Photo Editing is No Substitute for Photography Technique

MPSanSouci

Senior Member
I happen to come across this article that emphases my beliefs on photography. I know that a lot will argue with me :moody: .. but this is only my take on this hobby; which I thoroughly enjoy from top to bottom!!!!

Photo Editing is No Substitute for Photography Technique
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/photo-editing-is-no-substitute-for-photography-technique/
by Andrew Goodall

Photography has entered a whole new world, with remarkable changes in technology in just a few short years. One thing has not changed, however; the camera – not the computer – is still the most important tool of a good photographer.

In recent times I have spoken to a few very disgruntled beginners, who had signed up and paid good money to attend a course in ‘digital photography.’ On arrival at the first class, they were told to put their cameras away – they would not be needing them. This was not actually a course in photography; it was a course in photo editing. So instead of being taught how to take better photos, they were being taught how to fix up their mistakes.

I would have asked for my money back, for this course was not delivering what it promised.

Was this a case of blatant false advertising? From the customer’s point of view, it certainly was. But believe it or not, the teacher may not have seen it that way. It is an alarming truth that some people see software, not the camera, as the cornerstone of photography.

When the digital photography revolution began, it excited two groups of people. First there were the traditional photographers, who embraced the cost savings and convenience offered by digital photography. For them, it was a chance to do what they had always done, but to do it in a format more suited to the modern age.

Then there were the computer types, who perhaps didn’t know much about photography and weren’t very good at it. For these people, photography had entered their world in a big way. They may not have known much about art or technology, but they sure knew plenty about software. In this world, they were way ahead of traditional photographers who had grown up with SLR cameras, film and the darkroom.

So, does being good with software make you a good photographer? Of course not.

With software, you can achieve amazing things. You can do everything from tweaking the contrast in an image to moving objects around and making your photo look like it was a painting. But there are also plenty of things – essential things – that you can’t do. You can’t make an out-of-focus subject in focus. You can’t un-blur a moving subject that was blurred because the photographer used the wrong shutter speed.

Technical issues aside, there it also the great sense of honest satisfaction a photographer feels when they are able to capture a perfect image ‘in camera.’

I met a man who told me about his visit to Sea World. He took a bunch of photos of his wife, but he wasn’t happy with them because the skies were grey and there were lots of tourists around. So he set to work on a computer, and over three days he transformed the sky in every photo to blue, and removed all those pesky tourists. He had successfully manufactured a ‘memory’ of a day that never actually happened.

To each his own, I guess. To me it was just creepy.

In some industries, like advertising, the only thing that matters is the image; how you do it is irrelevant, as long as you produce the result. But for the ‘average Joe’, photography is about capturing memories, to revisit and share with others.

I am not suggesting software has no place in photography. In fact, even devoted digital fans recognize that most images need a little tweaking of saturation and contrast to bring them up to print quality.

The point is, software is no substitute for camera skills. It is great, perhaps even essential, to know how to work on a photo after the event. But that cannot take the place of learning how to use a camera, how to appreciate light and how to compose a great image.

Beginners beware; there are people out there who will hold you back by telling you that notions of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are outdated relics of film photography. In fact, by learning these photography essentials, you will develop skills that will reduce your reliance on computers to fix your mistakes.

The benefits? Well, first there is the satisfaction of knowing your picture was captured with your own skill and is a true reflection of the moment as it happened.

 
Last edited:

Rick M

Senior Member
I think the course title was misleading, it should have been entitled "Digital Photo Editing". If a course is label "Digital Photography" it should touch all aspects of digital photography and the "disgruntled beginners" had every right to be.

