# I Edit-- So Deal with It!



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

Sometimes I get really annoyed when friends and family get upset with me when I show them the SOOC and "after" shots--they feel it's a lie. A forgery. That I'm enhancing to the point of unrealistic levels.  In response, I posted the below on facebook with some examples.  



Photography is not just about taking a picture--in reality, that's only half the process, if even. I shoot in RAW format, which is as it sounds--a raw file, not processed in any way (the camera processes JPEG's by adding contrast, saturation, etc). I then take the image into Adobe Lightroom, edit to taste, and in this case, took it into NIK Silver Efex (a black and white conversion software) and push processed the image, brought it back into lightroom, made some minor adjustments, then exported the image as a JPEG. In my editing arsenal I have 5 different editing programs, and each has their purpose. Sometimes it takes just one program, and sometimes it takes four. 

What I want to show you is that what comes out of the camera is a RAW file--unprocessed, dull, lacking creative touches. It is in editing and processing that an image truly comes to life. Editing allows each photographer to put their individual touches on an image...it allows us to make the image our own. Anyone can TAKE the same photo, but can they process it in the same way? Likely not.


And these comments ensued:







So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?
Jake


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 17, 2014)

Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2014)

When I first got my d7000 I shot in JPEG.  And I practived *alot* to get the photo as I saw it.  Alot of them looked like they were processed, but I guess they actually were as you *are* changing setting in the camera to modify the basic image that the sensor captures.

So, as you mentioned, even JPEG is modified and not "natural".

I've found with LR now, that I can just take a shot and move on knowing that I can correct it in PP.
It's alot more fun now, but I certainly learned alot earlier on.

So I guess a "natural" photo is one in which you don't allow the camera to modify the image at all
versus using the camera's internal settings to modify the image
versus use PP to tweak it even more.

In the end, the camera can capture the beauty of the world, but you have to use the cameras abilities to modify it so it looks like what you saw.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?



Yes, a small doll house made from tongue depressors where you only need glue and no hammers ... you didn't define "house" :mrgreen:


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?



With dedication and the willingness to learn? Maybe.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> When I first got my d7000 I shot in JPEG.  And I practived *alot* to get the photo as I saw it.  Alot of them looked like they were processed, but I guess they actually were as you *are* changing setting in the camera to modify the basic image that the sensor captures.
> 
> So, as you mentioned, even JPEG is modified and not "natural".
> 
> ...




But sometimes I edit to more than what I saw.  Higher saturation, adding some orange/pink to the sky to "boomify" it, etc.  And I think that's where others get upset with me.  But I feel my job as an artist is not to only represent what I saw literally, but what I saw in my mind.  Sometimes on a landscape shoot I'll have a final image in my head before I even find a composition I like, and if the sunset/scene doesn't present it quite perfectly, I'll edit in such a way to mimic what I planned rather than the literal what I saw.  I guess as I grow as a photographer and artist I worry less about the nuts and bolts and more about the art itself. 

Jake


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 17, 2014)

First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook?   Let then think that what they see came right from your camera.  Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess.   

Second,  who cares?  Do they watch movies and complain about how unrealistic the colors are?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 17, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone who swings a hammer build a house?
> ...



So you can build a house with just a hammer?

No saw? Ladder? Drill? Level? Shovel? Paintbrush? .......


The point I'm trying to make is clicking the shutter is merely using ONE tool available to you.  In order to achieve your desired results, you need to use more than one tool.  And in this craft, those tools include PP.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

480sparky said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




DUH. Clearly missed that bit of wisdom.  Yeah, I agree completely.  Just curious as to what other photographers think.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook?   Let then think that what they see came right from your camera.  Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess.
> 
> Second,  who cares?  Do they watch movies and complain about how unrealistic the colors are?



