Digital eitiing

[Jahled]

Just curious, but I personally can't stand people going over board in Photoshop with image editing; but have detected I might be in a minority viewing these boards.

Whilst a appreciate a lovely image 'brought to life' in our digital dark rooms, I simply dislike some of the overworked pictures I see these days; mostly on account of how they simply don't retain any reality. This is my own personal preference of course, but editing the hell out of images to some obviously unrealistically result seems to completely defeat the point of photography.

To put it into context, I admire some of the fantastic images I see here, but to be blunt, that isn't how the real world really was when the picture was taken.

[FlyingPhotog]

Unless you were in the photographers head when they shot the image, you really can't qualify their reality.

You're certainly entitled to voice an opinion vis a vis I Like It or I Don't Like It (Why you feel this way is always nice to know when giving feedback) but ultimately, only the photographer is entitled to say what is right, wrong or indifferent.

[GSansoucie]

What is digital eitiing?

[Jahled]

Unless you were in the photographers head when they shot the image, you really can't qualify their reality.

That is about the most pointless answer I wasn't looking for; but there you go

[Jahled]

What is digital eitiing?

Haven't a clue, do you know?

[JoYork]

That is about the most pointless answer I wasn't looking for; but there you go

Hmm, no I know what he means.

I've taken photos which didn't match what I saw with my eyes at the time and the only way to create the look/feel and mood was by some editing.

[freo]

Im getting a bit sick of the over cooked, over saturated, HDR's I see around. Often the situation did not need an HDR in the first place, and they have just done it for the sake of it. :rolleyes:

[number six]

That is about the most pointless answer I wasn't looking for; but there you go

Well, it made perfect sense to me.

Maybe you should tell us what answer you are looking for and we can try to be more helpful.

-js

[Jahled]

Hmm, no I know what he means.

I've taken photos which didn't match what I saw with my eyes at the time and the only way to create the look/feel and mood was by some editing.

There is overkill

I see it in obvious amounts around these parts to be honest, and it scares me, given it is not what I want to ultimately 'achieve' with a camera

[BigBlueDodge]

You make a fundamental assumption that photography should only mimic real world. That is like saying artists should only paint real world scenes, sculptors should only sculpt statues that are anatomically correct, plays should only be about things that exist in the real world. Where in the rule books does it say that art must only match the real world. If that were the case then artists like Salvador Dali would never be appreciated.

Just because you think that photography should only record what was in the scene, exactly like it was, does not mean that everyone thinks it should be. Photography is art, and art is an expression of what the artists wants you to see, which may or may not exists in reality as it was presented to you. If you don't like it, then that's fine, just move to the next post. No need to complain about why everyone can't take and process pictures like you do.

[Jaymz]

Well, it made perfect sense to me.

Maybe you should tell us what answer you are looking for and we can try to be more helpful.

-js

It made perfect sense to me also.

to op:
I am willing to bet my perception of reality is different from yours. Sometimes I try to duplicate what I think the world see and other times I try to create what I see. (Which, I have been told, can be very disturbing.)

[mrkgoo]

I agree with bugbkuedodge. What is reality? What we see? Well a camera cannot capture what we see. We have instant focus on everything we look at. We have peripheral vision. We have a broader dynamic range than most sensors. And who are we to say that what we see is reality anyway? Our brains process the images we get from our eyes.

What about black and white? That is not reality. Most people who shoot black and white aren't shooting what they saw.

[yogestee]

Unless you were in the photographers head when they shot the image, you really can't qualify their reality.

Depends if the recreational substances I took in the '70s are still having effect :o

[FlyingPhotog]

Depends if the recreational substances I took in the '70s are still having effect :o

How's that saying go?

"If you remember the 70s .. then you don't remember the 70s" ;)

[BigBlueDodge]

Haven't a clue, do you know?
Well, you should know as you posted it as your title !

[neumanns]

Just curious, but I personally can't stand people going over board in Photoshop with image editing; but have detected I might be in a minority viewing these boards.

Whilst a appreciate a lovely image 'brought to life' in our digital dark rooms, I simply dislike some of the overworked pictures I see these days; mostly on account of how they simply don't retain any reality. This is my own personal preference of course, but editing the hell out of images to some obviously unrealistically result seems to completely defeat the point of photography.

