Izzit Right To Edit Your Pics Digitally?

[AqUaRiU5]

halo guys.....me juz wanna know whether izzit rite to digitally edit or even enhance ur pics? cause i feel tt by doing tt one will not be able learn to compose their shots well and show blindly...since they know tt they can edit them or make them look shaper....is this rite....is this also part of the process of digital photography?

thanks alot......

 

[Lennier]

IMO, there is a limit to how much you can edit your picture. While cropping is relatively easy, stuff like recompsition, color substitution, etc etc, aren't all that easy as it seems.

The bottom line still stands, if you are a competent photographer who pays attention to every detail in your frame, it's gonna save you TONS of PSsing. A photo that isn't in critical focus can't be made any more sharp in PS. Neither can a poorly exposed photograph be totally restored.

IMO, what Photoshop offers as a shortcut to conventional processes, is in the realm of the digital darkroom. Gone are the days when you have to mess around with chemicals etc etc.

 

[AqUaRiU5]

hmm....icic....tt means normal traditional photographers still able to edit their photos in the darkroom juz like digital photographers edit in PS? btw.....in photoshop u can really do alot of things.....i saw one book in borders...they teach us how to edit it really well....was quite stunned by wat it can really do....but still think it's not really rite to edit them....think the originals are still the best...no special enhancement........

juz to ask wat's IMO?

 

[Adam Goi]

What's wrong with editing?

For me, as long the shooter doesn't pass it off, saying that he/she did not digitally modify/enhance the image, i.e. lying then I feel it's cheating the audience.

Correct me if I'm wrong; your point of discussion seems to centre on whether exposures should be tampered or leave it as in its 'purest' form

 

[AqUaRiU5]

yeah true true....shouldnt lie or wat....
yeah....not juz exposures.....i really feel tt photography should be juz nothing but in it's purest form....

is digital editing part of the process of digital photography....cause i find tt books on topics bout digital photography covers digital editing....rather confused also...:what:

 

[ckiang]

My take is, as long as you don't alter the pic (like adding moons, removing trees, cars etc), it's alright. In the traditional darkroom, people have been burning, dodging, altering development times, etc. You can now do all these in photoshop, and they are considered acceptable.

About cropping - it is now a lost art. People nowadays tend not to crop or find it taboo to crop. I don't know why. Maybe it's due to them thinking it's unethical to digitally edit a pic, but people has been doing it in the darkroom for ages.

Regards
CK

 

[StreetShooter]

Why, I NEVER edit any of my pictures.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Why, I NEVER edit any of my pictures.

Well, if it looks great to you, why bother? But my point is, if you think your picture needs a bit of contrast adjustment, a little burn in here, a little dodge there, a little boost in saturation, then why not?

Regards
CK

 

[AqUaRiU5]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Why, I NEVER edit any of my pictures.

haha.......me not pointing fingers to anyone....dont worry...ur pics look so damn good even without editing....wah if u edit liao can sell ah....hey maybe tt's a good idea for u......

 

[AqUaRiU5]

Originally posted by ckiang


Well, if it looks great to you, why bother? But my point is, if you think your picture needs a bit of contrast adjustment, a little burn in here, a little dodge there, a little boost in saturation, then why not?

Regards
CK

but izzit possible without it....like achieve a near prefect photo?....

wat's wrong wif cropping? sometimes i crop my photos to get a better composition.....?

how come pple dont like to do tt?

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by AqUaRiU5



but izzit possible without it....like achieve a near prefect photo?....

wat's wrong wif cropping? sometimes i crop my photos to get a better composition.....?

how come pple dont like to do tt?

Of coz, if you like it as it is from the camera, fine. But if you find that you need a bit more contrast, go ahead and increase it. Or if you want to darken the sky or brighten the foreground, go ahead too. People have been doing this for ages in the traditional darkroom. People like Ansel Adams also do it to produce his masterpieces.

That said, no amount of post processing will help a poorly taken pic. But post processing and enhance and optimize a good picture.

