# Did you edit?!



## _t_is_me_ (Oct 26, 2014)

Am I the only one who is curious what kind of edits (if any) are done on photos?  People always post what shutter speed and aperture, which ISO, flash or no flash, etc etc, but never if there was editing done or what kind.  This is something I want to know!  Maybe it doesn't matter, and I'm weird; Regardless, I'd still like to know!


----------



## snowbear (Oct 26, 2014)

I always tweak exposure and white balance.  I will also straighten, crop, remove dust spots and distracting elements, adjust colors (saturation, tint, etc) and fix distortions if I think they are needed.  If you shoot only jpegs, the camera is making some of those adjustments for you.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Oct 26, 2014)

I'm just always curious if the image I'm seeing is "original" or has a few tweaks to pretty it up.  As a new photographer, I find myself comparing my photos to other images that I see, but I don't know if it's even a fair comparison to begin with, because I don't yet edit my photos.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 26, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> I'm just always curious if the image I'm seeing is "original" or has a few tweaks to pretty it up.  As a new photographer, I find myself comparing my photos to other images that I see, but I don't know if it's even a fair comparison to begin with, because I don't yet edit my photos.



If you are new, concentrate on the basics: exposure, lighting, composition and perspective.  The editing can come later.

This is an unedited straight out of the camera (SOOC) shot.  The only processing was to scan it to JPEG.


----------



## EIngerson (Oct 26, 2014)

You will never see one of my photos until it's "developed"


----------



## Designer (Oct 26, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> Am I the only one who is curious what kind of edits (if any) are done on photos?  People always post what shutter speed and aperture, which ISO, flash or no flash, etc etc, but never if there was editing done or what kind.  This is something I want to know!  Maybe it doesn't matter, and I'm weird; Regardless, I'd still like to know!


There have been threads on this topic.  What constitutes "processing", or editing, etc. 

Sometimes the poster tells us exactly what was done, and sometimes it is rather obvious.  Personally, I would rather not show anyone a photograph for which I hadn't at least done the minimum; straighten, crop, adjust for WB and exposure. 

Editing is fun and easy if you have a user-friendly software.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 26, 2014)

Snowbear and Elngerson are making a specific point that whether you shoot film, jpegs or raw, every image must be 'developed' in some way before you can see it. Embedded in what they say is the meaning that the endpoint of the 'development' or editing is the choice of someone - the lab, the shooter or the engineers who developed the camera - so believing that because you, personally, don't use software to change the development path, the picture remains unedited is first wrong and then naive.

Believing that not doing any editing oneself is somehow purer or better or more true to tradition is silly.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Oct 26, 2014)

Everything is edited. I've seen plenty of people online who tout that all their photos are unedited and SOOC, and for the most part those photos don't look good at all. But there is a difference between processing your photos well and overdoing it, which can be easy to do


----------



## Designer (Oct 26, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> This is something I want to know!



I think most members who put up a photograph on this site will be happy to tell you how much editing they did.  Just ask.  

A possible exception could be if someone was experimenting with a certain editing routine and would be hesitant to blurt it out, something like giving away a secret family recipe.


----------



## paigew (Oct 26, 2014)

I process every photo. I do IMO minimal edits, though I do have a 'style'


----------



## 407370 (Oct 26, 2014)

Take for granted that every pic on this site (including film) has been edited in some way. 

Some pics you will look at and do very little processing some others will be barley recognisable as a photograph after you processed it up the wazoo. Its up to you.


----------



## JustJazzie (Oct 26, 2014)

Editing Is one of my weak points. I edit and then look back a week later and wonder what the heck I was thinking and why didn't I fix that glaring issue. But every photo is edited, some more heavily than others.


----------



## KenC (Oct 26, 2014)

I edit just as much as I need to get the image I want.  I figure since Ansel Adams took that approach it's good enough for me.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 26, 2014)

I think it is time that you started processing your images. Presently, you're allowing the camera to 'develop' your images. You can dial how you desire the camera to edit with in-camera adjustments. And/or you can enhance the in-camera development by post processing in a photo manipulation app. Or you can remove the in-camera development completely by shooting RAW and shoulder all processing for the final image in your computer.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 26, 2014)

I process/edit, sometimes a lot.  Not so much on my people work, but definitely a lot on my fine-art stuff and landscape stuff.  I RARELY if ever post unedited SOOC shots. That's just foolish.  Anyone can take a picture. I give you my gear and we set up in the same spot with the same settings, we'll get the same picture.  But there's no way you'll edit the same why I do.  And to me, that is a huge part of what sets photographers apart.  Our editing and processing choices are what makes us unique. 

Jake


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 26, 2014)

Ansel Adams was mentioned above. Adams claimed to spend as much time in the darkroom printing as he did in the field shooting.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Oct 26, 2014)

Post processing knowledge can turn a good photographer into a great photographer. Anyone can buy brushes and paint, only certain people can create a great scene


----------



## KmH (Oct 26, 2014)

Every photo I put online or print has been edited by me to one extent or another.
I say when whatever I post online is SOOC.

Every photograph ever made has edited the scene the photo captures in several ways.


----------



## JimMcClain (Oct 26, 2014)

I didn't get _really_ excited about my return to photography until I began to learn more about post processing. It's still a learning process, but I am seeing progress. I've picked up some techniques from watching You Tube videos and I like to experiment some. There have been many pictures I finished, only later to realize I either wasn't actually finished, or I finished too much. The best thing about RAW and Lightroom though, is it's non-destructive and I can fix my mistakes at any time (or just learn from them and move on to the next session).

Jim


----------



## manaheim (Oct 26, 2014)

Do yourself a favor and do two things:

- Assume all images are edited. Even Ansel Adams edited his photos.
- Don't worry about it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 26, 2014)

I crop, straighten, colour correct, lighten or darken any of my images that need it.  I do try and get as much of it correct in the camera. Generally all I need to do is a little crop, and lighten the images.


----------



## @JasonChildren (Oct 26, 2014)

I believe your skill in editting and processing goes hand in hand with your in camera skill. The information is there....especially if you shoot raw. How you interpret what you saw when taking the shot will directly affect whay digital info you allow forward in the image and that is your personal stamp.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 26, 2014)

huh. here is my dog getting his head stuck in the mud straight raw to jpeg conversion (only for the sake of transfer)
unlike most of the other apparent posters I really don't give a chit who sees my unedited photos or too much about post processing either.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 26, 2014)

here is my local ad. Only on facebook so far but I am seriously considering putting it in the newspaper.
photography

"looking for a mentor so I can learn more if anyone knows someone. someone that has been doing this for like fourty years with some old school experience preferred. Photoshop pros and anyone under fifty may not be a good match. I don't do weddings."


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 27, 2014)

It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed.  Thoroughly.


----------



## Forkie (Oct 27, 2014)

My photos are always run through Photoshop for a thorough clean before they are shown.  I consider any of my images which haven't been through Photoshop to be not yet finished.

There is always tweaking to be done, whether it is removing skin blemishes in portraits, adjusting colour and/or contrast, cropping, sharpening etc.  No unedited image will get anywhere near my portfolio!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed.  Thoroughly.


yeah but how you do it doesn't phase me. You don't seem to hide behind the pp you seem fairly adept shooting. You also don't pretend it is a accurate portrayal of whatever you are shooting but clearly explain it is your interpretation or vision of it.

some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.

I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed.  Thoroughly.
> ...


All true.  

If someone felt "cheated" because your image didn't look just as the scene did, I feel sorry for them.  Life's gonna be tough.  Wait till they see a "SOOC" shot done with a thick stack of ND and RGND  and GND filters.      Of course, it also makes you wonder if everything looks like a silhouette to them at sunset.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 27, 2014)

I would never care that they felt cheated.  The photography is for me, not them.  

Besides, there are so many debates about art and photography right here in TPF, that clearly shows we don't all see things the same way.


----------



## Forkie (Oct 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > It's safe to assume that if you see an image of mine it's been processed.  Thoroughly.
> ...




Where does it say that a photograph has to accurately portray the scene you were photographing?  Simply changing your white balance can create a whole different atmosphere in your picture that didn't exist in the actual scene.  For me, the art of photography is having an image in your head and getting that getting that image onto paper (or digital file) at the end.  Whether that is done in camera or through post-processing is neither here nor there.  And even if people do use Photoshop to correct mistakes; if the end result is the same, why does it matter how you get there?


----------



## KenC (Oct 27, 2014)

If you consider PP to be "fake and doctoring photos" then most of the great photography of the film era was fake because all of those guys manipulated like crazy in the darkroom to make the image look the way they wanted.


----------



## Designer (Oct 27, 2014)

Where is the OP?  Why hasn't she made her presence known on here?

As for "portraying the scene as it really is", I'll just say that I try to make it BETTER than it really is.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


I got the point though it resonated with me. It was a monument, which apparently they went to look at. some images apparently are okay to tweak, others, not so okay to some especially if people see them as historical reference or something else. Now if it was a photo of something else they probably wouldn't have cared enough.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

KenC said:


> If you consider PP to be "fake and doctoring photos" then most of the great photography of the film era was fake because all of those guys manipulated like crazy in the darkroom to make the image look the way they wanted.


well. All in your point of view this might be. I worked for a printing company printing everything from national geographic to weekly sales flyers in the early nineties. It was just starting the pp kick then. course we had a printing press area, masking area, and a friend of mine worked in the scanner and imaging room. When this kicked off it made life much easier for those departments (not so much mine I ran a press printing the crap). It has always been two sides to this though. I gave him a photo once to frig with and he changed our heads around in it and changed our clothes. He got a kick out of it something to do in between manipulating magazine images. I of course, wasn't all that amazed by it. And as it progressed it seemed the more and more **** that came off the end of those presses were fake (but great for sales) as it was much easier to toss the **** in front of a buyer and show them how great their images will look with less costs associated with the manual labor aspect. so maybe some get photo shop and go "wow. look at that" I kind of just remember running all that fake chit off the end of a press and the sales meetings.


----------



## KenC (Oct 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > If you consider PP to be "fake and doctoring photos" then most of the great photography of the film era was fake because all of those guys manipulated like crazy in the darkroom to make the image look the way they wanted.
> ...



Yeah, that sounds like bad stuff and must have been unpleasant to be near.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

KenC said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > KenC said:
> ...


just life. you know you see a billion copies of doctored crap it kind of adds up. some look at things and look for fantasy. some look at things and try to find something real and tangible. I look at things and even if I like it my mind still says "look more fake chit".
I am more worried about not making more "fake chit" usually and getting upset over that than coming out with a good photo. I would rather have a crappy photo.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 27, 2014)

I would definitely find a different and cheaper hobby or activity if I found myself feeling the way you do (bribius).  Would have saved myself some cash or spent it on beer and nachos.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I would definitely find a different and cheaper hobby or activity if I found myself feeling the way you do (bribius).  Would have saved myself some cash or spent it on beer and nachos.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


lol. photography is many different things to many different people.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 27, 2014)

bribrius said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I would definitely find a different and cheaper hobby or activity if I found myself feeling the way you do (bribius).  Would have saved myself some cash or spent it on beer and nachos.
> ...



