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 I have carried this kind of thinking over into digital photography, but was wondering if this is an outdated way to approach it.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!

[FranceFoto]

I shot film as a Commercial Photographer for over 30 years. Probably 90% of everything I shot was retouched and/or color corrected.

Today I shoot digital and probably 90% is retouched or color corrected. The difference is that the retouching is done in Photoshop and not with an airbrush.

I embrace digital, it keeps me out of the darkroom and my hands out of chemistry. With Photoshop my lab is my computer and I can tweak my images to whatever end I wish.

That's my two cents worth!

[chuck diguida]

I'm with ya brother! I'm a photographer not a graphic artist. My images are submitted to the client as unedited only when asked do I edit images (and reluctantly I submit to a touch-up artist and limited edits to the necessary). And like you, I agree there is sometimes a more dramatic or glamorous look to some edited images, however most times can't tell good photography from good graphics... and most go too far.

Obvious surreal and fantasy images the exception, however, it's gotten too easy to be considered a good photographer by being good with photoshop. And most clients don't care, the concern is more how good do I look - not how you did it.

There are purists out there who still want to be considered skilled behind a camera and on the set, who understand light and shadow, who still meter a set, who work with grids, soft boxes, filters, cones, and gels and not tools, effects and a mouse. Ok I'd better stop now I'm on a rant...

I do get clients who come to me specifically for my photography skills, who request film. The funniest (or koolest) thing that happened was in a gallery show, a couple was starring at my work with a bewildered/confused look when I indroduced myself and asked if I could help, they commented how much they liked my work and asked "why does it look so different than everything else in the show?" My response; "film" - "that's what film looks like".

I have to admit the fantasy stuff is kool and has taken our images to a different level and I have found a terrific illustrator  that I'm experimenting with but still insist on very little edits to my original images.

It's tuff; "to edit or not to edit" that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to be consider a good photographer in the eyes of one peers Or to take arms against a sea of graphic artists
And by opposing them?  HA!

ya know 100 years ago photographers and painters/drawers had the same battle.

not until the 60's was photography even considered a form of art.

We have to let the viewer be the judge, I see the masses lean towards the edited images it's evident right here on P.L. as well as M.M. and other sites, the highest number of views and comments go to the edited images.

I'll continue to shoot for the select few purists.

 

chuck

It's a Fine Line Photography

(my business name say s it all)

BridgeHead Studio/Alameda CA

[AbstractedRealism]

A lot of it depends what you're going for too.  I don't want to say you HAVE to edit sometimes, but in a way you do.  Of course most of the digital editing effects can also be achieved with lighting or makeup during the actual shot...however many people don't have access to the makeup talent or the ideal lighting then need.  In those situations you can add/touch up makeup and even improve the lighting.

 

Also, sometimes you WANT people to know your images were edited if you're going for a surreal almost mannequin look.  Then again the opposite it is doing editing where people never know you did it too.

 

Like I said, all what you're going for.  No only has digital editing opening up near areas of photography to those who normally did not have access/money for all the equipment and makeup, but it also opens up new kinds of photography all together.

[DCImagery]

I do edit where editing is needed. I used to shoot film as well so I know exactly what you talking about. Most of my editing is on people subjects to clean up blemishes and such. These days a lot of the models or non models want to look top notch. hard to do that with just shoot and print. I do very little extream editing unless I am asked to or it really needs it. Special effects are a great aspect of digital as well that was no where as easy with film as it is with digital.

[cfl_photog]

Model photography almost always needs post processing to meet current practices and styles. I also am from old school with film and darkroom burning, dodging, cropping, multi-neg layers, tilted easel for perspective correction, stocking and vaseline for softening and vignetting, poly-contrast paper, etc, etc, etc. Photoshop, and similar are wonderful tools when used correctly. When used incorrectly or in too heavy handed manner, the results can be terrible.

 

On the other hand, event photography ( in my case ) is almost never edited... IF I shoot hundreds of  cars or horses or people, with each one having dozens of images, resulting in several thousand images over a couple days, there is no way to 'fix' each one in PS, so you better have it right when it is shot.

[Johnte]

Do what you think looks good. Keep it real. Less is more... All apply to editing.

Digital opens a whole new world to artists with imagination and it's here to stay.

Ultimately your client will tell you what is good or not!

I personally love the style of Alvarado, but I don't wish to copy it though.

You'll develop your own style and that is what will attract you fans.

Cheers

JT

[Kustomkarma]

So many different responses! Art is subjective - it looks like editing is too. If we're going to look at photography from a strictly artistic standpoint, then there's room for all styles and approaches when it comes to image enhancement. If a photographer seeks to capture a person or event as they or it really is, then perhaps post image capture editing should be kept to a minimum. Then of course there's that walking the fence between the two - reality and fantasy - which I believe is why we all came here.

[californiafied]

I just bought a T3i canon and I haven't edited any pics yet, because the ones I have been taking are amazing (birds in flight, ect). However, editing is fun and I think everyone should play with it!

[JessiBelle]

I personally like minimal editing with the exception of special effects. It shows what the individual model is truly capable of.  Being a portrait artist and being friends with models and photographers--I've seen instances where I knew models personally and could tell when they were slightly edited versus it being overdone. The ones that are overly edited are done so harshly and look terrible. I've seen photographs where in an attempt to make the model slimmer, whole obvious chunks of her anatomy were missing, backgrounds were noticeably warped etc. It takes away from the beauty of the model and overall composition.

[Aethereal Visions]

As a general rule I will always try and get as perfect a shot as possible 'in camera' but as I usually always shoot RAW then there is some 'processing' needed, even if it is just tweaking the colour balance and contrast a little but there are occasions where I will edit a shot more heavily if I'm after a particular effect or look - I'd say that this is not a great change from a photographer who would process their own film.

 

[GT6 Photography]

 

Personally I think there’s definitely a fine line when it comes to post processing. I’ve have seen some images that look like they were “cleaned up” really well and the photographer continued to over Photoshop until the image looked for lack of a better word looked, fake. Photoshop has some amazing tools to edit but some people might not know when to stop. I understand it’s all subjective and sometimes you might be going for a certain look but when I see a great scene and a beautiful model I get a little sad when she has been edited to look like a Fembot from Austin Powers. Do we want to see a model or a mannequin?

[Dennis Simone]

I always do some form of retouching. Whether is be a slight color correction, cropping or some skin smoothing. No matter how good the lighting is, the photo can always benefit from some retouching. You just try to get the photo as best you can right out of the camera so your retouching is minimal. And as far as editing, You are always going to have shots that you edit out of your final selections.