# Does "digital" = "edited"



## cal_gundert05 (Oct 5, 2006)

Excuse my ignorance, but I've only never shot digital.  My question is:

Do all digital users edit their work after they shoot?  What do you generally do as far as editing?  Is it fair to say that most digital photography is not truly reflective of the photog's skill (ie, you see a better image than what was really shot)?

It seems that this is a stigma of digital cameras.  Is it true?

Just wondering:mrgreen:


----------



## TBaraki (Oct 5, 2006)

I do think that many people have a stigmatic relationship with digital editing.  100% of my digital images are edited in some way in photoshop.  Basic levels and curves work, cropping, dodge/burn, etc.  I cut my teeth on film and in the darkroom.  I'd say that probably 75% of the editing work I do is things that I have done or could have done if I was more skilled in the darkroom.

I don't think it is fair to say that digital photography is not reflective of the photographer's skill.  I see being skilled in PS analogous to being skilled in the darkroom.  

To play the devil's advocate to my own argument, there are many images that seem to "cross the line".  That line is fuzzy at best and easily debated too.


----------



## JohnMF (Oct 5, 2006)

i think surely everybody who takes their digital photography serious will edit in some way.

But what do you mean exactly by 'editing'? Just cropping a picture could be considered editing


----------



## craig (Oct 5, 2006)

I shoot 95% digi. I started with film and I shoot and edit digi in the same way. Crop, contrast, colour correction and sharpness are all controlled in the camera and photoshop as opposed to working with those elements in the darkroom. 

With digi we have the advantage of editing every pixel, which is very convenient. It is up to the artist which direction he wants to take that.


----------



## GrfxGuru (Oct 5, 2006)

I think that it would be unfair to brand digital images as edited since a lot of the 'tweaks' I do to digital files are the same ones I used to do in a darkroom by hand...so you could argue that at least some conventional images are also edited. But then we have to define editing, is dodging or burning editing?

Is the fact that a camera's internal software generates say a JPEG or TIFF editing? And what about RAW files, they have to be edited to develop the image intended even if it's just an exposure tweak.

Regards,
Peter Witham


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 6, 2006)

When I take digital images, I do take them as RAW files. Then they are processed in a RAW-converter, tweaking a bit with the curves and "exposure". For 90% of my images that is it. And actually that is very similar to the darkroom work with film .. first of all the choice of film influences the outcome anyway (grain, colours, ... whatever), and then you have darkroom processing which again influences the result. You could push and pull films. And now many people just do similar things digital. If you call this "editing" then also film is "edited".

Then I would maybe use the clone tool in PS to remove some dustmarks ... again something similar one would do also when you go for to large format output from film!

And then there are maybe some 8-5% of my digital images where I heavily photoshop. Well, that is then somthing I would consider editing and which hardly could be done with film.

If you do not shoot RAW but save as JPEG, that is then comparable to giving your film to a lab to be processed, where they take the decisions how to do it (just as the camera decides how to save your JPEGs).


JMHO


----------



## MommyOf4Boys (Oct 6, 2006)

basically, if one thinks that editing a photo in a "digital darkroom" such as Photoshop is not reflecting the photographers true ability, then would it be said the same for someone who uses a regular darkroom to enhance their 35mm prints?  I personally think you have to start out with a good photograph to do the "editing" on to make it an even better photo, correct?


----------



## rmh159 (Oct 6, 2006)

Yeah I agree with you MommyOf4.  



			
				MommyOf4Boys said:
			
		

> basically, if one thinks that editing a photo in a "digital darkroom" such as Photoshop is not reflecting the photographers true ability, then would it be said the same for someone who uses a regular darkroom to enhance their 35mm prints? I personally think you have to start out with a good photograph to do the "editing" on to make it an even better photo, correct?


 
I don't mean to offend or step on toes but I've always felt that people that argued against Photoshop touch-ups, editing digitals, etc. were ignorant to what goes into photography.  Like others said, film is touched up the same way.


