# editing or not



## flyingPhoto

The instagram and reddit and twitter have really screwed up photograpy n a large way. No one seems willing to show an image directly from the camera as it was taken.  Not even film shooters seem willing to show an image that wasnt scanned and then put through photo shop.


Problem is, I find it funny reading old threads in various forums, about the "pretentious" need for digital shooters to have to put every image into photoshop to make it "worth viewing". Film users general thought was "pretentious to use a pc program to make a photo worth viewing. Why even take the photo in the first place?"

Now on forums and "educator websites" Photography is incapable of being worth seeing UNLESS it has been put through an editing program. And the current fad is to call anyone who admits they post photos without editing them, or admit they DONT edit photos is called "pretentious eletists" and get accused of various evil crimes against photography for not editing anything. 

Editing CAN be fun if its your thing, but how much editing do you really need to make a photo a photo of the same thing?

I was viewing a site about hoaxes and it showed one of the earliest publicized black and white photos of the loch ness monster. As it was a scan of a film photo, enlarged on my 32" hd screen, i could easily tell in the image taken on what looked like trix 400 pushed to 1600 was a photo of a person SWIMMING, the BREAST stroke method.  Easily solved.


----------



## Space Face

First World problems.


----------



## snowbear

Meh.  All digital photos are edited (or manipulated).


----------



## smoke665

I'm always amused by the purist indignation on editing, as if dodging and burning a print, pushing/pulling film, adding filters to the enlarged, etc is not editing. Or how about the colorized portraits from studios of the past? Yeah those skin tones were really realistic.

Editing in photography has always been a part of the process, digital just  makes it easier. As to if you need to edit, that depends on what level you want to work. Is the subject of your portrait going to be happy with a zit on their chin? Will viewers find your stunning sunset with obnoxious power lines running through it interesting? Or what about  boring flat forest shot?  We live in a three dimensional world, but a camera only captures one dimension. Editing allows the photographer to produce an image closer to the original vision.


----------



## limr

I am personally tired of the false dichotomy that editing is either all or nothing, which artificially places people into separate groups that are then pitted against each other. It's a tired, old, made-up "debate."


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> The instagram and reddit and twitter have really screwed up photograpy n a large way. No one seems willing to show an image directly from the camera as it was taken.  Not even film shooters seem willing to show an image that wasnt scanned and then put through photo shop.
> 
> 
> Problem is, I find it funny reading old threads in various forums, about the "pretentious" need for digital shooters to have to put every image into photoshop to make it "worth viewing". Film users general thought was "pretentious to use a pc program to make a photo worth viewing. Why even take the photo in the first place?"
> 
> Now on forums and "educator websites" Photography is incapable of being worth seeing UNLESS it has been put through an editing program. And the current fad is to call anyone who admits they post photos without editing them, or admit they DONT edit photos is called "pretentious eletists" and get accused of various evil crimes against photography for not editing anything.
> 
> Editing CAN be fun if its your thing, but how much editing do you really need to make a photo a photo of the same thing?


As Snowbear noted all digital photos are edited. You can't take a digital photo that isn't post processed. They are either post processed by the camera software or by the photographer or both.

Historically photos (other than family snapshots) have been post processed. In fact heavily manipulated has been the rule for the most part. Google search "ansel adams monolith" and look at the photo. It was taken during the day. The sky does not record as black with B&W film during the day.

With your title suggestion *editing not* you're telling me I can only rely on the crude software in my cameras. *Why shouldn't I instead be allowed to photograph things as they actually appeared?*

I was walking in the park two days ago and my attention was caught by the sunlight on the tree leaves. I was looking into the light and so the scene was backlit. It's not a great photo but I enjoyed taking it and it works for me. I'm partial to that section of the park.

Here's the truly unedited photo. (So you don't see simply a black rectangle I made one concession and set a white point). This is what the raw data looks like unprocessed:






It's dark, flat, and green. It's green not only because of the trees and grass but because the camera sensor has twice as many green pixels as it does red or blue ones. Clearly folks wouldn't be happy with unedited photos from their cameras.

The words edit and process: Edit suggests deliberate changes after the photo is taken and process seems to suggest more automated standard operations. There's some truth to that but only some. All the processing that occurs to take that raw data and make it into the camera's SOOC JPEG is backed by choices that the software engineers made concerning the appearance of the photo.

So here's the SOOC JPEG from my camera. The camera software has processed/edited the raw data.





