# Is there any value of Unedited Photographs ?



## BadPhotos (Mar 24, 2022)

Hi All,

I recently started photography and got a DSLR.
I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.

I have no grudge with editing and infact amazed how talented people are out there who know PS and Lightroom that well but then is there any forum/platform where the actual raw(not the format) and unaltered pics are appreciated or considered. 

Or is it just me who wasn't aware that before even getting a camera, I should have learned PS.


----------



## Jeff15 (Mar 24, 2022)

For me, editing is all part of the fun of photography. I use Photoshop Elements 20 + a few other smaller programs. I must add it takes a long while to get into Photoshop but when you do it's great fun....Good luck.....


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 24, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> I have no grudge with editing and infact amazed how talented people are out there who know PS and Lightroom that well but then is there any forum/platform where the actual raw(not the format) and unaltered pics are appreciated or considered.
> 
> Or is it just me who wasn't aware that before even getting a camera, I should have learned PS.



There's nothing that says you have to edit an image. Set your camera to save as JPEG and shoot away. Even if you edit, the closer you get to an SOOC image the less time required in post. I don't enjoy time in post correcting things that should have been corrected before I snapped the shutter.


----------



## SquarePeg (Mar 24, 2022)

I agree with Smoke, if you’re not going to edit then shoot in jpeg so the camera sharpens.  Unedited raw files are just not attractive.  

You could start your own thread in the Themes forum and call it Unedited or Straight Outta Camera (If you want to be cute).   It would be interesting to me, who edits 99.9999% of my photos, to see what people can achieve without any editing.   Hmmmm…I smell our next weekly challenge topic!  Sorry but I’m calling dibs on Straight Outta Camera.


----------



## RAZKY (Mar 24, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I recently started photography and got a DSLR.
> I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.
> ...


For many decades millions of us successfully used transparency film for slide shows, straight prints and reproduction - what we shot was what we got. Shooting digital the same way, we have little use for photoshop.
That said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you need to know about how to use your camera. And of course, when you've learned both you can achieve much more than you ever could with film.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 24, 2022)

@SquarePeg there is one camp (quite large) that believes any image can be improved post, you have another camp (not as large) of purist that believe anything other than SOOC is cheating. I belong in the camp that says do what floats your boat. I think part of it is how you view yourself. Are you strickly a photographer, recording a scene, or do you view yourself more of a creative artist? The latter will never be happy to just leave it as is. The advent of digital has expanded the creative opportunities far beyond just the camera capability. However most forget there was editing in the darkroom.


----------



## RacePhoto (Mar 24, 2022)

Get the best shot you can "in camera" and then make it better.  

You don't have to pay for an expensive Creative Cloud subscription. I'm another one who uses Elements, and I buy a new version or upgrade every few years. Depends on if some new feature have trickled over from Photoshop.

Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

Like baking bread, you start with the basics, ingredients, mix and you kneed the dough, then you bake it and that transforms the flour and whatever else, into a finished product.

Creating a photo isn't simply taking a picture. That first image is just the beginning of the process. I enjoy editing, and I don't use heavy handed techniques, filters or lots of tricks and tools. Others do that very well, but I'm more down to basics and adjusted real images. (most of the time) But again, some people are artists and others are interested in capturing moments or events.



BadPhotos said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I recently started photography and got a DSLR.
> 
> Or is it just me who wasn't aware that before even getting a camera, I should have learned PS.



Actually the camera and the photos are the right first step, learning how to make them as good as possible with the tools you have, lighting, technique, exposure, is the next step. And you're right, editing is next. But no you didn't need to learn PS first. Getting a nice DSLR and some lenses, and going out shooting, is a great choice for the first step.

Just a suggestion and least expensive one I know of for getting started. Most of the tools and skills, will apply to Photoshop or LR as well. Affinity Photo. Brief free trial and then buy it, if you like it, $54.99

Works very much like LR in that it makes a file and saves the editing and alterations, without changing the original. You export a new JPG when you want the edited file. Also works much like Photoshop the way the tools work and what you can do.  Affinity Photo – Professional Image Editing Software

Or GIMP which is free?


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 24, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> I recently started photography and got a DSLR.


Forgot to ask....Which camera did you get??? Most manufacturers supply a very basic editing software Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Digital Photo Professional Express Application | Canon USA  -   NX Studio | Image viewing and editing software for Nikon digital camera files -  PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 Update for Windows : Software Downloads | RICOH IMAGING


----------



## Strodav (Mar 24, 2022)

I started my photography journey in film and had a full darkroom.  I learned how to adjust exposure, change the white point, dodge and burn and even use nose grease to hide scratches and spots. Even Ansel Adams had his fair share of darkroom tricks.  I do the same sorts of things today, but much more quickly and precisely digitally, mostly in LightRoom Classic.  I have learned to enhance and create images in Photoshop that were absolutely impossible to do in film.  The technology has evolved allowing me to be more creative.  Why wouldn't I take advantage of that?