To put it into context, I admire some of the fantastic images I see here, but to be blunt, that isn't how the real world really was when the picture was taken.

So does this include having people gather closer together for a group shot? Because in "the real world" they were spread all over the room facing diffrent directions before I started to apply my vision!

Now i happen to agree with you to some extent with the overcooked...But, just where is the line and who get's to draw it?

[sjones]

How's that saying go?

"If you remember the 70s .. then you don't remember the 70s" ;)

Actually, I think that was about the 60s, but I am not quite sure, can't quite remember.

[FlyingPhotog]

Actually, I think that was about the 60s, but I am not quite sure, can't quite remember.

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go... ;)

[WMWARD2]

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go... ;)

Oh no!

+! on your answer!

I personally try new things all the time. I happen to be one who likes the work of Dave Hill and those who imitate his work, but that is just me. The pictures you see on this site show many different photographers in varing degrees of learning. Many of them have taken my breath away with their work and with those I not only study the picture but their technique.

[number six]

How's that saying go?

"If you remember the 70s .. then you don't remember the 70s" ;)

Geez. I don't know about you kids.

It was the '60s...

I'm sure of that. Pretty much.

[number six]

Actually, I think that was about the 60s, but I am not quite sure, can't quite remember.

:lol::lol::lol:

Once again, I posted before finishing the thread...

[Jahled]

You make a fundamental assumption that photography should only mimic real world. That is like saying artists should only paint real world scenes, sculptors should only sculpt statues that are anatomically correct, plays should only be about things that exist in the real world. Where in the rule books does it say that art must only match the real world. If that were the case then artists like Salvador Dali would never be appreciated.

Just because you think that photography should only record what was in the scene, exactly like it was, does not mean that everyone thinks it should be. Photography is art, and art is an expression of what the artists wants you to see, which may or may not exists in reality as it was presented to you. If you don't like it, then that's fine, just move to the next post. No need to complain about why everyone can't take and process pictures like you do.

That's actually a very good answer, which I will be content with. I am amazed at the beauty of some of the pictures I see posted here and don't for a minute think they shouldn't have a place in any medium to delight our eyes, and certainly wasn't making a complaint; so oops if that's the impression that came across!

I guess it's down to personal preference. It's all a learning curve, simply not my personal cup of tea.

And I know my fingers screwed up with the thread title, that's life :)

[yogestee]

How's that saying go?

"If you remember the 70s .. then you don't remember the 70s" ;)

I remember the '70s very clearly,, they were good times for me ;)

[tzalman]

Now i happen to agree with you to some extent with the overcooked...But, just where is the line and who get's to draw it?

When the freedom to produce art exists most of it will, inevitably, be bad art. However, any attempt to proscribe bad art will just as inevitably destroy all art.

Substitute the word 'photography' for 'art' and browse through Flickr. 95% of what is posted there is horrible, but would we want it otherwise?

[tzalman]

I remember the '70s very clearly,, they were good times for me ;)
Yeh, for me too. And the fifties were great, I remember high school sports very well. But the sixties.....

[HappySnapper90]

I call "digital editing" anything beyond the controls that ACR offers in a program such as LR2 to make corrections, such as Canon recording too red and too orange, contrast balancing, with minimal use of their new adjustment brush. Using layers to do selective sharpening or selective coloring along with combining several RAWfiles or even developing a single RAW file several times into an "hdr" attempt making the shadows looks as vibrant as the brightest part of the scene.

What's the problem with digital editing gone too far? The public sees this and then thinks that is what digital photography is - doing tricks with a computer and all photographic prints are a product of good photoshop trickery than a skilled photographer finding/making great lighting, subjects, and elements at the point of capture.

I see it more and more at artshows that I also have a booth at. Photographers mixing in "hdr" attempts and applying photoshop filters to make prints look like paintings and with sometimes results that just scream photoshop.

Someone walking into my booth shouldn't have to ask "are these photographs?" or "did you photoshop these or was this how it really was?". Nearly everyone that has any type of camera has a type of photo editing program at home and they all think this is what every photographer does now to photographs.