I care because sometimes I feel it makes them think less of my work, and that hurts.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 17, 2014)

Whoever said it in your post, said it best. The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 17, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > First, why would you post a before and after on Facebook?   Let then think that what they see came right from your camera.  Then when they decide they want to get images like that, they'll spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and still get crap images, thus elevating their opinion of your photographic prowess.
> ...


 Once you stop worrying about what they think you'll start to feel better.  
Just remember, opinions are like @$$hole$, everyone has one, and they all stink.  Even amongst avid photographers opinions on processing vary widely.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Whoever said it in your post, said it best. The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.




That was me!


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 17, 2014)

Yeah, don't tell them.  Let them think you are a  genius with a camera.
Then when they buy their d3100 from BestBuy for Christmas, and go in business for themselves, then fail 6 months later, they'll wonder why you are so good.


----------



## AlanKlein (Aug 17, 2014)

Some people will agree with you.  Others will disagree.  In the end, _you _have to be comfortable with what you do.  If those that disagree with you make you feel ill at ease, maybe you have to look into your heart of hearts.  There might be a part of you that agrees with them.  Otherwise, why would you start a new thread to air your gripes?  Also, it could be a matter of degree.  Maybe adjusting contrast and exposure and color to reflect what you saw is OK.  But cloning things in or out may be too much.  We all have to think about and come to some kind of a understanding so we can feel good about what we do.  At times, I'm often in conflict as well with these things.  Good luck on whatever you decide.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Some people will agree with you.  Others will disagree.  In the end, _you _have to be comfortable with what you do.  If those that disagree with you make you feel ill at ease, maybe you have to look into your heart of hearts.  There might be a part of you that agrees with them.  Otherwise, why would you start a new thread to air your gripes?  Also, it could be a matter of degree.  Maybe adjusting contrast and exposure and color to reflect what you saw is OK.  But cloning things in or out may be too much.  We all have to think about and come to some kind of a understanding so we can feel good about what we do.  At times, I'm often in conflict as well with these things.  Good luck on whatever you decide.



I'm the type of person who wants to please everyone, but am also firm in my photographic vision.  It's a conflict, for sure. 

Jake


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Yeah, don't tell them.  Let them think you are a  genius with a camera.
> Then when they buy their d3100 from BestBuy for Christmas, and go in business for themselves, then fail 6 months later, they'll wonder why you are so good.




Seems legit


----------



## SpikeyJohnson (Aug 17, 2014)

I don't think people realized the amount of processing there was in the "Old Days" either.  I just watched a photo about filters in the dark room to get better contrast. Most people don't know that many film photographers labored in the dark room "editing" to get the photo they wanted.  I love looking at raw vs edited photos of photographers and it is amazing how much better the photos look afterwards.  It's also always interesting to see the progression of a photographer as an artist.  Fstoppers had an article a few days ago showing the progression of certain "amateurs" who have gone "pro" in the last 3 years.  The differences of photos is amazing!

So in short, people do not understand that photography is an art and a profession.  It is just as complex as their "complex" or "hard" jobs.  They do not realized the time and talent it takes to take what they generally see (commercial photos) from idea to production and they don't understand the extremely high standards that companies, magazines, and clients have for the photos they receive. People want something for nothing and they think photography is just a shutter away.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

SpikeyJohnson said:


> I don't think people realized the amount of processing there was in the "Old Days" either.  I just watched a photo about filters in the dark room to get better contrast. Most people don't know that many film photographers labored in the dark room "editing" to get the photo they wanted.  I love looking at raw vs edited photos of photographers and it is amazing how much better the photos look afterwards.  It's also always interesting to see the progression of a photographer as an artist.  Fstoppers had an article a few days ago showing the progression of certain "amateurs" who have gone "pro" in the last 3 years.  The differences of photos is amazing!
> 
> So in short, people do not understand that photography is an art and a profession.  It is just as complex as their "complex" or "hard" jobs.  They do not realized the time and talent it takes to take what they generally see (commercial photos) from idea to production and they don't understand the extremely high standards that companies, magazines, and clients have for the photos they receive. People want something for nothing and they think photography is just a shutter away.




