Do you Edit or Not

[russellsnr2]

Hi, Hope this is not a silly question, but how many of you edit your photographs (Colour etc) in PSP or P/Shop before you place them in the forum?.
Or are they right out the camera.
It's just that as a novice when I look at some of the photo's they are excellent to say the least.:confused:

[Belmondo]

100% of the time.

I shoot in RAW, so every image has to be converted anyway, so I always correct for a number of variables in the process. The images as they come out of the camera are really not usable without a little work.

[JZaun]

Like Belmondo, I edit 100% of the time and I normally shoot Jpeg. All Digital SLR and many point and shoot images will benefit from post processing. Some more than others.

JZ

[tckadventures]

I am only just new in the digital camera buisiness but even I do heaps in post processing as I find that the images that I want from the origional picture is just not quite right, sharpening the most used, however reading up on how to adjust you photos I have come to appreiciate all the other commands that the program offers. I use Corel Photo paint only because I know the program and have been playing around withit for years. i wish I was using photoshop as there is much more information about techniques but I am pleased with what Corel can do for me anyway, in a more round about fashion.

[ssim]

I'm a die hard RAW shooter so everything gets post processed. I have funny feeling that even if I was shooting JPG I would still post process all the images.

[Scottes]

Always.

[thomascanty]

Same here. I always do some post processing. Always have.

[kenyc]

I try to do only minor adjustments. cropping level balancing, etc.

KAC

[MazerRakhm]

I don't shoot raw at the moment, so rarely edit for color. I will crop for content though.

[Rob612]

I personally shoot RAW+JPEG. The first one as a "negative", the JPEG for quick uses if needed and for easier cataloguing (i do not delete bad pics, HDD space being cheaper everyday I keep everything).

So, basically it really depends upon the usage of the pic or the need of correction. For example, if I am just taking candids at one of our IPSC matches, I generally end up using the jpegs for sharing with fellow shooters. If among these there is a keeper, i turn to the raw file and do what's needed.

Of course If I'll go for serious shooting, I end up working with raw all the time.

[lostdoggy]

Yes I Edit!!!

[cmM]

im a RAW shooter as well. The amount of processing depends on type of photo (people photos take more processing for example, touching up the skin, etc..)

[markubig]

i shoot RAW and post process all the time. here's my question, though . . . with all the $$$ we spend on the camera and the lenses (especially the expensive ones), shouldn't we be able to take the perfect photograph that doesn't require post? We always talk about the sharpness and vivid colors of a 16-35 L, 70-200L or tamron 28-75, yet we run USM or add saturation to a photo taken with these lenses. How many of you do a Custom WB on your camera, but then end up adjusting it anyway in post just to get that "perfect" interpretation of the color white?

I'm not complaining . . . i actually like post processing my pictures. But I started thinking about this during a conversation with some friends the other day (yes, alcohol was involved) . . . i was showing my photo.net page to a couple of guys and i said, "I love my camera." One guy then responded, "yeah, but Adobe Photoshop is what makes your pictures look good 'cause you never post anything directly out of the camera."

Another friend, who is actually taking a photography class then chimed in saying that's why he prefers to shoot film because your technique/skills are reflected in the prints, which you cannot really post process like you do a digital photo. He calls photoshop "cheating" because that picture is not the true picture you took out of the camera. When he shoots film, the picture he shot is the picture that is printed . . .no cropping, no USM, no color balance, ets.

The only thing I thought of to respond to those guys is that post-processing is just an essential part of "DIGITAL" photography, as chemicals and the dark room are essential parts to film photography. But as I was saying that, I started thinking about the capabilities of today's digital cameras and lenses. And then I began wondering that with all this $$$$ spent on equipment, shouldn't we be able to produce a sharp, vibrant photo without the help of Photoshop?

Just wondering . . .

[Wazza]

Yes, and I'm a JPG shooter, as I'm shutter happy - (meaning I can't let go of the darn button. :p)

The less PS work I do, the better it makes me feel. Mostly just a colour enhancement/levels.. Rarely do I crop shots, or rotate them.

