Why Bother!

Do you alter your photo images.

  • Raw image

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Alter your image

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

M.Hinch

Senior Member
Why bother changing or even caring about my white balance prior to taking a photo, I can fix it afterwards with some software. Why bother trying to get my photos crisp when I can alter them afterwards. Why bother if that door would look better in blue, I can always change it afterwards with some type of software. Why should I do my home work and scope out the location in all 4 season and at different times of the day, just take the shot and alter it afterwards. Why bother!:confused:

I'm very curious as to how many of you don't alter your photos. How many search for the perfect time of day, that perfect shot, you change that white balance, that aperture, the shutter speed, even that filter.

Michael:rolleyes:

I use raw image, unaltered myself.
 
Last edited:

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Do you want to be a PHOTOGRAPHER, or just a snap shooter?

Attention to detail is the hallmark of a pro. When I first started, I altered most of my photos. As I understand better what my end goal is, I alter less and less.
Quite frankly, my best work is unaltered.

But, to each their own.

Pete
 

fotojack

Senior Member
I'm wondering if you mean RAW in your poll, or just raw as in unaltered? I shoot primarily jpeg, but that wasn't an option. ;) So my short answer is......no altering. I don't know how and don't wnat to know how to use Photoshop. All I ever really do is crop and resize using Irfanview. The odd time I'll use resharpen image, but that's about it. To me, photography should be about photography, not how well you can use photoshop.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.

No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.
A couple words of wisdom from the master, Ansel Adams. Photography is art, and art is subjective.
 

LensWork

Senior Member
I always shoot in raw, and I rarely "alter" the image. I will occasionally "enhance" an image by way of minor adjustments to contrast, saturation and of course cropping. My background is in photojournalism so "altering" an image is something that is just not done. I was taught early that enhancements like contrast, density, dodging and burning were acceptable tools to improve image quality, but such things like changing the color of an object, or even removing/adding an object was strictly forbidden. Even cropping must be done with care so that the final image accurately represents the scene, and that no significant object that altered the perception of the scene was omitted.

The only time that I have altered an image was for a product shot. The client was a camera bag manufacturer whose product had a grommet for headphones. The only earbuds that I had available during the shoot were of a color that clashed with the color of the bag, so in the final image the earbuds were desaturated so they appeared to be white. Since this was for a product catalog and not a news image, I was OK with the manipulation.

I have no issues with those that manipulate images of an artistic nature, though sometimes I think some go too far in over-saturating, etc., but photography is an art, and to each their own.
 
Wow. It's an interesting point of view.

I'm curious if you change your individual settings to shoot in MC (Monochrome) mode when you want to capture a black and white image? Do you think out the candid images before you take them?
There are a LOT of genres of photography where post-production is where the real magic happens. Am I saying I ignore the basics of a good capture (light, exposure, DOF)? No. Am I looking at a composition and thinking that it will look really good in black and white? Yes. That's the creative artist in me - because if I stick solely with what came out of the camera, I'd have to quit shooting. It would be far too frustrating to get something that I don't edit in some way. Having the color information allows me to adjust the tonality of the image, highlighting certain colors, and minimizing other colors in order to create a dramatic or expressive black and white image.

Do I Photoshop images? On occasion, I either edit or get a professional to edit an object out of the image to make the image better. See the Critique section for an example of this - the chef had a plant in front of his face, however the smile, the open expression and the features really called for the removal of the branch in front of his face. It was a near-candid moment where he turned and saw my camera (from 20' away) and smiled - and I took the shot.
 

Joseph Bautsch

New member
There's an old saying about trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. That's very true in photography. If you have not captured the essence of the scene you were looking at when you pulled the trigger then there is no fancy program in the world going to give it back to you after the fact. The creativity of photography is your applying it to what you saw at the time the picture was taken. How do you apply your creativity in the photograph when you ignored it to begin with? All of these fancy after the fact adjustment programs are crutches for the photographers failure to get the photo he wanted in the first place. I just completed in May a four day Masters Scenic Photography workshop with one of the top scenic photographers in the country, Albert Valentino. We spent almost eighteen hours a day in the field doing compositions and camera setup and exposures to capture the essence of the scene. He kept emphasizing getting the shot at the time you clicked the shutter or you just wasted your time. And that's why I always make every effort to get the shot right to begin with. I'm not always successful but I always try.
Happy shooting,
Joseph
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I'd be interested in seeing the age demographic for the replies posted in this thread.

The general feeling here is that there is something wrong or shameful with editing images. Or that those who do editing lack basic skill sets as a photographer. One could easily argue the flip side of the coin and say that those who use straight out of the camera photos lack artistic vision or technical know-how.