Well said.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 17, 2014)

As somebody who does a lot of landscape astrophotography, you're preachin' to the choir here. Space.com just shared my photo of Pemaquid Point again, lots of people hating on there because it's not something you can get with an iphone or their t2i and kit lens in JPEG.


----------



## KmH (Aug 17, 2014)

Quit showing SOOC shots. Lol !


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

KmH said:


> Quit showing SOOC shots. Lol !



I only did it once, I swear!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 17, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> As somebody who does a lot of landscape astrophotography, you're preachin' to the choir here. Space.com just shared my photo of Pemaquid Point again, lots of people hating on there because it's not something you can get with an iphone or their t2i and kit lens in JPEG.



Pshhhht clearly you or I could get that photo with our iPhones... Haha jkjk. 

We don't just spend thousands on gear for S's an G's. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2014)

Stop posting the "before shots" on FB...all it does is lessen their opinion of your work.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 18, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Sometimes I get really annoyed when friends and family get upset with me when I show them the SOOC and "after" shots--they feel it's a lie. A forgery. That I'm enhancing to the point of unrealistic levels.  In response, I posted the below on facebook with some examples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reminds me of applying for a Certificate of Occupancy from the City for my showroom. They have no idea how modern photography works, they still believe it involves a dark room, chemicals, and large printers. I had to explain almost every step of the process involved in creating a modern day photo...and they still didn't believe me.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Aug 18, 2014)

People will never attempt to understand something they think they already have a good understanding of. They take a nice picture with there cellphone or Point and Shoot then wonder, why would anyone wanna use something like photoshop to edit this?!

When they think of editing photos they think of girls trying to make their chests look bigger and crappy frames/instagram filters, not what we do.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2014)

*Here's an example *of why so many people disapprove of "processing". Even I call B.S. on this degree of manipulation: this is nothing at all like what was there, and crap like this cheapens the value of photography. And this from one of the web's foremost landscape "photography" sites! THis is basically a recipe article,. with step by step directions, on how to rescue crap and turn it into pretty "*pitchers*".

Death Valley Sunset


----------



## Civchic (Aug 18, 2014)

I've barely touched the surface of editing.

When I first started, I would say "I want to get this right, I don't want to have to edit every single picture, that's not how a real photographer shoots".  So I shot JPEG and changed the settings and kept trying and trying and never getting what I saw.  I learned a lot.  

I asked a photographer friend of mine (whose images are fantastic, look totally natural, and gorgeous) how much PP work was needed, and he said "Every single image needs some sort of touch.  Some more, some less, but your eye can see so much more than the lens.  Shoot in RAW and learn to edit."

It changed my photography.  Even though I still am just scratching the surface of PP knowledge.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 18, 2014)

My sister bought a 5DIII + F1.4 50mm just to take jpegs. Go figure.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 18, 2014)

Civchic said:


> I've barely touched the surface of editing.
> 
> When I first started, I would say "I want to get this right, I don't want to have to edit every single picture, that's not how a real photographer shoots".  So I shot JPEG and changed the settings and kept trying and trying and never getting what I saw.  I learned a lot.
> 
> ...



That's basically how I progressed.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 18, 2014)

I have this friend who texted me asking me what camera he should buy. He was at the store looking at a few different advanced p&s as well as mirrorless options. I asked why is he buying a new camera. He said he wants something that doesn't take blurry shots of his kids. I then told him not to buy a new camera because it's more on how you shoot as opposed to the camera's ability. If he understands the problem and still feels that he needs a new one, at least he will know what kind of camera to look for.

I also told him that if he's not going to edit his photos, there's really no need to get advanced p&s or mirrorless cameras where the real value lies in the ability to take RAW files. Most people don't understand that to get a shot you want, there's a process to go through, as in, you actually need to WORK on it to get it right, before, during and after taking the shot. They are so used to the instant result of digital cameras that they expect professional quality shots right away, sometime even complain about the delay of the preview photo that shows up after taking it. 

