 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.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
