Forums
Sign In
Create Account
1
There seems to be different schools of thought when it comes to editing. Some photographers follow the philosophy that to edit a shot in any way with a post processing software is "cheating". They strive to take the perfect (or most desirable) shot, extract it from the camera, and leave it the way it is, pure form and untouched. No color level adjustment, no contrast adjustment, no cropping etc. And while some photographers that follow this methodology don't refer to editing as "cheating", they do see producing unedited shots as a challenge to embrace. To master that level of skill takes time. I am most certainly not anywhere near that level of skill.
And then there are the photographers/hobbyists/etc who do edit. (And I do not consider myself a photographer, but an avid hobbyist at photography). I approach editing with the mentality of working in a darkroom. My time in photography began back in college in a photography class where we would process and develop our own film, and we would process and develop our own prints. To me, editing digital is much like, if not the same as, processing and developing prints in a wetlab. In the darkroom/print lab, prints could be adjusted for color levels, contrast, they could be cropped, as well as a number of other things, the same as could be done presently with post processing software.. These things I consider to be the more simple aspects of editing.
Once a photographer (or as in my case, hobbyist) starts doing superimposing type editing, it becomes more advanced. Things like stitched panoramics, HDR shots, and adding special effects like water effects, fire effects, and lighting effects are good examples. Then there is the more graphic design type productions that entail combining, layering, and superimposing images togetther or on top of each other to create the graphic. And all of these things are also possible in a darkroom/printlab, albeit nowhere near as easily as manipulating digital images, and nowhere near the cost.
And then there are the photographers/hobbyists/etc who do edit. (And I do not consider myself a photographer, but an avid hobbyist at photography). I approach editing with the mentality of working in a darkroom. My time in photography began back in college in a photography class where we would process and develop our own film, and we would process and develop our own prints. To me, editing digital is much like, if not the same as, processing and developing prints in a wetlab. In the darkroom/print lab, prints could be adjusted for color levels, contrast, they could be cropped, as well as a number of other things, the same as could be done presently with post processing software.. These things I consider to be the more simple aspects of editing.
Once a photographer (or as in my case, hobbyist) starts doing superimposing type editing, it becomes more advanced. Things like stitched panoramics, HDR shots, and adding special effects like water effects, fire effects, and lighting effects are good examples. Then there is the more graphic design type productions that entail combining, layering, and superimposing images togetther or on top of each other to create the graphic. And all of these things are also possible in a darkroom/printlab, albeit nowhere near as easily as manipulating digital images, and nowhere near the cost.
- Ignacior likes this
Im of the school of no post processing. I dont edit my shots in any way shape or from, its all done in camera. I've never thought of editing as cheating though.I know it takes a whole lot to creat a great picture. I cant do it. I love looking at HDR shots most. But for me, I want to capture what i see through my eyes. Thats how i want to remember the moment.
My brother on the other hand does think its cheating. But hes a Canon guy, so what the heck does he know.
He also calls me a photographic minimalist.