[Radtech1]

Unless you were in the photographers head when they shot the image, you really can't qualify their reality.That is about the most pointless answer I wasn't looking for; but there you go


Not only does Jay's answer make perfect sense, my thought when I read it was "Damn, beat me to it!"

When I create a picture (select camera/subject placement→select technique→press shutter→edit→print), I am creating not only what I saw, but what I felt when I took the shot. Sometimes that is as "real" as it gets - sometimes not. Other people may have seen/felt something different - or nothing at all. Point being, as the artist, it is up to me to decide how I want the final result to look, because it's MY vision I am sharing.

Final result is this: If you don't want your photos looking "over"manipulated then don't do it. See, that wasn't complicated at all.

Rad

[Jahled]

Not only does Jay's answer make perfect sense, my thought when I read it was "Damn, beat me to it!"

When I create a picture (select camera/subject placement→select technique→press shutter→edit→print), I am creating not only what I saw, but what I felt when I took the shot. Sometimes that is as "real" as it gets - sometimes not. Other people may have seen/felt something different - or nothing at all. Point being, as the artist, it is up to me to decide how I want the final result to look, because it's MY vision I am sharing.

Final result is this: If you don't want your photos looking "over"manipulated then don't do it. See, that wasn't complicated at all.

Rad

I actually wish I had never made the original post, because I obviously hadn't thought it through; it simply makes me come across as some kind of photographic elitist, which I would never dream of being. What ever point I was trying to make I didn't exactly make it very well, given I agree with most of yours and everybody else's replies more than I agree with my original post.

I also think I may have come across with some arrogance, which I didn't intend to do, so oops for that. :(

[chopper5654]

OP,

i gotcha loud and clear. but, its also not up to us to push our distaste on anyone else, either. we dont have to look at that stuff if we dont like it. in the end, its all a choice, and more times than not, i choose to take a pass on the HDR/overprocessed stuff.

i think all it means is we are "purists." but, even Ansel Adams used some "in your face" techniques that werent "the way it was when he pushed the shutter." its all art. we like ours...they like theirs. and, thats more of a blessing than a curse.

[tonylong]

I actually wish I had never made the original post, because I obviously hadn't thought it through; it simply makes me come across as some kind of photographic elitist, which I would never dream of being. What ever point I was trying to make I didn't exactly make it very well, given I agree with most of yours and everybody else's replies more than I agree with my original post.

I also think I may have come across with some arrogance, which I didn't intend to do, so oops for that. :(

Heh! You did come across pretty strong with "I can't stand" type of statements. But you seem to have gone to the decaf, camed down, listened, thought a bit, and are a much wiser person for it:)!

As far as your original concerns, this is a long-time ongoing discussion amongst photographers. The "realists" have a hard time accepting the work of the "artists". Old stuff.

It was easy in the painting world. Realists had their time, but people like Van Gogh, Picasso, and Dali established the fact that art and "realism" are two different things that may or may not entertwine.

Photography is different in that it starts with an attempt, given certain "creative" variables (filters, film/digital choices for B&W, contrast, and such), to capture something "real" in light from a given scene.

But the lines between photographic "realism" and graphics arts have been overlapping for a long time. Some photographers utilize graphic arts to a fair degree to move from "realism" to an artistic vision. Some graphic artists utilize photography to a considerable degree to give their artistic vision a "photo-realistic" layer, such as modern video games.

And, on forums and galleries that are now prevalent in the space of the InterWebs, many who aspire to "serious" photography are learning how to use post-processing tools that may use graphic arts to get an effect, like Photoshop filters, or may seek to blend real photographic elements to enhance a shot to look more aesthetically pleasing, such as HDR. And, in the beginning, these attempts are typically amateurish and fake-looking. But so what? We may cringe a bit when the enthusiastic amateur shares his "first attempt at <name the effect> but it takes nothing from us and it gives them a chance to learn and grow. Skin smoothing, anyone:)?

Really, there is no right and wrong in all of this unless you are posing as a "realist" or photojournalist or documentarian and falsifying your work. Right?

[acousticvibrations]

What is digital eitiing?

Digital what:rolleyes: