how many of you edit pictures after taking a photo?

[waderbreak]

I think that the most important is the concept and message you wanna convey through your photo, if a person looks at it and can understand what you are trying to show.. you succeed.

Like what many have mentioned, post production has been around since film age, which is your darkroom. Many of your tools in your photoshop are really modeled after darkroom techniques e.g burning

The only difference is that digital technology brings the fun of what was once expensive closer to many amateurs like myself to pick up the fun which i think many have forgotten..

Remember you pick up this interest because u enjoyed it...so enjoy

I definitely agree with this. You nailed it right.

just don't like it so much when photos are edited to the point of looking unreal and unrepresentative...

I agree with this also. 100%.

Essentially, a balance is needed for most of the shots that we take. Even the best landscape photographers keep it simple. That being said, you can't apply the same rules to different context (e.g. fashion photography, photojournalism, sports photography) as they would all have a different approach as to how the picture is conveyed.

Coming back to the topic by TS, my reply is : yes, for my keepers.

 

[icelava]

Actually one key factor to remember is Photoshop despite its name is an image editing tool. You can edit images that are not photographs at all.

If your primary expertise is to take images, photographs, and mainpulate them into creative art and posters and such, you are working as an image editor, not a photographer. That is not a bad thing at all, just a different zone.

 

[calebk]

go home sort out the bad ones first then develope the good ones...
usually to double comfirm i will take more than one shot of the same scene...if time permits the bad ones can weed out on the spot...
some ppl prefer their picture to look as natural as through the naked eye..

Who says editing makes images unnatural. You are in a fixed mindset that PP = unnatural images. :nono:

 

[icelava]

just don't like it so much when photos are edited to the point of looking unreal and unrepresentative...

I agree with this also. 100%.

what do you think of this

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

 

[ghost04]

Who says editing makes images unnatural. You are in a fixed mindset that PP = unnatural images. :nono:

you're wrong bro...each has his own style n views... :thumbsup:

 

[zen40x]

what do you think of this

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

that would be HDR... i have fell in love with it ever since i came across it..

 

[calebk]

you're wrong bro...each has his own style n views... :thumbsup:

Laughable. You just wrote my PoV off as wrong and then in the same breath, go on to say each has his own styles and views.

Perhaps you have to look closer at your own mentality. Let me show you a photo, and you tell me if it looks unnatural. I do believe there is no way you can achieve this image in-camera even if you were present at exactly the same time I shot this.

 

[zen40x]

Laughable. You just wrote my PoV off as wrong and then in the same breath, go on to say each has his own styles and views.

Perhaps you have to look closer at your own mentality. Let me show you a photo, and you tell me if it looks unnatural. I do believe there is no way you can achieve this image in-camera even if you were present at exactly the same time I shot this.

wow... u got to teach me how you do tat...:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[icelava]

and you tell me if it looks unnatural.

actually it does look unnatural, because the human eye can never perceive light in such a manner.

But that is besides the point, you had a particular vision to achieve. And if you nailed it, be it via photography techniques or image editing, good for you.

 

[ghost04]

Laughable. You just wrote my PoV off as wrong and then in the same breath, go on to say each has his own styles and views.

Perhaps you have to look closer at your own mentality. Let me show you a photo, and you tell me if it looks unnatural. I do believe there is no way you can achieve this image in-camera even if you were present at exactly the same time I shot this.

nice shot.
no offence man.

 

[ghost04]

actually it does look unnatural, because the human can never perceive light in such a manner.

But that is besides the point, you had a particular vision to achieve. And if you nailed it, be it via photography techniques or image editing, good for you.

agreed wit wat u said.

 

[calebk]

u got to teach me how you do tat...

It's actually achieved "in-camera" so to speak, but you need the aid of post-processing in order to bring it to fruition.

This was shot with five exposures, each two stops apart, and merged in Photomatix. This technique is called HDR, and you can't achieve the same product with one shot in this instance because a graduated ND filter used here would be obvious and unnatural.

Following the merging was colour correction to get rid of unwanted colour casts due to the vast difference of colour temperatures of the different lights in the skyline, and a slight tweak in contrast, because I turn down the contrast in-camera to get a bit more dynamic range out of the JPGs that it churns out.

So, maybe one would say I did manipulate the image. Or did I? I honestly don't think I manipulated it, because I'm not trying to bring out something that maybe originally wasn't there, but rather bringing a vision to fruition, like what icelava has been saying so far.

To those who are purely against PP of any sort, so be it. I believe an image out of camera can be brought to fulfill its potential through PP. This is not the same as trying to save your a$$ by using PS to rescue a terrible shot. No. The idea here is different. You aren't zhng-ing a Chery QQ to behave like an Evo (possible or not, ah? :bsmilie, but you are tuning your Evo to get the best performance out of it.

To those who use PS to rescue or disguise a terrible shot, you are a digital artist I suppose. It takes a lot of PS skill. Definitely not closer to what I would term a photographer than a digital artist.

PS: I do shoot in colour and convert to monochrome in post, mind you, because out of camera monochrome output is usually dismal and distinctively digital monochrome. There is a lack of contrast that you'd usually see on monochrome films. For more info on converting coloured JPGs to Monochrome, check this website out. Here are some samples:

 

[Kit]

actually it does look unnatural, because the human eye can never perceive light in such a manner.

But that is besides the point, you had a particular vision to achieve. And if you nailed it, be it via photography techniques or image editing, good for you.

Before you take a photo next time, remember what you see. Then see if the photo you took was an exact replica of what you saw.