration in going from one color model to another which requires conversion of a fairly complex sort where 4 colors are rendered from the three captured in order to simulate the result. (If you are not familiar with the process, see CMYK.) A service that you send a file to for printing will auto-adjust the image if you don't specifically tell them not to. That is editing. So I'd have to ask the question, how do you define what an "unedited" image is, and what are the benefits? I think some people who ask this question are afraid of photo-editing, don't (yet) have the interest or the skills. Not everyone does. But I also think that those who turn up their nose at image-editing as somehow inferior are just ignoring another tool, like a tripod or cable release, that gives them the potential to make better images. That and they are in denial about what the process of photography renders. Editing is not a sin, and it need not be radical or alter the composition. In fact, I spend a lot of time working with images to make them NOT look like they were edited. Many of the images I take that may look heavily edited, are not much more than corrected for color balance and exposure. As a Photoshop person, one thing that people are surprised about is that I push for making the best possible capture every time. You can't make the best image without the best source. Learning image editing doesn't substitute for learning about shooting, composition, lighting, exposure, lenses, and everything else that makes up photography. You can't shoot the rear end of a dog and with image editing end up with a picture of its face (unless it is a really ugly dog!). Image editing isn't magic, it is a photographic tool that photographic masters use to enhance an image (dodging and burning are image editing techniques used in the traditional darkroom, where the photographer had to choose timing and exposure to create the image result). If you put aside the idea that all image editing is somehow 'bad' or 'evil', and accept that it is part of the process as a matter of course, necessary for rendering, your photography may benefit as a result like it may from good use of your other equipment. I hope that helps! Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"...That and they are in denial about what the process of photography renders." Yes. It's like a snobbery(not necessarily the guy who started this thread) in flip mode of them doing something extraordinary, when they're actually being kinda hypocritical or unknowing about taking photos. Right down to what goes on with the making off the film, that the photographer can't take credit for, that affects the end result.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
Agree. It's often "reverse snobbery" used as 1) a smokescreen of 'big words' to camouflage those punters' total lack of knowledge, 2) an assertive 'justification' that they won't even try to understand, and 3) to disguise their angst that they won't be able to comprehend what it's about and, more importantly, that people will SEE that they don't. Often based on nothing at all, because they haven't even tried. I.o.w. reverse snobbery, pathetically, is about face-saving in the first place, and is a dead give-away of the punter's insecurity. Those people should take FDR's famous quotation to heart: "All we have to fear is fear itself"...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Noel, I've heard this from A LOT of my models and from MOST of my family portrait subjects. They think I go home and make the photo amazing using photoshop. they don't consider that I've worked hard learning the settings, have the best lenses, have top notch lights and know how to use them. Out of camera my images look pretty good, usually just a slight sharpening is all the photo needs...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
"Out of camera my images look pretty good, usually just a slight sharpening is all the photo needs..." You think so, Oliver? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so, if you dare, why don't you 1) do "just a slight sharpening" on a photo OOC and save it as "Photo UNedited", and 2) do a full edit on that same OOC photo and save it as "Photo edited", and then put those two up side-by-side on your screen to see if there IS a difference, and, if so, if it was worth editing the original OOC photo for it? Have fun!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
To illustrate: here's a RAW file 'Out Of Camera' (on top), converted to JPG and only slightly sharpened and, at the bottom, a full edit from that same RAW file. Let the images speak for themselves.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Not to defend any of Oliver's pictures, but your example seems to make your argument flawed because you picked a picture to start out with that's not good. Although you did make it look better. But I understand you the point you were trying to make.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Oliver Anderson |
I just did a family portrait shoot yesterday that quite frankly needs very little editing. I'm not saying all my photos come out perfect...what I was saying is experienced photographers do everything possible to limit the amount of post production needed to create a desireable image. I consider myself skilled at photoshop and use it to enhance many images but don't use it as a crutch...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
Greg, since my image is not of a church, with a tower, or another high building, or tall trees, this particular image could possibly have been made somewhat (not a lot!) better in-camera (in JPG) with a graduated ND filter than it is now. However, most images DO have a tower, tall trees or a higher building in it, which would be 'cut in half' by a graduated ND filter, making the graduated ND filter a detriment to the image! I.o.w. a graduated ND filter would NOT be an improvement. Also, this image was shot handheld in 10 or 20 seconds, while using a graduated ND filter would have required setting up a tripod and a lot of fumbling and fidgeting with that grad ND filter. I.o.w. that shot would then have taken 10 minutes to get in the can. Which is 10 to 100 times as long! And time = money, of course...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
I think there is a nice middle ground there between these arguments, which don't seem to me to be all opposed: 1. Get the best shot. Always do what you can within reason to save your self time in image editing by shooting the image right in the first place. If it takes 10 minutes to get right or an hour to fix after, ten minutes is the way to go...but it may work the other way as well, especially if you are stronger on one side of the process. Practice can change things. 2. The "need" for post-processing is relative. Realize that even perfectly exposed and set up images can be improved with certain digital enhancements (just like you might dodge/burn or clean up in the darkroom). I work with other photographers to 'correct' their best shots, and mostly not to fix what is broken, but to enhance what is already captured well. Most any image can be "improved". 3. Some things require post processing just to achieve. You don't have to like HDR, but it is an example of what might be considered impossible to capture with current technology in a single frame. Know when post processing is required and shoot accordingly. 4. The amount you choose to depend on post-processing may have a lot to do with your philosophy about photography, perception and aesthetics. These factors would make it relatively impossible for us all to agree on every point, except: 5. Ignoring post-processing as a valid means to an acceptable end is denial of the existence of a helpful photographic tool. I hate to see three of my favorite contributors battling...Especially when it seems to me you agree. Hope that helps! Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
