Do you edit your photos?

[Jocko]

:?: I have my digital camera for about 7 months now. Until now I wasn't using any image editing software (i.e. PS). I use it today, but in very few photos. I always thought I was "changing" the real photo and ending with a picture that wasn't really what was captured, but something enhanced by the software. Maybe just being old school.
Well, my question is... do you edit your photos? Yes? No? Why? What kind of changes do you make to the photo?

Thanks,

J-

[timmyquest]

I was reluctant at first to tweak my pictures...but all it is is using whats available to improve a picture. You think people did htis when the flash was introduced? or how about interchangeable lenses...

The fact is that you still are using your abliities to make this picture. All i ever really do is sharpen it a tad and brighten the colors.

And of course if you want B&W then you have no real choice.

[RichardtheSane]

All I tend to do to an image is cropping (of course), levels/contrast/saturation adjustment and finally some sharpening if it needs it.
I prefer to get the best image from the camera but when I can't digital gives me the extra scope to 'get the shot' when it wouldn't always be possible with film.

[Conk]

Nothing wrong with editing. I do some basic editing such as color adjustments, brightness, contrast, sharpening, blur or wharever it takes to improve on the image where the camera could not. On more profound tweaks, layering etc, I think that it is fine if it is said that those adjustments have been done.

[TeraGram93013]

Maybe just being old school.

This is a mis-founded notion.

As far as I know you're working from a standard that only applies to photographic paper home-made pin-hole cameras and slide film.

Any print to paper from a film neg is a manipulation. It is NOT the image you captured, is it!? No, it is not. The image you captured on that film strip is a negative. Is it viewable? Sure, with a light projecting through it but it isn't what most people would consider "appealing".

Even if you print to paper from good old black & white film, you're still manipulating somewhat. You're cropping, probably. You're dodging and burning, probably.

And color? Yegods, printing a color neg is even more manipulation!

* * *

There is a difference, in my opinion, in levels of editing.

If, for example, you're shooting a news picture (sports, political, current events, whatever) no editing is allowed what-so-ever outside of light-color correction, dodging, burning and cropping. Cropping has a restriction on it, though. You must not crop out any portion of your image that changes the story, again in my opinion.

If you're shooting a wedding, and some drunk and dirty bozo walks into the background right as you're taking a one-chance shot.... you're probably smart to edit him out.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You Have to tweek with some of the cameras out there.

The Canon DSLRs are literally designed to have post processing incorporated into the images. The cameras intentionally leave part of the processing work "undone" to give the photographer more options in processing.

I find that I will shoot several dozen.. or even hundereds of shots at a given event or outing.

When I get home and view them ivaribly there are a few junkers ready for immediate deletion,. usually a pile of "pretty good ones" that I hold on to,.and usually only a precious few that I deem to be "showpeices"

It is only these "showpieces" that I post process for the best posssible prints.

This method I think negate one of the complaints I hear about shooting in RAW or with a DSLR in general. That being "who wants to go through all that work for allof those images.."

My repsonse is,. when was the last time you shot 100 images and needed to make poster sized prints or some other form of fine art with all 100 of them?

You pick the best and go from there.

[Scottes]

"Editing" digital photos is "processing" them. Within reasons, of course, as TeraGram said.

[stopbath]

If you want to take an image straight from the camera and print it, this will usually be ok for two types of photos. The snap shot, and the shot where the photographer captured the image exactly perfect (composition, exposure, contrast, colour....) through skill or luck. In cases where the camera can not or did not capture the perfect image, editing is needed.

There is a huge span of what can be done while editing digital photos, just as there is a huge span of what can be done while printing negatives.

In the dark room, you can dodge, burn, crop, enlarge, adjust contrast, adjust exposure, adjust colour, combine images, and even create pop art (solarization, or print it with a photosensitive surface other than paper.) Additiional work can be done after printing too (sepia or blue tone, painting...)

Digital editing is just so much easier to accomplish... Have fun, experiment and try things, but becareful as the editing can help strengthen an image, as well as weaken it.

[neil_r]

The honest answer is, no more than I did in the darkroom, however it is a lot less hit and miss, and if you screw it up... hey you get another go!

Neil

[pradeep1]

Digital editing is part of the picture making process. I did very little editing myself initially, then went to using editing to reclaim a lot of my older pictures that were botched for whatever reason.

