Why such a negative response towards edited photos?

[Salma]

I don't understand why people are so rude about edited photos, I'm referring to mainly portrait glamour shots here. If you post photos on a non-photography related forum why are people so negative about edited photos? It's not that bad is it?

[Salma]

Really, i'm patient :D

[sevillafox]

I'm not sure what you're asking here...

Are you wondering why people comment that you've over-edited a photo that you were intending to look the way you posted it? (you=a person in general not you specifically ;) )

[Chet]

Not sure all the pro magazines edit every aspect of a photograph.

[S7000]

Not sure all the pro magazines edit every aspect of a photograph.

Noooooooo...Really? :eek:

[hawkeye60]

I don't understand rude people under any circumstance.

[ajbalazic]

I don't understand rude people under any circumstance.
Unfortunately, rudeness is a quality that is easily portrayed.

To the OP... I find that sometimes criticism is often mistaken for rudeness, so don't take it too personally.

[tonylong]

There are people in forums who are quite opinionated about such things and freely express their feelings. That's the way it is in a public forum. If you post a picture, you're inviting both comment, praise, and criticism, and sometimes criticism is a bit weighted when it comes to things like post processing. What to some is "style" is to others "overdone". You have to have a thick skin if you are going to post a shot that shows "style"!

[sevillafox]

You have to have a thick skin if you are going to post a shot that shows "style"!


Good point.

*makes note to self*

However, what REALLY annoys me is when you post a clearly edited photo and folks start pointing out technical faults like you're too stupid to have done it correctly in the first place and so edited the crap out of a photo to "fix" it.

[/rant]

[Salma]

I'm not sure what you're asking here...

Are you wondering why people comment that you've over-edited a photo that you were intending to look the way you posted it? (you=a person in general not you specifically ;) )
No, nothing like that, I'm wondering why people complain about even the slightest editing when photographers only do it to make a photo look good!
Not sure all the pro magazines edit every aspect of a photograph.
Exactly.
Noooooooo...Really? :eek:
:oops:
I don't understand rude people under any circumstance.
I wish the world was a nicer place, not happening.
Unfortunately, rudeness is a quality that is easily portrayed.

To the OP... I find that sometimes criticism is often mistaken for rudeness, so don't take it too personally.
Haha, I did say that these sort of comments made on a non-photography related forum seem weird, Ok i'd understand if someone was to make a comment on POTN and say the PP is a little too much and needs cleaning up or whatever but when you post your own photos or someone elses on another forum responses like 'why do you edit the photos are you ugly or something'? a bit out of line isn't it?
There are people in forums who are quite opinionated about such things and freely express their feelings. That's the way it is in a public forum. If you post a picture, you're inviting both comment, praise, and criticism, and sometimes criticism is a bit weighted when it comes to things like post processing. What to some is "style" is to others "overdone". You have to have a thick skin if you are going to post a shot that shows "style"!
I guess I can understand that, makes alot of sense, but they make it seems like there's something abnormal about post processing.
Good point.

*makes note to self*

However, what REALLY annoys me is when you post a clearly edited photo and folks start pointing out technical faults like you're too stupid to have done it correctly in the first place and so edited the crap out of a photo to "fix" it.

[/rant]
Same here :)

[tonylong]

Some people are "purists" in a presumptuous way -- assuming that because they prefer a "non-edited" style that this translates to "good" and an edited style translates to "bad". They can't process the fact that outside of fields like photojournalism and documentary photography there is no right/wrong way of doing things in the "moral" sense, and there are no real "rules" -- only things that may help someone realize their personal vision and aspiration for their photography.

Fashion/glamor/portraiture is a great example, because with out retouching, we'd have real problems with fashion/glamor/portraiture photography:)! But there's also the graphics arts field that uses photography, and photographers that use graphics arts.

Plus, something that the "purists" have a hard time acknowledging is that all photographs have to be processed in one way or another and to some degree. How much processing is up to the photographer. If someone doesn't like the processing, that's fine, but it's presumptuous to suggest that the photographer is doing something "bad".