And photo sucks. It's not what I saw and it's not the photo I wanted to take (dear lord AWB is such an abomination). For one the sky was a clear deep blue and even though I'm looking into the light I saw blue sky. But there's no blue sky in that photo. Why accept the camera software's processing distortion of the scene that I was viewing? Can the camera software be adjusted to capture the blue sky. No -- not in a single photo without giving up the rest of the scene.

The only way to get the camera to record and process blue in the sky would be to reduce the exposure. Trees look pretty dark already and darker than I experienced them. Well, like most modern cameras my camera will re-process the raw file so I put the raw file back on the SD card and had the camera re-do the JPEG with the exposure pulled -1. Here's that photo.





That is certainly not how I saw the trees in the park when I took that photo. AND LOOK -- still no blue sky. But the blue sky is actually recorded in the raw data. I made sure of that when I tripped the shutter.

I'm not getting the photo I took and the photo I wanted to take because the editing of the raw data being done by the camera software is simply not capable of dealing with the dynamic range of the scene. The camera software is not up to the task. *If I had to rely on the software in my cameras I'd have to stop photographing half or more of what I photograph or accept distorted versions of reality that are not what I saw. That sucks!*

So two days ago in the park I took a photo because I enjoyed the scene and this is what I saw -- the sky was blue. Yes, I opened the shadows and reduced the high dynamic range contrast of the scene. I did that because not only was the sky blue but I could see into the shadows and I saw that tree trunk like it shows in this photo.

I'm not going to restrict myself to the crude editing that the camera software is capable of. I prefer to photograph what I see.





P.S. Just in case someone wants to consider that the camera software has options to help deal with this kind of lighting. That's correct. There are numerous functions more successful or not in different cameras to try and handle different lighting conditions. The camera I used here is a Canon camera and it has a function Canon calls Auto Light Optimizer. So just to be thorough I re-processed the raw file in the camera and turned up ALO as high as it would go -- still sucks and still no blue sky. It did open the shadows some. Here it is:






flyingPhoto said:


> I was viewing a site about hoaxes and it showed one of the earliest publicized black and white photos of the loch ness monster. As it was a scan of a film photo, enlarged on my 32" hd screen, i could easily tell in the image taken on what looked like trix 400 pushed to 1600 was a photo of a person SWIMMING, the BREAST stroke method.  Easily solved.


----------



## Photo Lady

i am kind of going through the same thing.. through the view finder they look great.. when i download somewhat dark.. always have to lighten... but i thought it was just me..


----------



## flyingPhoto

wow guess camera companies wasted their time by putting video screens on cameras and giving something called live view to us all..


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> wow guess camera companies wasted their time by putting video screens on cameras and giving something called live view to us all..



Not at all. It's a nice feature to be able to get an advanced view of how badly the camera is about to screw up your photo. Live view or a what you see is what you get EVF doesn't make the camera software work any better. What do you suggest? Only take photos that the camera software can handle? Live with crappy photos?

Seriously, sticking with a theme I was walking home from the park about three weeks ago and I grabbed a snapshot on the way out facing the ball field. Again it's nothing special, it's just my neighborhood seen from the park -- meaningful to people who live there. Here's the SOOC JPEG:





And my Fuji mirrorless camera has a WYSIWYG EVF. The image looked just as bad in the EVF as it does here. The sky is too light and the foreground is too blue and the whole image is too flat. What can I adjust in the camera to solve those problems? Seriously? Should I not try to take the photo because the camera software can't handle it?


----------



## flyingPhoto

ever try using a CPL?


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> ever try using a CPL?


Yes, and useless for the above photo in the park. Got any other ideas?


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> ever try using a CPL?


What the photo needs the software in the camera can't provide; nor can a filter. So very often the solution is, as it has always been, to address the image locally as opposed to globally. Photographers figured this out immediately upon the invention of photography. Earlier in the thread smoke665 mentioned dodging and burning a print. Ask any good darkroom technician from 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, when was the last time they made a print that didn't benefit from some dodging and burning. They'd likely tell you never or can't remember.

Every so often the lighting condition and subject characteristics come together such that the image can be processed with only global adjustments and no local adjustments can improve it. Every so often isn't good enough. The camera software is not capable of any local adjustments -- bupkiss none. 

In that photo of the park: editing or not three local adjustments make the difference. A filter on the lens won't do it. The sky has to be burned in. That's not a function available in the camera. Attempting a global adjustment to reduce exposure and then alter the tone curve will fail because the tone curve alteration required will be opposite another needed local adjustment which is to raise midtone contrast. Not a function in any camera processing software.