----------



## fmw (Oct 6, 2006)

Unless you shoot transparency film and view the transparencies directly, any photograph is the result of manipulation.   The equivalent in the digital world would be to display camera RAW files on the computer monitor.

In the darkroom we make test strips to determine the ideal exposure for printing.  We crop and burn and dodge and do all kinds of things to make the print look like we want it to look.

Photoshop and other similar programs are simply the modern day version of the darkroom.  No difference at all.  Nothing has changed except the technology.  The final image is the sum of the photographer's work.  It always has been.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 6, 2006)

Well said.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 6, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Unless you shoot transparency film and view the transparencies directly, any photograph is the result of manipulation.   The equivalent in the digital world would be to display camera RAW files on the computer monitor.



Besides digital I did and do shoot slides (transparencies) .. and I have to say that even there you do not get an "objective and true" image. After all you choose the type of film according to the light you have and the mood you want to achieve.


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 6, 2006)

How many Pro Photographers use straight-out-of-camera shots?  Film guys use Darkroom work.  Digital Guys use Photoshop.  There's absolutely no difference except that PS is a million times more powerful.  Film users use different films and colored filters depending on the effect they want; Digital Users mess with Saturation and White Balance.  They're the same concept with different words.


----------



## cal_gundert05 (Oct 6, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> How many Pro Photographers use straight-out-of-camera shots? Film guys use Darkroom work. Digital Guys use Photoshop. There's absolutely no difference except that PS is a million times more powerful. Film users use different films and colored filters depending on the effect they want; Digital Users mess with Saturation and White Balance. They're the same concept with different words.


 
Well said.  I was never exposed to the advanced photo techniques used with film.  That's why I thought digital photography and editing was a special case.

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## niccig (Oct 6, 2006)

I think most of us are in agreement - everyone edits their pictures, it's just that digital and flim people use different words to describe the same things. A few days ago I printed a 35mm b&w photo of a clock, where the clock was originally about 1/3-1/2 of the frame.  In the camera,  I used Delta 100 for fine grain (noise/grain reduction).  On the print, I enlarged the clock to fill the enitre 8x10 frame (cropping), dodged the side away from the light (exposure tweaking) and spot-toned out some dust (healing brush).  I also used a #2&1/2 contrast filter and made a test strip before printing (levels/curves adjustment).  All that said, on the rare occasion that I do shoot digital, I try not to do any editing in photoshop that couldn't be accomplished in the darkroom (like inserting a UFO or something ;-)).  Though I don't think there's anything wrong with digital art, I like to do everything I can in-camera to get a good print.


----------



## W.Smith (Oct 12, 2006)

cal_gundert05 said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance, but I've only never shot digital.  My question is:
> 
> Do all digital users edit their work after they shoot?  What do you generally do as far as editing?  Is it fair to say that most digital photography is not truly reflective of the photog's skill (ie, you see a better image than what was really shot)?
> 
> ...



Imo, 95% of people are 'snappers'. They shoot a pic while trying to have as little to do as possible with buttons and settings (they probably don't know WTF to do with them anyway...), then take the flash card to a photo store, stick it in the print machine, and basically print them straight 'out of the camera'.

Changing anything at all about the picture, even if only cropping a little bit (which, BTW, you can also do in those print machines), is  in a literal sense  'editing'.
But since the other extreme  an entirely 'photoshopped' photo  is also 'editing', that concept covers a looot of ground.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 12, 2006)

W.Smith said:
			
		

> Imo, 95% of people are 'snappers'. They shoot a pic while trying to have as little to do as possible with buttons and settings (they probably don't know WTF to do with them anyway...), then take the flash card to a photo store, stick it in the print machine, and basically print them straight 'out of the camera'.



I'm surprised by the number of people I know...who don't even go that far.  They take a bunch of snaps...and then gather around the camera to watch them on the tiny LCD screen.  The images stay on the card in the camera until the next event when they have to frantically delete them to make room for more.  I even know people who just went and bought a new memory card when theirs was full.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 12, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> I'm surprised by the number of people I know...who don't even go that far.  They take a bunch of snaps...and then gather around the camera to watch them on the tiny LCD screen.  The images stay on the card in the camera until the next event when they have to frantically delete them to make room for more.  I even know people who just went and bought a new memory card when theirs was full.