A skillfully balanced summing up, Richard! Chapeau!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I don't think we're battling. It's just that his particular example wasn't a good one for the argument. Analogous to saying somebody isn't a good singer, and choosing to play a particular video or audio track when at that particular moment, they had to perform but they also had a cold. And then trying to say see, that proves it.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Samuel Smith |
well sacre blue. I can't even explain any more why I still shoot? buford
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Michael Wasson |
I read somewhere that the difference between a pro photographer and an amature(or in my case a serious semi-pro amature) ;-) is that a pro never shows you their bad shots. I also read an article in Outdoor Photographer in which a Proffessional landscap Photograper said that she can go out shooting for a whole day,and take hundreds of photos and when she is done ,if she gets just a handfull of really good shots she considers this a successful day. My point here is that just choosing your best shots could almost be considered a form of editing. In fact is that not what magazine editors do. all that said,I personally feel there is a big difference between a small bit of tweaking on sharpness,light ,and shadows in an existing photo,and say removing a tree that distracts from your intended subject. Well then again cropping may fix this and that would be another acceptable modification. The main point is that you dont totally recreate the picture from it's original content with software. As already mentioned a lot of the basic editing done with software is the same thing that used to be done in the Darkroom. My two cents. I will shut up now.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Give me a F'n break. A newbie at photography cares about how not to use photoshop. Good, go ahead. And don't forget to use costco as your Professional Lab. That'll keep me looking better. I agree with Oliver in that we can make exceptional photos because we have mastered our settings, but you still do basic things in PS before printing.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
"BTW, bad example photo. The second one looks like a frik'n cartoon." I'm sure we'd appreciate your much better example, but somehow I'm not holding my breath...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Pretty soon he and Oliver are going to be joined at the hip.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Well, while you 2 mix it up I've got Holiday Portraits today and a Lingerie shoot Thursday...which I will do my best to meter correctly and save myself HOURS of post production. Frederick's of Hollywood has a sale so I'm going shopping as well. Life is rough lol
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Well, what do you expect. You PS'd it to death. I'm sure if you shot it on a better weather day the first shot wouldn't look so drab. 95% better? why? becasue you spent 95% of your time in the darkroom. If you only had that day to shoot it, then maybe you should have taken multiple shots and HDR'd it. LMB Gregory
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
"Well, what do you expect." I expect someone who claims he knows better to put his money where his mouth is. "maybe you should have taken multiple shots and HDR'd it." Then I have news for you: it WAS HDR'd, my friend! From 5 exposures, 1 stop apart. So now it only remains for you to learn to recognize it... LOL!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
So you used your underexposed photo against your finale prdouct as an example. Then you played with it so much in PS that it looks unrealistic. Either you need to recalibrate your monitor or go to the eye doctor.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Show us your over exposed image where your colors match the final product and then we can decide if its worth it weight.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Anonymous, HDR is a process of combining several exposures that you purposely shoot in a range...the idea being that when you combine them in a 32-bit image you have a higher dynamic range image that is a better technical capture of a scene (more highlights and shadows). Regretfully these cannot be displayed reliably on conventional monitors or in print. The conversion from 32-bit to 8-bit compresses the result, and you have controls over how that happens so you can retain details that you want. Of course W.S.s example had to be compressed to display here. Hope that helps! Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
Cheers, Richard.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
Anon, that image wasn't selected for its photographic beauty. It isn't pretty, stunning, or in any way especially aesthetically pleasing. It's a boring picture. But it was at hand and serves to demo what editing can do. You don't have to like it. I don't. Here's a version where I've taken it further still. You can almost reverse the roles of the foreground and the sky. Bumped saturation and corrected perspective distortion. It's not pretty! It's not supposed or pretending to be. You don't have to like it! I don't. It's just a demo of what editing can do!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Maybe you should call it detailed photography. Its too overdone and looks even worse. Its pretty close to being a painting now.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Derek, Currently there are very few ways to "see" HDR images. Your impression is coming from the current wave of technological conversions. Technically HDR is an image we cannot even see. Everything less is an image converted FROM HDR...not nearly the same thing. Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
HDR is similar to a boobjob: if it's done subtly and expertly, you can't see it's fake.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
We all recognize the botch jobs! The GOOD ones we don't...!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
point being it isn't 32-bit HDR anymore once it is converted...it has to become something else. Richard
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kristy A. Keene |
I may be stepping in a hornet's nest here, but what is wrong with photos edited to look "like a cartoon" or "like a painting". I love doing wild and crazy digital darkroom. I believe it gives the viewer a different perspective of the photo. A photo of a rose can turn into a swirling 3D work of art. Just my opinion, please don't yell at me. ;)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bernard |
Kristy interesting gallery you have there
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kristy A. Keene |
Ummm.. Thank you, I think....
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
"what is wrong with photos edited to look "like a cartoon" or "like a painting"." Kristy...nothing. There may be some purist or puritanical issues underlying the discussion. You are quite right to note that beauty is eternally in the eye of the beholder or creator. Some photography really needs to be achieved by editing. I think that is the point. At the very least you cannot make an HDR image without editing. So to a photo panorama that combines multiple images. These are perhaps the least distasteful to "purists". But certain looks will be totally the result of processing. I believe these images by Jerry Uelsmann were all done in the darkroom. So there was some pretty extreme image editing going on even before digital. Richard Lynch
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
W. |
"what is wrong with photos edited to look "like a cartoon" or "like a painting"." Nothing, of course, Kristy. Personal tastes are never 'wrong'. They simply differ.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Samuel Smith |
some do and some don't as in craigs list.....even that now is suspect? purist= I have no answer..............
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Log in to respond or ask your own question. | |||||||||||