I believe the two go hand in hand, as digital editing is of course the new darkroom.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Interesting thoughts the guy has,if you go back far enough most dedicated amateur photographers had control over there image, over and above the camera controls, via there own BW printing,then colour film became popular slide and negative,this removed for the majority of photographers any control after the shutter had been pressed.
Digital has given that control aspect back to the photographer if they want it, with the bonus of colour,I dont do much PP but I am very pleased to be able to have the chance,so i think the two things go hand in hand.

mike
 

MPSanSouci

Senior Member
Unfortunately, I cannot post any photos I've taken .. YET .. so you can see how I shoot. I've only use photo software ( PhotoShop ) to crop/re-size my photos for printing purposes .. 4x6 .. 8x10 .. etc. ( mostly because I do not know how to 'manipulate' the photos ). I'd rather spend my dollars on equipment than software. I'm not a pro, by any means. I just like to shot .. mostly at night, but I'd need a good nap to do so now-a-days! :rolleyes:

On the other hand .. maybe I just do not know enough .. but I seem to get along fine for my liking.
 

AC016

Senior Member
I am happy that you posted this article and I do feel the same. I always shake my head when beginners come onto this forum and ask about software, but they have not even gotten to know their camera! Today's cameras produce amazing JPEGs. With these JPEGs, there is not much need to do a full photoshop job on them. People just starting out should learn to take good JPEGs first. Once they learn that, they will have learnt all the good stuff about shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc. From there, they can delve into photoshop. With this way of learning, the beginner is not distracted by what photoshop can or can not do and can concentrate on learning the fundamentals of photography first. I know that people go on about software being the "digital darkroom", but in the days of film, you only had two choices to get your pictures on paper: use your own darkroom or send them off to be developed. Now that we have awesome Nikon DSLRs that process pictures for us, we don't need either. I would say that software is just an extension of the darkroom that is already built in to your DSLR.
 

grandpaw

Senior Member
I was brought up on shooting film when I started taking pictures back in 1969. It amazes me how for over forty years that I managed to get some fairly nice pictures with only a 35mm Nikon F with adjustments for ASA, shutter speed, and F stop. Every time I start using Photoshop I wonder how my pictures turned out as well as they did all of those years without all these extra adjustments. I realize that software just takes the place of the darkroom but how many of us actually have done any darkroom work? I know some have but I would have to think it is a very small amount, especially if you compare it to the number of people that use software to adjust their pictures today.

I use PhotoShop and will continue to use it for fine adjustments. A friend of mine will take a picture and then spend hours working on the same photo and I have to wonder if more time and thought had been spent in preparation for taking the image in the first place if the time spent in post work would have been much less.

This is just my opinion but when you spend the majority of your time fixing your images instead of taking them, you may want to back up and take a second look at what you are doing.
 

AC016

Senior Member
I was brought up on shooting film when I started taking pictures back in 1969. It amazes me how for over forty years that I managed to get some fairly nice pictures with only a 35mm Nikon F with adjustments for ASA, shutter speed, and F stop. Every time I start using Photoshop I wonder how my pictures turned out as well as they did all of those years without all these extra adjustments. I realize that software just takes the place of the darkroom but how many of us actually have done any darkroom work? I know some have but I would have to think it is a very small amount, especially if you compare it to the number of people that use software to adjust their pictures today.

I use PhotoShop and will continue to use it for fine adjustments. A friend of mine will take a picture and then spend hours working on the same photo and I have to wonder if more time and thought had been spent in preparation for taking the image in the first place if the time spent in post work would have been much less.

This is just my opinion but when you spend the majority of your time fixing your images instead of taking them, you may want to back up and take a second look at what you are doing.

I like what you said. But, the last two paragraphs are the ones that stand out for me. Very true.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
My Take on What Photography Means to Me:
While I agree the name of the class was misleading and an unfortunate ploy (I assume), I have to disagree with saying "...photography is about capturing memories, to revisit and share with others". I really do take exception to sweeping statements like that to justify a viewpoint. If you (meaning the author) don't mind, I'll determine for myself what my photography is all about, thank you very much. Now, that being said, photography is my creative outlet and the final image is rarely if ever about, "I Was Here" or, "I Did This Amazing Thing" but rather about creating an image that captures and reflects a concept or communicates an idea and then (hopefully) evokes a response from the viewer. It's what I call, "Wow Factor". An image that moves the viewer; that's Wow Factor and that is my goal. I suppose there are times I want to capture a moment. But here too what elevates a snapshot into a photograph is thought and planning.