You know strange people there my friend 

Sounds frightening!


----------



## W.Smith (Oct 16, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> [...] I even know people who just went and bought a new memory card when theirs was full.


Yes, I know those too. They have a separate flash card for each holiday they've been on, or for each 'event' they shot ("Xmas dinner 2005", etc.).
And they complain that photography is so expensive . . .

  

However, by accident they _do_ use the safest, most stable way to store photos . . . !


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 16, 2006)

> However, by accident they _do_ use the safest, most stable way to store photos . . . !


I don't know about you, but I have Flash Memory die much faster than Hard Drives.  ESPECIALLY considering how much I use my hard drives and how little I use most of my flash memory.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 16, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I have Flash Memory die much faster than Hard Drives.  ESPECIALLY considering how much I use my hard drives and how little I use most of my flash memory.



Agreed! However flash suffers more from writing and erasing than from reading  .. so those people might be lucky 


I have an external hard drive (700 GByte) for storage plus 2 external hard drives for backup for this one.

safest way to go. just make sure the hard storage and the backup are of different brands ... very improbably they all die at the same time then.

very valuable when your archive is RAW data.... then you can forget about burning CDs DVDs or Bluewhatever 

I store my data for 8 years o nhard drives plus hard drive backups now... and never lost any... some of my burned CDs however are unreadable these days ....


----------



## struss (Nov 4, 2006)

Very interesting topic! At first, I thought that it was true that digital photography didn't really reflect what the photographer's skill but on second thought, I used to skip my lunch, dinner and late night snack staying in the darkroom tweaking my prints using zone system, filters, developer solutions...whatever i could think of. So Photoshop is kind of like the darkroom (some people already said that but mine is original too), only cleaner  So why not enjoy the fume-free PS editing room?


----------



## cal_gundert05 (Nov 4, 2006)

I agree, Struss...now.  I never got into film developing so the notion of a print being a complete reflection of reality was an ill-conceived notion.

As someone recently said on another thread, editing programs can't make a good picture, they can just enhance one.  The skill of taking the picture (and of editing it) is as much an artistic process in digital photography as in any other format.


----------



## ladyphotog (Nov 4, 2006)

The problem comes in when photographers use photoshop to produce their images instead of the camera. Basic editing, IOW, what you could do in a darkroom, is what photography is about. I love to be able to sit at a computer sometimes instead of having my hands smell like fixer. But we all know there are some out there that don't take a technically good image but produce it in photoshop, that in my opinion is illustration not photography.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 4, 2006)

I just wrote and tossed about five hundred words on this subject. For those who know it goes without saying, for those who don't, i might as well have been writing greek..

Today in photography is the best of times, and it is the worst of times and im sure that has been said a million times over the years. The photographer is the one who has doubts, the art of photography will endure as long as there are images made. 

If I can make a usable picture from trash, I will do whatever it takes. I hope I shoot less trash than the guy who takes his brand new 1st ever dslr and goes out to shoot a wedding and doesnt know what a fill flash is for.

I think if you don't know enough about real basic photography all the money in the world for equipment won't help....

As for digital editing... you can't make chicken salad from chicken manure so you best learn how to shoot before you worry too much about editing.


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 5, 2006)

ladyphotog said:
			
		

> ... some out there that don't take a technically good image but produce it in photoshop...


 
I don't think it is even possible to produce a good image out of a technically gone-wrong photo, it will always show and everyone who only knows a modicom of photography will see it and detect those wanna-be PS artists in a second. So I find that even though you can now use the newer, different WORKFLOW that comes with digital photography, i.e. that of no longer needing to dip your hands in chemicals in the darkroom but processing your photos at your desk, in your computer, you still have to take a good photo in the first place to HAVE a GOOD photo. Taking it digitally does not mean you can end up with a piece of art when initially it was ... cr** ... ah well, you know.