[Qurlyjoe]

I've done color printing from negatives for several years. Believe me, what you do with PS and what you do in a lab with chemicals, filters, paper choice, exposure times, etc, is purely a difference of degree, not kind.

The biggest difference is in the time it takes. It would generally take me an hour or two to get an image to the point that I was satisfied with it. And in that time, I would get probably 8, maybe 9 prints, all but the last one unusable for one reason or another. Then, if I wanted more than one copy, I had to print them all, right then. If I wanted more copies later on, it was start from scratch, since on any given day any number of things that affect the final color of a print could be different from the day before.

And more often than not, when I got home I'd see something that I'd missed because my eyes were tired, or I was tired. And if I wanted to go back and redo the shot, you guessed it, back to square one.

With digital, if I decide tomorrow that I don't like the cropping I did today, or anything else about the print, I don't have to start from the beginning to get to the point where I can begin look at what I wanted to change in the first place.

I actually enjoyed doing it, though. But the lab I rented space in has closed, so I switched to digital.

Do you think Ansel Adams didn't manipulate his photos? Think again. (I use him as an example only because I also do scenic shots.) Any professional photographer does most of their work in the dark room.

[Jocko]

Thanks for the posts. I liked your view on the subject. They made re-thing about what have being doing so far. Well done. :-)

J-

[MidnightRider]

Having just asked a similar question myself (thanks for the answers so far guys!) I can suggest that what you might be doing would be an artistic contribution to your work. I have scanned thousands of paper images and then worked with them to change things here and there. One thing I change is to remove any scratches, hair or other debris that is obviously on the image. Sharpening, color saturation etc. are also some things I change.

A long time ago I developed the philosophy of trying to do as much of the 'post editing' before I take the photo. Does my background have anything in it that I dont want? Is there something in the foreground that I need to be aware of? Whats my lighting like right now and where are the shadows? Of course, cropping in camera is essential too.

I would also suggest checking your exposure as soon as you take the photo. If you need to, you can make your adjustments and then take another, hopefully reducing your post-graphics time.

Midnight Rider

[Stan Melrose]

Hi

I'm a relatively new digital photographer so forgive me if I am stating the obvious ............

One of the beauties of digital photography is you can look up the properties of the original - date, time, camera settings, etc.

If you tweak an original, even as little as rotating it by 90 degrees, and don't 'save as' all your original info will be lost

Stan Melrose

[msvadi]

They are supposed to be edited ;)

[edistophoto]

All fine, but remember, always try to get the best shot possible with the camera, then editing is a snap.

[tealblue]

I try and take a lot of shots of each item i want,Then if lucky i will have a few good ones that i wont have to do much work to. But this is what they make a edit program,to enhance what the camera has given you.Tealblue

[PacAce]

Photography is just a hobby so I have no qualms about editing my pictures to make them look good for posting on the web or pinting.

Editing to adjust levels, contrast, color balance, etc. is a giving. I do it all the time.

Cropping, blurring of backgrounds and removal of distractions from the image is something I will also resort to to make the subject stand out better.

On a few occassions I have even performed photographic surgury. For example, let's say I took a group picture. The first shot was good except that one person blinked. The second shot is so-so but the person who blinked on the first picture looks very good on the second. In this case, I will selectively copy the "good" face from the 2nd picture and paste it over the "bad" face on the 1st picture.

[UK_Terry]

I shoot in RAW so proccessing and editing are a must. i use PS CS

[GimpyPoop]

Yo,
Oh hell yeah I edit. I use Photoshop 7.
I mostly adjust curves, contrast, saturation, hue, and add borders. Basic stuff because I don't really take great picture. ;)
Me, the Flea

[Bill Lamp]

I have a wet lab photography background and haven't yet done anything with Photoshop that I haven't done, or haven't worked out how I could do it with film.

And for those of you who mention the word "sharpen", that is what the point source enlarger light gave you. For "softening", there were diffusers or, for the wealthy, a enlarger head with a light grid. I suspect from what I have read above that some of you know exactly what I'm talking about because you used them AND dated yourselves. *snicker*

But CibaChrome chemistry and potassium ferocyanide were/are not child friendly so I shut down the home darkroom.

Bill