# People who say "UN-EDITED"



## Trever1t (Apr 16, 2013)

Are making it clear they don't know how to edit. There's no need to state it in any conversation in regards to digital photography or any form of film print processing because it's all edited, whether in control of the photographer, a lab or your camera. 

One of my pet peeves, rant over.


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 16, 2013)

do you get mad when people say "out of the camera" or "no post"?


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 16, 2013)

Or SOOC?


----------



## KenC (Apr 16, 2013)

What about "random shots"?  If someone is just throwing some stuff up here without any thought or effort why is it worth spending time on it?


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 16, 2013)

or "gripped"


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 16, 2013)

LOL, well no because those do not really imply no editing was done and that they are better than those that did but still I see little to no reason to brag about your lack of skills. Crap, I work hard on my editing, there's so much to learn and it's not easy. My edits take hours at times and it pays off for me. Really the only ones who ever say those things are the ones who have no clue and don't take the time to learn. 

I have rarely seen an image that wasn't given love in post that I truly was impressed with. Name me a really good photographer that doesn't spend more effort in post than in capturing the image? Even in times when I was working in B&W film I spent hours in the darkroom...jeesh! I miss that smell too (30 years later, still smell it!)


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

but guise...  my sooc pics on my gripped 7D rulz

sheesh


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 16, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Or SOOC?





TATTRAT said:


> or "gripped"


I've never heard of these terms.  Explain please.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

Usually my reply to those who state something is "un-edited" and ask for help or comments....is "edit it"

but I say that in my head anymore these days.  No one wants to hear the truth about editing, except those that understand it.


Seeing a raw image is like hearing pure digital audio.  Can't happen.  Either your camera is going to edit it... aka process the jpg...or you are going to edit it.  I prefer me to edit it.

99% of the people who post as such, simply don't understand what is going on inside their camera and what it takes to process an image.  So I don't bother wasting my time telling those with closed ears.


My other peeve is retards who think they need to set their resolution to 300 or 600 etc when they crop for a large print, at the same time.  Had an argument...excuse me...discussion, with a customer about that today.  Claimed we (our shop) always tell him his prints will print ugly and wanted us to "just print his damn picture"  So we did, and it looked like chit since photoshop had to create pixels to add to the image for the ridiculous size/resolution he desired.

Just does not pay to try to help people who think they are making their images better, when in fact they are making them worse.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 16, 2013)

UnknownBro said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Or SOOC?
> ...




Straight Out Of Camera

Battery grip on camera =  gripped, instead of saying Xbrand camera with Md-3515432xpq001. . .it's easier to just say gripped, but, some people like to gripe about gripped.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

UnknownBro said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Or SOOC?
> ...




Your mom has, ask her.

muahaha.  welcome to late night TPF   he he he


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 16, 2013)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-belize-unedited-c-c-welcome.html#post2930673

I think it is explained pretty well. OP seemed to handle your question well.

I too prefer to "get it right" on the camera and try to not rely on post, but that's me.

As for creating threads and saying "unedited", I don't. Never has even crossed my mind.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 16, 2013)

It's not about getting it wrong or right in camera. An excellent image in camera can only be much improved with proper edit. Yes Pallycow, you may be correct.


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 16, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> UnknownBro said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


I honestly dont find issue with either of these terms. I also don't really find them to be similar at all.

I've said this is before post more than a few times.  Mainly because I don't want people to think that's my final image aka something I'm proud of.

If I show people this pic I took for example 






I'm going to say that's the unedited raw (I know it's a jpeg now)

then I show them the edited one basically saying.  

hey look what I did.





 ^^^ hey look what I did


Pallycow said:


> UnknownBro said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Trust me I have thick skin.   I'm used to large offtopic forums.  I have my kid gloves on here.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

Even photos that you "get right" in camera are edited.  You just chose to let your camera edit it for you based on the settings you chose.  Whether you chose setting in camera or in post is irrelevant.  The only difference it time.  Obviously you want to get it as close to true (as true as you intend based on what you see) with minimal processing in post to save time.

Bottom line is all photos are edited.  Either in camera, in post, or both.  It really is a non issue that elitists and wanna be's like to throw around.  Not being a jerk, but it is usually tossed around by uneducated folks who simply don't know.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

Here is an example of a shot that I (or anyone) could not have gotten "right" in camera.


Not how it looked in person, the jpg my camera rendered otherwise known as "sooc"












Closer to how it looked in person.  Our eyes catch the variations in colors and shadows/lights that our cameras simply cannot.  In post, I simply adjusted the highlights/shadows option to make it look more true to life and capture the drama that I saw as well as not lose the details in the shadows.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 16, 2013)

Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol.   oh, and add vignetting too.  sweeet


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 17, 2013)

Pallycow said:


> Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol.   oh, and add vignetting too.  sweeet


Now you're auguring style of photography. Something that's subjective.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others won't  like it.  Try to stay on topic here. We're talking about verbiage not the fact that people edit their  photos.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 17, 2013)

If we are talking verbiage, I've always gotten a chuckle out of "natural light photographers".  A good photographer can make use out of many light sources, but you dont hear them calling themselves "natural light, speedlight, strobe, indoor light, reflector photographers". 