This had to be how Henry Ford felt. I'm sure he got all kinds of questioning glances as he puttered down the streets in his mechanical contraption as the drivers of horse-drawn carriages looked on in horror and disgust. Or how weird Thomas Edison must have seemed as he tried to develop the light bulb while his peers wrote their manuscripts by gaslight.

We all know someone who does it old-school. There's a guy down the street from me who still uses one of those rotary blade lawnmowers. He swears that his grass grows greener because of it. The point is, one way is not better than the other. And odds are high that you're not going to change the next guy's mind and persuade him that your way is better.

Photography is an art form. More power to those who want to stick with the basics, but I'll take my digital toolbox any day of week and twice on Sunday.

:)
 

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
The general feeling here is that there is something wrong or shameful with editing images. Or that those who do editing lack basic skill sets as a photographer. One could easily argue the flip side of the coin and say that those who use straight out of the camera photos lack artistic vision or technical know-how.
:)

You know, I just re-read my original response to this.
DAMN!
I sound like some superior, holier than thou jerk that knows only one way and that way is my way.
I COMPLETELY missed the art aspect.
I think that is because I still do not consider my work to be "art" simply because I cannot clearly define art in my own mind.
Never mind that "art" is amorphous and can ONLY be defined by the observer.
YOUR "art" may be my disdain, but it is still "art".
I have to apologize for my imperious attitude. It is not deserved and I will try to be a better person and, dare I say, a better artist.

Hey Anthony, Thanks for the head slap. I needed that.

Pete
 
Last edited:

Browncoat

Senior Member
I wasn't referring to you, Pete. Or anyone posting in this thread for that matter. This very debate rages on all over the place, and across many forums. The discussion goes very much the same no matter who is involved or where it takes place. No head slapping intended.

:)

You bring up a good point about art. That's what separates us as photographers from the others who are simply trying to freeze a moment in time. There is composition, lighting, and meaning in what we do...or at least make an attempt to do. We are trying to convey a message, whatever it may be. That is art.
 
Perhaps it's just me, but I really think it completely depends on the genre of photography.
As mentioned by Joseph, landscape photography is a genre in which I don't find myself editing images that much. There are times when I do very small edits - example:

GG-original.jpg


GG1.jpg


^In this image, there was a vehicle driving down the road with its brakes applied, leaving a small trail of red light in the black section. Since traffic is almost a constant issue here, I captured the image and simply painted over the area with black.
Does that mean I'm less of a photographer because I altered my image?

sunset.jpg


^This image is AS SHOT - no post production to this image. Does this make me a better photographer?

To say I never edit images wouldn't be the truth - but, in my opinion, there are times when it's appropriate.
 
Last edited:

ohkphoto

Snow White
I'd be interested in seeing the age demographic for the replies posted in this thread.

The general feeling here is that there is something wrong or shameful with editing images. Or that those who do editing lack basic skill sets as a photographer. One could easily argue the flip side of the coin and say that those who use straight out of the camera photos lack artistic vision or technical know-how.

:)

More than age demographics, I think it has to do with "technology comfort". What I have noticed is that the "old school photographers" who spent a lifetime with film (and refused to "dink" around with computers) have a difficult time with the digital darkroom because of computer illiteracy in general. It's hard and frustrating to figure out what to do with digital pics if you can't find your way around a computer screen. Then there are those who stuck with film as long as they could but kept up with computer technology and then made a successful leap to digital photography.

I think it's a waste of money and good technology if you're going to post-process everything. A simple point and shoot will do. It doesn't mean that you're any less of an artist/photographer. So why do we have all of our beautiful Nikon dslr's? . . . because they give us such wonderful technical control so that what we get out of the camera is pretty close (if not better) to what we would have gotten with a slr film camera.

I post-process to enhance, not fix. Besides that, not everything can be fixed in editing software. Try shooting under flourescent lights with an unfiltered flash. (since white balance was brought up)

I still shoot film, on occasion, mostly for sentimental reasons (my mom's Nikon F). But I'm with you, Anthony, on the digital toolbox. I love how you can take a good photograph and make it really better express your artistic vision after digital processing, (and sometimes salvage one that is worthy of it.)

Best Regards
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I shoot primarily jpeg, but that wasn't an option. ;) So my short answer is......no altering. I don't know how and don't wnat to know how to use Photoshop. All I ever really do is crop and resize using Irfanview. .
Shooting jpeg means that your camera does the processing. So your images are "altered (enhanced)" but wihin the camera as opposed to editing software.

Best Regards
 
Top