# Editing, a bad thing?



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

Hi! I'm a newbie photographer. No background in photography. I only do self study, and so far I learned to balance ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. I do get good photos (I think), and I learned from previous thread that I created, to appreciate the limits of my gear and use it to its full extent.

I am not that skilled, so sometimes....I mean most of the time, I compensate my lack of skill and limitations of my gear with editing. I enjoy editing the photos I took. It's like the unedited photo is a beautiful woman's face, and the editing is the make-up to get the best result. I mostly like to play around using dodge and burn.

For professional photographers out there, Is editing a bad thing? Does editing your photo show that you are a bad photographer and have no skills? or is editing essential to Photography? or in between?



Below are 2 sets if sample of an unedited photo and an edited photo, respectively.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Dec 16, 2016)

In my opinion, editing can make a great image awesome. Sometimes you just can´t get it right in camera for various reasons.
That said, for my taste your edit is "a bit" overdone  . Do you shoot RAW? What do you use for editing?

A tip: when shooting, try to think about what you want to tell with your image, If the time on your watch was the time of your birth, or of the birth of your child, etc. that´s great, but other than that 27 past 2 is not a great number  . 5 to 12, etc. would be. You can also use the motion of the second hand. Set the shutter speed longer (that would also help you to reduce noise a bit) and let the second hand move during your shot. I hope you understand what I mean.


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 16, 2016)

I think most photographers realise that processing is essential for finessing an image. The problems come when an unskilled photographer uses processing to replace photography skills. My personal attitude is that if I cannot finesse an image in very few steps, I need to delete and reshoot. Of course, reshooting is not always possible/feasible, in which case knowing how to process is valuable.


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 16, 2016)

Note: I used the term 'processing' rather than 'editing' as processing is completing the image while editing is changing the image.


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> I think most photographers realise that processing is essential for finessing an image. The problems come when an unskilled photographer uses processing to replace photography skills. My personal attitude is that if I cannot finesse an image in very few steps, I need to delete and reshoot. Of course, reshooting is not always possible/feasible, in which case knowing how to process is valuable.



I see. Hmm....so I should improve my skills rather than relying on processing. Thanks! I've learned something new.


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

photo1x1.com said:


> In my opinion, editing can make a great image awesome. Sometimes you just can´t get it right in camera for various reasons.
> That said, for my taste your edit is "a bit" overdone  . Do you shoot RAW? What do you use for editing?
> 
> A tip: when shooting, try to think about what you want to tell with your image, If the time on your watch was the time of your birth, or of the birth of your child, etc. that´s great, but other than that 27 past 2 is not a great number  . 5 to 12, etc. would be. You can also use the motion of the second hand. Set the shutter speed longer (that would also help you to reduce noise a bit) and let the second hand move during your shot. I hope you understand what I mean.



- Not everyone sees the picture the same way, I'm open to criticism 
- Nope I don't use raw, I set it to fine.
- The photo tells about a watch that is on a beach (I can't afford to go on a trip to a real beach. haha). I guess the sunny beach isn't quite obvious on this photo.
- Yes, yes. I do understand what you mean. I would gladly take your advises.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Dec 16, 2016)

Skiiandme said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, editing can make a great image awesome. Sometimes you just can´t get it right in camera for various reasons.
> ...



I like your attitude . Do use RAW next time. You'll be surprised about how much more you can do with a raw file.


----------



## fmw (Dec 16, 2016)

Skiiandme said:


> Hi! I'm a newbie photographer. No background in photography. I only do self study, and so far I learned to balance ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. I do get good photos (I think), and I learned from previous thread that I created, to appreciate the limits of my gear and use it to its full extent.
> 
> I am not that skilled, so sometimes....I mean most of the time, I compensate my lack of skill and limitations of my gear with editing. I enjoy editing the photos I took. It's like the unedited photo is a beautiful woman's face, and the editing is the make-up to get the best result. I mostly like to play around using dodge and burn.
> 
> ...



Digital photo editing is neither good nor bad.  It is simply a capability we didn't have in the film days.  It adds to the tools available to the photographer.  

Using it requires skill just like operating a camera.  You have a good example of that in the two images.  The unedited image is underexposed.  Poor camera operation.  The edited image is overexposed, has too much contrast and displays blown out highlights.  Poor editing skills.

Any tool can be used well or poorly.  It doesn't make the tool good or bad.