No doubt about that.  I am finding it is very polarizing (no pun intended) when it comes to gear, critiques, history, rules or guidelines etc.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius (Oct 27, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


I try to keep an open mind but maintain keeping my own at the same time. And probably jump in on threads like this about post processing, not because I am dead set against it but rather I am not dead set for it either and don't quite find the glitter or glamour in it as some might. Hey, we all do what we want it is our photography it isn't a team sport.. LMAO .

I may need you all some day if I decide to step it up on post, don't see it happening to any large degree but never know.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 28, 2014)

bribrius said:


> huh. here is my dog getting his head stuck in the mud straight raw to jpeg conversion (only for the sake of transfer)
> unlike most of the other apparent posters I really don't give a chit who sees my unedited photos or too much about post processing either.View attachment 87880



And it shows. 

By taking the picture,  you're only doing half the job.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 29, 2014)

manaheim said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > huh. here is my dog getting his head stuck in the mud straight raw to jpeg conversion (only for the sake of transfer)
> ...


i liked your post because in some cases (use of photo) i believe you have a valid point. However in this one since i don't have any dreams of my dog being published in a magazine i consider it done upon hitting the shutter release.


----------



## Roba (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm still new to photography, so at the moment I'm concentrating on the camera.
But I did shoot a recent trip in RAW + jpeg and planning to start getting into pp.
So apart from a crop or two it's as it comes.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 3, 2014)

Every single shot that I post is edited in photoshop. This could be a full retouch to as little as just sharpening.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.
> 
> I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
> I have had someone before come back and say to me "i saw that and it didn't look like that in real life" with only my mild processing which gave me kind of a wake up call. They felt cheated.



I came across this statement and was just amazed at how close-minded and judgmental it was even for you. 
In that first sentence you are making a value judgment and condemning people, not only that you don't know but whose work you haven't seen and in an area that by your own admission, you have no knowledge or experience. 
You specifically, from the work and statements that I have seen, know virtually nothing about photography or editing yet somehow you feel absolutely confident that your judgment has some worth and is even correct.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 5, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> Every single shot that I post is edited in photoshop. This could be a full retouch to as little as just sharpening.




I think your post processing is what makes your shots so... Amazing. Really. Your SOOC shots are good (I've seen one or two that you have posted) but your edited shots are stunning. [emoji106][emoji106]


----------



## bribrius (Nov 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are more apt to use pp as they fail in other areas, and walk that fine line of pretending it is a honest portrayal of the scene where it really isn't or in some pretentious way that there camera skills are better than they really are.. There is also the type of photograph that kind of makes a difference too and exactly how much pp is done. At some point if you are taking a photo for a semi accurate portrayal you cross that line into it being near a lie if you go to far. some maybe creative image creation, others more on the purest side just trying to make the photo the closest they can to what was actually there.
> ...


I really am not so bad. You should come shoot with me and have a beer some day.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I really am not so bad. You should come shoot with me and have a beer some day.


I didn't say you were a bad guy, I said that you make these insulting statements about other people's work and intention with absolutely no basis for the statement except your own opinion - which is uninformed at best and completely ignorant at worst.
You never seem to actually listen and use any comments or critique to actually get better or inform yourself. That's your right to remain at whatever level of ability or knowledge you have.
But when you go off on some insulting flight of fancy about other people's work and intentions, saying that they either are bad at photography or trying to mislead their viewers and lying to them, that's when you cross over the line.

I don't give a crap about whether you are a good guy or not, I don't care if you chose to stay uninformed, I just want you to know how you come across - and it's not a pretty picture.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> Am I the only one who is curious what kind of edits (if any) are done on photos?  People always post what shutter speed and aperture, which ISO, flash or no flash, etc etc, but never if there was editing done or what kind.  This is something I want to know!  Maybe it doesn't matter, and I'm weird; Regardless, I'd still like to know!





_t_is_me_ said:


> I'm just always curious if the image I'm seeing is "original" or has a few tweaks to pretty it up.  As a new photographer, I find myself comparing my photos to other images that I see, but I don't know if it's even a fair comparison to begin with, because I don't yet edit my photos.



Where in this post did the OP say that post processing was silly or unnecessary? All she said was that no one really explains their post processing when they post a picture, and that she doesn't *yet *edit her own.

And yet, a few of the posters here went straight to the assumption that post processing was being disparaged somehow.

Why DO we post camera information and not processing information? If it's so important, wouldn't that information be just as instructive as exif data? For those who are curious about others' process as a way to learn more about their own process, it would be helpful.


----------



## Nevermore1 (Nov 5, 2014)

Most photos I see posted on here I assume have had something done to them.  Probably at the least - exposure  correction, lightening/darkening and maybe some messing with the color/hue/saturation.  I know some do more and some may even do less.  It's all personal preference and what they think makes their photo look good.  Yes, it would be nice if individuals posted what type of. advanced editing was done to the photo (as is anything past the basics I listed) so others (mainly newbs) can maybe learn about a new technique they may not have known about before.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> Why DO we post camera information and not processing information? If it's so important, wouldn't that information be just as instructive as exif data? For those who are curious about others' process as a way to learn more about their own process, it would be helpful.



PPing information isn't generally posted because, except for some general terms like lighten, darken etc, editing is a complex issue not easily reduced to a description in words.
AND, editing can be done not only to move the original to the final desired image but also just to 'correct' something.
So to post editing data, we would have to post the original image, every slider and its setting, every layer and its mask and other qualities.
It becomes a huge project - and maybe not as helpful as one would like.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> PPing information isn't generally posted because, except for some general terms like lighten, darken etc, editing is a complex issue not easily reduced to a description in words.
> AND, editing can be done not only to move the original to the final desired image but also just to 'correct' something.
> So to post editing data, we would have to post the original image, every slider and its setting, every layer and its mask and other qualities.
> *It becomes a huge project - and maybe not as helpful as one would like.*



Not necessarily. We condense shooting information much of the time to shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Post processing information can be condensed as well. What's wrong with a quick mentions of masks or layers used, or color adjustments?


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2014)

Lew is right it would be such a pain in the ass to list every edit. not only would you have to be precise but you would have to make sure to list the exact order you did everything in. The slightest change in the order can change the result.

Really the best way to show PP is by doing a video.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

Well then perhaps these are finally the answers to the OP's question.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 5, 2014)

My post processing is minimal whether it's a digital photo or B&W film. I could tell someone what I did because either way I've kept track of it. I don't do portraits or weddings though where I'm dealing with a large number of photos at once.

In the darkroom if I've shot a roll of film in the same lighting conditions usually once I've determined exposure time I won't have to do much else; other times I might need to vary exposure times and/or dodge/burn. I keep notes on the contact/proof sheets that the exposure was say, f8 at 11 sec. and note if I burned in a corner or dodged out some detail in a dark area in any specific print - it depends on what was needed if anything. (And if I did some dodging just because I like to play with my dodgette set, that I may not bother to write down!).

With my digital images I open the series of photos I shot, look thru them, organize/label/date. If what I want to use looks good I may print a 4x6 without any further post processing and if _that_ looks good do an 8x10 etc. and I'm done. If it looks too dark I'll adjust from there; often for printing (or sometimes even if I'm not yet doing a print) I may brighten and/or adjust contrast especially if I was in lower or mixed lighting. I have my own way of making notations, after the title for example bri+15%, con-15%, etc..

My process with color film is to put the film in an envelope/mailer, send it out, and wait for it to come back - my process with shooting Polaroids is to catch the picture when it pops out of the camera!

If the OP ever comes back, the best thing to do might be to just ask someone what they did in processing their photos, I'd expect they'd be able to tell you.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 5, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I would never care that they felt cheated.  The photography is for me, not them.
> 
> Besides, there are so many debates about art and photography right here in TPF, that clearly shows we don't all see things the same way.


And when I am anointed with world dictatorial powers ... that will change.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 5, 2014)

I post process pretty much every shot. At least to kick up a shadow or the contrast a notch.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

On the subject of a photo not representing something "real", and saying that it should or must, I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of covering up bad photography skills with editing; what matters to me is the final outcome. In my eyes, aesthetic beauty will always trump reality. This is why we hire makeup artists. I dare you to approach every woman you see wearing makeup and accuse her of covering up poor bone structure with that contour. See how she reacts.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> unlike most of the other apparent posters I really don't give a chit who sees my unedited photos or too much about post processing either.View attachment 87880


Ok... So what's your point?


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Every single shot that I post is edited in photoshop. This could be a full retouch to as little as just sharpening.
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> On the subject of a photo not representing something "real", and saying that it should or must, I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of covering up bad photography skills with editing; what matters to me is the final outcome. In my eyes, aesthetic beauty will always trump reality. This is why we hire makeup artists. I dare you to approach every woman you see wearing makeup and accuse her of covering up poor bone structure with that contour. See how she reacts.



For every photographer, there is a philosophy of photography. Some have no interest in reality and others are preoccupied with making the picture as close to reality as possible. Both poles as well as the spectrum of philosophies in between are - or at least should be - valid approaches, depending on context of course. Journalistic or documentary photography should be more concerned with reality whereas fashion or art photography is more concerned with the aesthetic value of the final image.

But is it not true that we've all seen pictures that use processing to make a bad picture seem better? How many times have you all critiqued a photo and said - or at least thought - that a person could process all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad photo? Admitting this does not mean ALL processing is used this way, but it's disingenuous to say that it never happens. I've seen crappy pictures that were processed within an inch of their lives, and yet this does not make me automatically doubtful of all pictures that have been processed.

As for the make-up analogy, a woman may not like to admit it, but make-up IS there to hide flaws - or at least what are considered flaws according to society's beauty standard du jour.  Foundation hides blotchy skin. Blush gives higher cheekbones. Eyeshadow can make a small eye look bigger. The unwillingness to admit the use of make-up to hide flaws is simply vanity, and does not invalidate the truth.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

One other thing I find interesting is that no one has brought up the fact that we manipulate the outcome of a photograph, especially in studio, by manipulating and crafting the light we cast on our subject right at the moment of exposure. Even in natural lighting, we choose where to place the model so the light is cast on them in a certain way. This to me defeats the purist argument, because the image is manipulated before we even shoot it. Even a good street photographer will place themselves at a vantagepoint that will put their subject in good lighting. We even manipulate the perspective and composition, all by choosing what lens to use and how we frame a scene. 

The way I see it, the only way a photo could be "pure" is if shot through a 50mm lens, without looking through the viewfinder and walking around randomly pressing the shutter release in different directions, and then never removing it from the memory card or developing the film.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.


Every photo is processed, that is fact. Film is developed, and that is processing. Digital images are converted to viewable image files, and that too is processing. 

I don't judge people who don't edit their photos, I judge people who act like they are better than others because they choose one or the other without considering that everyone has different taste.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't understand why it has to be "an argument" at all or why those who like to process heavily feel so defensive about it. I've read much more derisive comments on this forum about "SOOC hipsters/losers/poseurs" than I've ever read about those who process heavily, and yet whenever one of these threads come up, there dozens of posts about why processing is so great and that no photo is ever truly unprocessed anyway.
> ...