Our generation is spoiled, increasingly, by not just technology, but the way we want our lives to be. We used to have to work really hard, hands on, to have anything. Our culture has shifted from a process driven one to a result oriented one. We look for results in the form of numbers to justify our efforts, while denying the value of the efforts itself. The shorter and the easier route is always the better one because it's the most efficient. However, that's not exactly what "working smart" is about. If I do go through the full process, or even take a detour and then realize how to improve in the future, that's working smarter. To take a short cut without really learning from the process is a waste of one's own life.

Sadly, as someone who teaches today's college kids, it's not just the young generation that suffers from such lack of foresight. It's also the parents and the society as a whole.

It is ironic that in the past when the average life expectancy was shorter, people have more appreciation for hands on experience that takes longer time. Now with our average life expectancy increased, we've become more impatient, always in a hurry to have "more" and "new". There's always the need for more and more stimulation, yet no time to really experience it. The time each individual has therefore has not increased, because more of it is wasted.

I think I'm in troll-mode tonight.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 18, 2014)

ronlane said:


> The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.



I actually don't think that's the point to be made.

If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?


----------



## ronlane (Aug 18, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > The eyes can see so much more dynamic range that any camera could ever possibly capture on it's own.
> ...



excellent point Lew.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 18, 2014)

ronlane said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...



I agree as well. No artist recreates exactly what they see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 18, 2014)

This drives me nuts as well, but it's our (industry) own fault. The language we're using is at the root of the problem.

SOOC: There is an implied understanding in that term that the photos are somehow not edited. How did that come about: Ignorance and misunderstanding. THEY ARE HEAVILY EDITED!!! Just because they're edited by the software in your camera as opposed to by you doesn't mean they're not edited. If you can't avoid that term with the false implication then you're going to keep stepping in it. "Hey look a big pile of cr*p! I'll just step in it." If you keep stepping in it......hmmmm.

If you can't fix the term then change the language altogether. I go through this every semester with my students. By the end of the semester they know better than to use that term in front of me. We use the term FUBC (F*cked Up By Camera). FUBC includes the accurate understanding that the JPEGs from the camera HAVE BEEN EDITED!

EDIT: We do edit photos. But there's a big difference between editing a photo from the beginning (raw file) as opposed to trying to repair a JPEG. Notice that I didn't say edit a JPEG. In reference to a JPEG the term "edit" does not accurately describe what you're doing. Yet we (industry) keep stepping in it. If you fix the language (stop stepping in it) the problem goes away. Again my students learn to never put the word "edit" in a sentence with camera JPEG. It's really bad for Joe's blood pressure. If there's a problem with a camera JPEG that means the camera software (under your control) screwed up. Given the archive nature (compression) of that JPEG that means it's damaged. You don't edit something that's been damaged -- you try and fix it. It's a repair job.

So this is a language problem and the way to avoid it is to just stop stepping in it. The JPEGs produced by the cameras (FUBC) are heavily edited by the camera software and often poorly edited so that we have to repair them. There you go: Accurate language to describe what's going on and the problem goes away. 

Joe


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 18, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I actually don't think that's the point to be made.
> 
> If artists who work with inks or paint don't even attempt to produce perfect mirror replicas of what they see, why should a photographer be constrained to that?



This!!  And I agree, don't even open the door to the conversation, there was a thread a while back posting unedited shots, I ALMOST posted an unedited Fine Art in Motion shot, even uploaded it (and got multiple likes on Flickr) but didn't post it because my motivation was to prove its done in camera, not post processing and ultimately that is irrelevant, only the final image is.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 18, 2014)

Shoot film then they can't see them untill they are developed


----------



## julianliu (Aug 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Once you stop worrying about what they think you'll start to feel better.  Just remember, opinions are like @$$hole$, everyone has one, and they all stink.  Even amongst avid photographers opinions on processing vary widely.




I completely agree with you! Everyone has a opinion even the ones who do not know photography at all.


----------



## julianliu (Aug 18, 2014)

Jake, 

I agree with you, editing make our photographer a artist and different! Those who do not believe in anything but SOOC picture is ignorant about the camera and picture capturing process. 

And everybody has different opinions about it so if possible, deal with the ones who agree with you. I know an American girl do not like me to PS her to be skinny and with better skin while I know a Chinese girl who begs me to PS her to be like stars on magazine cover. What are you gonna do with it? I will PS according my models needs and likes. But it made me mad that the Chinese girl took my edited photo and edited with her iphone to make it more amateurish. 

But I think it's always good to listen to what people say about your work and think carefully about what could possibly improve before ignoring it. 

Good luck! 

Julian


----------



## zaroba (Aug 18, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?



As  long as the picture is nice and as long as you like the outcome, why  should anybody else care what *you* do with *your* photos?
Of course, I guess there are people who think the trip is more important then the destination.


One of the things I like about digital cameras is that you can go out and take a million shots of something in an attempt to get a good picture and easily edit the pictures instead of film where you have to be careful and conserve constly film.  Some people wil lsay that shows a lack of skill and isn't proper photography.  My response to that is  "so what?  I got a shot that I think is great so why do you care?".  How you obtain a good photo doesn't matter in my opinion, all that matters is that you are happy with your work.  So do things in the way that works for you and ignore any people who want to act like snobs and not take advantage of modern technology that makes life easier.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Aug 18, 2014)

Derrel said:


> *Here's an example *of why so many people disapprove of "processing". Even I call B.S. on this degree of manipulation: this is nothing at all like what was there, and crap like this cheapens the value of photography. And this from one of the web's foremost landscape "photography" sites! THis is basically a recipe article,. with step by step directions, on how to rescue crap and turn it into pretty "*pitchers*".
> 
> Death Valley Sunset



Noone replied to this.
This is absolutely awful. his original edit was fine, hell, his original image may have even been better.



			
				DeathValleyDude said:
			
		

> The light was changing fast and it was such a dramatic sky, with great clouds and beautiful color...



"...so I ruined it with overediting and a dis-appreciation for the subtle changes in tonality of clouds and the beautiful color that I saw"





zaroba said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you think? Do you get annoyed? Are you a SOOC shooter?
> ...




The only reason people say that is so that beginners can learn  by taking the time to actually compose an image. Your bound to get a  better shot if you pay attention to what's actually in front of your  lens than if you take 1000 snapshots of one thing. Noone is saying  don't shoot a ton of images. They just mean think about what you shoot.


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 18, 2014)

I'm not seeing so much of it here in this thread, but there are some hardcore purist SOOC zealots out there. They can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that there is no such thing as an "unedited" photo in the digital era, unless it's a RAW file. Those who shoot JPEG are relying on the camera to process the image. It isn't "pure" just because it wasn't edited in Lightroom. A digital image is going to get processed in-camera or in post, regardless. Some just choose to exercise more control and creativity over their work by shooting RAW.

But I agree with what some have already said here:

There's nothing to be gained by showing SOOC vs. edited work to the masses, especially on Facebook. I imagine it was meant to be a chest-pounding, I am photographer, hear me roar moment that backfired horribly...but predictably. We live in a world where photography is no longer an art form. It's an app on your phone, and everyone is a photographer. Let your work stand on its own merit without pulling back the curtain.


----------



## runnah (Aug 18, 2014)

Those people sound like pretentious twats who probably say they have a gluten allergy but just want to appear interesting.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 18, 2014)

runnah said:


> Those people sound like pretentious twats who probably say they have a gluten allergy but just want to appear interesting.