The roses are blooming in SE Texas, which I decided to capture yesterday.  This is from our backyard garden.  It is a stack of 8 images digitally aligned and merged in PhotoShop to overcome the shallow depth of field limitation of my camera and lens (Nikon D850 and Sigma 105mm macro).






I wish you good luck on your photography journey.  It continues to be an amazing trip for me and I hope the same for you.


----------



## Rickbb (Mar 24, 2022)

Yes they absolutely have value and this should be your goal, taking a picture that doesn't "need" any editing. (Need is in quotes as this is a very subjective thing.)

Starting out you should try to get it right in camera, that way you will learn exactly how your camera works and how you can make it do what you want. 

I've been doing this a long time and still not very good with PS or LR. Almost 50 years in and I just bought my first copy of PS/LR last year. So no you don't need to learn PS first. And IMHO shouldn't.

I use LR mostly to make minor adjustments in cropping, contrast, exposure and color balance. (Sometimes stacking for macro or astro shot, which I'm still learning, and still not very good at.) Vast majority of my "edits" take less than 5 minutes, I consider them more of a light touch up than an edit. And I've only used PS three times, didn't like it and went back to LR, LR being more of a digital darkroom than anything. PS is more of a graphic arts tool, for me anyway, not very useful on photographs. (I spent too many years in an old school darkroom in the film days I guess.)

Think of editing as an addition to the photo, instead of something you need to fix a photo.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2022)

First, I would need your definition of 'value' in order to answer your question.

Is 'value' defined as "Lookie what I did!", or is it monetary... as in "This image is worth more on the open market because I didn't edit it."?

When I sell an image, the customer never asks about, ergo is not interested in, whether I edited the image or not.  The end goal is to produce an image that satisfies the criteria set forth by the photographer.

If that criteria is personal satisfaction, and you take a photo that doesn't need editing while you're still happy with it, then yes, it has value.

If the value is based on dollar signs, then yes,... my unedited images definitely have value as I have been approached by potential customers who have perused my portfolio, didn't find what they were looking for, asked if I had a particular image.. and paid me for an image I took but didn't even bother to edit in post because I didn't think it was marketable.  But I do on occasion go back through my archives, locate an un-rated/un-starred file... and sell them.


----------



## mrca (Mar 24, 2022)

Hopefully,  you knew what you were saying with it or what inspired you before you pressed the shutter and you had a vision for the shot that matched it.  Post processing enables  you to perfect that vision.   Ansel Adams, who was a pianist, described  the negative or the capture as the score, the print or digitally the final edit, the performance.  Lots of people can play the notes of a song but with no heart or soul.  But the real musical artist lets  his heart transform the sheet music.   Ansel did dozens of modifications in printing.  Cartier-Bresson said a great image happens when the eye, the mind and the heart come together to produce the image.  Today, that includes post processing.  Don't let those who think a photo must only ape what is in front of the camera refuse to acknowledge the hard fought place of photography as an art form.   From  day one, photographers were criticised by painters as either being too lazy or incapable of painting so  they just use a machine.   But since both attempt to render a 3 dimensional reality in 2 dimensions, many of the techniques are in common.   If you don't know those techniques, composition, lighting, etc then you won't be aware of what could be done to perfect the image.  Learn what makes a great image and that knowledge will guide your post processing and even capturing for it.   Outside of photojournalism, there is no photo god issuing any commandment that post processing is a sin.  It is part of the process from capture to print.   There is a huge difference between picking up a point and shoot camera and just snapping from where you are standing compared to knowing what inspired you to take the photo, what you are saying then using all the choices you have for camera distance/height, lens selection cropping a portion of reality, depth of field perhaps to isolate subject,  how light falls on subject.   In post you may want to emphasize the sharp subject by making it the area of highest contrast brightening only that area.  You may want to down play parts darkening them.  Post PERFECTS your vision.  Again, it is important you have one  before clicking the shutter.  A great image is one that has a powerful message or inspiration, is well composed and well lit.   Study composition and how the camera and lenses effect it, and where to put things in the frame.  Like musicians, we work in energy, them in sound energy, us in light energy.  So learn light.  Be it Bob, the big orange ball or other sources.   But often the light handed you is crap so learn to know when and where to find good light.   There is a reason when I load my jeep for a location shoot, it is loaded to the roof with lighting gear.   Yes, the camera will give you a "recognizable image" but if you want more, then learning the above will be important.