Just be a photographer, and work with whatever medium is needed to get good results.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 17, 2013)

I think for me it stems from the BS superiority that is implied when people say they are "natural light" or SOOC. 

It's like, whoopty freakin' doo. You're gimping yourself as you're too ignorant to realize it.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 17, 2013)

UnknownBro said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should over process and oversaturate the chit out of it as well, so I can be cool like the rest of the people.....lol.   oh, and add vignetting too.  sweeet
> ...



I'm not arguing anything, simply stating my opinion.  The saturation reference was from another thread and it was said in jest in this thread.  I'd like to think I can make a joke in any thread if I like, thanks.


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 17, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> If we are talking verbiage, I've always gotten a chuckle out of "natural light photographers".  A good photographer can make use out of many light sources, but you dont hear them calling themselves "natural light, speedlight, strobe, indoor light, reflector photographers".
> 
> Just be a photographer, and work with whatever medium is needed to get good results.


I'm just an a--hole with a camera.  This is just a hobby for me. More of a water off a ducks back deal for me.  I don't care how people talk.  I enjoy looking at quality pix; no matter how the person words things doesn't change the way something looks. 


rexbobcat said:


> I think for me it stems from the BS superiority that is implied when people say they are "natural light" or SOOC.
> 
> It's like, whoopty freakin' doo. You're gimping yourself as you're too ignorant to realize it.


IDK maybe it's because I'm a bouncer and I'm used to hearing bs from people 24/7. The way people talk about themselves/talk themselves up doesn't bother me anymore. Just a load of hot air. 




Pallycow said:


> UnknownBro said:
> 
> 
> > Pallycow said:
> ...



Oh well I don't have my nose in every thread on this forum.  It's fair to assume I'm going to miss an obscure reference from time to time. That being said you're more than free to jest, but I do have a brief spoiler alert for you.   

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 17, 2013)

Sarcasm never translates well in text.  Know that after 10pm  most of my posts are garbage.  I troll at night.

...and wear my sunglasses.


----------



## UnknownBro (Apr 17, 2013)

I wear my kid gloves here.  I use general offtopic forums to talk crap. 

Trust me when I say I'm more than capable of getting  people fired up.  I'm just going to assume this place frowns on that as they censor words like *******.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2013)

I will sometimes upload unedited JPGs. I try not to shoot like chit, so it actually works out. I try to avoid missing the exposures by one or two f/stops and therefore I seldom find myself constantly needing to "edit" away blunders. Shoot like you mean it. Shoot like there's valuable Kodachrome or Ektachrome Professional in the camera. Shoot like there's a roll of 36 frames in there, not a CF card that holds 600 frames, each one just a little bit more valuable than than "almost worthless" without massive editing-away of f&&k-ups and half-assed I'll-fix-these-up-later-so-they-are-all-more-or-less-presentable technique. Restraint, not retouching.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Apr 17, 2013)

Seeing some of the processes people do here, I rather see jpeg sooc.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 17, 2013)

SOOC:

I never edit, becuAse my straight out of of camero shots are wo awesome, editing will jest mess up the genoius.

Edit:

Hmmm... the picture looks a bit flat, the sharpness is not quite there, the framing needs a little off the left, the horizon needs to be level, there's that little smudge of flotsam that really needs to be cloned out, so a little bit of TLC, and the thing looks like I imagined it to be... and that text string needs a little massaging as well. So "I edit because my straight out of camera shots aren't so awesome, and editing allows me to reveal the image I had in my mind".


Sometimes, especially on forums, SOOC (straight out of computer) really does require some judicious editing, just like pictures do. But that is another topic.


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 17, 2013)

Well on a parallel note, I met a seasoned professional photographer who dismissed HDR completely cus he "fiddled with the software many times and couldn't get good results". And when I was trying to show him what I've got on my phone, he was too busy talking how other techniques suck to even take a glance.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 17, 2013)

MANY of my pet peeves have to do with semantics; like when my kids say they NEED something that they actually just WANT. Or people who say "Can I see that?" when what they really mean is "Can I HOLD that, touch it, "see" it with my hands?"

But "unedited" just doesn't really bother me. I suppose it's because *I* already understand that it IS edited already, by the camera, at the very least--so when I read "unedited" what I actually "hear" is "I haven't done anything to this photo that wasn't automatically done in-camera."  It's a good point, however, that apparently many people *don't* realize that every picture has been edited, to some degree, either in-camera, in post-production (darkroom or software) or both.