Fair enough, but I just don't see where anyone in this thread did that.

And yes, every photo is processed, but I think it's also taking the word "processing" too literally, when what we are all talking about in this day and age is what is done to an image once it is loaded into a photo processing software program.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


The topic of purism was being argued between Traveler and Bibrius, so i was commenting on that, because I too have opinions on the matter.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > PPing information isn't generally posted because, except for some general terms like lighten, darken etc, editing is a complex issue not easily reduced to a description in words.
> ...



I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all -- in a forum like this many participants want to learn. That information can be helpful. How about before and after?

Here's an example. Before: SOOR which I'm told now is straight out of camera raw.







And SOOR again which is both interesting and instructive since this is just as "unedited" as the one above only by different software --  both untouched by me so which one is the real SOOR? How can SOOR not be SOOR?






And after; with cropping color and tone adjustments and a pretty obvious mask to knock back the background. Exactly the way I saw it when I paused to take the photo.

Joe


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

See, I find that very instructive, and *much* more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?

It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step. 

What I just learned from the final shot is "This is how Joe imagined the shot." Then I got to see how he executed the vision. It helps me understand that this is how he uses masks, and that makes me curious about how to use masks. This curiosity gives me more of an impetus to start learning more on my own and trying it out.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2014)

This example is very simple and obvious ( that's not a value judgement about the picture but a description of the concept and process of editing) and minimal compared to the intricacy of editing in more complex shots that might involve 10 or 20 layers and lots of non- obvious steps that don't self document like this one does.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> See, I find that very instructive, and *much* more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?
> 
> It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step.
> 
> What I just learned from the final shot is "This is how Joe imagined the shot." Then I got to see how he executed the vision. It helps me understand that this is how he uses masks, and that makes me curious about how to use masks. This curiosity gives me more of an impetus to start learning more on my own and trying it out.




Exactly. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me. [emoji106]


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> This example is very simple and obvious ( that's not a value judgement about the picture but a description of the concept and process of editing) and minimal compared to the intricacy of editing in more complex shots that might involve 10 or 20 layers and lots of non- obvious steps that don't self document like this one does.



Then don't explain the processing on that very complicated photo, or only comment if someone has specific questions. Allow me to repeat:


> *It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step. *


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 5, 2014)

There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> See, I find that very instructive, and *much* more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?
> 
> It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step.
> 
> What I just learned from the final shot is "This is how Joe imagined the shot." Then I got to see how he executed the vision. It helps me understand that this is how he uses masks, and that makes me curious about how to use masks. This curiosity gives me more of an impetus to start learning more on my own and trying it out.



Thanks -- I'm glad you liked that.

Joe

P.S. I don't want to encourage a purist lynch mob to start hunting for me but it's also worth noting that I pulled up some weeds, removed another set of leaves off the hanging vine (upper right) and re-arranged the vines in the background to fill-in and cover the concrete wall that you don't see.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Exactly. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. *I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me.* [emoji106]



This is the only thing I disagree with - not because I necessarily agree with the so-called purists, but just that I don't find it foolish. Just a different way of thinking/working.

Truth be told, I do very little post-processing (and yes, I'm using the practical definition, not the hyper-literal definition.) I don't consider myself a "purist" but it's just been so ingrained in me to do most of the work in camera. Part of this is that I haven't done my own film developing until recently. I grew up taking a shot and sending it to a lab. Once it was back in my hands, the only real 'editing' I could do was cropping with a pair of scissors. That hammered in the habit of thinking that my work ended when I hit the shutter.

These days, I have a LOT more control over the image once that shutter is tripped and the film advanced. I develop, I scan, I use software. But still inside me is a very strong belief that most of my work to get an image the way I envision it is done in the camera. And when I do edit, I do so to improve the image, yes, but also to get it as close as I can to what I saw and wanted to capture.

I DO enjoy trying to capture reality as I see it. But that's just me. Before anyone misunderstands me, I am in NO WAY saying that this is how photography should be. This is simply how I want MY photography to be. I do value the power of post processing and I engage in it as far as I feel I need to, but because of my background, because of my personal philosophy, because of my distinct lack of interest in 20 steps of post processing (because I don't enjoy that work), I just don't do as much to my photos as others do.

But whatever little I do, I'm always interested in learning how to do it better, so it would be nice once in a while for someone to pull back the curtains and let me see how the Great Oz/final image is being manipulated.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 5, 2014)

limr said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Seeing how others work through the process fascinates me. And I'm with Joe. I "see" an image, and process it to that idea. Sometimes it's a lot of processing, sometimes it's not so much. But lately I've been "seeing" before shooting a lot more, and I've found that really helps. Because then I know HOW to shoot and HOW to process. *I think the purist argument is foolish, but that's probably the artist in me.* [emoji106]
> ...




I think part of my thought process is heavily biased or swayed to "disagree strongly" with the purists because I never shot film.. I did for a few months, but not as the sole medium for years. So I've always manipulated. Now more than ever. Using GND's and HDR processing and all that is really a hefty "editing" process, and the filtering is all done in camera, before I event post process! So, I think my style and how i shoot is what makes me disagree, and had I started earlier (or... Er.. Been Born earlier) I would think differently.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> Thanks -- I'm glad you liked that.
> 
> Joe
> 
> P.S. I don't want to encourage a purist lynch mob to start hunting for me but it's also worth noting that I pulled up some weeds, removed another set of leaves off the hanging vine (upper right) and re-arranged the vines in the background to fill-in and cover the concrete wall that you don't see.



And I just might have replaced the leaf I originally saw on this log with a prettier one arranged just so 




rs Fallen leaf by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. *That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing*.



Perhaps for you, but not to me. You're making a value judgment on someone else's learning process. Do you not accept that different people learn in different ways?



> It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.



Yeah. Tried that. Wasted a lot of time. Learned how to make something that looks like this:





Not to mention that the woman's voice triggered the misophonia BIG TIME and made me want to shove a knitting needle through my ear drums.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 5, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> On the subject of a photo not representing something "real", and saying that it should or must, I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of covering up bad photography skills with editing; what matters to me is the final outcome. In my eyes, aesthetic beauty will always trump reality. This is why we hire makeup artists. I dare you to approach every woman you see wearing makeup and accuse her of covering up poor bone structure with that contour. See how she reacts.





The_Traveler said:


> This example is very simple and obvious ( that's not a value judgement about the picture but a description of the concept and process of editing) and minimal compared to the intricacy of editing in more complex shots that might involve 10 or 20 layers and lots of non- obvious steps that don't self document like this one does.


not into It lew (obviously) though I do have the capability of masking now I don't.
so for someone (realist I am) who isn't into it.
what is it worth?
If it makes me five k on flikr photos or some dumb chit then clearly I don't want to work for a buck a hour processing photos so I wont do it. (I am a capitalist).
If it ever got me some publishing in a magazine, and it didn't pay much. I still wouldn't do it.
For my own personal photos I don't need it or want it.
so how much money we talking about, in a realistic sense.  Not the top one percent of photos but a general summary of at least a likelihood of payout for the upper side of the processed images. i relate to money i printed this **** off for money remember earlier in the thread? i just question the percentage that actually make much for additional money on it.
For me it would only be commercialization of it. About it. Like if someone hired me to make a cartoon or processed cheese..


----------



## bribrius (Nov 5, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > See, I find that very instructive, and *much* more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?
> ...


okay, spin this backwards and think of it this way.
novices shoot point and shoots.
pros get into processing, primarily because it is required (they want to get freakn paid)

where we run into this in between stuff is with enthusiasts and the artists types. whether it is warranted or not is clearly up to them as the vast majority do not get paid for this (or if they do surely not much). so start with they are buying the software and learning it because they WANT TO. It is not necessary.

Being the concrete (attempted lets say). i would suggest that Nikon , for instance is a fairly intelligent company as they have been making cameras for a number of years for millions of consumers.
Now i don't know about everyone else, but the Nikons i have came with a manual and view nx.
They are expecting (and they make the cameras and sell them so should know) that

a. If the user reads the manual they will know how to operate the camera correctly.

b. the majority of users of that camera that is purchased will be content with the included software and it will supply their needs while using such camera as long as they operate it proficiently or even if they make a mistake and have to make a minor correction..

The maker of the camera isn't stupid.

i would like to think, having read the manual and using the enclosed software (nx is minor adjustments) that Nikon is correct in assuming most proficient users with the camera they sold and that software will be just fine.

Now there is higher processing programs, catered to the business pros and the enthusiasts and some of the art types.
This is not the norm.  The majority of people i am fairly assured, do not have ten layers.  i would think these are ADDITIONAL options for those said persons wanting something ADDITIONAL.

If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual.

I also feel fairly safe in assuming the majority of users still aren't post processing images to large extents and never go beyond the original post processing software included with their camera when they purchased it.



Now considering the purist argument, and the push for post processing in this thread.   considering very few in it probably make their living off photography (if any)..


i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority..

And the main way this comes up seems to be with artists and enthusiasts. Neither of which derive a primary income from it in most cases but profess so LOUDLY the requirement of it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


Do you have facts and statistics to prove these statements? Any links? I'd love to see them.

And your comments about no one in this thread being able to make a living as a photographer are laughable. Get over yourself.


----------



## Alexr25 (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> ........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............


Don't worry, I'am sure you are in the MAJORITY! I am also sure that I and most of the members on this forum are striving to rise above the lowest common denominator of the MAJORITY and produce the best photographs that we can. We therefore post-process our images to get the most out of them.
Post-processing will never turn a bad photo into a good photo or even a acceptable photo but if done well it can turn a good photo a great photo, on the other hand if done badly it can turn a great photo into utter garbage.
Being part of the majority is nothing to be proud of, the majority of photos that the ordinary person produces are rubbish, they may have great importance and emotional or sentimental value to the person who made them but as stand alone images they don't work. People who aspire to be good photographers try rise above the snapshot photo and produce images that work in their own right. If you can't see the difference between a snapshot and a good photo then I'm afraid you're in the wrong game.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

Alexr25 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > ........................ i think you would find i am actually in the MAJORITY of photographers in the general populace. while someone may find it necessary to have multiple layers and attempt to get some processed image into a gallery these would be the minority, and those believing it was FUNDAMENTAL in photography to post process beyond small corrections would be in a even smaller minority............
> ...


Agree with some of this, on the other hand..
lol. just because someone doesn't post process the crap out of a image does not make it a "snap shot". Nor would i expect everyone else running around with higher end camera gear that don't post process the crap out of their images to believe them to be "snap shots" either.
your argument is a fallacy anyway. It is like suggesting you have to have a dslr to make a great photo. you can find some garbage taken with any high end camera (processed heavily or not) and find better photos on facebook taken with a cellphone amongst that "majority".
.

by the way, since when is snapshot a bad thing? i have seen some pretty damn good snapshots..

see how you just separated yourself from the "ordinary person"

don't kid yourself.  some of them ordinary majority are turning out better pics with cellphones and no post processing than people with four k cameras and five hours pping one photo.


to each their own though. world is full of images and full of processed images they are coming out of our ears at this point. You can add another processed image to the other billion and tell everyone it was your vision while adobe can pull another dime in revenue..