----------



## Shinden (Mar 25, 2022)

I tend to like getting the photo as good as I can when I shoot it, I tend to crop it later, I don't always want everything that's in frame from the beginning, but just don't have a lens that gives me the right frame size from the position that I want to have the camera.  Another thing I learned when I started cropping is that, sometimes aspect ratio is important to you.  How do you want this photo to be view.  On the other hand, I started shooting with a 28mm because I'm a person who likes having all of the context I can get for everything.  This was a mistake.  Once I learned how to use a 50mm lens, it became my favorite, and I only use the 28mm when the wider field of view is really beneficial.  Now, I don't mind cropping or tilting, but I'm not one of these post processing artistes who will remove light polls from a photo just because it got in the way of the perfect angle, I'd rather just find the second best angle that doesn't have a light poll in the way.  I'd feel a little bit like Stalin if I were to "air brush" a light poll out of "history."  Sometimes and uncropped image can be great, but sometimes, I just want to take off the side of the frame, and sometimes I just want the picture to have a little more of a blue hue to it to make it look how I remember the scene rather than how the scene really looked.

On the other hand, if your taking a photo for scientific purposes, I don't think anyone want's you to edit stuff out.  that's data, keep it.  Often scientific photos that have some editing: cropping, exposure adjustments, color shifts, brightness changes, etc. will be presented, but the unedited version will be presented for 3rd parties to review for themselves.  Make adjustments can make it easier to narrow down the data that you're looking at, but you may miss something important by doing so.  Scientific photos aren't typically intended as art though.

(The paragraph that actually may answer your question directly-ish)
I generally don't do anything beyond cropping and tilting, unless I have a very specific look that I want which is not achievable through the lens.  But I do think it's cool, and especially valuable from a learning point of view to see unedited photos.  What are other photographers getting out of the camera so that I can learn to match their quality.  Once you're good at getting a good photo onto the sensor, then you can work on making it look like it did to your eyes.  

Here's an story of something that changed my perspective.  Back in the day, Kodak was making film with as true to life colors as they could, and they had the US market on lock down.  But then Fujifilm came over from Japan and photographers just loved shooting their film.  They said things like "the Fuji colors are stronger and pop better than the Kodak colors."  Kodak bought some of this Fujifilm and gave to their engineers to figure out what Fuji was doing so well.  In the words of my kinematics professor, the Kodak engineers looked at it and said "These Colors Suck!" So they eventually determined that the Fuji colors looked more like how people remember the scene looking rather than how it actually did look.  Kodak then started adjusting their colors to get a similar effect.  That's how the story was told to me, believe it if you want.  But that's kind of like doing "pre-processing."  so if pre-processing is good, how bad can post processing be?

This is a cool topic, because I've asked myself the same question quite a bit too.  Glad to see I'm not the only one.

Have a good day, and many amazing shots.


----------



## mrca (Mar 25, 2022)

This question about digital has been around for decades.  It understandable it is almost always from someone who doesn't use lightroom/photoshop.   Often when new photographers realize their work is no were near the quality of others they conclude the others  must be "cheating."  Folks don't realize their unedited photo isn't reality either.   It's only a smalll crop of reality and then 3 dimensions are rendered 2 dimensionally.   If you are shooting in jpeg, your camera has already  brainlessly "edited" contrast, color, sharpness that is done in post exactly as you want them, then thrown away half of the information it captured.    That's why a raw image looks so flat and why shooting in raw gives so much more data to work with in post.   I always suggest new folks  take a couple of Scott Kelby's lightroom classes, you can get a couple weeks free, he is a premier  Photoshop guru and excellent teacher.  Once folks realize photoshop is for more than replacing heads, oversaturated HDR or removing telephone poles and understand that it is part of the process to reach the image envisioned at capture,  that is, if they did more than see a potential image and just snap a photo from there, then they understand.  They start MAKING photos not just taking them.     Most folks first starting with photography think it must ape exactly what is in front of the camera.   Would they tell  Picasso  he  must stop with all the surrealistic paintings or the Impressionists  their  not sharply defined and not realistic "impressions?"  Understand that photography is an art form and that  you are not using a photocopy machine.   But if that is your goal, then you don't need a camera with aperture, iso, shutter speed controls and various lenses that allow  you to modify what is in front of the camera, a cell phone will do that and is smaller and always with you.


----------



## BadPhotos (Mar 25, 2022)

Amazed with all the responses and really promotive and positive responses.
Thank you all for being polite, welcoming and genuinely keen to help.