I guess I also don't usually infer the "superiority" evidently implied by saying "unedited."  *I* always thought that when most people say unedited, they mean "If this photo looks like cr*p, at least don't blame my post-processing skills because I didn't do any." Because that's what *I* would mean if I used that term. :lmao:



Derrel said:


> I will sometimes upload unedited JPGs. I try not to shoot like chit, so it actually works out. I try to avoid missing the exposures by one or two f/stops and therefore I seldom find myself constantly needing to "edit" away blunders. Shoot like you mean it. Shoot like there's valuable Kodachrome or Ektachrome Professional in the camera. Shoot like there's a roll of 36 frames in there, not a CF card that holds 600 frames, each one just a little bit more valuable than than "almost worthless" without massive editing-away of f&&k-ups and half-assed I'll-fix-these-up-later-so-they-are-all-more-or-less-presentable technique. Restraint, not retouching.



PREACH IT! :lmao:
Gotta admit--when I first got back into photography "seriously" after getting my first DSLR a couple of years ago, I fell into the VERY bad habit of looking through my viewfinder, actually SEEING some issue with what I was shooting and thinking in my head, "Meh. I'll just Photoshop that." I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit I did it.

Not so much anymore. I try to spend as much time behind the camera as possible, and as little time on editing software as possible.  I'll freely admit that I need to drastically improve my editing skills, but even then, with MOST of my pictures, I'd just as soon not spend that much time in post-processing.


----------



## Benco (Apr 17, 2013)

I like the way some people always shoot in raw (cos it's the best) and their photos are all converted straight to JPG without tuning them at all.....Argggh! shoot in JPG, your photos will look so much better. :banghead:


----------



## whylove (Apr 17, 2013)

that clearly shows the sign board is edited


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 17, 2013)

OK, I'll jump on the pet peeve hate-a-phrase wagon......  "I could care less."


Really?  Let me know when you do.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 17, 2013)

Benco said:


> *I like the way some people always shoot in raw (cos it's the best) and their photos are all converted straight to JPG without tuning them at all.....Argggh! shoot in JPG, your photos will look so much better*. :banghead:




Excellent point Benco!!!

and just to clarify,I don't care if you edit yourself orlet the camera do it, if you love the end product that's groovy man, there's just *no need to brag about your inability to edit*.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 17, 2013)

I am a candle light photographer.


----------



## Rafterman (Apr 17, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Shoot like there's a roll of 36 frames in there, not a CF card that holds 600 frames



I am WAY guilty of this, but getting a lot better. The last summer beach trip I went on with my wife, I ended up with just over 500 RAW files. If you removed all the (nearly) duplicates, I had probably less than 100. I sat at my computer a LONG time sifting through, editing and deleting pictures. My latest credo is to shoot better, not more. In fact, I think I'll stick that line in my signature as a constant reminder.


----------



## KmH (Apr 17, 2013)

All photographs are edited.

Many people don't understand how that can be.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 17, 2013)

exactly!


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 17, 2013)

KmH said:


> All photographs are edited.
> 
> Many people don't understand how that can be.



'Splain these to me then:


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > All photographs are edited.
> ...




no problem...those look like Polaroids sparky. a type of instant camera.  you put in the film cartridge with the film paper already in it, click a picture, and the picture is instantly developed when it pops out the camera. just shake the photo paper around a bit. its like magic!

and that's those pictures explained in a nutshell!


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 17, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> no problem...those look like Polaroids sparky. a type of instant camera.  you put in the film cartridge with the film paper already in it, click a picture, and the picture is instantly developed when it pops out the camera. just shake the photo paper around a bit. its like magic!
> 
> and that's those pictures explained in a nutshell!



So........ when and how did I edit them?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > no problem...those look like Polaroids sparky. a type of instant camera.  you put in the film cartridge with the film paper already in it, click a picture, and the picture is instantly developed when it pops out the camera. just shake the photo paper around a bit. its like magic!
> ...



huh? i have no idea man...i just thought you were posting pictures of them because you wanted to know what they were. 
pictures that magically appear out of a camera? witchcraft I say!


----------



## amolitor (Apr 17, 2013)

BURN SPARKY!

WIIIIIITCH!


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> BURN SPARKY!
> 
> WIIIIIITCH!



plus, he turned me into a newt!


----------



## KmH (Apr 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > All photographs are edited.
> ...


They were edited by you when you chose the framing/composition.

The camera edited them too.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 17, 2013)

KmH said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I didn't edit them any more than I drive a roller coaster.  I just went along for the ride in both cases.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 17, 2013)

Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids.  It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well.  As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic.  Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 17, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids.  It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well.  As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic.  Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?



There's no argument that I'm brainless. But I would consider the steps taken in the field _composition_, not editing. I"ve never heard of anyone say, "I edit my images by changing ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance and focal length....."