Always the cynic, eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Aug 18, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Always the cynic, eh?  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yes


----------



## Civchic (Aug 19, 2014)

I shot my family golf tournament on Sunday. I got a few shots of every foursome, and then got some really good tee-off shots of each person (could really use a faster FPS than the T3!). I then took the kids around for lunch at the clubhouse and got everyone coming in and putting at the 9th. I spent several hours Sunday and Monday night editing and I think they turned out really well. For someone who does not shoot people as a first choice, it was a very successful day. I posted them on Facebook for everyone. At least 8 of my family members are currently using my photos as their profile picture (who has a really good crisp action shot of their golf swing if they're not a pro?). And soooo many comments - "You have an amazing camera!" "My pictures never look like that!" "I need a camera like that!"

Of course, I'd love to tell them all, actually it was the several hours of editing that made them stand out. But they wouldn't care, or believe me, and a good chunk of them would probably assume that that means I'm not that good. So I just keep it to myself, bite my tongue (yah, my Canon T3 is just amazeballs, thanks). I got ONE compliment on my actual skills - from someone who owns a 5Dii and has never gotten anything but snapshots. "You've really worked hard at this photography thing, you're doing great."

So I vote "Don't bother showing the SOOC stuff." Most people won't get it.

Edited to add - Oh, and I'm still happy I did it, since the reason I was shooting it is to make an album for my Grandfather.  It was his 85th birthday, and he's been putting on this golf tournament for our family for 10 years.  He pays for all of us, and buys all the meat for a BBQ after.  So he and my Nana are the only ones I'm trying to please in this event.  Having other people like their pictures is just a bonus.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 19, 2014)

When I got my first SLR, I shot slide film to prevent the lab from doing adjustments.  Different films exposed differently so there was some "pre-editing" you could do when purchasing film.  Labs varied a little too, so there was some control there as well.  Everything else was in camera, and you had to compose because there was no cropping.

Now, I shoot raw, edit with Photoshop, level, crop, manipulate, resize, dodge, burn, adjust tint, and so on, then post on web pages, or print.  Over time, life has definitely improved!


----------



## cynicaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> We live in a world where photography is no longer an art form. It's an app on your phone, and everyone is a photographer. Let your work stand on its own merit without pulling back the curtain.



Amen, my friend.

I get moderately annoyed at those vaguely accusatory comments and questions about the smoke and mirrors of post processing, but for the most part I try not to let it get under my skin. 

I think that once you step out of cellphone snapshot hell and into the world of true hobbyist photography and beyond, you start to see what tools are available and what kind of control they afford you in the finest details of your work.  At that point, you realize that post processing is not cheating at all, but rather, just a step along the way from conception of idea to shutter press to result.

The real world is a completely different medium than a 2D image for presenting a scene.  All kinds of changes happen when converting something from the former to the latter, so to draw the cheating line at human intervention via Photoshop seems arbitrary.  I think to do so really hints at a lack of understanding of the big picture (no pun intended, but Ill take it). 

Id be willing to bet that most cheating accusers wouldnt even understand how something as basic as the crop tool can be used to strengthen the composition of the result, without so much as changing a single pixel.  If they dont get that, there is probably no point in even attempting to justify or defend the practice of image processing in the myriad ways that are possible with modern digital tools.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

Lots of good points in here. Thanks for all the responses [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Lots of good points in here. Thanks for all the responses [emoji106]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Mine was the best. It's ok, you don't have to tell everyone here.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of good points in here. Thanks for all the responses [emoji106]
> ...



Your humility is awe-inspiring. [emoji108]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Your humility is awe-inspiring. [emoji108]  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Some times I amaze myself.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Your humility is awe-inspiring. [emoji108]  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> ...


Only sometimes?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Your humility is awe-inspiring. [emoji108]  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> ...