First to answer couple of questions:

@smoke665 - Got a canon camera, thanks for the link, got one suitable for my device.
@480sparky - By 'value' I meant *aesthetically appealing * and what I understood are they do have more monitory value as well.

@Shinden Amazing post and thanks for the story bite from past.

@mrca Do agree with ' So learn light '

@SquarePeg Good segment idea indeed.

And thanks to all others, the intent was not to paint editing in a bad light, it's definitely not cheating rather a great skill which I would certainly like to master.

Actually I have been talking to couple of people who either started sometime back or are new like me and more or less everyone seemed a little disappointed that their photos never came out as good as the ones in tutorials or the "insta likable". I know one has to be persistent and it can't happen over-night but was looking for a website or forum or community where we have just the SOOB photos.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 25, 2022)

@BadPhotos There's more to getting a good SOOC shot than light, or perspective. Learning to use your tools and all that it's capable of will go a long way in achieving that illusive SOOC. For example say you're at a sporting event or zoo, and there's a chain link fence in your way. If you  use a long focal length lens up close to the fence, and focus on the subject the fence will magically disapper. Cant see the street for all the people moving around, check out how to make them disappear "in camera" - https://www.photographynews.co.uk/inspiration/remove-any-moving-object-in-camera/ . Google ICM photography, or Pull/Zoom photography, the creative opportunities for SOOC are endless.


----------



## mrca (Mar 25, 2022)

Badphotos, it is a craft that can be learned, it's not rocket science.  Kelby has lightroom and photo shop classes that will take you from square one to expert at your own pace.  He also has classes on what the camera and lenses do to an image, classes on composition, lighting.  He has experts in the field,, teaching things like nature, lighting, portraiture, sports, product.  But I always warn folks but they don't listen,  don't sign up unless you can disappear for a month or 2.  I didn't have the luxury of attending a photo school like Brooks so had to find sources for my photo education.  Kelby really helped  How did that work out?  My local Professional photographers of america  asked me to head their mentor program.  I have won and judged professional competitions.   Kelby will give you a solid foundation.   But shoot and use what you learn.  So much to learn, so much to photo.


----------



## mrca (Mar 25, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> @BadPhotos There's more to getting a good SOOC shot than light, or perspective. Learning to use your tools and all that it's capable of will go a long way in achieving that illusive SOOC. For example say you're at a sporting event or zoo, and there's a chain link fence in your way. If you  use a long focal length lens up close to the fence, and focus on the subject the fence will magically disapper. Cant see the street for all the people moving around, check out how to make them disappear "in camera" - https://www.photographynews.co.uk/inspiration/remove-any-moving-object-in-camera/ . Google ICM photography, or Pull/Zoom photography, the creative opportunities for SOOC are endless.


Definitely alot to making a good photo.  But there must be sound fundementals of  composition and lighting and if they are missing,  interesting techniques will still produce a poor image.  Bad use of light and poor composition is still there after getting a shot through chain link or  eliminating people from a shot.  I have known that technique for years and never used it.  But nearly every shot should have good light and compostion.      I am an advocate of learning the basics of capture and editing.   Folks always complain their "keeper" ratio is low.   That's what happens with spray and pray.  I shoot alot of film, medium format at a lab ends up costing me $3 per shot.  I do everything I can to be sure nearly every one is a keeper.   Knowing the craft makes that possible.  I would add, joining a local club that has monthly judging of images will help immeasurably.   First, you know know what you don't know is wrong with your shots and when 30 or 40 images are critiqued a night, you will quickly learn what are common problems and learn to spot them looking through the viewfinder.   Most judge anonymously so look at any critique as a learning experience.  That alone will improve your work more than ANY  piece of gear.


----------



## mjcmt (Mar 25, 2022)

Obviously two schools of thought, to edit or not.  Some like it raw and unedited, but generally setting camera menu to a more enhanced photo. Generally street photographers like a raw B&W unedited image. Some edit extensively to get the results they envision, while some just do a bit editing to tweak what the camera captured. I try not to edit my street photos and do minimal editing on other subjects.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 25, 2022)

@mrca I may have worded the response wrong, I didn't mean to discount the importance of lighting and composition, I was merely pointing out that creative photography can be done in camera. However I think you would also agree that opportunity trumps everything. Would anyone care about lighting or composition if you snapped a real life shot of Big Foot, or an Alien. Did anyone criticize the lighting or composition of the "V-J Day in Times Square"?