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

fmw said:


> Digital photo editing is neither good nor bad.  It is simply a capability we didn't have in the film days.  It adds to the tools available to the photographer.
> 
> Using it requires skill just like operating a camera.  You have a good example of that in the two images.  The unedited image is underexposed.  Poor camera operation.  The edited image is overexposed, has too much contrast and displays blown out highlights.  Poor editing skills.
> 
> Any tool can be used well or poorly.  It doesn't make the tool good or bad.




Oh.. I get it, you are saying that editing and  camera operating are merely tools, as long as you get the photo that's what counts. It's in line with my opinion 

P.S Now I know I still have a lot to work on both  in camera operating and editing. But I'm sure I'll get the hang of it in time.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 16, 2016)

I've been doing this stuff for a long, long time, decades.  I don't know any photographer who does not process/manipulate their photos.  Even in the film only days, every handmade image had some sort of manipulation.  

If your desire is to be a photographer, then you strive to "get it right in the camera".  Getting it right to me, means minimal post processing. 

If you desire to be a digital artist, then the capture is merely the starting point for maximum manipulation in post processing. 

I think most of us are somewhere in between using the tools we have (camera and computer) in order to attain the final image.  

When I purchased my first dSLR, I got lazy.  Being a lazy person anyway, it doesn't take much to get me unmotivated.  I quickly found myself thinking, "Ahhh ... that's good enough, I can fix it in post."  For me, it was a slippery slope and the overall quality of my images started falling into the realm of 'good enough'.  That isn't the photographer or the person that I desire to be.  So now I am striving to get it as right as possible in the camera.  In the film-only days and at the height of my skill level, I printed full-frame, no cropping. If the horizon was off or there was a distracting element in the frame, the image never got printed. I am working to attain that skill level again.

In summary, (lol), I believe that working to get it right in the camera, working to minimize post manipulation(s) will make you a better photographer.  Being a better photographer means that you will have greater consistency (more keepers) and that you will be capable of recognizing and capturing the exceptional image every time you pick up the camera.


----------



## KmH (Dec 16, 2016)

Back in the day people took there film in to the 'photo finishing lab' to have the film developed and prints made.
The film lab did basic editing (photo finishing) for the customer.

However, the less post production editing you can get away with the better, so the #1 goal should be to get it as close to right in the camera as you can. But, pretty much every photo will benefit from some basic edits.

Many of the editing tasks we do to digital photos today using computers are edits that were done by hand in the wet darkroom to make prints from film.
Dodge, burn, sharpen, adjust color, crop, remove unwanted subjects, add subjects, and lots more.

Ansel Adams, a famous American photographer, was particularly skilled producing prints of his photographs in the darkroom.
As he or others developed new darkroom editing techniques Adams sometimes re-printed some of his iconic photos using the new techniques.
The newer prints have a different look to them.


----------



## otherprof (Dec 16, 2016)

Skiiandme said:


> Hi! I'm a newbie photographer. No background in photography. I only do self study, and so far I learned to balance ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. I do get good photos (I think), and I learned from previous thread that I created, to appreciate the limits of my gear and use it to its full extent.
> 
> I am not that skilled, so sometimes....I mean most of the time, I compensate my lack of skill and limitations of my gear with editing. I enjoy editing the photos I took. It's like the unedited photo is a beautiful woman's face, and the editing is the make-up to get the best result. I mostly like to play around using dodge and burn.
> 
> ...


Just a general thought: Ansel Adams said, "Photography gives us a chance to correct God's tonal mistakes." The goal is the image. I think it would be interesting to provide a number of photographers with the same file or negative straight from the camera and see the different images they produced.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 16, 2016)

Editing ain't just 'new' because of digital.

Editing has been done since the invention of film.


----------



## fmw (Dec 16, 2016)

Skiiandme said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Digital photo editing is neither good nor bad.  It is simply a capability we didn't have in the film days.  It adds to the tools available to the photographer.
> ...



Yes.  And others have said that the results will better when you get it right in the camera.  They are correct.  I like the idea of photo editing for creative purposes.  Unfortunately, most of the time it is used only to correct poor camera work.  If you get it right in the camera you will always have a better result.


----------



## fmw (Dec 16, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Editing ain't just 'new' because of digital.
> 
> Editing has been done since the invention of film.



Yes but digital editing is a different ball of wax.  Usually it is handled by the photographer.  Few photographers had the skill to do the dodging and burning you see in these examples.   There were never many Ansel Adams'.

Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.


----------



## KmH (Dec 16, 2016)

fmw said:


> Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.


Who said it wasn't?