The third local adjustment that image requires is to set two different white balances. There's blue visible in the sky. That's sunlit sky and that's daylight white balance. And once the sky is burned in there's more visible blue. But the foreground of the image is entirely lit by overcast light which is blue. The AWB value used by the camera is closer to daylight and the foreground is blue in the SOOC JPEG. Setting and overcast white balance which the foreground requires will make the sky too yellow. The camera software can't set two different white balances for different local sections of the photo -- but trivial in post process.

The photo below can not be produced from any camera processing software because it required local adjustments. The sky is burned down, two different white balances have been applied and midtone contrast has been increased. No digital camera available today can perform any one of those functions. Processing the raw file to the result below however is trivially easy.

And this point is pertinent to the original post: The edited photo below is what the scene looked like to anyone standing there. That's the version true to reality. No SOOC JPEG can capture the scene faithfully.


----------



## smoke665

Ysarex said:


> What the photo needs the software in the camera can't provide; nor can a filter.


A CPL provides a specific function and is as you say global in its effect as does a ND. In your photo above using stacking square gradiants in a filter holder would provide a more localized effect. In B&W film days you generally carried some basic color filters in your bag to increase contrast when needed, and I routinely use a CTO or CTB gell on a flash outside to balance ambient color temperture.  If you want to get technical these are still editing choices. The difference with digital is I can apply them post.


----------



## AlanKlein

If you like to do straight out of the camera SOOC pictures, just shoot slide film and project the slides.


----------



## Ysarex

smoke665 said:


> A CPL provides a specific function and is as you say global in its effect as does a ND. In your photo above using stacking square gradiants in a filter holder would provide a more localized effect. In B&W film days you generally carried some basic color filters in your bag to increase contrast when needed, and I routinely use a CTO or CTB gell on a flash outside to balance ambient color temperture.  If you want to get technical these are still editing choices. The difference with digital is I can apply them post.


Camera filters have their place and can be useful. I'm just referring to that photo of the park where there's no filter solution. No camera filter can discriminate that tree from the sky. In post process I could.


----------



## Ysarex

AlanKlein said:


> If you like to do straight out of the camera SOOC pictures, just shoot slide film and project the slides.


Slide film has the same problem that SOOC JPEGs have. It's far more limited in what it can handle without an ability to address parts of the image locally. We had the same dichotomy before digital with slide versus negative film. In the darkroom you can dodge a shadow or burn a highlight. When printing color negatives I used to dodge and burn with color filters. Back up 30 years and load one camera with slide film and the other with negative film and you can't use both to successfully capture all the same images. What the slide film can handle is a subset of what the negative film can handle. Where the slide film will blow diffuse highlights the negative film will record them and let you burn them in.

That's a non-issue for someone taking photos in a light-controlled studio, but for someone taking found photos out in the world of random lighting conditions it's sometimes the difference between you can take the photo or you can't.

This recurring topic of SOOC photos often brings up the term get it right in camera. But for that photo above of the park, editing or not there never was a get it right in camera option as the camera's available tools can't get it right. There often is no get it right in camera option. What then? Settle for get it wrong in camera or get nothing?

Another thread running through this topic is the "true to reality" idea that somehow SOOC images are unaltered and so faithful renditions of what the photographer saw. That is a bogus idea. Intermittent reinforcement provides powerful support for faulty thinking. An SOOC image in which the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset can produce an image faithful to what the photographer saw.  But only when the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset. Otherwise as in the park photo above it's the SOOC photo that fails to capture what the photographer saw.


----------



## flyingPhoto

If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens. 

Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.


----------



## SquarePeg

flyingPhoto said:


> The instagram and reddit and twitter have really screwed up photograpy n a large way. No one seems willing to show an image directly from the camera as it was taken.  Not even film shooters seem willing to show an image that wasnt scanned and then put through photo shop.
> 
> 
> Problem is, I find it funny reading old threads in various forums, about the "pretentious" need for digital shooters to have to put every image into photoshop to make it "worth viewing". Film users general thought was "pretentious to use a pc program to make a photo worth viewing. Why even take the photo in the first place?"
> 
> Now on forums and "educator websites" Photography is incapable of being worth seeing UNLESS it has been put through an editing program. And the current fad is to call anyone who admits they post photos without editing them, or admit they DONT edit photos is called "pretentious eletists" and get accused of various evil crimes against photography for not editing anything.
> 
> Editing CAN be fun if its your thing, but how much editing do you really need to make a photo a photo of the same thing?
> 
> I was viewing a site about hoaxes and it showed one of the earliest publicized black and white photos of the loch ness monster. As it was a scan of a film photo, enlarged on my 32" hd screen, i could easily tell in the image taken on what looked like trix 400 pushed to 1600 was a photo of a person SWIMMING, the BREAST stroke method.  Easily solved.