----------



## mrca (Mar 25, 2022)

I edit  when the image calls for it, when it will maximize the message or story being told.   There is nothing purist or virtuistic  about declaring you don't edit.   It is usually a sign someone wont  be bothered to take the time to edit,  doesn't have the editing skills or even understand what makes a great image.       Of course, if I just mindlessly took a photo, had no idea why I took it, it wouldn't be possible to maximize a non existent message or story.  It is like sitting at the keyboard, closing your eyes and hitting random keys hoping it will say something meaningful.     However,  like a blind squirrel, you will occasionally find an acorn.  But then don't complain when your images don't compare with someone who crafts the image from capture to print.    Ever see a draft of a great speech, it is full of edits, cross outs etc.  Is it more pure not to edit the first draft of literature?  Beginners are not expected to know the difference and understand, but folks photoing for awhile,


smoke665 said:


> @mrca I may have worded the response wrong, I didn't mean to discount the importance of lighting and composition, I was merely pointing out that creative photography can be done in camera. However I think you would also agree that opportunity trumps everything. Would anyone care about lighting or composition if you snapped a real life shot of Big Foot, or an Alien. Did anyone criticize the lighting or composition of the "V-J Day in Times Square"?


I agree, can do creative photography in camera with unique camera positions, lenses.  But I disagree opportunity trumps everything.  Yes, in some cases I would rather be lucky than good.  However Bambi Cantrell said expression trumps perfection but her friend and fellow master wedding photographer Jerry Ghianis said that's true, but expression plus perfection trumps expression alone.   My best awarded image is a shot taken looking behind me at an event and spotting a reflection of a christmas laser light show in an 18th century santas glasses.  It got all kinds of awards because of the subject matter but no one realized I popped a flash to the other side of the street 40 ' away 45 degrees behind me off the glass store fronts to put loop lighting on his face instead of the flat light from the laser in the dark.   It was a decisive moment capture with an expression of wonderment, but wouldn't have been as good without the perfect lighting.  That's why it takes a few months practice to be able to take decent photos, 10,000 hours to make outstanding one.  Smoke we are pretty serious about our photography and have to remember that so many folks are only expecting to get sharp well exposed with the subject recognizable.   And there is nothing wrong with that.  But it would be great if folks could discover the amazing creativity available in photography both capture and editing  and enjoy what we both have found.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 25, 2022)

mrca said:


> However, like a blind squirrel, you will occasionally find an acorn.


Here in the woods and mountains of Alabama we say "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then", one of my favorite sayings by the way. LOL



mrca said:


> But I disagree opportunity trumps everything. Yes, in some cases I would rather be lucky than good.



Once you've been at it for many years, you develop a certain amount of reflex actions that you instinctively do without conscious thought, even in those split second shots.


----------



## mrca (Mar 25, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> Here in the woods and mountains of Alabama we say "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then", one of my favorite sayings by the way. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've been at it for many years, you develop a certain amount of reflex actions that you instinctively do without conscious thought, even in those split second shots.


In Italy, those pigs find incredbily expensive truffles.   I have seen your work here and you are not relying on pray and spray.  You work on mastery of the craft.  So true on things becoming automatic.   When I don't shoot for a while in studio, I have to think how to use the light trigger.  In the shot I described, I had just returned from a cross country trip to study with Denis Reggie and Joe Buissink who in 2011 was charging up to $50,000 per wedding. When he had demonstrated a 40 foot speedlight bounce, I couldn't believe it.  We did a 100' bounce from the back of the Atlanta cathedral to the front and back and produced wonderful light on the bride.   That is exactly why I can't recommend highly enough joining a local club with monthly judging.  After a few months, the standard errors automatically are recognized  in the view finder and folks make fantastic progress.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 26, 2022)

It depends on what you intend to do with your photos.

When I travel or shoot family occasions, I use a digital camera and shoot jpeg and raw.  When I get home, I make a slide show of selected pictures from the trip.  I mainly use jpegs as shot in the camera.  The only editing I do is some cropping if needed and maybe adding a little more color and saturation which could have been done in the camera when I shot them.  (There are settings in the camera for color, saturation, etc.)  So you really don;lt need editing programs other than simple adjustments.  

On the other hand, when I shoot film, I need to scan and do major adjustments afterward.  So I use Lightroom and other programs.  If you intend to do fancy printing, then you;ll need more skills.  Even then, most printing doesn't;t require huge edits.  I just sent a cellphone picture to Walgreens for a couple of 5x7 prints.  No editing other than a little cropping. 

In any case, I wouldn't get ahead of myself.  Stick with simple straightforward stuff first.  If you feel you need to develop more skills, then you can do that later.


----------



## TanBrae (Mar 27, 2022)

I edit most of my photos. I'm still trying to learn how to use my camera, and don't always get it right IN camera. 