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2013)

I thought this was interesting: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=841063

Who is the Playboy photographer that shoots images that need absolutely ZERO Photoshop work to be rendered absolutely PERFECTLY, right out of the camera in JPEG mode? Is it Arney Freitag? I saw some of his unedited, SOOC images in a demonstration article he did several years ago...of course, he's a professional, and one who uses a lot of small, continuous lighting sources (as he said, 15 to 20 individual lights is his 'normal' amount for the centerfold shots)...

Of course, this Ken Markus fellow is shooting glamour/nudie work for Penthouse using lighting gear and light modifiers, and he is a guy who learned shooting slide film, when there was basically, only expensive airbrushing, and for the most part, images were considered_ mostly final_ as they came out of the developer's machines. "E-6" slide film days and all...

Anybody who grew up shooting color slide film understands that getting the image RIGHT when making it is the easiest way to make good images that need no heroics to become 'decent'. The quality of the source material always has an impact on the final images. Of course, that concept in itself is one of the MAIN differences between traditional photography, and digital imaging; in photography, the idea is to create an image and fix it, permanently, in silver, on a permanent base (Daguerrotype; tintype;glass plate;nitrate-base sheet film; nitrate-base roll film, modern safety film, either sheet and roll) and to create a single, tangible "THING", a "photographic image". In digital imaging, the idea is to create good source material, which can later be edited any number of ways, to, hopefully, make a good image. In digital imaging there really is NOTHING TANGIBLE about the source...it can be pixel-pushed until something decent pops out and splatters on the floor, and comes to life, like an alien baby being born in a horror movie.

There is an activity one can call making photographs. (Not _taking, and not snapping pics, _ but literally MAKING photographs). There is an activity called "capturing digital images". These two activities are not really the same thing--although they might appear to be the same thing to many people. I think what has happened with some people's mindset is that they forget that all the software manipulation and heroic rescues together represent, quite often...a very advanced,technical form of turd-polishing. I see a huge amount of turd-polishing on the web, with HIGHLY-edited images which are, in many cases, very weak as photographs. The prevalence of these kinds of polished turds show that a lot of people think that the back-end of the process is the most-critical area for success. I think the need for digital image editing is pretty substantial when the original images are seriously lacking in one or more areas. The big picture-sharing sites are filled with LOADS of highly-edited images, many of which are pretty poor as photographs, but which have indeed, been made "better" than what they started out as.

The best editing is done with the right index finger of one's shooting hand. When the scene is crap, do not trip the shot. This is all my opinion, presented as an opposing point of view that runs counter to the prevailing trend of 'shopping the chit out of every single photo, to make it "complete".


----------



## Buckster (Apr 17, 2013)

I'm of the mindset that the finished image people view is all that really matters.

How it got to that finish can sometimes be interesting in it's own right, even worthy of discussion either for social, political or technological reasons, but I think that's a separate issue.

The image itself must stand or fail on it's own, regardless of the journey it took.  I don't give or take away "points" for it being SOOC or edited to within an inch of it's life or anything else associated with it's journey to the finished image.  I don't consider one process "real" and another "not"; I don't draw lines in the imaginary sand and say that anything beyond "X" point is no longer valid or right or wrong or anything else.  I don't consider "traditional" photography any more valid or true or righteous than any modern alternative.

YMMV


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2013)

The discussion on _edited versus un-edited_ images has been a HUGE topic on photo.net for literally years now. 

What I think is funny are all the crappy photos that people post in that forum that are simply ridiculously over-processed to the point that the Polished Turd Award has become so common that it's now no longer a lapel pin, but merely a bulk e-mail sent out every 4 hours (every 2 hours on weekends) to the lucky recipients.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 17, 2013)

480sparky said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Sparky, I see your point, but there is a different form of "editing" that got done, even with the Polaroids.  It does take a certain conscious effort to define the frame, focus the image on the right subject, choose the appropriate moment, and if necessary arrange the materials so that they present well.  As well as choosing what to include, you also chose what to exclude, and THAT is the difference between an automaton snapping pictures, and one with a sense of the esthetic.  Or do you want to argue that you're a brainless automaton?
> ...




^+1 to what Sparky said. I'm an editor, by training and profession. I'm also a writer, by training and profession.  But the two are very different.  First, you write. Just stick the words on the paper--sure, you're thinking about what you want to say, and how you want to say it, but that is, as sparky said, composition. THEN, you edit what you wrote. But until there is something written down, editing can't happen. Same thing goes for a photo, imo--editing doesn't happen until there's a base image to work with.

EDIT: And, to carry the analogy further, some writing needs more editing than other writings do. I've met some writers who turn in the worst cr*p imaginable but it ends up sounding good--because they have a fantastic editor. The better the initial writing, the less editing that has to be done.


----------