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Alexr25 said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Did somebody working at Photoshop steal your girlfriend or something? All I see here is you with a rebuttal to every comment made, and generally just looking for an argument. WE GET IT. You don't feel the need to post process and believe those who do are dumb.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Alexr25 said:
> ...


well then you don't get it. Because i don't feel people that post process are dumb. i see a SELECTIVE need for it amongst the highest level quality of work in the commercial industry and a OPTIONAL accessory for those in the higher realms of the art world whose ambitions take them that direction. Just as i see editing as common in making a movie, cartoons or animated video...
The magazine shooter i get, wedding shooter, i get. Doing some animated series, i get. Pushing to be in the top one percent in the photographic art world, i get.
The every day push for photoshop, nope. Don't get it.
The guy that spends hours pping some photo for it to sit on his hard drive or maybe make a little buck on a print. Don't get it. Now if that photo was being submitted for publication with a contract and decent payout, then yeah, i get it (i would do the same thing)

come on, someone told me i needed to edit the photo of my dog on here. Really?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> *If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual*.



Holy crap!
Is this the single most disingenuous statement I have ever heard?

This is the best example of the Dunning Kruger Effect that I can remember, and there are plenty in that competition here.

How about 
'If pen companies expected their pens actually to be used, they would never have made them retractable.'
'If hammer companies expected their hammers to actually be used to hit something, they would never have made the heads all shiny and nice.'
'If pencil companies expected their pencils to actually be sharpened, they would have sharpened them at the factories'
'If canvases were made to have paint put on them, they would come that way.'
'If paint brushes were actually intended to be used to paint pictures, they would come with instructions.'


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > *If higher processing amounts were required, i am assured Nikon would include them with the cameras manual*.
> ...


Good morning lew!

it is all in fun. If nothing else makes one re-think...


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2014)

You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.

No one can produce a picture without processing.
Every picture gets processed or you couldn't see it.
In light of that fact, picking out an arbitrary point and saying that any processing up to that is fine and any processing more than that is wrong is ridiculous and stupid.

Why do people edit?
For the same reason that people paint or draw or sculpt, they want to take essentially raw materials and make them into their vision of grace or beauty or interest.
For the same reason that, when adding a porch, people cut wood to fit and then paint it so that it matches the house - because there is some beauty and satisfaction in making something that meets one's own esthetic criteria.

Maybe you don't understand that urge, but unless you are completely solipsistic, from the amount of push back you have gotten, you should be able to realize that your opinion, even if it is held by the majority of people who have cameras, is not the opinion of those who are serious about their work. 
And, it is insulting, even pathological, that you should continue to see people who do things differently than you as wrong or evil or liars or cheaters.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> No one can produce a picture without processing.
> Every picture gets processed or you couldn't see it.
> ...


group hug time!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 6, 2014)

Bribrius you do realize that photography is art right? I don't understand people like you that spend time worrying about what other people are doing. People may want to spend hours post processing their photos simply because it is their artwork and its what they love to do. That's like saying "why would someone spend weeks on an oil painting if they aren't even going to sell it or gain some sort of fame through it!?". 

I've spent hours in post on my photos before, focus and exposure blending...dodging and burning, etc. And had those photos sell tons of prints and be in magazines and whatever, but even if it was just for myself I'd still spend just as long because its what I love to do. Who cares what other people are doing with their artwork? From what I've seen, those who focus on doing what THEY love tend to be successful. Those who worry about what everyone else is doing...get on their soapbox on online forums apparently


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2014)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. *That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing*.
> ...



I am making a value judgment, not on the method of learning but on what you are learning.
The fact that you made an execrable hash out of that tutorial makes my point exactly.
Because you specifically have no idea what you need to do, then you can't use a tool correctly.

You don't know what you don't know - and the best way to fix that is not to find and learn some technique and practice it but to set about learning what it is that you don't know. 
When an architect sets out to create a structure, he or she does not learn how to use a router or a bandsaw or a welder; he or she does not learn skills because those skills are necessary to build but not to design and create.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2014)

Everybody lies...er, I mean, edits.


----------



## limr (Nov 6, 2014)

I didn't make an execrable hash out of the photo, Lew. The picture isn't mine. That was the photo that the tutorial used as an example. It is the picture that I should supposedly emulating. So no, you didn't actually prove that point.

Don't give me the "unskilled and unaware" speech. But assuming for a moment that this is what's going on, if I don't know what I don't know, how am I supposed to look at my own photo, know what tool I'm supposed to use, then go search for videos about how to use that tool? This is what you said is the "best" way to learn.

How about looking at a few photos here, like Joe's example, and *gasp* LEARNING that oh, that was done with a mask. Now let me go find out about masks. That way, when I get to one of my own photos, I might understand what tool I might want to practice rather than wasting my time with trial and error.

Perhaps one day the idea that there is more than one way to learn something will get through your head. Until then, I'm done.


----------



## limr (Nov 6, 2014)

Here's another "tutorial" 




This one told me that I could create fantastic pictures like THIS ONE! Tone mapped to 11 and selective coloring.

Perhaps I just might learn more here.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

These threads are amusing, but beyond that really good. As they give further insight to individuals thought process in itself and somewhere between the extremes a middle ground can be reached with everyone possibly learning something.


----------



## Designer (Nov 6, 2014)

The "middle ground" represents compromise, which means that someone has compromised his own standards.

Compromise is not my idea of success.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2014)

limr said:


> I didn't make an execrable hash out of the photo, Lew. The picture isn't mine. That was the photo that the tutorial used as an example. It is the picture that I should supposedly emulating. So no, you didn't actually prove that point.
> 
> Don't give me the "unskilled and unaware" speech. But assuming for a moment that this is what's going on, if I don't know what I don't know, how am I supposed to look at my own photo, know what tool I'm supposed to use, then go search for videos about how to use that tool? This is what you said is the "best" way to learn.
> 
> ...




What Joe did was not nearly as important as why he did it.
That was a very simple example and the path from _why_ to _how_ is obvious.
My point was that on complex images, where the _what-to-do_ and the timing aren't as clear or obvious, that is where the knowledge of why one does something is important.
That understanding comes from lots of work and the technical issues are comparatively clear cut compared to the artistic insight one must develop.

The hierarchy of decisions in editing is:

How should this image be edited to maximize whatever the image might become - and why?
What should the workflow, the timing of different techniques, be so that one can get to the final result and still leave an escape route?
What techniques should one use in this case?
You are looking at an Joe's example where Step 1 is obvious and simple, Step 2 isn't needed because of the simplicity, Step is only one way of doing it of three or four that might work as well..
I'm saying that learning about Step 1 is the most important so that you know how and when to use different Step 3s.
The way you learn about Step #1, the diagnosis, is to read lots of c/c, ask questions, try to intuit what makes pictures work for you and what doesn't and make those lessons into a generalized thought process. 

And the last thing I will say in this conversation is that it is not good practice to be rude and sarcastic to people who might help you.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> No one can produce a picture without processing.
> Every picture gets processed or you couldn't see it.
> ...


i  was actually contemplating this. And believe it is the reverse. I am VERY serious. The photos i frig with the most processing are the ones i care the least about. Abstracts, pretty flowers, "artsy ones" whatever. All mostly entertainment.
Now if you noticed the coffee thread or what i have posted on here before about old photos. i am really into old bw images, have some old maps dating well back. so really i am probably about the most grounded (like a hundred or two hundred years back grounded) serious as you can get. And i have recognized the difference between a image that is good for a fleeting second and one that holds its value over extended periods of time. i don't know what the future holds, but i think i have a better chance of one of my images being in the historical society in a hundred years than any of yours being anywhere. so who is the serious one?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i don't know what the future holds, but i think i have a better chance of one of my images being in the historical society in a hundred years than any of yours being anywhere. so who is the serious one?



You can think whatever you want; the point I was making, that seems to have passed you by completely, is that your opinion about post-processing is based on little experience or knowledge and the accusations you make about people's skill or lying are offensive and ignorant.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > You seem not to be able to see that your opinions come from a deep well of lack of knowledge and understanding.
> ...



well, obviously i am even MORE serious than you, because i think any photography at all is cheating and the only REAL talent that will stand the test of time are sculptures and paintings. 
forget going back a hundred years or so...im going back THOUSANDS of years. 
totally more serious than you.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


lol. love it!


----------



## Buckster (Nov 6, 2014)

For me personally, photography has always been nothing more than a means to an end, the end being the image I envisioned and aspired to create.  How I get there is not at all the point to me, and never was.

I like cameras.  I even collect them for what I perceive as their beauty and nostalgic reasons.  But beyond that, they're just a tool to help me get to the final image, like a brush or a spatula or a knife or the paint is to a painter; Like the hammer or chisel or mold or pottery wheel is to the sculptor.  Operating them is not at all the point, nor is operating them the end of the process.  It's just one step in the process, and it's neither the first nor the last step in that process.  

I was first motivated in 1969 to learn photography because I wanted to make images, not because I wanted to operate a camera or "capture reality" or "be" a photographer.  I learned about light and shadow and composition and color, lenses, filters, masks, modifiers and assorted other techniques only so that I could use and manipulate them to _create _specific images of my own vision, and for no other reason.  I learned how to do as much of that "in camera" as I could because for the first 30 years of my time behind a camera, that was pretty much the only way I could get the images I wanted to make, not because that's the way I necessarily wanted to make them.

I never aspired to be a "camera operator" as an end goal, the way some seem to embrace that as the point of their photography.  On the contrary, I'm a creative, and a camera is just one of the tools I use in pursuit of my creations.

That said, all of my images, aside from the occasional handfuls of quick and dirty snapshots of a grand kid's birthday or something like that, are purposefully edited by me to fulfill my goal of creating images that fulfill my creative vision.

But that's just me.  YMMV.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 6, 2014)

nice post, probably the best one yet.. And look, this just hit 1400 views people love melo-drama. Like jerry...


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2014)

Buckster said:


> For me personally, photography has always been nothing more than a means to an end, the end being the image I envisioned and aspired to create.  How I get there is not at all the point to me, and never was.
> 
> I like cameras.  I even collect them for what I perceive as their beauty and nostalgic reasons.  But beyond that, they're just a tool to help me get to the final image, like a brush or a spatula or a knife or the paint is to a painter; Like the hammer or chisel or mold or pottery wheel is to the sculptor.  Operating them is not at all the point, nor is operating them the end of the process.  It's just one step in the process, and it's neither the first nor the last step in that process.
> 
> ...




Buckster!!!  I've missed you. Glad to see you!