That said,,,

I generally prefer more true-to-life photos, rather than those that are, in my opinion, overly processed. A FB group I'm in posts a lot of sunrise and sunset images. Most are quite overly saturated. I seldom see sunrises/sunsets that are THAT bright. (the group is a state-wide only photo group)

Bird and flower shots, too, are often overly saturated. I know what color cardinals are - a sort of orange-y red, NOT a lipstick red! And, our grass isn't very green at this time of year, but I'm constantly seeing bright, summer green grass in many images. 

Edit, but don't over do it!


----------



## weepete (Mar 28, 2022)

@BadPhotos there's more to a really good shot than editing alone. Sure, tweeking photos individually can get you a slightly better result than not, but it's more about getting that shot to be the best in can be than elevating it to a different level.

In a really good shot, the technical aspects of photography are pretty much a given. So, if you are at a stage where you are getting consistantly well exposed, sharp images and you still think there's something lacking, it's time to delve into more advanced concepts. The trouble with tutorials from experienced photographers is that they'll be applying years of learning subconsciously, and it'll seem quite simple, but often they'll be paying attention to things that create harmony, or discordance without realising it.

I'd really reccommend is getting some critique on your photos, and learning how to critique others as well (both in a constructive way). I have a little bit of art education, critique was absolutley fundimental to development, and actually understanding art. We've quite a good sub-forum here for that. If you've got the inclination, a course at a local college which could teach critical evaluation and art history is well worth it. 25 years on I still use the things I learned during art classes.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Mar 29, 2022)

mrca said:


> Badphotos, it is a craft that can be learned, it's not rocket science. Kelby has lightroom and photo shop classes that will take you from square one to expert at your own pace.


Ah ha, another K1 member! I'm Cytography over there!  Kelby has what are called "Tracks" for various topics.  For example, a Light Room "track" where there are several "classes" and each class will have several "lessons."  I've completed the LR "Track" and now working on the Photoshop Track.  Soup-to-nuts from beginning all the way to advanced techniques.  He has classes (and in many cases tracks with multiple classes) for just about any Photo related topics you can imagine.  And Kelby's instructors are world-class.  Then you can discuss the class-related topics (or anything else) in the Kelby community forum like this one. Many professional hand out there.  Kelby isn't free but I feel like it's well worth the price of admission.


----------



## Jason LB (Mar 29, 2022)

Probably not the most popular opinion, but ever since digital came along, I kinda consider the electronic editing that happens on a computer to be “cheating” in a way. If it wasn’t done in a darkroom, the tonal changes that are applied are a whole different thing. 
My opinion may be changed if I were to take a class on digital manipulation, but I enjoy the prep work I do before a shot in order to achieve the results I’m looking for, and yes, I’m off base more often than I’d like, but that’s part of the learning for me.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 29, 2022)

Going back to your original post ... as an old film photographer, i know that we did not typically present a SOOC image ... many do not manipulate the film development, but most have done many different versions of the print ... dodging, burning, contrast changes, filters, etc ... to get an image that we liked. 
Shooting positive (slide) film, really made us work at getting it right the first time.
This age of digital imaging has just made this process ooooh, soooo much easier ... and yeah, the tools we have now can make a trash bin image into a keeper.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Mar 29, 2022)

Jason LB said:


> Probably not the most popular opinion, but ever since digital came along, I kinda consider the electronic editing that happens on a computer to be “cheating” in a way. If it wasn’t done in a darkroom, the tonal changes that are applied are a whole different thing.
> My opinion may be changed if I were to take a class on digital manipulation, but I enjoy the prep work I do before a shot in order to achieve the results I’m looking for, and yes, I’m off base more often than I’d like, but that’s part of the learning for me.


There's certainly room for both schools of thought.  I think it depends on what you're shooting for and what type of shooting you do.  Even Ansel Adams did a fair amount of "post processing" in the dark room, albeit to a different degree that we can do it now.

I always (well, almost) shoot RAW and do most of my post processing in Lightroom.  I can achieve an artistic vision far beyond what I could get straight out of the camera.  I see it as just more tools that allow for increased creativity.  

I'm not trying to be a photo journalist, but rather enjoy the photography (hobby for me) as a means of artistic expression where the camera and the available editing tools are all just part of the overall creative process.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Mar 29, 2022)

dxqcanada said:


> This age of digital imaging has just made this process ooooh, soooo much easier


And in my humble opinion, so much more fun!


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 29, 2022)

BasilFawlty said:


> And in my humble opinion, so much more fun!


Release the Sliders!!!