[Danny Boy]

I always edit to make adjustments. My pictures almost always need cropping of some sort.

[roanjohn]

I edit all my photos.

Ro1

[PhotosGuy]

Another friend, who is actually taking a photography class then chimed in saying that's why he prefers to shoot film because your technique/skills are reflected in the prints, which you cannot really post process like you do a digital photo. He calls photoshop "cheating" because that picture is not the true picture you took out of the camera. When he shoots film, the picture he shot is the picture that is printed . . .no cropping, no USM, no color balance, ets.
Oh, really? Well, in my not-so-humble-opinion, he's full of it! For instance, for B&W images does he only use D-76 developer at the recommended developing time/temp & rate of agitation, followed by a full sized print on #2 paper?
D-76 developer: Any other developer isn't "standard" & will give non-standard results, as in contrast/density changes.
recommended developing time & rate of agitation: Same thing.
full sized print: If he's printing 8X10"s on 8X10" paper, he's GOT to shoot a 4X5 proportion film to get that, otherwise he's making crops of the image. OTOH, if he's printing full-frame images to retain his artistic "purity", then he has my sympathy.
#2 paper: That includes NO dodging, burning, & only a full 2 minute developing time.

Not to mention that his choice of film and paper is a form of processing, too. So he's post-processing his work, even if he won't admit it.
If post processing was "good enough" for Ansel Adams, then it's good enough for me.

shouldn't we be able to produce a sharp, vibrant photo without the help of Photoshop? I guess that would be the ideal, but with digital you'd be depending on some programming geeks average/ideal of how much to sharpen, & every print does not require the same amount. I consider it an advantage to be able to choose how much to manipulate my pics, even when I'm wrong. ;)

[Curtis N]

My photography skills are too crappy to show people without the benefit of my "processing" skills.

Seriously, there is no such thing as a "pure" image. If you shoot RAW, you process it. If you shoot JPEG, the computer in the camera processes it. I love computers, but I don't want them making ALL my decisions for me.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I Edit everything.

The un-edited images are the ones no one has seen.

[Big_B]

This works for me.

"A very fine photographer asked me, "What did it feel like the first time you manipulated an image?", and I said "Do you mean the first time I shot black and white instead of color, do you mean the first time I burned the corner of a print down, do you mean the first time I 'spotted' a dust speck on my print, do you mean the first time I shot with a wide angle instead of a normal lens, I mean what are you referring to?" -Dan Burkholder

[Rob612]

Oh, really? Well, in my not-so-humble-opinion, he's full of it! For instance, for B&W images does he only use D-76 developer at the recommended developing time/temp & rate of agitation, followed by a full sized print on #2 paper?
D-76 developer: Any other developer isn't "standard" & will give non-standard results, as in contrast/density changes.
recommended developing time & rate of agitation: Same thing.
full sized print: If he's printing 8X10"s on 8X10" paper, he's GOT to shoot a 4X5 proportion film to get that, otherwise he's making crops of the image. OTOH, if he's printing full-frame images to retain his artistic "purity", then he has my sympathy.
#2 paper: That includes NO dodging, burning, & only a full 2 minute developing time.

Not to mention that his choice of film and paper is a form of processing, too. So he's post-processing his work, even if he won't admit it.
If post processing was "good enough" for Ansel Adams, then it's good enough for me.

Absolutely agree. No way of non processing chemical pics. Whatever you do, from choice of film, to the use of filters, to match paper with negative or slide IS processing or post processing, being it in the camera (i.e. filters) or in darkroom (i.e. color balancing).

And I add that if he really thinks that once printed his negative did not get any postprocessing well... I belive that he should go back to Photography 101 :D

[Pekka]

Post processing digital files is and should be an integral part of getting photos on any display. Make colors and curves support the photo and its message. Remove dust, fix (or add) noise and sharpness problems to get rid of distractions and alter mood and apprearance.

