what good is a photographer who doesn't do edits?


irritainment said:
what good is a photographer who doesn't do edits?

Why not think before u shoot, or u prefer to shoot blindly and edit later?
 

So much win in this thread
 

what good is a photographer who doesn't do edits?

As good as gold. :bsmilie:

If the photographer doesn't edit and can tweak in-cam settings to convey his vision properly, who cares?

The process is important to the individual, it is where they learn; the results are the ones that matter to external parties. You can sweat blood and tears, lose your entire family, cat, and favourite teddy bear to get that one photograph - if it sucks, it sucks. You can try to get back some amount of merit for your pains by attaching a nice write-up of your encounters and sacrifices to go along with that horrible photograph, but the fact remains that it's a horrible photograph.

The photograph that isn't edited can be better than a photograph that is edited. Editing is not a must, it is a good-to-have. What's silly is really the photographer who doesn't edit and prides himself on not doing so when he doesn't quite get the optimal results for what he wants to achieve or convey.

Thus, my conclusion is that you are asking a question that doesn't matter - it is quite akin to "what good is a chef who doesn't use the Ginsu knife?" Cheers.
 

Last edited:
I want to "like" each n every answer here but I'm too lazy so I'll just add..

"Finger lickin' good"

:)
 

last time, those who shoot slides and project them have literally no room for editing (except through using some color dyes).
 

1912-so-much-win.jpg
 

last time, those who shoot slides and project them have literally no room for editing (except through using some color dyes).

Different film, dodging, burning etc also produce different results, so I don't think the film = no editing argument really works. Sure, they might have less options than digital manipulation, but I'd still call it editing
 

Different film, dodging, burning etc also produce different results, so I don't think the film = no editing argument really works. Sure, they might have less options than digital manipulation, but I'd still call it editing

Just to note, a lot of Photoshop (well, the basic applications, not the content aware new-fangled stuff) has its roots in the film darkroom. That's why it's called a digital darkroom. :)
 

Just to note, a lot of Photoshop (well, the basic applications, not the content aware new-fangled stuff) has its roots in the film darkroom. That's why it's called a digital darkroom. :)

Yeah. Content aware move ftw :bsmilie:

Who cares about composition anymore? imma just move my subject around!!
 

what's wrong without doing edit????

why must do edit?
 

what important is how your photo looks and how people receive your photo, doesnt matter if it is edited or not edited as long as the photo wins people.
remember, people will look at your final photo and compliment about the location, colors, content, they dont really care if it is edited or not when they are looking.
and also it depends on how you want to project your photo, if you want it to be natural? or artistic? or abstract? you edit based on your final output, if you aim for natural look, dont abuse photoshop by overdoing it and your photo end up looking artistic or abstract than natural.
 

sorry, feeling a little dumb today ...... do you mean edit as it choosing a few photos out of hundreds/thousands or are you referring to edit as in photoshop ?

i trash almost everything except the ones that I like ........ it keeps me on my toes and my HDD light
Thats one thing digital affords me ...... like it or not I still have develop rolls and rolls of negatives in the past while with digital, i can freely delete delete and delete to my heart's content.....