Joe


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

JimMcClain said:


> I didn't get _really_ excited about my return to photography until I began to learn more about post processing. It's still a learning process, but I am seeing progress. I've picked up some techniques from watching You Tube videos and I like to experiment some. There have been many pictures I finished, only later to realize I either wasn't actually finished, or I finished too much. The best thing about RAW and Lightroom though, is it's non-destructive and I can fix my mistakes at any time (or just learn from them and move on to the next session).
> 
> Jim



I have only just begun to edit my photos a SMIDGE, using some very generic software that came on my computer.  Just your basic saturation, contrast, etc.  I believe I have gotten some great photos from some okay photos by doing just this small step.  So I definitely know what you mean.  I'm excited to get better software and really learn how to edit.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Do yourself a favor and do two things:
> 
> - Assume all images are edited. Even Ansel Adams edited his photos.
> - Don't worry about it.


Oh, I definitely assume all images are edited, but I want to know what KIND of edits are being done.  Not the specifics, necessarily, but general stuff.  I'm just nosy.  And I feel like the way to learn is to emulate and then create your own style once you learn from other people.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> I crop, straighten, colour correct, lighten or darken any of my images that need it. * I do try and get as much of it correct in the camera.* Generally all I need to do is a little crop, and lighten the images.


I think what you said here is so important.  Even as a new photographer, I know that many people don't take the time to do the best they can in camera; they know they have editing software to "save" them.  I strive for my SOOC photos to be as awesome as possible!  At least some of them!


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > I pp to sometimes, just not to a large degree. I guess unless it is absolutely necessary I still consider it fake and doctoring photos. In your case though, well you come out and say your plan is to doctor it so hey, whatever you want for your vision.
> ...


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

Designer said:


> Where is the OP?  Why hasn't she made her presence known on here?



LOL.  Where is the OP?  Living my life OUT THERE, working third shift, sleeping during the day; not spending my days on the internet.  Can't take photos while sitting in front of a computer.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



It's like any other art form.  Some woman takes garbage and makes a collage out of it.  I think it's ugly, I don't "get" it.  But other people ogle over it.  And I can respect that.  Sometimes, even though I don't LIKE it, I can dig it; I can understand it.  Photography is no different.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

limr said:


> _t_is_me_ said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who is curious what kind of edits (if any) are done on photos?  People always post what shutter speed and aperture, which ISO, flash or no flash, etc etc, but never if there was editing done or what kind.  This is something I want to know!  Maybe it doesn't matter, and I'm weird; Regardless, I'd still like to know!
> ...



Exactly!  I didn't take any offense to those who may not quite have understood what I was saying.  I absolutely have NO problem with PP.  Quite the opposite.  I love it and know that many of the beautiful pictures I see around could not have existed without it.  I just don't know how to do it yet and want to learn HOW to (in a very general way, at least) from specific examples.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> Lew is right it would be such a pain in the ass to list every edit. not only would you have to be precise but you would have to make sure to list the exact order you did everything in. The slightest change in the order can change the result.
> 
> Really the best way to show PP is by doing a video.


I am absolutely not asking for specifics or sharing of secrets.  I just generally want to know, "I did a huge crapload of editing and the photo looks nothing like the original," or "I edited saturation and contrast," or "I did nothing."  You know?  Just so I know what I could do to my photos to get a similar look or feel.  Or, when I take a photo of a tree, why the heck it looks nothing like "that guy's" photo of a tree.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> My post processing is minimal whether it's a digital photo or B&W film. I could tell someone what I did because either way I've kept track of it. I don't do portraits or weddings though where I'm dealing with a large number of photos at once.
> 
> In the darkroom if I've shot a roll of film in the same lighting conditions usually once I've determined exposure time I won't have to do much else; other times I might need to vary exposure times and/or dodge/burn. I keep notes on the contact/proof sheets that the exposure was say, f8 at 11 sec. and note if I burned in a corner or dodged out some detail in a dark area in any specific print - it depends on what was needed if anything. (And if I did some dodging just because I like to play with my dodgette set, that I may not bother to write down!).
> 
> ...



I'm very non-confrontational (even on the internet, most of the time, which I realize is rare), so I would probably never ask anyone.  Well-received or not, I would feel like I was being rude.  Like asking a magician to tell me how he does his magic tricks.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> One other thing I find interesting is that no one has brought up the fact that we manipulate the outcome of a photograph, especially in studio, by manipulating and crafting the light we cast on our subject right at the moment of exposure. Even in natural lighting, we choose where to place the model so the light is cast on them in a certain way. This to me defeats the purist argument, because the image is manipulated before we even shoot it. Even a good street photographer will place themselves at a vantagepoint that will put their subject in good lighting. We even manipulate the perspective and composition, all by choosing what lens to use and how we frame a scene.
> 
> The way I see it, the only way a photo could be "pure" is if shot through a 50mm lens, without looking through the viewfinder and walking around randomly pressing the shutter release in different directions, and then never removing it from the memory card or developing the film.



You're right.  I'm a Pinterest freak (not necessarily for photography, but it pops up from time to time), and as such, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a pin to an article that tells you how to "sit this way" or "turn that way" or "wear this color."  I mean, let's be real: All of these things change reality.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Wonderful example.  Thank you!


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

limr said:


> See, I find that very instructive, and *much* more so than someone else editing my photos for me. I find it informative to be able to see a person's process for their own photo, not imposing a vision upon mine. I'm positive that other people feel differently, and that's fine. But why should we limit ourselves to just providing shooting info or editing for others? Why not de-mystify the processing by showing what we do on our OWN rather than what someone else should do with theirs?
> 
> It doesn't have to be for every single photo (not everyone posts shooting info, either) and it doesn't have to be a play-by-play instruction book, detailing every last step.
> 
> What I just learned from the final shot is "This is how Joe imagined the shot." Then I got to see how he executed the vision. It helps me understand that this is how he uses masks, and that makes me curious about how to use masks. This curiosity gives me more of an impetus to start learning more on my own and trying it out.


EXACTLY.  You hit the nail on the head.  Obviously I didn't specify what I wanted well enough...  Except at the time I was asking, I'm not sure I even knew.


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
> It is much more important to learn to look at the image and see what you want to change and then search out the appropriate tutorials.


This isn't as true as you think.  Learning is not as simple as that.  How can I search out a tutorial if I have NO IDEA where the edits even begin or what they are called?


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

bribrius said:


> nice post, probably the best one yet.. And look, this just hit 1400 views people love melo-drama. Like jerry...


Pretty incredible.  And I thought I was making a simple statement (or asking a simple question).


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 7, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
> ...


If you'd like some good pointers (from my perspective), this is what I recommend:

Get Photoshop (CS3 or newer)
Look up "Adjustment Layers", and learn where to find them in PS and how to use them. Particularly, look up tutorials on how to use the Curves adjustment layer and the Selective Color adjustment layer. These two adjustment layers alone will completely change the way you edit photos if you don't already use these tools.


----------



## runnah (Nov 7, 2014)

If you get good enough at photoshop you can see what people have done. This goes double for cameras and lighting. 

For example, Dan's before and after's I can tell right away what he did to the image and I could get pretty damn close to what he did. Granted if we both started with the same "before" image we'd each come out with very different results but that is where the uniqueness and personality shines through. 

So that is why it's hard to explain the edit its that are made. Each person does things differently, has different tastes and has a different end image in mind.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 7, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > There are huge numbers of tutorials already done and on the web rather than creating on order how-to's on specific images. That's a very mechanical way to approach post- processing.
> ...



The most important part of getting better is first to learn to see the shortcomings in your images and only then to search out the techniques to fix them.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 7, 2014)

Every photo has to be edited, Tuesday night it took me 3 hours in the darkroom to get 1 print how i wanted it yet Wednesday night i got 6 prints in the same time


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Every photo has to be edited, Tuesday night it took me 3 hours in the darkroom to get 1 print how i wanted it yet Wednesday night i got 6 prints in the same time



All digital photos and negatives have to be edited -- not every photo.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 7, 2014)

It needs your finger and thumb cloning out


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> It needs your finger and thumb cloning out



That's how you know it's completely real and not "shopped."

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Nov 7, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > It needs your finger and thumb cloning out
> ...


Exactly:


----------



## Scatterbrained (Nov 7, 2014)

Buckster said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


----------



## _t_is_me_ (Nov 7, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> _t_is_me_ said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


Cute.

I see shortcomings in every single photo I take. I am also new and have no idea how to fix most of them. So, like I said before, simple telling me that an image is underexposed doesn't help me a whole lot. 

I thought this was a place for learning. Maybe I was mistaken and that is asking too much.


----------



## runnah (Nov 7, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> I thought this was a place for learning. Maybe I was mistaken and that is asking too much.



It is but it's also not a one sided affair. You need to be open to any and all criticism. It may sting your pride to hear that the photo you love isn't that well received. But it's all part of the gig. Eventually you will get to a point where you can pick and choose who to listen to and who not to.


----------



## limr (Nov 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> _t_is_me_ said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this was a place for learning. Maybe I was mistaken and that is asking too much.
> ...



And one of the things that the person _giving _ the critique needs to remember is what it was like to *not *know a lot about editing and be able to explain to a person who doesn't automatically know what to do. Someone more experienced can hear "It's underexposed" and know how to fix that. Someone who is new to editing won't know how to fix it. They don't know what tool to use. But if someone says, "It's underexposed, so why don't you try this mask or this other one?" THEN that person will know better what tool to research and practice with. This is not an undue burden on the critiquer. It doesn't require step-by-step instructions. It is simply providing a direction for the beginner who doesn't even know what a mask is used for, never mind how to actually use it adeptly.

If I told my writing students that they should "just know" what needs to be revised in their essays, I would be a terrible teacher. I have to tell them, "You have run-ons, subject-verb agreement issues, and you need specific examples in your body paragraphs." THEN they go and look at their notes about these issues, do some practice, and figure out what I mean by "specific examples." Sometimes they come back to me to clarify, or they go to their book or the internet. That's their end of the deal. But I have to give them more useful feedback beyond, "Your paragraphs are underdeveloped and your grammar needs work."


----------



## runnah (Nov 7, 2014)

limr said:


> If I told my writing students that they should "just know" what needs to be revised in their essays, I would be a terrible teacher. I have to tell them, "You have run-ons, subject-verb agreement issues, and you need specific examples in your body paragraphs." THEN they go and look at their notes about these issues, do some practice, and figure out what I mean by "specific examples." Sometimes they come back to me to clarify, or they go to their book or the internet. That's their end of the deal. But I have to give them more useful feedback beyond, "Your paragraphs are underdeveloped and your grammar needs work."



I agree and disagree.

Yes the teacher needs to clear in their comments but it's also important for the student to go the extra mile and learn on their own. 

But what I think a lot of people tend forget or ignore is that you are on a forum on the INTERNET! If I see a term here that I don't know I take 2 seconds to open a new tab and google it!


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > _t_is_me_ said:
> ...



This is a very good place to learn -- time and patience. It is an open forum and anyone can participate within the limits of the forum rules so you won't always get everyone giving you the same answer -- this thread you started is evidence of that. It won't take long for you to figure out where the better answers are coming from. You need to understand that anyone offering you answers or critique is doing so freely on their dime so....