----------



## fwolff (Mar 29, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> Amazed with all the responses and really promotive and positive responses.
> Thank you all for being polite, welcoming and genuinely keen to help.
> 
> First to answer couple of questions:
> ...



Mr. BadPhotos,

I personally like to fiddle in LR to get my images, film or digital, just right.

However time is money, and if I have 1000 images from a professional job, I strive for and appreciate images, right out of the camera, that requires minimal editing.

Have fun,

FW


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 29, 2022)

Over the years I have noticed one common thread in photography. With rare exception most people, photographers included, are looking for the WOW factor.

That is to say, if you ask folks to choose the better picture, they will almost always choose a color print over the same black and white print. They will almost always choose a creatively post processed, super color saturated, crisp and clearer that life photo, over its "as shot" image.  

Why, because it is how people react to visual stimulus. The WOW factor can, and often does, include the subject or message of the photo, both pleasant and discomforting. 

For example, Color or B&W; everybody smiles at photos of cute little critters; puppies, kittens, wildlife youngsters and of course human babies. Again, it is  pretty much the way most folk are wired.

But to answer the OPs question , Yes there is value in every type of photography.  But, not every photographer likes every type of photography.  Those who wish to sell their photos are limited by what the market place will buy.

When starting out, I think you will find yourself migrating to certain areas of interest.  Some photographers chase black and white street photography, white other seek fine art studio photos.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 30, 2022)

Some like blondes; others like brunettes.


----------



## Caizen12 (Mar 30, 2022)

I'm not familiar with the CorelDraw, Is it easy than the PS?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 30, 2022)

TanBrae said:


> I edit most of my photos. I'm still trying to learn how to use my camera, and don't always get it right IN camera.


Which begs the question do you want to always get it right IN camera? In time you could eventually train yourself to only photograph the small and restricted range of subjects that the limited editing software in your camera can handle. But then there's so much that you won't be able to photograph. "Get it right in camera" is very much a myth unless you understand that it prevents you from photographing most of what you can see. The camera's toolset is quite limited and it's commonplace that you will encounter scenes and lighting conditions that simply shut the camera software down. The only way you can always get it right in camera then is if you avoid trying to photograph those scenes in those lighting conditions.



Jason LB said:


> Probably not the most popular opinion, but ever since digital came along, I kinda consider the electronic editing that happens on a computer to be “cheating” in a way.


All digital photographs are edited by the photographer. In order to produce the final output image the camera software edits the photo according to the photographer's specifications. The camera can apply one of usually 1/2 dozen different input profiles chosen by the photographer. The camera must set a white balance for the photo chosen by the photographer. The camera can moderate highlight and shadow rendition over a range of a dozen possibilities chosen by the photographer. The camera will sharpen the photo to the degree chosen by the photographer. And depending on the camera another 1/2 dozen editing procedures.

It's curious that some people draw a line between the extensive editing done by the photographer using the camera software for every digital image -- that's not cheating -- while as soon as the editing continues outside the camera -- that is cheating. I can't find any logic in that. Especially since it may often be that the editing done outside the camera is often done to produce a more true-to-life and faithful rendition of the subject given that the camera software was too limited to achieve that.

Consider this example -- a photo of the pond and fountain in our park I took a couple months ago.






That photo is an example of a simple landscape not possible to "get right in the camera." As such it's edited outside the camera to basically make up for the camera's deficiencies or inability to edit the image well. I take photos like this all the time. The editing I've done to this photo isn't to produce a better than life WOW version but simply to capture the scene as it appeared -- something the camera software couldn't do.

Here's the JPEG SOOC that the camera created.





The problem that is ultimately insurmountable for the camera is that the scene is backlit. The sky highlights in the camera JPEG are nuked to hell and the only option for the camera is to reduce exposure. Reduce exposure and the foreground gets too dark. The editing software in the camera doesn't provide options to locally adjust different parts of the image.

The camera has a color problem as well. The foreground is too blue -- camera was set to auto WB. The sky and clouds however are much closer to the right color. Fact is the scene has a split white balance and the camera software can't accommodate that either. There is no getting it right in camera. The editing done on the computer wasn't extensive but it was necessary to render an image faithful to what I saw there at the park because the camera editing software wasn't up to the job.


----------



## Rickbb (Mar 30, 2022)

Caizen12 said:


> I'm not familiar with the CorelDraw, Is it easy than the PS?


Corel Draw/Photo was out first and was for Windows users when PS was a Mac only product. Mostly consigned to the dust bin now, but in the day it was quite a powerful tool. 