I usually do what is available in RAW conversion and basic PS editing. Seldom more.

[Conk]

I edit every image. To not edit a photo is like showing up for work in your underwear. :o

[CyberPet]

Yup, I always tweak a bit. But I wish I was better at it. There's so much to learn and so little time!

A friend of mine, he shoots all RAW but never tweaks the images... the result looks awful! He takes pride in shooting raw, but doesn't know that it also require some adjustments. At least all pictures I've seen that he's taken is underexposed and very dull. He has a better camera than me, but the results are worse than the ones I get - unprocessed, but I still tweak.

[johnnybfan]

I edit every image. To not edit a photo is like showing up for work in your underwear. :o

What a terrible thought!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[CyberPet]

If I were working with Marcus Schenkenberg I wouldn't mind that thought at all.... *drools*

[liza]

I edit everything, also. That's just part of the artistry of creating digital images.

[rdenney]

100% of the time.

What he said.

Rick "responsible for the final display only--not the intermediate steps" Denney

[tckadventures]

I edit every image. To not edit a photo is like showing up for work in your underwear. :o

:) very funny yet somehow true!:D

[MarkoPolo]

I'm a jpeg shooter most of the time (some RAW), but I always edit. Levels, Shadow and Highlight and unsharp mask are the least I'll do in Photoshop CS. Of course, resize to send to the forum.

[twl845]

If it needs it I do it. Normally I might need leveling, selective saturation or desaturation, the unsharpen tool, and occasionally cropping. If the shot isn't acceptible, I might use other stuff to save it. But you can't make a crappy shot good with editing.

[RichardtheSane]

It is rare that I pull an image into photoshop. I do it sometimes, usually for horizon levelling or if I need to add a grad filter effect. I have been known to a bit of cloning out of small things or dust bunnies. But photoshop is not generally a part of my workflow

I use either Capture One or Rawshooter to process my raw files (I shoot raw only). I make whatever adjustment there and the develops will then get converted for web using breezebrowser HTML. If I want to print I will prepare for printing with a sweep through noise ninja then sharpening for print in photoshop.

I wonder how much of that is all that different to the day I was processing b/w negatives...

[dandan]

I shoot JPEG almost all the time.. the only reason i dont shoot raw is it takes up to much storage space.

but yes.. every image in my gallery is post processed.

[IanD]

Everything gets processed, evn the small amount of Jpegs that I shoot. 99%of my shooting is in RAW.

[EOSAddict]

Have been 'doing digital' for nearly a year now and have not editied so far - mainly as I lacked the tools to do so (fast enough PC and SW). I have to say that as an EOS 100/slide film user for 13 years I find it difficult to get away frok the fact that images should be right first time. Aside from the essential processing of RAWs (somethign I am just getting into) Iintend to keep to the approach to do as little to my dig images post shooting as possible!

My first post of pics a couple opf day ago were of images untouched post camera and I can see nothing wrong with them. Some might say that they could be tweaked to get more detail etc but to my mind they are an acfurate reflection of the scene I saw at the time and that is what photography is about for me. Each to his own!

[tim]

I edit almost everything before I let anyone see it. The exception is wedding photo proofs, when you have 600 shots to get up within two days there's not time to give them all individual attention. Of course shots for printing get additional work, in general I think I print about 0.01% of the photos I take.

[Claire]

If I were working with Marcus Schenkenberg I wouldn't mind that thought at all.... *drools*

He's boring! :p :p But on the other hand, I've never been into men with six-packs...

Oh, and I also edit my images. Levels, contrast, sharpening, gaussian blur and maybe a bit of cloning for the skin.

[reidr]

I edit as well. Raw and JPEG.

[CyberPet]

Claire, you mean you are more into men that *drinks* six-packs and have one big (and large) one-pack? :D

I wish I could learn more about cool effects (not only adjust levels, etc) to make some pics to pop! Anyone got any great links to share, it'd be appreicated.

[Big_B]

Each to his own!

I think that's the most important point :)