----------



## Overread (Dec 16, 2016)

In the film days every photo that made it to print got edited as it went from negative to print; however some only did minimal work whilst photo-labs often did only the standard defaults that they'd work with for most of the common batch processed stuff the average person put in. 

Thus the average person got a standard developing process which left them with only in-camera to adjust things - that worked well for them but also gave many the idea that editing was not really an option. 


Digital days we have access to all the tools of the past and more in a very easy way. Heck many of the processes in editing are direct copies or representations of film editing methods. Even cut and paste was around; it was just a lot more fiddly and harder to achieve in the past - and more time consuming. Digital has sped it up and given the average person the power to edit. 


So its neither here not there to me - the key is that you get it right in camera. 

getting it right in camera doesn't mean its perfect; it means that given the situation you got the best possible shot for the end result that you want. That might mean that your editing is tiny; a few adjustments here and there and sharpening; it could mean that you've got the shot that you want and now you're going to edit it heavily. Neither is superior nor better nor more faithful than the other - they are simply different approaches to artistic talent. 

Learn to edit; learn to edit beyond what you need so that you've the choice as to how far and how much you edit something. Many people only learn a tiny bit and thus are limited by that and also can only edit a little if any because they don't know any better - far better in my view to be able to edit with freedom of choice as to how far you take things. 



I'd say its essential, but that you can work with very limited editing method - heck if you've an out of camera JPEG its already default edited to the cameras settings; if you've a RAW you have to edit it to make it presentable.




Some get the idea that you can cheat; that photoshop can fix anything - sadly this isn't true. The magical "enhance "button only exists in CSI. If you've a duff shot then its a duff shot - editing might make it a little more presentable; but honestly not by much. If you want good photography then you get it good in the camera to then refine (as far as you want) in editing. 
Most of the people I know who edit heavily are very particular about getting it right in camera because they need the best possible data to then be able to manipulate it in editing.


----------



## fmw (Dec 16, 2016)

KmH said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.
> ...



Nobody.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> That isn't the photographer or the person that I desire to be.  So now I am striving to get it as right as possible in the camera.



Wow, I never thought of that. I should probably start thinking of my identity as a photographer. Thanks!


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> Learn to edit; learn to edit beyond what you need so that you've the choice as to how far and how much you edit something. Many people only learn a tiny bit and thus are limited by that and also can only edit a little if any because they don't know any better - far better in my view to be able to edit with freedom of choice as to how far you take things.
> 
> I'd say its essential, but that you can work with very limited editing method - heck if you've an out of camera JPEG its already default edited to the cameras settings; if you've a RAW you have to edit it to make it presentable.
> 
> ...



Got it. Get the* best possible data *you want from the camera and *edit it all the way you want*. I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## Peeb (Dec 16, 2016)

fmw said:


> Yes but digital editing is a different ball of wax.  Usually it is handled by the photographer.  Few photographers had the skill to do the dodging and burning you see in these examples.   There were never many Ansel Adams'.
> 
> Digital editing is fast and infinitely more powerful than film editing and retouching ever were.


You make a correct, but irrelevant, point.


----------



## freddy21 (Dec 16, 2016)

KmH said:


> However, the less post production editing you can get away with the better, so the #1 goal should be to get it as close to right in the camera as you can. But, pretty much every photo will benefit from some basic edits.



That's my philosophy too.  Anyone can make an average image and manipulate the heck out of it in post to get what they want.  Yes, on occasion everyone needs to "rescue" an exposure that was taken in sub optimal conditions but doing it all the time is like using a crutch.
If I have to do much beyond lens corrections and some minor overall tweaks to colour and exposure I am somewhat disappointed with the image.  If I am changing the aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 it is disappointing not to have to selectively crop to get the composition back in balance.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 17, 2016)

If one arrives at the photograph that they had envisioned, whether in-camera or through editing, what difference does it matter how they got there?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 17, 2016)

SCraig said:


> If one arrives at the photograph that they had envisioned, .............



And right there, folks, is the connection that many do not make.

*Editing begins before you raise the camera to your eye.*


----------



## greybeard (Dec 17, 2016)

Whether it is pre-processing, arranging the background, arranging lighting etc.,  or post-processing in PS,  one is still editing of a sort.  Like my signature says, "if it looks good, it is good".  All that matters is the final result,  how you got there is immaterial.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 17, 2016)

As a former photojournalist, it is hard for me to "over-manipulate" the image into something significantly different than what was there. For me, as an example, cloning out telephone poles or trees, or straightening the horizon, or cropping at all, in post, is an indicator of low skill level. While it is true that the majority of viewers don't give a rats about how one attained the final image ... but as a photographer, I appreciate more the vision and skill of the capture ... over the computer wizardry of a digital artist.  

