Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: eagleyepro on March 13, 2013, 12:07:29 pm
-
Hello Everyone,
I'm posting this thread because i'm interested in hearing what you think about editing and photography. I'm a photographer and as in all photography, I edit my photos. Sometimes the original photo is just not right or there are some essential changes/enhancements that I need to do to get the end result i'm looking for. This year I printed an album called "the art of editing" which I presented to my clients to show them before and after photos of their day. The intent was to show them that photography in many cases includes editing and that if you edit your photos, you are not any less of a good photographer.
Being able to edit your photographs takes just as much talent as taking a great photo but with a combination of both, the results can be extraordinary.
So my question is what is your definition of a great photographer? What does that look like with regards to editing, enhancements, and the end result?
-
Hi, Eag, and welcome aboard.
My definition of a great photographer: "a photographer who makes great pictures." My definition of "editing" is what most people call "culling." You go through your shots and get rid of the ones that don't fly. It's a skill most photographers never bother to master. Instead, they believe they can take a photograph which is, in the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson, "feebly composed" and make something worthwhile out of it by cropping, cloning, and/or various other hideous attacks on it. Doesn't work, but most of them never figure that out.
-
Try something in between for color.
As far as your question? You only have to please yourself unless your a paid photog.
-
All good questions. Answering them and debating them would quickly fill pages and pages of this forum (as I am sure it already did, if one looks through older threads). My short response would be: there are great photographers who do not edit, and there are great photographers who edit extensively.
Thus I will limit my response to your posted edit (welcome, btw - I thought I'd get that out of the way before I embark on saying something that might be interpreted as unwelcoming ;)).
It does not work for me. As a client, I would rather accept the original version (this is not to say the real client might not prefer the edited one). Your edit breaches what I like to call believability. I assume you wanted to replace the gray, overcast lighting with some glorious, orange glow of the late afternoon sun. That is all fine, but, in my opinion, you overdid it.
That the sun, hitting the right side of the pillars, could be that orange is actually believable. Anything else, given that it is in the shade, isn't - shades are typically cooler, bluish. The guy's hand is particularly overdone in its "orange-ness". That patch of dry grass in the lower left corner now fights for attention, given how bright and orange it is. Even if not so orange, it would be a prime candidate for a different kind of editing: cloning out. It does not add anything to the story but distracts.
So, edit yes, but the right one for the purpose.
Welcome again, and my apologies if I turned your attempt at a philosophical debate into a lowly critique.
-
I do both extensive culling and often extensive post processing before I am happy with a final image. In the case of your posted example, I think the "after" image is well done. Is it "believable" per Slobodan? Maybe not, but I expect that clients will like it anyway. As long as it sells, it's good.
As for the idea of showing clients the before-and-after view, in the hopes of getting them to understand the work and artistry involved, perhaps further in the hopes of having them be willing to pay higher rates for it, well, I don't think that works. It may even be counterproductive. For retail clients (wedding and portrait), show great, finished work that justifies your fees by being obviously better than your competition. For clients who are in the business (design shops, ad agencies), they already know what goes into making the best image. So, show great finished work that justifies your fees..... :)
-
If everyone and his cousin try to make their shots look like something coming out of Instagram or any other popular Photoshop filters, my question is why clients need to hand over their money in the first place.
-
Hey I appreciate the perspective and comments. I do agree, that photo is on the extensive side compared to original and logical. In general my style of editing is crisp, clean and enhanced. I edit in a variety of ways for my clients but regardless of the editing, if the photo isn't good compositionally, then you are very limited to how good you can make it.
Yeah it's an interesting thing because many people I have met are either one extreme or the other. When I started the art of editing (before and after) it was to create a platform so clients can both appreciate the art of editing and I can educate them. That business model has been working well for me and developed into a unique selling point.
Thanks for the comments :)
-
I think that before your question can be meaningfully discussed, you have to define your terms.
I ingest a raw file into Lightroom and adjust a few sliders in the Develop module. Is it "edited"?
I use the gradient tool in LR to bring out the contrast between clouds and blue in the sky, or to lighten the foreground. Is it "edited"?
I use the adjustment brush in LR so that some shadowed bushes acquire details in their foliage, or to even the light on a subject's face. Is it "edited"?
I add a vignette, so concentrate attention on the centre. Is it "edited"?
I take the image on a round trip to Photoshop, where I clone out some irritating rocks which are causing the image to look unbalanced, or to clone in open eyes from a similar image over the blinked-shut eyes of one of the subjects. Is it "edited"?
I suspect we'd all agree that by the time I get to the last fiddle, the original photo has been edited. Whether it's over-edited or not is perhaps a matter of taste: there are those landscape photographers who recoil in horror at the idea of cloning out a rock and there are those (I among them) whose aim is only for a final image and who, if (unlike me) they had the skills, would happily play until they achieve a pleasing result.