----------



## fmw (Nov 5, 2006)

My own opinion is that digital has less exposure latitude than film.  You can deal with exposure problems to a degree with either but digital usually responds pretty poorly by introducing a lot of noise.  I agree completely with Mystry Scribe and La Foto.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Incidentally, every digital image has to be processed some how.  Either the camera firmware does it or the photographer does it in post production.  No change from film except in-camera processing wasn't available before digital.  I've tried printing camera raw images and they don't look like the original subject.  They all need to be processed.

Alas, film is dying.  I bought a modest medium format camera complete with lens on ebay in mint condition recently for $278.  A new one would have cost me $1500.  Someone was just getting what he could for old technology.  I'd be amazed if Kodak is still making photographic film in 10 years.  It's a shame for traditionalists but I'm afraid digital is the mainstream technology.  I'm going to be shooting some medium format film mostly for nostalgia's sake but my plan is to shoot transparencies and B&W and scan them so they will be digital images in the end anyway.  I never did like the smell of fixer.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 5, 2006)

Funny thing is that film into digital is the ideal product in my opinion.   

The afore mention film latitude advantage can be used when actually scanning the film into the digital program.  

Then you use your editing tools to finish the job.  It is by far the best solution but will be overlooked for years. It might just come back around one day though.


----------



## fmw (Nov 5, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Funny thing is that film into digital is the ideal product in my opinion.
> 
> The afore mention film latitude advantage can be used when actually scanning the film into the digital program.
> 
> Then you use your editing tools to finish the job. It is by far the best solution but will be overlooked for years. It might just come back around one day though.


 
I agree.  In the late 90's, all the printing presses were switched to digital control.  Every art director wanted tiffs rather than transparencies because they weren't using process cameras any more and the art directors wanted to play with the images in PS.  To make decent direct digital images required a $25,000 scanning back and very few of us invested in those.  We just shot on transparency film and scanned it.  It worked just fine.  It still does.  Here's a scan I did the other day for a logo.  1600 dpi scan on a consumer flatbed scanner, 25mb TIFF file.  You're looking at a 10" wide 72ppi JPEG but it still looks decent.  At least the Canadians will like it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Nov 5, 2006)

The beauty of negative scans is that if they are over exposed you just pump more light into them.. you can't do that with digital images. If they are underexposed you can bring out a little more detail in digital sometimes enough to save them. 

Like I said in one of the other threads... just because I got no use for digital imaging, don't mean I don't know how to use it to my advantage. I use it all the time as negative to digital. I would just prefer to begin with film or paper negatives. I think it is more fun frankly but if I shot for money now, It would be digital all the way. With a half stop underexposure on everything.  give me a little room to burn and dodge thank you very much.  Most of the things they talk about here can be done the old fashioned way just nobody learns to do it in pieces its the quick fix everybody wants.  And that does make for acceptable (dummy down) images.


----------



## sylph (Nov 6, 2006)

Personally, I strive to get a properly exposed image in camera.  After that, I open up in Photoshop and do in Photoshop what I would do in the darkroom.  I crop, I dodge and burn a bit where necessary, and play with levels or contrast.  That's about it.  

Now sometimes I do have to do a bit of color balancing but that is rare.  I personally don't know enough about photoshop to do all the crazy stuff I have seen done that is really digital extreme.


----------



## bitteraspects (Nov 6, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Unless you shoot transparency film and view the transparencies directly, any photograph is the result of manipulation. The equivalent in the digital world would be to display camera RAW files on the computer monitor.
> 
> In the darkroom we make test strips to determine the ideal exposure for printing. We crop and burn and dodge and do all kinds of things to make the print look like we want it to look.
> 
> Photoshop and other similar programs are simply the modern day version of the darkroom. No difference at all. Nothing has changed except the technology. The final image is the sum of the photographer's work. It always has been.


AMEN


----------