Telling you a photo is underexposed is very helpful. The photo you posted of the pelican was too dark and also too low contrast. You got that now from multiple good sources; Lew, Braineack, and I'll add my assertion to the same. What you want to do now is start to figure out why the photo is that way and how you can do better next time. We will help you with that and we do have the answers. Nobody is going to write you out a photo class in a single thread or post but you've already got some suggestions of places to look.

Re-post the pelican photo with a question of why it's not better as it was delivered by your camera. That's where you want to look for what to do. The pelican photo as you posted it directly from the camera is a bad place to start in order to try and make a good photo. Rather than edit that to try and repair it (yep I just said repair) -- rather than try and repair it ask instead why it came out of the camera broken in the first place.

Joe


----------



## limr (Nov 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > If I told my writing students that they should "just know" what needs to be revised in their essays, I would be a terrible teacher. I have to tell them, "You have run-ons, subject-verb agreement issues, and you need specific examples in your body paragraphs." THEN they go and look at their notes about these issues, do some practice, and figure out what I mean by "specific examples." Sometimes they come back to me to clarify, or they go to their book or the internet. That's their end of the deal. But I have to give them more useful feedback beyond, "Your paragraphs are underdeveloped and your grammar needs work."
> ...



Of course. If the student isn't doing any work to practice and strengthen their weaknesses, then that's his or her failure. But if I say "Your grammar needs work" and the student says, "Which grammar points?" that does *not* mean the student is unwilling to do the work. It just means that the student would like more guided feedback so they don't spend two hours on nouns and articles when they really need help with verb tense.



> But what I think a lot of people tend forget or ignore is that you are on a forum on the INTERNET! If I see a term here that I don't know I take 2 seconds to open a new tab and google it!



If you google 'underexposed,' is it going to come up with "use a mask to correct underexposed pictures'? Or is it going to give you a gazillion results, some of them relating to photography and some not, and of those related to photography, how many of them will point you in a direction to help you edit in order to correct underexposed? If someone says "layering mask" and the person then googles that, it's more likely to lead something useful without slogging through all the other random crap that comes up in a google search.

I am not absolving the student from the burden of putting in the work to improve. But I am accepting the responsibility that if I really am interested in someone else learning, I need to give them something to work with that is actually useful. And I should take into consideration that someone brand new might need a little bit more guidance than the shortcuts we are all used to taking with those who are no longer beginners.

Edit: So much of this depends on how the question is asked. If someone is asking simply "What's wrong with the photo?" then yes, saying "underexposed" is an answer. If someone is asking specifically "What can I do to improve this photo?" then "underexposed" is an incomplete answer and possibly not quite as useful as you might think if the person asking the question is a beginner. Again, someone well-versed in Photoshop might see "underexposed" and think "Ah, I have to do x or y." Someone who is just starting out sees "underexposed" and think, "Okay, now what? Where do I even start?"


----------



## runnah (Nov 7, 2014)

OK again but Exposure is arguably the most important part of photography, second being focus. That would be like me showing up to your class and not knowing how to read.


----------



## limr (Nov 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> OK again but Exposure is arguably the most important part of photography, second being focus. That would be like me showing up to your class and not knowing how to read.



Again, it comes down to what the question is being asked. "How do I get better better exposure in my pictures?" vs "How can I fix a picture that has been underexposed?" If the learner doesn't even know what question to ask, then we ask our own questions (and I have seen this happen many times on this forum) to narrow down what that learner needs.

As for a student showing up in my class and barely knowing how to read? That's unfortunately happened


----------



## runnah (Nov 7, 2014)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > OK again but Exposure is arguably the most important part of photography, second being focus. That would be like me showing up to your class and not knowing how to read.
> ...



In that case I have a hard time justifying my time if someone isn't even willing to learn the basics. Everyone is doing this for free and it's insulting for someone to not even google basic stuff before expecting other to answer their easily answerable question.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 7, 2014)

hands on in person is always better, this place is a good source beyond that option I think.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 7, 2014)

I thought for sure somebody would post the links to the other 800 threads to giving critique, getting critique, how to ask and how to answer etc.

The mentor option is great, but how many newbies will take the time early on to even find that info.  I wonder how the mentor program is going.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2014)

limr said:


> As for a student showing up in my class and barely knowing how to read? That's unfortunately happened



I thought that was the norm these days -- happens to me all the time, but then I am in the Art department. Tomorrow I have to mat prints with my class and we'll have to read a ruler. Now there's a Waterloo to bring down the average college student: 7 & 3/8 divided by 2 plus a 1/4 inch each side to increase the opening around the print.

Joe


----------



## Designer (Nov 7, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> I see shortcomings in every single photo I take. I am also new and have no idea how to fix most of them. So, like I said before, simple telling me that an image is underexposed doesn't help me a whole lot.
> 
> I thought this was a place for learning. Maybe I was mistaken and that is asking too much.



If you see shortcomings, and wish to fix them, just ask.  Many of the members here are very good at editing, and are more than happy to offer guidance.  

This site is wonderful for teaching.  You might have to read between the lines, or ask specific questions, but the answers are here.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> If you google 'underexposed,' is it going to come up with "use a mask to correct underexposed pictures'? Or is it going to give you a gazillion results, some of them relating to photography and some not, and of those related to photography, how many of them will point you in a direction to help you edit in order to correct underexposed? If someone says "layering mask" and the person then googles that, it's more likely to lead something useful without slogging through all the other random crap that comes up in a google search.










limr said:


> If I told my writing students that they should "just know" what needs to be revised in their essays, I would be a terrible teacher. I have to tell them, "*You have run-ons, subject-verb agreement issues, and you need specific examples in your body paragraphs*." THEN they go and look at their notes about these issues, do some practice, and figure out what I mean by "specific examples." Sometimes they come back to me to clarify, or they go to their book or the internet. That's their end of the deal. But I have to give them more useful feedback beyond, "Your paragraphs are underdeveloped and your grammar needs work."



Interesting example, but not of your point.
You are telling your students what the defect is and then expecting them to either ask or do research to find out how to correct it.
There are multiple ways to handle underexposure (and a mask happens not to be one of them) and the critic can't give any editing advice until he or she knows:

how much the student knows and understands,

what software the student is working with, and
whether the student actually wants to hear the answer.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

Still have to know what to Google. There are photography definitions, general information, a movie called "Underexposure" and then eventually some reference to editing for underexposure.






> Interesting example, but not of your point.
> You are telling your students what the defect is and then expecting them to either ask or do research to find out how to correct it.
> There are multiple ways to handle underexposure (and a mask happens not to be one of them) and the critic can't give any editing advice until he or she knows:
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm telling the student the defect, having already gone over some of the points with them and telling them where to go for answers. I don't correct the errors for them. They'd never learn anything that way. I'm a teacher, not a copy editor.

And I also said:
[/QUOTE]Again, it comes down to *what the question is being asked*. "How do I get better better exposure in my pictures?" vs "How can I fix a picture that has been underexposed?" *If the learner doesn't even know what question to ask, then we ask our own questions* (and I have seen this happen many times on this forum) *to narrow down what that learner needs*.[/QUOTE]

You're the one fond of pulling out the "You don't know what you don't know" issue. If the learner doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, how is s/he supposed to come up with the right question? Or should we ask our own questions before we assume the learner's skill or knowledge level?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 8, 2014)

Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
Myself, I will expect that the posters themselves take a bit more initiative and do a bit more work because I don't want to waste my time.

I have been teaching, with some breaks, since 1982 and my ways work for me.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
> Myself, I will expect that the posters themselves take a bit more initiative and do a bit more work because I don't want to waste my time.
> 
> I have been teaching, with some breaks, since 1982 and my ways work for me.



Did I ever say that your ways were wrong? Or simply suggesting that they are not the only ones? That perhaps not all students benefit from only one style of teaching?

I've been teaching non-stop since 1994. What's your point?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 8, 2014)

My point is, and was, that your repeated references to your 'students' seems to be an 'argument from authority' and my mention of my experience is to show that others of us have experience and choose to do it our own way.
Again, I encourage you to jump in with critiques to all these people asking for critique and help and teach in your own manner.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


Free?!?
I've been checking my mailbox all year waiting for a tpf paycheck. ... are you telling me it's not coming? I just assumed the administration kept getting my address wrong.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> My point is, and was, that your repeated references to 'your students' seems to be an 'argument from authority' and my mention of my experience is to show that others of us have experience and choose to do it our own way.
> Again, I encourage you to jump in with critiques to all these people asking for critique and help and teach in your own manner.



My references to my students (I'm not sure why you used 'your students' in quotes) were provided as an analogy, not reference to authority. And this was about learning, not teaching. The OP asked why people didn't talk about their post processing techniques because she would find it helpful to learn. I am similar. I don't care how simple you think Joe's example was - it was still helpful to me.

But you, among others, suggested that this was a bad way of learning. But how can you say that? Do you really think that you know more that person's learning style than the person knows herself? Do you not remember that when I expressed my opinion about how I personally don't learn very well from having my own photos edited by someone else, you likened me to an ungrateful beggar?


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

I tried real hard to get this leaf to process but couldn't find anything that would take it.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

As for critiquing, I pay attention to the question the OP asks and try to answer that question as thoroughly as I can.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 8, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
> Myself, I will expect that the posters themselves take a bit more initiative and do a bit more work because I don't want to waste my time.
> 
> I have been teaching, with some breaks, since 1982 and my ways work for me.


I have not taken as much advantage of Lews teaching techniques as I would really have liked to, but i will say that using Skypes  audio/video chat features to show people how to edit photos is brilliant, and effective.

To actually "see" in real time how he gets the end results he wants is a great learning tool, especially if you have the same software.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

This thread baffles me, truly.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
> ...


 That makes a lot of sense. First hand learning is preferable to online commenting.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> This thread baffles me, truly.


It's good to be baffled every now and then. Let me know next time you need a good baffling and I'll see what I can do.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> This thread baffles me, truly.


 you are trying to fit square peg into round hole. For every student is a teacher and every teacher a certain type of student. Methods and personalities, objectives often clash. To gear ones methodology to another is comparing apples and oranges. This comes into play from everything learning whether it be a tae kwon do instructor and student to economics 101 or to a automotive trade school. Everyone has methods and teachers they relate to better than others.
while in the beginning levels the relationship may not be so important as you specialize or get into higher learning in a craft, art, trade that relationship becomes necessary. And there is no "right" or wrong but rather fitting together in teach/learned with any type of more in depth apprenticeship type methodology.
For instance, I took fma (filipino martial arts) while my daughters personality balked at the idea of the type of instruction I referred her to and opted for a more "fun" family oriented tae kwon do school.
I wouldn't expect one to take on the others methodology for their art or the other to do the same, or for my daughter to change her personality and preferences. Given the right hole and peg the instruction comes much easier and the student excels much easier. (she has entered competitions now and is visibly more adept than if I pushed her into something she did not enjoy or relate to)


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable.  It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
> ...


 nevermind, missed this you already addressed it. Yeah, if someone is having a problem with lews (or any instructors) methodology just skip over them and find a new one. Better for both sides in the end or it just goes round and round and frustrates everybody, isn't constructive. As the instructor would do well to bypass the student or refer them elsewhere.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable.  It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik



Of course there's a limit. I've been asked by students to do things in class that were not possible and would only benefit one person when I needed to think about the entire class. What baffles me is why "Can you sometimes post things about your editing process" is considered beyond that limit when it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The OP was never asking anyone to change anything about what they did but to sometimes include more information about what happens after the picture leaves the camera. She didn't ask for detailed descriptions of each step but just a few words about the tools used. How is that overly burdensome or unreasonable? As this thread shows, most people feel that post processing is a very important part of their work and yet folks are strangely tight-lipped about it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> Of course there's a limit. I've been asked by students to do things in class that were not possible and would only benefit one person when I needed to think about the entire class. What baffles me is why "Can you sometimes post things about your editing process" is considered beyond that limit when it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The OP was never asking anyone to change anything about what they did but to sometimes include more information about what happens after the picture leaves the camera. *She didn't ask for detailed descriptions of each step but just a few words about the tools used. How is that overly burdensome or unreasonable?* As this thread shows, most people feel that post processing is a very important part of their work and yet folks are strangely tight-lipped about it.



