To edit or not to edit...

[Kustomkarma]

How many of you guys or gals do little to no editing or retouching to your digital images? I am from the old school where we shot film. Now and then we would do a little dodging, burning or cropping in the darkroom, but mainly had to rely on getting the shot right the first time. I have carried this kind of thinking over into digital photography, but was wondering if this is an outdated way to approach it. Is it pretty much standard practice to edit ALL digital images or do most photographers do it only if they have to? I think my shots look ok, but when you compare them to heavily edited images, they don't have the same dynamics. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

Thanks!

[Roxy Tart {PL Team / Comm. Mgr}]

I'm not a photographer, but from a models point of view, I say if it looks bad, edit it. If it looks amazing because you are a true pro at lighting and angles and what not, leave it alone. I think it's that simple. I know that if a photographer sent me photos after a shoot and they didn't look good, or didn't measure up to other pictures in my porfolio, I wouldn't add them, post them, or book with him again. All I care about is my photos looking good and professional, however they get that way is fine with me.

[Kustomkarma]

Thanks for the input. I hope to post some pics within the next few days to try to get a feel for where I'm at and what I need to work on.

[CoCo Chevelle]

I agree with Miss Roxy. If they look awesome out the gate, good on you. If not, then edit. I think it's great though that you already have the drive to want to get the perfect shot the first time.

 

[Kustomkarma]

Thanks for the encouraging words! I'm very motivated to try to get my shots right as it would be easy to get lost in the vast sea of images and photographers if your work is only mediocre.

I agree with Miss Roxy. If they look awesome out the gate, good on you. If not, then edit. I think it's great though that you already have the drive to want to get the perfect shot the first time.

 

[Tifa DeLeone]

I also agree with Roxy and nice that you are trying to work to get it "right" when the picture is taken.

However, I would say that it depends on what type of photos you are looking for and what your style is.

Generally I would say you need to be a complete pro in order not to retouch anything or have a certain style that is is not particularity model photography but more of a documentary type of photography (which is often also retouched). This doesn't mean to retouch images into fantasy pictures. But minor changes in colour etc can really set the mood better or give the image a certain feel.

 

I would say the image below is beautiful without editing, but the result to the right is more exciting.

 

 

Photos from here.

 

[Kustomkarma]

Wow! These examples really help me see what you guys and gals are talking about. My style tends to lean towards Newsphoto as I was a newspaper photographer for a short bit and tend to cover a lot of events and shows where I don't really have much of an opportunity to set up shots or tightly control lighting. What software do ya'll use? I have an older version of Photoshop Elements, but was thinking about purchasing a full version of Photoshop or Light Room. Someone also mentioned Adobe Illustrator. Any suggestions?

Tifa DeLeone said:

I also agree with Roxy and nice that you are trying to work to get it "right" when the picture is taken.

However, I would say that it depends on what type of photos you are looking for and what your style is.

Generally I would say you need to be a complete pro in order not to retouch anything or have a certain style that is is not particularity model photography but more of a documentary type of photography (which is often also retouched). This doesn't mean to retouch images into fantasy pictures. But minor changes in colour etc can really set the mood better or give the image a certain feel.

 

I would say the image below is beautiful without editing, but the result to the right is more exciting.

 

 

Photos from here.

 

[richardwangphotography]

I used to spend hours in the darkroom.

 

Post processing is really a matter of aesthetics.  I find that used in a heavy handed manner, for me it seriously detracts from the images.  And super saturation, high contrast burn and HDR, looks cartoonish.  Pretty soon, these images will look as dated as push processing.

 

More importantly, most people use destructive post processing techniques which destroys skin tone and texture.  For example, motion and gaussian blurs are notorious in this regard.  That's what produces that kabuki/porceline/monotone look you see often.

 

The techniques I use is very similar to what I did in the dark room.  Exposure, brightness, contrast, etc.  Than burn and dodge to remove imperfections.  And always trying to preserve skin tone and texture.

 

One way of getting around this whole post processing issue is to know your lighting and more importantly get models with impeccable skin tone and features.

 

 

 

[Kustomkarma]

I actually like the little imperfections that models sometimes have - to me it's a reminder that they are people and not just images. (One of the cutest girls I've seen was covered with freckles.) I think being able connect with a photo on the human level is important for portrait / pinup / model photography. I have been mulling it over and I think I'm just going to use editing to clean up exposure and minor composition problems - and instead really try to focus on capturing good images to start with. So far the responses to my questions have been great - please keep them coming.

Thanks!

 

[richardwangphotography]

The only post processing was exposure, brightness and contrast adjustment.

But of course it helps that you have an impeccable and poised model, like Lisa Standing.

[Kustomkarma]

I'm finding that its really important for the model to do their job well. I've looked through 1000's of old photos dating back as far as the 1800's and am finding that even when the photographer or the equipment was lacking it was the subject matter that made the image work. Having studied studio art and pop culture my entire life, I'm finding that when an observer can make an immediate visual or emotional connection with a piece, it will immediately gain more power as an iconic image. You'll have to forgive my choice of subject matter, but check out this link: http://kottke.org/08/07/the-most-beautiful-suicide and you can see how even an image taken by an amateur photographer can be incredibly powerful due to subject matter.
richardwangphotography said:

The only post processing was exposure, brightness and contrast adjustment.

But of course it helps that you have an impeccable and poised model, like Lisa Standing.

[Retro Lovely Magazine {★}]

This is an awesome and much needed post. Kudos to all who've added to this.  Just as some will have this "no tattoos "thing" or have a view that the mixing of styles is not to be done...  editing and how much and when can be a tricky thing as well.  When I review images for publication it's a tightrope.  Sometimes if I see new work from a new artist and it has an obvious processed look I like to see other samples to determine if it's a new artist not yet developed in skills using the processing as a crutch or that it was indeed how they intended that image to look.  The last part you said, Kustomkarma about the subject matter is on the money.  I've seen out of focus, grainy..... you name it, photos that  are amazing because of the subject matter, or chemistry or that "something" that comes out that makes it more powerful than the best lit, most crisp, noise free image a pro can produce if things just aren't "clicking".  As with  most things in life there's no one size fits all right answer.  It's case by case.

 

[Tammy Warnock]

My work is 99% good straight out of the camera but I do retouch little things if needed.