I wouldn't say it's easier, learning curve to them all, but a little more intuitive than PS, IMHO anyway. But then I used Corel 20 years ago and have almost never opened PS.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 30, 2022)

SOOC is more important in the areas of composition, framing, and the angle of the shot.  These things can mainly be not corrected in post.  
On the other hand, exposure, DR, etc. can often be adjusted in post to correct or improve the limitation of cameras to capture these things correctly.  So we have a little more flexibility in correcting in post.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 30, 2022)

I have come to the conclusion that digital for all its advantages, rarely produces a picture that for me does not need a little tweaking, particularly when it comes to contrast.  Probably just one of my personal biases.


----------



## zulu42 (Mar 30, 2022)

Well, @BadPhotos , a hot topic that always spurs discussion!

Truth is: we all have our own level at which we "draw the line" regarding how much we will edit our digital images.  Unfortunately, human nature often dictates that we then judge other photographers based on our own preferences. Too much or not enough editing is a first impression reaction based on each individual's unique threshold. 

Photographers care, not a random viewer.  People will love a poor photo because they have an emotional reaction. The same person will love an edited photo for the brilliant rendition. A photographer will brutally judge based on what they would do. 

Some guys are hung up on the topic and love to re-hash the debate. I know a user on a forum who will post the same baiting questions under different aliases in order to passively justify their own position on the subject. 

Record your imagery and prepare it for display however you choose. React to the choices of others however you feel. Share your opinion. It's all good.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 31, 2022)

With regards to the original question. All photos have value to someone or some group. 

But, as a nubie starting out, one should be aware that the majority of photos you see published in magazines are enhanced or modified to some degree. When was the last time you saw a really bad photo published. So yes, you should be familiar with the basics of post processing.

I use Gimp because it is free, but it is confusing to use. Pacasa on the other hand is quite easy. My needs are are usually met with the some method of Cropping  and Auto correcting.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Mar 31, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> Some like blondes; others like brunettes.


Both!


----------



## greybeard (May 24, 2022)

Some types of photography like "News" demand for things to be unedited.


----------



## mrca (May 24, 2022)

BasilFawlty said:


> Both!


Don't forget red heads.   I photo people regardless of hair color.


----------



## mjcmt (Jun 7, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I recently started photography and got a DSLR.
> I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.
> ...


Consider at least tweak your curves in a basic editing program, similar to controlling contrast w/ an enlarger using film. 
When I shot B&W 35mm film I edited in the darkroom to make pleasing prints, and choosing paper type was as important.
Ansel Adams incorporated extensive darkroom work to print what he visualized using the zone system.

But, a raw unadulterated documentary style is to be appreciated as well. Especially common with the art community when shooting w/ a pin-hole camera or plastic Holga Russian camera.


----------



## Strodav (Jun 7, 2022)

There have been several posts lately here on TPF and other forums on SOOC being more true to the spirt of photography than images enhanced in Post.  The idea that if you don't do it like I do it makes you less of a photographer is creepy.  I will explore my craft the way I want to explore it and if you like my images great, but the only one I am really trying to please is myself, and maybe my wife or I'll get grief for hanging one she doesn't like.


----------



## Dave NY (Jul 5, 2022)

I agree with Strodav. The reason I take any shot is because I liked it. Now there are plenty that come out like crap because I am new at this, but there are also ones that I think are Great just as they were taken. 

I take them because I enjoy it and it gives me something to do, I am not doing it to make a living at it. I buy what I consider to be good equipment so that I have a good starting point. 

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 6, 2022)

thikhh said:


> I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.



This is only partially correct. All images can be improved on in post to some degree, but it doesn't relieve the photographer of capturing the best possible image SOOC. While you can correct many things post, the old adage "garbage in, garbage out" still holds true. Spending time on composition, exposure and lighting before you snap the shutter eliminates  a ton of post work.

Also it's important to realize when to stop with post editing. To often people fail to recognize that an image has a limit on post processing. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it any less a pig. If you have a good SOOC image you can actually ruin it by overprocessing.

Finally it becomes apparent in a hurry if you have a shoot with a lot of images that the less editing the better. Spending an hour editing one image isn't much, but try that on a 100. Through experience I've developed a consistency in my shooting that makes editing multiple images much less time consuming.


----------



## terri (Oct 6, 2022)

BadPhotos said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I recently started photography and got a DSLR.
> *I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.*
> ...






thikhh said:


> I have been following a lot of channel on YouTube and forums like this about photography and realized that taking photo is just the tip of Iceberg, and you HAVE TO KNOW EDITING to make it presentable.



Bot.   

Account banned and thread closed.

Edited to add: thread closed because it's only been catching bot/spam replies like this - they're deleted so members can't see what's been happening.   If anyone wants to open a new thread related to this topic, by all means go for it.


----------