My Take on Digital Manipulation:
A snapshot is taken with little or no consideration. The very word snap... shot... conveys the idea of it being, quite literally, "pointandshoot". A photograph, on the other hand, is considered. It is thought out, planned, choreographed and yes, sometimes manipulated. A real pro I've had the pleasure of working with once told me, "Rule #1: Photography is work." Years ago I worked in a special room completely light proofed. It reeked of chemicals. It was, typically, somewhat hot and stuffy. I used enlargers. I cropped. I burned and dodged and rubbed developer and stop solution and spent hours getting what I wanted. Now, I sit in my comfortable office chair, fire up my computer and do in a couple minutes on that computer monitor what used to take a couple hours in the darkroom. What I have gained is convenience and an immediacy of result. It allows me to do more and learn more because the entire feedback loop has been shortened immensely.

The question, however it's worded, comes down to, "How much manipulation is 'too much' manipulation?" I guess I could ask a painter the same the question. Is Impressionism wrong? How about Cubism, Abstract Expressionism or Art Nouveau? If your only acceptable viewpoint is absolute Realism fine, but leave room for artists who want expand the borders of what's possible. I think photography gets a hard time because for so long a picture was considered "absolute"; manipulation ranged from impractical to impossible and what little that could be done was crude. Digital photographs are really digital images and for many a digital photo is nothing more than a blank canvas, a jumping off point for something else; not an end unto itself. In some weird way I agree that snapshots should not be altered. They are "pointandshoot" and so should reflect the moment, the scene and so forth exactly as it was. A photograph on the other hand lends itself to my creative impulse. It is mine to bend and shape into whatever my creative Voice is crying out for. I'm not trying to have a "Kodak Moment" with my family about Debbie's 3rd birthday and oh look at so and so in a funny hat! (everyone laughs)... I'm trying to convey a deeper concept about the world and how I view it or how I feel about it. Maybe I want you to think about something in a different way. Maybe I want to "wow" myself... To achieve these ends I reserve the right to manipulate my images in any way I choose. And I wouldn't go back to the dark room for both love and money.


.......
 
Last edited:

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I am happy that you posted this article and I do feel the same. I always shake my head when beginners come onto this forum and ask about software, but they have not even gotten to know their camera! Today's cameras produce amazing JPEGs. With these JPEGs, there is not much need to do a full photoshop job on them. People just starting out should learn to take good JPEGs first. Once they learn that, they will have learnt all the good stuff about shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc. From there, they can delve into photoshop. With this way of learning, the beginner is not distracted by what photoshop can or can not do and can concentrate on learning the fundamentals of photography first. I know that people go on about software being the "digital darkroom", but in the days of film, you only had two choices to get your pictures on paper: use your own darkroom or send them off to be developed. Now that we have awesome Nikon DSLRs that process pictures for us, we don't need either. I would say that software is just an extension of the darkroom that is already built in to your DSLR.


Never thought of the camera as a dark room before.

mike
 

Deezey

Senior Member
Hmmm..... I have mixed feelings about the photo editing debate. I try and do as little editing as I can get away with....but I do believe there is a time and place.

Birding really comes to mind here. Even though my D90 is pretty good at being able to shift on the fly. Most times conditions are way less than desirable. This way I can worry less on constantly changing things in the camera....and just focus on the shot. There are tons of times I have to make up my mind on is it good enough? Or let this slim chance pass by.

But then again....people still tweaked in darkrooms all over the world.

And about the vacation shot. When I take photos I try and capture a memory. That memory does not and usually will not include a faceless crowd. You will usually remember a crowd....but only because your brain already knows what a crowd and it will add that information in regardless. But if the memory is say about just your wife in from of a statue....and that's all you care to have in that memory....then by all means take the crowd out.