Then there are a few on this forum, like Binga, who bring both worlds, of photographer and digital artistry, together seamlessly into images which can best be described as pure ART.


----------



## fmw (Dec 17, 2016)

Peeb said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but digital editing is a different ball of wax.  Usually it is handled by the photographer.  Few photographers had the skill to do the dodging and burning you see in these examples.   There were never many Ansel Adams'.
> ...



I appreciate the support.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 17, 2016)

I learned most of my craft on film, and shot a lot of color slide film which was never edited and was developed to a single, standard gamma. Everything had to be done in-camera. Film was expensive and always finite. Today, I can shoot all I want and have wide control over gamma, saturation, and color palette, on every frame!

Editing from raw images is now verrrrry easy compared to how it was with the $499 Nikon Capture 1.0 app that could open and edit .NEF files 15 years ago. At that time raw files were new and difficult to open.

Today we have such high megapixel imaging that final image crop and aspect ratio are quite flexible. The 'never crop, print with a filed-out negative carrier and black knock-out borders around each image' line of bullspit now seems pretty dated.Ancient history. Like typewriters, and white-out,and pay phones, and music videos on MTV.

Editing? Not sure what, exactly, that word means, and to who or to whom. We need to keep in mind, there is photography and there is digital imaging, and these are not the same things, so some of the old rules and ideas no longer apply in the same ways, or at all.

It makes a lot of sense to realize that most of us left analog or silver-based "photography" behind, years ago, and we are now in the pioneering stages of digital imaging. There no longer exists a fixed, permanent image held in an emulsion, on a base of tin, glass,or cellulose,or on celluloid; no, we no longer write with light in a permanent form, but instead we push pixels around, into multiple arrangements. We can develop, and print, in broad daylight, without caustic chemicals. It's time to leave outdated ideas behind, and focus on new realities, and this is especially true for those who are just starting to find their way. Silver-based photographs are in a permanent, fixed, tangible, physical form: digital images are in binary data.


----------



## chuasam (Dec 17, 2016)

I call it retouching.
Editing to me is just removing the bad shots, choosing the good ones, fixing colour space, white balance and tonal adjustments.

As for your retouched watch..
let me leave you with this


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 17, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> As a former photojournalist, it is hard for me to "over-manipulate" the image into something significantly different than what was there. For me, as an example, cloning out telephone poles or trees, or straightening the horizon, or cropping at all, in post, is an indicator of low skill level.



And I've always considered the insistence that an image must be cropped in-camera (especially using fixed-focal length lenses) as an indicator of sloppiness and an inability to see well. 

Joe



Gary A. said:


> While it is true that the majority of viewers don't give a rats about how one attained the final image ... but as a photographer, I appreciate more the vision and skill of the capture ... over the computer wizardry of a digital artist.
> 
> Then there are a few on this forum, like Binga, who bring both worlds, of photographer and digital artistry, together seamlessly into images which can best be described as pure ART.


----------



## chuasam (Dec 17, 2016)

I prefer the conceptual stuff. I honestly couldn't give a crap about getting it in camera...waiting hours for the perfect shot.

If I want a shot, I use every means at my disposal to create it.
If a location doesn't exist, I create it.


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Dec 17, 2016)

Ansel Adams: "You don't take a photograph, you make it." He edited profusely -- he did in the darkroom, a lot of us now do it with Photoshop.


----------



## Skiiandme (Dec 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I prefer the conceptual stuff. I honestly couldn't give a crap about getting it in camera...waiting hours for the perfect shot.
> 
> If I want a shot, I use every means at my disposal to create it.
> If a location doesn't exist, I create it.



Haha, very strong  opinion.


----------



## Desert Rose (Dec 18, 2016)

"Getting it right in the camera" is as overrated as use "only manual to be a photographer."
As long as the result is what was envisioned it makes absolutely no difference  how it was arrived at. There are a lot of images that can not be done in a camera and that does not make them less impressive to see. I value the skills of the editing on an equal footing with those of the photographer and those of the director.
It takes a full set of skills to produce the best possible work.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 18, 2016)

I think editing is good for enhancing a photo, or for correcting mistakes that were overlooked or couldn't be fixed at the moment (for example you forget a clothing steamer, so you have to fix wrinkled clothes). Is editing essential? Not always, in my opinion. Sometimes the stars align and everything works out (by luck or by skill), and you take a photo that you discover needs no editing.