Looking forward to seeing your straight out of the camera unedited raw photos.


----------



## Soocom1

For an extremely long period of time (and because of a lack of education, ergo: ignorance) I was under the direct assumption that everything I photographed was pure unadulterated crap.

I was not given the "insite' that most photos published (even on the "good 'ol film days' ) were edited to some degree. What do you think "Dodge and Burn" means?

Photoshop is simply an electronic version of the darkroom (hence why its called "lightroom") as it was used for time immortal prior to Adobe's existence.

While growing up my mother had a degree in Layout and design from Pratt. My father held a degree in Engineering Administration and worked tirelessly in his business of shooting stereo images with his old realistic cameras for engineering including processes with some collaboration with my mother.

Ergo; Paper version of photoshop done with cardboard and elmer's glue.

It wouldn't be until just a short few years ago that this revelation or epiphany came to me that such was the case when on this very forum I was asked point blankly why I wasn't using Photoshop on my images I was posting.

Go figure.



PS side note. 

My work still leaves *VERY* much to be desired, but the concept is now grounded in.


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens.
> 
> Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.


I have a Nikon camera as well. You're probably referring to the ability to create and upload custom picture controls to the camera. That is an excellent feature to improve the camera's SOOC toolset. There is a pretty wide range of capability between the various makers as well as the various models and years. Nikon can do what Fuji can't and Canon can do what Nikon can't and etc. *But all of the cameras hit the same wall together: whatever they can do they do to the whole photo.* Like Nikon, as you mention, my Fuji is good at changing shadow detail. But neither Fuji or Nikon can open the shadows only on one side of the photo but not the other.

As sophisticated as they are none of our cameras could for example darken the highlights in a sky while not darkening the highlights in bldg. windows -- if the camera can darken highlights it will darken all highlights.

There are photos to be taken in which the toolset in the camera is sufficient. If the subject and scene lighting are within a range that the camera toolset can handle then we can take an SOOC photo successfully. Sure it happens. Looking back over my most recent photos I find this photo I took a month ago on 5-4 -- it's SOOC. The camera can handle it no problem. I'd still make some slight improvements but the subject and scene lighting don't stress the camera software.






The question remains are you going to limit yourself to just photos the camera software can handle? I'm not. That same day I also took this iris photo which the camera software could not handle. I'm going to take both photos.


----------



## smoke665

@Ysarex  I just started my  completely SOOC, unedited raw  image.............should be done in a couple weeks.


----------



## nokk

SquarePeg said:


> Looking forward to seeing your straight out of the camera unedited raw photos.


here's mine.

10111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100101110010101001011110100001010011100101000101011101001011100101010010111101000010100111001010001010111010010111001010100101111010000101001110010100010101110100


----------



## SquarePeg

Exactly.


----------



## Ysarex

SquarePeg said:


> Exactly.



Here's mine: iris.png
It's that photo of irises I posted above. I left it full res and didn't lossy compress it (PNG) so you can zoom in and see the color filter array (X-Trans). It's dark but you see the irises. Unedited and unprocessed raw files are image files in which you can actually see the photograph.


----------



## Ysarex

flyingPhoto said:


> If you have a Nikon camera, they have a really cute utility that lets you load a camera image into is, edited or not, and then let you control how the cameras sensors will see the world through the lens.
> 
> Instructions claim it lets you control color, contrast, shadow detail, texture, etc. I havent tried it as the manual it came with barely tells anything. And says nothing about undoing the changes to the camera.


So I was at the park today. I know I spend a lot of time at the park. Actually this is a different park. My neighborhood in Saint Louis is called Southwest Gardens and we have a lot of parks. Two of them are a few blocks from my home. Today I had my Nikon with me. So I saw these ducks sitting on the wall in a row and I thought, ducks in a row! So I took that photo and posted it earlier: Finally! I Got my Ducks in a Row.