As for cropping, well, it's an lost art. I don't know why some people find it so taboo. Again, people have been doing all this while in the traditional darkroom, I don't see why it's objectionable to crop. If you took a picture and find later there's some distracting elements on the sides, well, crop it! What's wrong? If it improves your composition, crop. Sometimes, it's not possible to crop in-camera, especially when the moment's fleeting or it's a once-in-a-lifetime shot.

Regards
CK

 

[AqUaRiU5]

yeah....u got tt point there.....didnt really know tt u can edit inside a darkroom....thought they juz wash the photos there onli...haha....(laughing at myself).....tt ansel adams sound familiar....he's a landscape photographer rite....saw his book somewhere....nice pics he had....really professional....

 

[Flare]

Hee Hee...sometimes I feel its ok if you tell everyone that you edited the image. Try not to sell an enhanced image as a "pure" straight from camera image. I do a lot of colour correcting, boosting of contrast, cropping...etc... Hee Hee, very often, I shoot an image with the post processing already in mind... ;p

And one thing, You cannot denie the capability of PS.

Look at this ealier work by me, even before I own a digital camera. This consist of 3 images, and the 'mech is actually a drawing, by composing the image properly, and some touch of contrast... it blends in rather nicely.

Background: from some photo CD I got with my scanner...
'Mech: From a Battletech sourebook
Foreground vehicals: From Pioneer magazine...

Oh, it was meant to be a promotional poster for a half-life mod that I was coding that never got out from alpha testing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by AqUaRiU5


haha.......me not pointing fingers to anyone....dont worry...ur pics look so damn good even without editing....wah if u edit liao can sell ah....hey maybe tt's a good idea for u......

i think Streetshooter's being sarcastic when he said he never edits any of his pictures

 

[Flare]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


i think Streetshooter's being sarcastic when he said he never edits any of his pictures

It depends what is the defination of edit. If it means adding his face there, then maybe not... but he does some enhancements... hmmm I thought he did that superman painting shot with all in B&W and the superman in colour?

 

[Flare]

Hmmmm... You know... after I read my own post, I think I'm more of a imager than a photographer... Hee hee

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by AqUaRiU5
yeah....u got tt point there.....didnt really know tt u can edit inside a darkroom....thought they juz wash the photos there onli...haha....(laughing at myself).....tt ansel adams sound familiar....he's a landscape photographer rite....saw his book somewhere....nice pics he had....really professional....

even when u send your negatives to the lab, your pictures are already being unceremoniously edited.

the machine takes its idea of a middle gray, and then corrects your pictures according to that standard. do u really think your exposures are spot on for every shot?

in the traditional darkroom, there are a myraid of editing possibilities including dodging, burning, increase / decrease saturation, perspective correction, leveling, unsharp masking etc etc. Terms like Dodge, Burn, unsharp masking etc used in Photoshop came from / adopted from traditional darkroom terms. And like i said earlier, even your neighbourhood lab is correcting your pictures.

By the way, just to shatter the myth, there's no such thing as a Perfect Exposure. Exposure of the final image is ultimately decided by the photographer himself / herself based on the desired mood conveyed and message implied. This leads to and evokes different emotional responses from the viewers of the image, and hence the whole idea of a good exposure is subjective. A dark moody image will convey a dark forebroding mood, but is by no means a "perfect exposure" according to the camera or the printer (the person at the lab printing the images). Leaving the exposure decisions to the lab is limiting one's own creativity. Thank God for modern digital technology and digital scanning tools that helped make this entire process easier without the need for chemicals.

(Some think digtial post processing technology diminishes the the skill of a photographer somewhat, and devalues the photographer as an artist, but that's another debate for another thread)

And the accomplished photographer should not just view the final image from a pre-exposure point of view, but rather, should utilise proper post processing techniques, when possible, to bring out the final image in the exact way he intends to portray, in the mood he intends for his audience to feel.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by Flare
Hmmmm... You know... after I read my own post, I think I'm more of a imager than a photographer... Hee hee

u said u sometimes shoot with post processing in mind. That's wat practitioners of the Zone System do - shoot with post processing in mind.

And that includes Ansel Adam. And it does not make him any less of a photographer. Neither does it make u any less than one

 

[Flare]

;p

Hee Hee... Guess you are right....