Please re-post that heavily edited shot you made of the big ball of belly button lint you pulled out after you wore that new Pendleton Woolen Mills plaid button shirt that whole week last winter! Now* THAT was an amazing shot*, runnah!!! A JPEG SOOC just would not have done that lint ball justice. RAW all the way man, RAW alllll the way!


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Please re-post that heavily edited shot you made of the big ball of belly button lint you pulled out after you wore that new Pendleton Woolen Mills plaid button shirt that whole week last winter!



Shut your mouth! We only wear ll bean chamois shirts here!!


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Please re-post that heavily edited shot you made of the big ball of belly button lint you pulled out after you wore that new Pendleton Woolen Mills plaid button shirt that whole week last winter!
> ...




You two are a riot.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 19, 2014)

My bad, my bad! I got my Portlands mixed up! Portland, OR is Pendleton and those scrathcy, thick wool shirts; Portland,ME is LL Bean and those sissy chamois shirts!!!!!!!

Company Fact Sheet

Logo.gif

About L.L.Bean: Company Information
images-15.jpg


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> My bad, my bad! I got my Portlands mixed up! Portland, OR is Pendleton and those scrathcy, thick wool shirts; Portland,ME is LL Bean and those sissy chamois shirts!!!!!!!  Company Fact Sheet Logo.gif About L.L.Bean: Company Information images-15.jpg



Psh Portland OR is for wimps. They get rain...ooo my soy latte might get wet boo hoo. Oh the damp ruined my smiths vinyl first edition! 

We get the...the -20 temps froze the diesel in the truck. Give me a chamois shirt, thermal under shirt and a blanket lined carhart jacket and all is well.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 19, 2014)

Lobstah....versus dungeness crab.... Pacific salmon versus God-awful codfish...giant razor clams versus dinky little buttah clams...

runn*ah*...butt*ah* clams....lobst*ah*....*ah*hhhh.I get it now!


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Lobstah....versus dungeness crab.... Pacific salmon versus God-awful codfish...giant razor clams versus dinky little buttah clams...
> 
> runn*ah*...butt*ah* clams....lobst*ah*....*ah*hhhh.I get it now!



Gihhhhve it to-ahhh bub!


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Lobstah....versus dungeness crab.... Pacific salmon versus God-awful codfish...giant razor clams versus dinky little buttah clams...  runnah...buttah clams....lobstah....ahhhhh.I get it now!



Ahem, they are called steamers.

Cod is terrible!


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Gihhhhve it to-ahhh bub!



Almost 

Fukin clamp on dem binders then runnah wicked haad.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Gihhhhve it to-ahhh bub!
> ...



Classic. I miss Maine. It's strange to not be heading back Downeast this fall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2014)

One wonders why anyone would show anyone SOOC shots.


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2014)

manaheim said:


> One wonders why anyone would show anyone SOOC shots.



For the same reason people brag about what mode they use.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > One wonders why anyone would show anyone SOOC shots.
> ...



I think the correct answer is "no good reason"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 20, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



A more correct answer is: no reason at all. It's just measurebating, an attempt to show off. Other examples:



SOOC vs Edited - "Check out my leet Photoshop skillz"
Handheld - "I'm a Ken Rockwell prodigy"
Manual mode - "I read a book on photography once"
Shot in studio - "Found a use for my garage"
Photowalk - "I can chew gum and walk at the same time"


----------



## chuasam (Aug 20, 2014)

I market myself as an Image Creator. I'm not interested in the SOOC stuff. I'm only interested in creating an image the sells the product.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 20, 2014)

runnah said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > One wonders why anyone would show anyone SOOC shots.
> ...


Because they're new to Photography and think that shooting in Manual mode is an achievement *LOL*
for them, I offer a slow clap.