That's exactly the point.
It isn't burdensome but it is misleading.
Much of the time, the tools are both irrelevant and incidental.
It's like asking a writer what kind of word processor he/she uses.
It's off the track and gives the tool too much importance because there are tens of tools and hundreds of pathways.
     A clear example is that you used the idea of a mask to darken something in a previous comment. You fixated on that as the key when it is a minuscule, almost irrelevant tool. It is like thinking one can design and build a house because one knows how to work a hammer or a saw.
What is important is why one does something and the desired end point, then the appropriate process can be determined after that.

I am happy to tell people what I did something and why - and let them puzzle out the best way to do it that works in their hands.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable.  It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik
> ...


you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. When you post your own photos include more pp info (as you feel is necessary).
I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 8, 2014)

I don't know either why often people don't seem to want to talk about how they process photos, or as mentioned earlier in the thread, sometimes even seem defensive about it.

I suppose it might depend on how someone views editing or processing; to me correcting mistakes should be minimal and the post processing should be more about enhancing your photos or doing something creative -  but it takes time and learning and practice to develop skills to be able to do that. 

If there's a need to correct every single photo in post I'd think that might indicate a need to think about the process of using the camera. I liked Gary's example of darkroom work - same for me, much of the time I could crank out a number of finished prints with no dodging or burning, or with a little, or I might once in awhile have a print I'd spend more time working on for a particular reason or purpose. But if I can't get properly exposed and focused images with a camera I'm not going to have anything worth spending time on in the darkroom anyway.

To me it's somewhat like writing, if I had to rewrite every single sentence I wrote I'd never get anything done! and I think I'd have to realize maybe my writing skills could use some improvement.

Lew I don't think the tools are necessarily irrelevant, especially if it's related to something that's newer to the person asking, or if it's something the person is completely unfamiliar with.  

Certainly there's a learning curve in getting good at framing and composing and focusing and getting proper exposures, and how to go from pictures you took that are on a media card or film, to a finished product. I don't see why it would be a problem to discuss how you do that, but certainly anyone has the option to not comment in threads asking for help with that, or just give some general or brief suggestions if that's what the person feels is appropriate to share.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 8, 2014)

Lightroom for import.
Auto WB.
Auto tone.
Drink glass of Bordeaux. 
Crop to 8x10
Export with big azz watermark.
Drink another glass of Bordeaux.
Boom, done.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. *When you post your own photos include more pp info *(as you feel is necessary).
> I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.



This is exactly what the OP was asking about. She said she was curious about it and thought it would be helpful to see some basic info, but hadn't seen anyone post anything. She wasn't asking that we all sit down and hold her hand and teach her everything. She wasn't even asking for us to explain everything. She just wanted to know if anyone else would find the information useful. Then it was blown into the dead-horse discussion of processing vs no processing.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. *When you post your own photos include more pp info *(as you feel is necessary).
> ...


hey I found that kind of amusing (the discussion not the o.p)


lot of people wouldn't share their photos or their pp information I would guess.
I have my suspicions why.
kind of like I admit how I suck at many things? some don't like to admit it.
i wonder if they cant shoot worth **** and take a thousand shutters and pp the hell out of them to come up with a couple good photos. why i usually don't even listen to people online half the time. And suggest, especially locally that people take a walk with me and shoot. Because i cant be bullshitted when they are standing in front of me. we had one person locally, pretty well known...

well, and lets just say i found out the truth..
kind of like i admit what i suck at?  i suspect (not to make accusations but i have noticed a few) that we have a lot of bullshitters out there that rely HEAVILY on pp.  kind of like the million shutter person i met here locally (must be the monkey playing the piano thing)...

But really, this is going, and going, and going.
who cares?


limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. *When you post your own photos include more pp info *(as you feel is necessary).
> ...


well don't look at me i don't know chit about pp i just do real basic adjustments for the most part. i am more into having people take a walk with me and shooting with someone first hand to find out what they really know or don't know. i don't even pay attention to half the stuff online you never know who is really who. sorry for starting off the jerry springer stuff though, it was just too easy and then when you read through the responses it gives you some at least inclination of who is who....

you dont seem like you know much about pp either but you probably know more about pp than i do i think, i will probably ask you. lol.

i could put up mine, but really it is limited mostly to moving a slider a notch for adding contrast or something not very eventful or informative. .


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> That's exactly the point.
> It isn't burdensome but it is *misleading. *


*
*
Why is it misleading? Is it wrong information?



> Much of the time, the tools are both irrelevant and incidental.



Then why the comments about how, for example, changing one step would change the picture, or how learning how to use certain tools will "change the way you edit forever?"



> It's like asking a writer what kind of word processor he/she uses.
> It's off the track and gives the tool too much importance because there are tens of tools and hundreds of pathways.



But if someone knows next to nothing, then it's at least a place to start, right? 



> A clear example is that you used the idea of a mask to darken something in a previous comment. You fixated on that as the key when it is a minuscule, almost irrelevant tool. It is like thinking one can design and build a house because one knows how to work a hammer or a saw.



I didn't "fixate" on it. I used it as an example because 1) that was the tool mentioned in Joe's post, and because 2) it is something that I don't know how to use and the examples he posted helped me learn something more about it. *It gave me a starting point.* Now I have a better understanding of the next thing I might experiment with an practice to see if it's of any use to me. But without his mentioning it, it would still be off the radar.

And if it's so irrelevant, then why bother learning about it?

Like I said, from the perspective of someone who knows nothing or next to nothing about editing, ANY information is valuable. Why are you so against this?



> *What is important is why one does something and the desired end point, then the appropriate process can be determined after that.*



And just how is a beginner supposed to just know what the appropriate process is?



> I am happy to tell people what I did something and why - and let them puzzle out the best way to do it that works in their hands.



When did I EVER say that we are supposed to instruct them on the way to do it? When did I EVER say anything other than "just a few words" or "just a quick mention of tools used so that then the beginner can have a starting point to know what things to practice"?

I don't know how many ways I can say this and have it misunderstood yet again.

1) NO, we don't have to explain post processing in detail.

2) NO, we are not telling people what they should do with their own photos.

2) Yes, learners have responsibility to do their own work.

3) Yes, editing a photo for someone else can be a useful teaching tool, BUT...

4) NO, it's not the best tool for everyone.

5) Saying "This technique is not useful for me personally" is NOT saying "This technique is bad," JUST AS...

6) Saying "Some information is helpful to me" is NOT saying "Tell me what to do."

7) Not every learner request must be indulged...BUT...

8) ...the teacher must also be flexible and be open to the fact that not every person is going to learn from their preferred technique. And if that requires the learner simply going to someone else, so be it. The teacher doesn't have to change his or her style completely. 

9) If the teacher and learner styles don't mesh, it does NOT mean the teacher is bad, and it does NOT mean the leaner is a slacker.

10)"You don't know what you don't know" usually manifests as a learner who thinks he or she doesn't have anything to learn. "I have a new DLSR and 100 likes on Facebook, so I'm ready to be a wedding photographer!" But someone who is asking for a certain kind of information understands that he or she does NOT know much and is looking for any information to get a start on learning more. This is someone who DOES understand that he or she doesn't know and is trying to rectify that.

And I really have no more energy for repeating myself any further.

I thought that being more open about our own post processing might be a good thing to consider in order to further this site's reputation as a place to learn. There are some who are open to this idea and I for one would be happy to start discussing it more openly on my own posts. It's not even that I've been secretive about it - it's just that I don't do a lot. Others think that learners should just go figure it out on their own, or have it shown by editing photos for the other person. I don't care to participate in that based on my own personal preferences for learning and based on my own status as someone still learning about basic post processing.

Do with that what you will.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> [
> you dont seem like you know much about pp either but you probably know more about pp than i do i think, i will probably ask you. lol.
> 
> i could put up mine, but really it is limited mostly to moving a slider a notch for adding contrast or something not very eventful or informative. .



Heh - see the end of the post I was still writing when you posted this. 

No I don't know nearly as much as most people here, which is why I consider myself a beginner at post processing. This is why things like "masks" and "layers" are still mysteries to me, and so ANY information or examples that offer more clues to it will be helpful  me, and perhaps others like me.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > That's exactly the point.
> ...


geez limr, just sign up for him to be your mentor and use Skype. Don't like the way he works find someone else.
you can carry over the debate there and maybe brush up on that pp it seems you want to learn.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 i played around with it in gimp, honestly though i don't have the patience for it and didn't enjoy it. if there was something i REALLY wanted to create and needed it i would be more apt to learn and put forth more effort toward it. But from my brief time with it i just really don't have the patience or attitude for it. i fukn hate it to be quite blunt i don't even take it seriously.
As i start to plateau though, or at least move into other things than just shooting a camera i am going to have to make myself learn some. I will do it kicking and screaming probably but at some point i will need to.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Go to YouTube and search for Phlearn.        You'll learn an awful lot in a relatively short period of time.  Or you could go to AdobeTv and watch their videos that start from the novice/beginner level and go up from there.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i played around with it in gimp, honestly though i don't have the patience for it and didn't enjoy it. if there was something i REALLY wanted to create and needed it i would be more apt to learn and put forth more effort toward it. But from my brief time with it i just really don't have the patience or attitude for it. i fukn hate it to be quite blunt i don't even take it seriously.
> As i start to plateau though, or at least move into other things than just shooting a camera i am going to have to make myself learn some. I will do it kicking and screaming probably but at some point i will need to.



I don't like it either. The very thought of 20 steps of PP and taking an hour on a single picture makes me break out in hives.

But I recognize the utility in becoming more adept at certain kinds of adjustments, and so I force myself to learn more.



> geez limr, just sign up for him to be your mentor and use Skype. Don't like the way he works find someone else.
> you can carry over the debate there and maybe brush up on that pp it seems you want to learn.



I don't like Skype.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Go to YouTube and search for Phlearn.        You'll learn an awful lot in a relatively short period of time.  Or you could go to AdobeTv and watch their videos that start from the novice/beginner level and go up from there.