If you get your lighting right, you can avoid dodging and burning and control the mood of the image without enhancing the photo. A skilled makeup artist can also remove the need for dodging and burning and blemish removal on a person. If you keep a sharp eye out for details at the moment of exposure and take the time to groom the photo-set or model (in the case of portraits), you won't have to fix mistakes afterward. If you have your camera set to the right settings (which is something based on personal taste, not set by some standard written in stone), it will eliminate the need for white balance and exposure correction.

That being said, some clients are going to have bad skin with no access to a skilled makeup artist and will ask you to remove or lessen their blemishes (in the case of portraits), or they may have other specific editing requests. Photographers are also human, so we're not always going to notice certain details until we see them on the computer screen and our only way to fix the problem is with photo editing. In these cases, editing or a budget to pay someone else to edit is absolutely necessary.

Being a new photographer, you're going to hear the "get it right in camera" line from veterans very often, and it's great advice that will help you become a better photographer in all aspects. Some feel that it's overrated and unnecessary advice, and that's fine. Others will also tell you that learning good editing techniques is overrated and unnecessary, and that's fine too. It's all based on opinion; you decide what works for you. I personally try to achieve both.


----------



## The Barbarian (Dec 18, 2016)

For the first one, get a free copy of AutoHDR  and try it on the unedited photo of the watch.  You'll get a good result on the gravel and watch without blowing out the top of the pillow.


----------



## chuasam (Dec 19, 2016)

getting it right in camera is for people who don't know how to use photoshop 
no seriously, getting it right in camera is one thing ...but that does not mean a shot doesn't need to get edited.


----------



## ParkerPhoto (Dec 19, 2016)

I look at this way, if you get it right in camera that means less time editing. Which means you'll have more time to do the things you love (unless you really love sitting in front of the computer more than your camera).  

It's easier and quicker to get the majority (if not all of it) done in camera.  For me, editing starts before I take the photo - lighting is key.  But so is understanding your camera settings and how to use them to achieve the look your after.  Also, you don't need expensive equipment either.  

There are tons of articles out there showing how to make do with home made reflectors, and free light sources - like the sun.  For that first photo you could have easily placed your objects near a window for natural lighting (used a home-made reflector to bounce light into the shadows).  Or another setup I like to use is shooting in my garage;  place your items on a small table and open your garage door, then funnel the light with home-made gobos, reflectors (aluminum foil on cardboard), white sheets to diffuse the light, etc..


----------



## photo1x1.com (Dec 20, 2016)

I was out taking a few images on Saturday, and found this a good opportinity to capture an image for this thread. There are situations that no photographer can capture similar to what it looks like in reality. In the image above my eyes didn´t see the object tilted, nor was the foreground as dark as in the original image (lower image of course). So editing sometimes is a necessity to represent what you actually see.
This was a lightroom only edit btw!


----------



## Desert Rose (Dec 20, 2016)

ParkerPhoto said:


> I look at this way, if you get it right in camera that means less time editing. Which means you'll have more time to do the things you love (unless you really love sitting in front of the computer more than your camera).
> 
> It's easier and quicker to get the majority (if not all of it) done in camera.  For me, editing starts before I take the photo - lighting is key.  But so is understanding your camera settings and how to use them to achieve the look your after.  Also, you don't need expensive equipment either.
> 
> There are tons of articles out there showing how to make do with home made reflectors, and free light sources - like the sun.  For that first photo you could have easily placed your objects near a window for natural lighting (used a home-made reflector to bounce light into the shadows).  Or another setup I like to use is shooting in my garage;  place your items on a small table and open your garage door, then funnel the light with home-made gobos, reflectors (aluminum foil on cardboard), white sheets to diffuse the light, etc..


I actually love doing both as they are both creative endeavors and that's how I like spending my time.
I like spending time in post more than in prep because moving furniture is boring to me. When I film I have stage hands for that work.


----------



## Angel301p (Dec 21, 2016)

The ones that say editing is bad are either newbies in photography or simply don't understand basics. 
I thought myself how bad editing is, but as I progressed in photography, and was learning new things, I began to understand how important editing actually is. Ofcourse editing can make picture look bad if it is over edited, but with right dose, it can make pictures look much better.


----------



## jcwphoto (Dec 24, 2016)

Post processing or toning can be as much of a skill as photography.  I teach college photography and am creating a new set of video tutorials for my class.  They are free on youtube so feel free to take a look.   Adobe Photoshop CC 2017  - YouTube


----------