Then I turned to my side and looked at the fountain in the lake and the fake ruins. This park is modeled on a English Victorian park and we have fake ruins. It was a nice view of the fountain and fake ruins with a pretty dramatic sky in the background so I grabbed a snap. To do that I made sure of only one thing. I made sure to expose the sensor to capacity because I recognized the scene was backlit with a high dynamic range. I nailed the exposure and after 36 years of marriage my wife said hey that's a nice photo of the fake ruins when she saw me processing it. Seriously, she's been looking at my photos for over 36 years and when she takes notice it's usually a decent photo.

So this is the fountain and fake ruins at Tower Grove Park in Saint Louis and *this is a photo that no camera can take SOOC.* But since you mentioned Nikon it may be worth noting that Nikon cameras can get closer than most. Nikon's ADL function is almost promising.

Thought you might enjoy proving to yourself that the camera can't do the job so here's the raw file: DSC_0490.NEF You can download a copy of NXStudio from Nikon's website if you don't already have it which will allow you to load the raw file and re-process it to every possible SOOC variation the camera is capable of. Play fair and only use the camera functions that NXStudio duplicates.


----------



## AlanKlein

Ysarex said:


> Slide film has the same problem that SOOC JPEGs have. It's far more limited in what it can handle without an ability to address parts of the image locally. We had the same dichotomy before digital with slide versus negative film. In the darkroom you can dodge a shadow or burn a highlight. When printing color negatives I used to dodge and burn with color filters. Back up 30 years and load one camera with slide film and the other with negative film and you can't use both to successfully capture all the same images. What the slide film can handle is a subset of what the negative film can handle. Where the slide film will blow diffuse highlights the negative film will record them and let you burn them in.
> 
> That's a non-issue for someone taking photos in a light-controlled studio, but for someone taking found photos out in the world of random lighting conditions it's sometimes the difference between you can take the photo or you can't.
> 
> This recurring topic of SOOC photos often brings up the term get it right in camera. But for that photo above of the park, editing or not there never was a get it right in camera option as the camera's available tools can't get it right. There often is no get it right in camera option. What then? Settle for get it wrong in camera or get nothing?
> 
> Another thread running through this topic is the "true to reality" idea that somehow SOOC images are unaltered and so faithful renditions of what the photographer saw. That is a bogus idea. Intermittent reinforcement provides powerful support for faulty thinking. An SOOC image in which the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset can produce an image faithful to what the photographer saw.  But only when the lighting condition is a good match for the camera's toolset. Otherwise as in the park photo above it's the SOOC photo that fails to capture what the photographer saw.


For decades, non-professionals shot slide film and projected them. We all managed to do that although there were limitations due to availability of stops and other factors.  No one edited their slides.  Viewers didn't notice darker shadows areas and stuff like that.  It forced photogrphers to get it as right as they could SOOC and forced good composition from the get-go. If you screwed up an exposure, you just threw that slide in the trash.

Also, keep in mind that with a slide show, you're looking at each one for a few seconds.  You're not holding a print to examine and where you can notice those things more easily.  The flow of the show was what was important like a movie.  As long as the exposures were in the ballpark, everyone was happy.

And the best part with slide shows is that there's no editing.  No in-between adjustments.  Just shoot and project.  Simple.


----------



## SquarePeg

I think we’ve moved beyond slide shows as a way of sharing photos, but to each their own.  

Just like with any hobby or profession, things change and skill sets need to keep pace with the technical advances.  Editing skill may be more valuable to some than others but it’s still a skill that takes a lot of time and effort to learn.  

The disdain and criticism by some, while likely meant to make themselves feel superior or to make others feel bad about their work, comes across as sour grapes to me.  Worry less about what everyone else is doing.  You do you.  

To all the “new” members who recently joined the forum just to start these pot stirring “debate” threads - how about posting some of your work and letting it speak for itself?  The best way to make your point is by example.


----------



## TanBrae

For me, it isn't so much editing, as it is *over*-editing.

I see so many pictures of sunsets/sunrises that just blow my eyes out with the intensity of the colors. In real life, I've seldom seen sunsets/sunrises that spectacular. Yet, in a FB group of which I'm a member, there are several members who "constantly" get those brilliantly bright and colorful images. 

It's really annoying to me to see "outlines" around objects, to the point it's so obvious the photographer went too far in editing. 

I "confess" to editing most pictures I print. I'm still learning how to make exposures correct IN my camera, so before I print any photos, I want to get as close to what I remember seeing. 

To each his/her own! It's all about what one prefers.


----------



## rambler

Ysarex, thanks for the effort and thought you invested in your descriptive and informative post.  Well done!