----------



## LCLimages (Aug 21, 2014)

I think it depends on the level of editing you're doing.  No one ever sees my SOOC images either.  I edit.  I clone out a stray hair here, a blemish there.  I re-crop, adjust contrast, saturation, WB if needed, sharpening, etc.  I always try to get it "right" in camera, but in reality it just doesn't happen all the time, for anyone, ever.  Besides, what is "right?"  It's all subjective, and depends on ones creative vision.  To some - the only "right" is technically correct exposure, true to life colors, etc.  To others, "right" would be whatever creativity they want to employ.  Especially with those who market themselves as "fine art photographers" - I think there's a lot more creative liberties taken.

In images I want to feel more "artistic," I take more liberties.  I enhance a haze or a flare, I manipulate the colors and saturation to give a more ethereal look than one would see naturally.  And especially with the fairy series I've done with a few little girls - obviously I am photoshopping in wings and pixie dust.  That stuff does not exist in reality.

I have to draw the line somewhere, though.  There's some very specific examples in my head where seeing the SOOC vs the final edit seriously devalued my opinion of the photographer in question.  It's very hard to describe why, too.  The final edit was awe-inspiring, because of the overall feel, color - everything was completely life like, I would have believed it was possible to see that in real life, and while maybe not capture it in camera as you saw it... the finished product looked to be an exceptionally done (potentially very lucky due to the placement of some elements), realistic capture and edit of what was a beautiful subject in a beautiful setting.

Then I saw the SOOC.  The light, colors, contrast, composition - nothing was at all close to what was actually captured in camera.  In some cases, whole objects were cloned in.  Not obvious fantasty objects like wings either - like normal every day things you'd expect to see in a setting like that, that you were given the impression were parts of the original image.  So at what point does it become "photography" versus "photoshopography?"  Where's the line between capturing and editing an image to give it a certain "feel" to yourself and the audience, and becoming so talented at photoshop that you can make stuff up to make people swoon over you?

All of that said - this is _just my opinion_, and I'm sure others will differ.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 21, 2014)

I'll say this:

I don't care what lens you use.  What camera you use.  What ISO, shutter speed, aperture, WB, etc. you use.  I don't care if you crank up the saturation, or the sharpness, or the vividness.  I don't care if you shoot raw or JPEG or both.  I don't care if you crop, clone, heal, copy & paste, rotate, use layers with transparency, use lens correction presets...... even if you lather rinse and repeat.


As long as you get the results YOU want, that's all that matters.


Period.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2014)

saying processing raw is "cheating" is like saying developing film is dishonest.

regardless who's doing the processing, all images must be processed. it's an unavoidable step, whether digital or chemical.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2014)

runnah said:


> Cod is terrible!



My dad is the picture of stereotypical "cod braised in cream and potatoes" Mainah. Nice and mild.

Cod can be made good though with buttah, peppah, and cream. heavy cream ofcourse, with the peas cooked in the same white, porcelain dish.

idk if cream is just an Appalachia Maine thing, but they seem to put it on EVERYTHING in that part of the state.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 21, 2014)

unpopular said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Cod is terrible!
> ...



So, it sounds like you have some Mainer experience, so maybe you can answer the question, why does runnah keep talking about, "*His cod piece* being filled with cream"? I mean, wouldn't that be a good thing to a Mainer?


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...




These types of questions are best held in conversations behind closed doors...


----------



## runnah (Aug 21, 2014)

unpopular said:


> My dad is the picture of stereotypical "cod braised in cream and potatoes" Mainah. Nice and mild.  Cod can be made good though with buttah, peppah, and cream. heavy cream ofcourse, with the peas cooked in the same white, porcelain dish.  idk if cream is just an Appalachia Maine thing, but they seem to put it on EVERYTHING in that part of the state.



Anything is good if you cover it in enough butter and cream. 

Ever had hagfish? Those take a **** load of butter an cream to even make it edible.


----------



## runnah (Aug 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> So, it sounds like you have some Mainer experience, so maybe you can answer the question, why does runnah keep talking about, "His cod piece being filled with cream"? I mean, wouldn't that be a good thing to a Mainer?



Better than peas I guess.


----------