Thanks for the suggestion. Is there something comparable for Corel? I don't have Photoshop. The official tutorials from Corel are the ones that were teaching people to push the tone mapping slider all the way up and use masking for selective color 

Edit: Actually, those Phlearn tutorials might be useful anyway. They can help show me what's possible and some of the principles behind these tools, and then I can poke around and figure out how to execute them in Corel.


----------



## KenC (Nov 8, 2014)

limr said:


> The very thought of 20 steps of PP and taking an hour on a single picture makes me break out in hives.



If I felt I had to do this on every image I'd break out too.  I don't know how it is for others, but most often I make a couple of adjustments in Canon DPP or ACR during the raw conversion (usually 5 minutes) and a few basic ones in PS (often no more than 15 mjnutes), for example some selective darkening or lightening (just as I would have burned and dodged more often than not in the darkroom) and maybe a little cloning to remove specks (like with spotting dye).  This is an average, and there are some I work on for only five minutes, and there are some I might spend an hour+ messing with, but I did that sometimes in the darkroom, as I'm sure a lot of people do or did.

In the beginning I found it useful to think about what I would do in the darkroom and then figure out how to translate that to PS, but now I don't think about the darkroom anymore at all - it's kind of like the process of learning a new language.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

I've gotten pretty good at cloning, since that's the most used tool I need (dust spots on film scans). I can do basic adjustments on the entire image - contrast, color levels, white balance - and am getting better at the burn and dodge tools. But I also have had pictures that needed some darkening or lightening, for example, but only in parts of the photo, and larger parts than could be effectively dealt with using burning or dodging. I knew there was a way to do this, but I couldn't really figure out what my options were. I played with a few things and tried layers - read directions and watched some videos - but I didn't really know if I was on the right track or not.


----------



## KenC (Nov 8, 2014)

Does Corel have adjustment layers and layer masks?  If so, it would not be difficult to explain the process (at least the one I use) or there may be good tutorials.


----------



## limr (Nov 8, 2014)

KenC said:


> Does Corel have adjustment layers and layer masks?  If so, it would not be difficult to explain the process (at least the one I use) or there may be good tutorials.



Yup, it does. I've got the next-to-latest version (Pro X5, I think it's called). I know it's a very capable program. I think I might watch a few of those Phlearn tutorials and then search for more Corel-specific ones.

I understand the concept of layers, but there's just something about their use or execution that I am missing.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 9, 2014)

_t_is_me_ said:


> I want to know what KIND of edits are being done.  Not the specifics, necessarily, but general stuff.  I'm just nosy.  And I feel like the way to learn is to emulate and then create your own style once you learn from other people.


Here's one example, and I have another in mind that I might post:

Not long ago, I had a session to shoot a 2 year old girl on her birthday.  As a 2 year old, she was not camera / photographer-cooperative.  She couldn't be coaxed into standing "here" on her own or looking up or smiling or any of that stuff, and her mom wasn't able to help with that much either.  So it becomes a session where I'm just trying like crazy to get her attention and get her happy long enough to get _something_ useful.  I snap about 30 shots and move on to her and her brother as a subject, per the client's order for portraits of her daughter, of her son and daughter together, and of the three of them.

Reviewing those 30 shots later, I choose this one because it has the best expression:







This is straight from the camera and into Lightroom, no sliders moved at all.

As you can see, I'm shooting with a white seamless background here.  The way I work is to usually shoot with a white, gray or black background which makes it easier to mask them out in post processing, then drop in digital backgrounds to suit later in post.  The clients are often involved in choosing those digital backgrounds, either directly, or by giving me a general idea of what they'd like.  In this particular case, the client was not involved in choosing.

In any case, I bring it into Lightroom, where I straighten to the bridge deck, and crop.  I made no other adjustments to this one in Lightroom. I export it as a 16 bit TIF, and bring it into Photoshop for final editing.  Here's the image as brought into Photoshop:






In Photoshop, I clean the dirt from her face using clone, heal and brush tools, remove the slight bags under her eyes with those same tools, enhance her skin color and tone to give her a nice glow with adjustment layers, and brighten the iris of her eyes a bit.

Next, I mask her and the play set out of the white background so that I can drop in a more appropriate background, which I choose from a large library of backgrounds I've either shot or bought over the years.  The background I bring in isn't quite the color or brightness I want, in order to best match the subject, so I change it accordingly.  I also blurred it somewhat to throw it further behind her.

With the new background in place, I notice that the curl of hair on her left shoulder (our right) is still a fairly bright white from the white background and lighting I used, so it now looks out of place.  To correct it, I use some matching color to make it appear to see through to her shirt and background, then recreate the hair itself with a brush shaped like a hair.  It's not perfect, but if you're not looking for it, it'll pass.

Satisfied to this point, I adjust color, saturation and contrast overall.  Then I add a bit of vignette to draw just a bit more attention to my subject, and I'm essentially completed with the editing.

Throughout this editing process, I use lots of layers and lots of masks to keep full control over my editing processes.

From there, I'll make each print size I need, 8x10, 5x7 and wallets, per the client's order, and sharpen each according to that sizes needs.

I also make a version for web display, which gets a giant watermark over it to keep the client from grabbing it without paying.  It joins any other completed images from a session in a proof set on a web page for the client to choose from, so that they can order various sizes of prints and other assorted merchandise.  Here it is without that watermark, as the completed image:






That was a relatively 'simple' edit for me, but far more than I would want to type about with each image I post on a forum somewhere.  Others are far more involved.

So, my question would be how could I simplify that description and still be helpful?

Personally, I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive if those who want to know would just ask for additional information on specific images that interest them, rather than request that everyone start including all that editing information for those who might be interested.

Obviously, not everyone will be willing to provide that info upon request, but it doesn't hurt to ask, and perhaps it sets up a dialogue with that person and others about specifics on how to do a particular technique, or helps direct them to some of the many, MANY tutorials that already exist on the web, and especially on Youtube.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 10, 2014)

Here's another example of my editing, but this time I'll just show the "as shot" and "as completed" images side by side, and make a few notes.






The autumn background was chosen by the client.
The client wished her little girl was smiling in it, so I put a smile on her face with the liquify tool, used on corners of the mouth and eyes.
I changed the hue, saturation and luminance of the subjects to match the background, which in real life would have reflected a lot of orange onto them, which helps put them "IN" the scene, upping the believability.  A little green sampled from the grass at the boy's feet was added to the bottom of the boy's pants for the same reason.
I used the pen tool, brush, masking and some outright made-up creation of leaves and grass partially covering their feet so that they'd be standing "IN" the background, not just layered on top of it, again upping the believability.
Based on the brightness of the light further back in the background beyond the tree, and the brightness of the scene coming in from above their heads, I put a bit of diffused shadow on the ground below them and especially in front of them.
Not terribly noticeable at this size, but a lot of dirt, lint and other such things from head to toe on both subjects was removed, especially from her face and both their shoes.
A LOT more layers and masks were used for this image, compared to the image I went over in the last post.
I enjoy editing like this.  Sitting here working with the Wacom pen and playing with various techniques while listening to some good tunes is very relaxing and therapeutic to me, rather than a chore.  I also get nice feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction as I see my own progress and the clients' positive reactions to the prints when presented.

If anyone has any questions, just ask.  I'm always glad to help, if I can.


----------



## KenC (Nov 10, 2014)

Buckster, I have a feeling that client stories would be much more entertaining that processing details.  The client really wanted you to PS a smile?  Really?


----------



## Buckster (Nov 10, 2014)

KenC said:


> Buckster, I have a feeling that client stories would be much more entertaining that processing details.  The client really wanted you to PS a smile?  Really?


Yeah, nothing they ask for surprises me anymore.  When she saw the initial proof of it, she said she just wished the daughter was smiling, and I said I'd give it a try in Photoshop if she wanted, then she could have a look and decide if she wanted it on the final print.  It's barely any work for me, and it's on it's own layer so if she decided she didn't want it, I'd just shut off that layer.  She loved it, so that's what's on the prints.  She just ordered more prints of it yesterday, I think for grandparents.

I recently did a complete facelift and dyed all the gray hair out of 10 photos for a lady, at her request, all in Photoshop, and she loves them.  She acted like I took 10 or 20 years off her actual life, she was so happy with them.

I guess I'm sort of getting a reputation for the kinds of edits I do for clients, which is fine with me.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 10, 2014)

nice. There is no denying the quality of the final image is significantly greater through post processing (if done right). The images you just posted give testament to that. Thanks for taking the time and explaining your method.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 10, 2014)

nope. still cant do it. tried watching another tutorial. I either get side tracked watching tv instead, start dozing or fall to sleep,  or cant get my screen to do the same thing as theirs and get ticked off and shut if off. I went through this months back too trying to make myself learn this. Usually I start to wander to other things instead of the tutorial, I have yet to make it past ten minutes into one other than "how to crop your photo". lol


had this great idea of changing all the backgrounds on the baby pics in the other thread.
didn't even make it through the first one fourty minutes later I couldn't get the little space around the baby to look right it carried over the highlight around it.  Gave up on that and decided maybe I could blend the background. Stupid little circle with line over it said I couldn't. No freakn idea why. Fet up and out to have a pissed off cigarette shut the damn thing off..

Maybe this isn't for everyone.

I probably should have just paid more attention to the background when I shot it.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Nov 11, 2014)

Buckster said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Hahaha good one 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cporten (Nov 6, 2018)

The_Traveler said:


> Snowbear and Elngerson are making a specific point that whether you shoot film, jpegs or raw, every image must be 'developed' in some way before you can see it. Embedded in what they say is the meaning that the endpoint of the 'development' or editing is the choice of someone - the lab, the shooter or the engineers who developed the camera - so believing that because you, personally, don't use software to change the development path, the picture remains unedited is first wrong and then naive.
> 
> Believing that not doing any editing oneself is somehow purer or better or more true to tradition is silly.


----------



## cporten (Nov 6, 2018)

cporten said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Snowbear and Elngerson are making a specific point that whether you shoot film, jpegs or raw, every image must be 'developed' in some way before you can see it. Embedded in what they say is the meaning that the endpoint of the 'development' or editing is the choice of someone - the lab, the shooter or the engineers who developed the camera - so believing that because you, personally, don't use software to change the development path, the picture remains unedited is first wrong and then naive.
> ...


Man I know this a really old Thread, but it goes to what I was expressing in another recent thread about editing, when does photography become a painting and being 'pure'. These comments in this thread may clarify for me where I think I am. In that understanding your cameras processes are paramount, but that editing has its place and generally is essential. Making the movement from naive and silly slower than I should.  But I am in movement.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 6, 2018)

There is no pure. We aren't seeing the light. We are seeing the light that has been recorded as something else and then transformed back into a visual medium by interpretation of some process.

I have never seen a discussion about this that isn't populated by people, usually men, trying very hard to prove that their way is the right way. And often they may be great as pixel peepers and copyists, because they pay a lot of attention to that but they are generally not artists.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 6, 2018)

I still get amused when people say the Jpeg they posted is SOOC with "no" editing


----------