Alan K, Does anyone still do slides?  I have shelves full of them and my Dad had thousands more!  Yet, a Kodak film SOOC and a Aga Film SOOC slides of the same subject taken at the same time would have a different interpretation of the blue color of the sky.  Experts today describe the same differences of color when describing differences between Nikon and Canon cameras.

For me, it all comes down to how a photo impacts me.  If I find a "wow" image, I am not thinking about what was the camera, what software was used to edit, is it a composite is there too much noise, etc...etc.  If I am moved by the image, the artist has succeeded.

Once, I joined a photo club outing to a local garden.   I photographed a beautiful flower.  Later as photos were shared online, I saw an image of the same flower taken on the same day at the same place at the same time of day.  I could not believe what I was seeing.  What an amazing difference!  The photo was taken by the young professional photographer who had organized the meeting, and I was looking at a masterpiece of art!  I had looked at the same flower, but had not seen what she saw.  Since then I have improved my skills in the art of seeing and, yes, having my vision of what I saw show up in my photos also has to do with camera settings and color shifts in editing and trying to make what I see as the best use of the natural light.   Then after all that and having before me something I personally admire, I show it to my wife who shrugs and if I am lucky she might say, "huh".   

My point???   There is no right or wrong way for how the artist gets to his/her final result.   I am reminded of the artists who died penniless while today their works sell for millions, or composers whose works were first scorned, but who symphonic orchestras now perform to standing ovations to the same music.    

  Just look no further than this thread to read critiques of critiques.

As my Mom used to say, "If three people agree on everything, someone isn't thinking!"


----------



## Ysarex

TanBrae said:


> For me, it isn't so much editing, as it is *over*-editing.
> 
> I see so many pictures of sunsets/sunrises that just blow my eyes out with the intensity of the colors. In real life, I've seldom seen sunsets/sunrises that spectacular. Yet, in a FB group of which I'm a member, there are several members who "constantly" get those brilliantly bright and colorful images.
> 
> It's really annoying to me to see "outlines" around objects, to the point it's so obvious the photographer went too far in editing.
> 
> I "confess" to editing most pictures I print.


What's to "confess?" Confess makes it sound like you're doing something wrong or failing in some way. Would it be better if you didn't edit most of your pictures? I edit all of my photos. I take them so that they all require editing,


TanBrae said:


> I'm still learning how to make exposures correct IN my camera, so before I print any photos, I want to get as close to what I remember seeing.
> 
> To each his/her own! It's all about what one prefers.


----------



## rambler

Like that quote, TanBrae and I am still laughing at Smoke665's unedited RAW!

But, Just found thread under "General Gallery":  'Pics from Agfa Shur Flash'  a camera from 1938!  Worth a look at phots taken with that camera recently.


----------



## Fujidave

Photography and Editing go together as it should do.


----------



## AlanKlein

rambler said:


> ...Alan K, Does anyone still do slides?  I have shelves full of them and my Dad had thousands more!  Yet, a Kodak film SOOC and a Aga Film SOOC slides of the same subject taken at the same time would have a different interpretation of the blue color of the sky.  Experts today describe the same differences of color when describing differences between Nikon and Canon cameras.
> ...
> My point???   There is no right or wrong way for how the artist gets to his/her final result.  * I am reminded of the artists who died penniless while today their works sell for millions,* or composers whose works were first scorned, but who symphonic orchestras now perform to standing ovations to the same music.
> ...


I plan on coming back after I die to collect on all my pictures people ignored while I was living.  

Regarding slides, I scanned all of them and made slide shows that I dump on data memory cards that I can show on my smart TV, or monitor, or download to YouTube like this.


----------



## unpopular

Ysarex said:


> It's dark, flat, and green. It's green not only because of the trees and grass but because the camera sensor has twice as many green pixels as it does red or blue ones. Clearly folks wouldn't be happy with unedited photos from their cameras.


Gamma and color balance has always been a post-exposure function, this is nothing new. Just as with a silver negative or slide a raw file isn't an image until it's processed and displayed in a certain way. As you are aware, this is the entire point of the zone system.

the difference with slide film over SOOC digital is just that you’re relying on the judgement of a chemical engineer rather than a software engineer.



AlanKlein said:


> If you like to do straight out of the camera SOOC pictures, just shoot slide film and project the slides.



I say Sensia, you say Velvia.... let's call the whole SOOC myth off.


----------



## Braineack

flyingPhoto said:


> No one seems willing to show an image directly from the camera as it was taken.



Good.


----------