[John_B]

I don't understand why people are so rude about edited photos, I'm referring to mainly portrait glamour shots here. If you post photos on a non-photography related forum why are people so negative about edited photos? It's not that bad is it?Salma,
Why does it bother you? ???

If you feel that editing your photos makes them look best for you, isn't that what really matters? ???

If your doing it for a customer and the customer says that, then thats a different story ;)

[FlyingPhotog]

A more tech-savvy society that's increasingly cynical and mistrustful of will attempt to call "BS" more quickly on any image that exhibits anything beyond the most subtle and transparent of processing.

Welcome to the new media world order...

You have two choices:
- Ignore the Rabble
- Improve your processing skills

[Kendoway]

Funny, I keep expecting to be banned from the "Before and After" competitions. I'm secretly an 8 year old, and my dad feeds me a huge bowl of pure sugar and then sits me down in front of Photoshop ;)

[Karl Johnston]

I dunno...I get that a lot too. People say "Did you use photoshop? *DUN DUN DUN*"

"Er no(I use DPP; i find it loads easier and smoother on my computer)"

'GOOD because I don't want to buy it if its an unnatural photograph'

How the hell more natural can I make solar radiation bouncing off of the earth's magnetosphere look? :rolleyes: Maybe if I hold up a plant to the sky while taking the photograph people will know i took it outside and not in some green chroma room.

[FlyingPhotog]

I dunno...I get that a lot too. People say "Did you use photoshop? *DUN DUN DUN*"

"Er no(I use DPP; i find it loads easier and smoother on my computer)"

'GOOD because I don't want to buy it if its an unnatural photograph'

:/ How the hell more natural can I make solar radiation bouncing off of the earth's magnetosphere look? :rolleyes:

Hand someone a pair of sunglasses and tell them to "Look Up" ? :lol:

[mac66]

JOHN-B IS RIGHT I WOULD OF SAID THE SAME THING.

[Stickman]

Good point.

*makes note to self*

However, what REALLY annoys me is when you post a clearly edited photo and folks start pointing out technical faults like you're too stupid to have done it correctly in the first place and so edited the crap out of a photo to "fix" it.

[/rant]



I tend to see that more than I see it the other way around....

[cdifoto]

I don't understand why people are so rude about edited photos, I'm referring to mainly portrait glamour shots here. If you post photos on a non-photography related forum why are people so negative about edited photos? It's not that bad is it?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if it looks edited, it was probably edited badly. My opinion of course, but I think the best processing is the kind you don't really see. A layperson should look at a glamour photo and only see a beautiful person. If they see a Photoshopped person, I think the retoucher failed.

[tonylong]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if it looks edited, it was probably edited badly. My opinion of course, but I think the best processing is the kind you don't really see. A layperson should look at a glamour photo and only see a beautiful person. If they see a Photoshopped person, I think the retoucher failed.

That sounds good as far as a final output. Of course a lot of posting is when we are in a learning process, doing new things or whatever.

[NMGolfHacker]

I know a couple of the Photo Professors and the University of NM and have asked them their thoughts on editing photos. Their opinions have made me want to learn to take the best possible photos straight out of the camera with very little editing needed. Now I understand that their are a certain genres that editing is a must. But, IMHO I like to see things the way they really are. Whether you are taking pics of landscapes, people or cars.

[The Moose]

How edited are we talking here? Are we talking edited to change the overall look of the photo? Because if we are, I don't call that a photo, I call it a manipulation and the photo was merely a tool used to create that manipulation.

If we're talking retouching and strengthening colours, that's alright to a degree but only in the genres that it needs to be done in. I mainly shoot sports and bands so I aim to get everything right in the camera. With sports, usually only a minor crop is needed. With bands, the only 'editing' I really do includes NR, contrast (since it would be a RAW file) and maybe a little crop.