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
 

stmv

Senior Member
such an old debate, would say the average edit for me is 4 minute,, just because I have to move the sliders in levels for the raw images, usually a hair in sharpness, usually dust spot here and there.. None of these is more than completing the process.

and then there is the

darn person that is not key to the composition

the correction of angles some time

and then when time permits,, more and more,, just for fun,, or artistic direction.


and .. I get SO TIRED of non Photographers giving me a tough time on this subject, As long as you are upfront
that you take photos beyound the image,, it should not be a concern for them,, if the don't like, well don't look.

and I love an article that showed that so so many of the famous shots even back to Abe Lincoln were composites

Heck, they put Lincoln head on a Senator from the South (because he looked to thin).. so,, it is such a tired tired
debate, and non photographers, have been duped since photography began,,,, and just don't understand.

If you don't want to edit, buy a point and shoot, JPEG,, an be happy.
 

AC016

Senior Member
such an old debate, would say the average edit for me is 4 minute,, just because I have to move the sliders in levels for the raw images, usually a hair in sharpness, usually dust spot here and there.. None of these is more than completing the process.

and then there is the

darn person that is not key to the composition

the correction of angles some time

and then when time permits,, more and more,, just for fun,, or artistic direction.


and .. I get SO TIRED of non Photographers giving me a tough time on this subject, As long as you are upfront
that you take photos beyound the image,, it should not be a concern for them,, if the don't like, well don't look.

and I love an article that showed that so so many of the famous shots even back to Abe Lincoln were composites

Heck, they put Lincoln head on a Senator from the South (because he looked to thin).. so,, it is such a tired tired
debate, and non photographers, have been duped since photography began,,,, and just don't understand.

If you don't want to edit, buy a point and shoot, JPEG,, an be happy.

I'm thinking the main point of the post, is that people need to try and get it right in the camera the best they can and not rely on software to do what they could have done in camera. It's not a debate on whether or not one should use photo editing software.
You would be amazed at how much you can edit/manipulate a JPEG actually. Also, there are lots of P&S cameras out there now that shoot RAW. So, the whole "go buy a P&S if you don't want to do 'real' photography" statement does not hold much water these days.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Back in the film days, when one wanted to really take control of their images, they carved off a corner of their basement, walled it up, light-proofed it, installed plumbing, counters and a special light fixture and worked with lethal, stinky chemicals for hours on end to achieve the results they wanted. Such persons were generally considered a 'cut above' the ordinary photographers who sent their film to labs.

I find it hilarious/curious/astounding that today, the digital equivalent is somehow considered improper, illegal, immoral and just downright wrong. I don't "fix" my images in post........ I continue the photographic process by performing the steps that are impossible to do in the camera.

As long as I get the results I wanted, then why should you care whether my technique involves spending 5 minutes at a computer?
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I enjoy taking photos, being creative, sharing the beauty of the view I have at that moment with others. The camera and post processing are just my choice of tools to do that. :D
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I agree with MPSanSouci that honing photography skills is crucial to photographers and that photo editing is not a substitute. Photography is a craft, and the elements such as rule-of-thirds, leading lines, framing, etc. as well as knowing how to properly expose a photo are vital.

This debate reminds me of singers who cannot sing in tune. Yes, there are software programs to correct that, but I'd prefer to respect a musician who can belt out a tune without needing additional manipulation. :biggrin-new:
 

piperbarb

Senior Member
Thanks for posting this. I agree with what was written in the original article. Before one can process all those images, learning how to use one's camera, and composition are a must, irrespective of whether the image-producing device is a film camera, DSLR, camera phone, or whatever.

Reading through all the posts on this thread, I am glad that I am not alone. Like many others, I came from the world of film, doing my own developing and spending many, many hours in the darkroom. To me, post processing is simple: cropping, adjusting exposure, and adjusting color balance, if necessary. I use the software as a digital darkroom. I will not spend hours and hours tweaking a single photo.

I do as much of my composing as possible in-camera. I realize that some photos will need to be cropped, or otherwise tweaked but I don't spend hours and hours on it. That's one of the nice things about the digital darkroom. It takes a lot less time to get the image I want than it would have if I used a chemical darkroom.

I look at the raw image as a negative (or transparency, if you prefer since it is a positive image, not a negative :) ). I will not waste my time trying to get a good photo out of an image that doesn't have a chance. I like to keep each photo as close as possible to the original scene or experience.

Another thing I don't do with a photo, is turn it into a painting. I know some people do that, and I appreciate the time and effort that they put into each image. I just don't have the talent to do that type of processing.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
If this is what I wanted to create:

IllusionPost.jpg~original




I will utilize any and all tools available to me to make it.

I spent about 2 hours walking this spot, looking for the shot I envisioned. I should not be required to accept what the camera recorded, which is this:

IllusionOriginal.jpg~original


I'm not inclined to create an image that says, "If you go stand in the same place I took this shot at the same time of day and look south, this is exactly what you'll see.....". I didn't intend this image to be a documentation of reality. I intended it to look like what I wanted to create.

Yes, I agree there are times & places & instances where certain aspects of post editing should not be allowed (photojournalism, forensic, medical & criminal work, advertising, etc.). But take a look at the building you're in right now, whether it's your own home or you're at work in the office. Does it make any difference to you whether the studs in the wall were plumbed using a 24" bubble level that cost $4 or a $2,000 self-leveling laser set-up? Were the studs cut on-site with a 20-year-old Black & Decker circular saw, or precut in a factory using a $30,000 CNC machine? Do you care whether the nails were driven with a 16-oz. Dollar Tree hammer or 24-oz. $400 Stilleto? The point is... you don't care because the result is as it was intended.
 

riverside

Senior Member
I was brought up on shooting film when I started taking pictures back in 1969. It amazes me how for over forty years that I managed to get some fairly nice pictures with only a 35mm Nikon F with adjustments for ASA, shutter speed, and F stop. Every time I start using Photoshop I wonder how my pictures turned out as well as they did all of those years without all these extra adjustments. I realize that software just takes the place of the darkroom but how many of us actually have done any darkroom work? I know some have but I would have to think it is a very small amount, especially if you compare it to the number of people that use software to adjust their pictures today.

I use PhotoShop and will continue to use it for fine adjustments. A friend of mine will take a picture and then spend hours working on the same photo and I have to wonder if more time and thought had been spent in preparation for taking the image in the first place if the time spent in post work would have been much less.

This is just my opinion but when you spend the majority of your time fixing your images instead of taking them, you may want to back up and take a second look at what you are doing.

Words of wisdom. That last sentence is of particular importance when a hobby becomes a revenue producer. The value of equipment, composition and lighting knowledge far exceeds that of post processing.

I have friends who spend the major portion of their photography hobby time with post processing. One in fact says he derives more pleasure from post processing than actual shooting (to me the same subjects with endless repetition). To each their own.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
All posts presented valid points. I personally subscribe to the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth. I totally respect all the posts that were submitted today. However, the debate will continue on into the foreseeable future.
Use the tools at your disposal to achieve what you want to achieve. Leave the arguments to the contrary to others. :)
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
Since I've been on this forum, this is at least the third time this topic has come up, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Frankly, I like the post made by Horoscope Fish so much that I think it should be made into a sticky because it covers everything, including the one point that's missed when this is "debated." . . vision. A photographer and a "snapshooter" are very different. A photographer incorporates vision, a snapshooter records a memory. It doesn't mean there can't be an overlap. I do both. And just because someone spends hours in post processing doesn't mean that they're working on "mistakes" . . . there is such a thing as "enhancements", and again has to do with artistic vision.

I love all my digital/artistic tools!
 
Top