Where we'd draw a line among the first few steps is another matter.
Jeremy
-
Apparently, the meaning of editing has been subverted.
Rob C
-
Apparently, the meaning of editing has been subverted.
Rob C
If you mean that people say editing when they mean processing, you are correct.
-
If you mean that people say editing when they mean processing, you are correct.
K Bennett, Great question and observation. I was actually waiting till someone asked that because "editing a photo" in the definition I used was actually image processing.
So based on these two definitions
Image editing encompasses the processes of altering images, whether they be digital photographs, traditional analog photographs, or illustrations. Traditional analog image editing is known as photo retouching, using tools such as an airbrush to modify photographs, or editing illustrations with any traditional art medium. Graphic software programs, which can be broadly grouped into vector graphics editors, raster graphics editors, and 3d modelers, are the primary tools with which a user may manipulate, enhance, and transform images. Many image editing programs are also used to render or create computer art from scratch.
vs
Image Processing: A technique in which the data from an image are digitized and various mathematical operations are applied to the data, generally with a digital computer, in order to create an enhanced image that is more useful or pleasing to a human observer, or to perform some of the interpretation and recognition tasks usually performed by humans. Also known as picture processing.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/image-processing#ixzz2NW8RayN2
I like to think that i'm an image processor based on the concept that image editing in many cases is to create images from scratch while image processing is to enhance and increase my own interpretation of what I originally saw when taking the photo.
So now i'd ask the question, are you an image processor or an image editor based on the two definitions I posted. ( I do not own those definitions and were quoted via online sources. I'd assume and pose a good guess that many photographers who want a enhanced but not dramatically manipulated Image are Image processors and not Image editors. What are your thoughts? (everyone)
This thread is turning out to be a great conversation :)
-
Actually, my definition of editing is more journalism based -- I edit my take to eliminate photos that I do not want to keep, then do a second edit to choose images that I want to process.
So, for example, I would edit the photos that I shot this morning, then process the final selection. Or, I would edit photos for my portfolio -- presumably these are already processed, and I would make several iterative edits to come up with a final set.
The two definitions you posted are both processing, in my mind.
-
Actually, my definition of editing is more journalism based -- I edit my take to eliminate photos that I do not want to keep, then do a second edit to choose images that I want to process.
So, for example, I would edit the photos that I shot this morning, then process the final selection. Or, I would edit photos for my portfolio -- presumably these are already processed, and I would make several iterative edits to come up with a final set.
The two definitions you posted are both processing, in my mind.
Ah ok touche, that works.
Looking at my actual process from camera to client is the same, but we give the actions different definitions. (nothing wrong with that as this is personalized :) ) What is your actual definition of processing? It looks like there are two contexts that we talking about processing with regards to logging and sorting compared to actual image changes and enhancements.
For example, when I log and transfer my photos from my camera and select the ones that I'm going to "edit". I'm processing through/selecting based on look, clarity, composition and many more things (no photo changes yet just sorting). Once I have chosen my select photos then I go into editing/processing where there is actually photo enhancements and changes going on.
Re-reading this over is funny based on how it all looks and that it comes down to personal definitions of the processes.
Great comments.. :)
-
Patience comes with age; trust me.
Rob C
-
Patience comes with age; trust me.
Rob C
And hopefully wisdom.
Eagleyepro
-
select the ones that I'm going to "edit"
- Photo selection "edits" the batch of photos.
(Select stories from all the available stories.) - Image processing "edits" a specific digital image.
(Wordsmith a specific story.) - Photo editing "edits" the context in which selected processed images are viewed.
(Arrange which stories lead, which are side-by-side.)
(See Photo-Editing and Presentation (http://www.clarellen.com/photoediting.html))
hopefully wisdom
Declining hormone levels.
-
- Photo selection "edits" the batch of photos.
(Select stories from all the available stories.) - Image processing "edits" a specific digital image.
(Wordsmith a specific story.) - Photo editing "edits" the context in which selected processed images are viewed.
(Arrange which stories lead, which are side-by-side.)
(See Photo-Editing and Presentation (http://www.clarellen.com/photoediting.html))
Declining hormone levels.
Thanks Isaac
Very helpful and i'll check that out.
-
for my own workflow, PhotoMechanic is the best editing software.
(http://skrinshot.ru/files2/78378280031220042938391988484791.jpg)
-
And hopefully wisdom.
Eagleyepro
That you can depend upon.
;-)
Rob C
-
Declining hormone levels.
It's a myth: the hormones remain but have problem's finding gainful employment.
Rob C
-
for my own workflow, PhotoMechanic is the best editing software.
Yup. Love Photo Mechanic.
-
Great topic. Editing is simply getting to where you want an image to be. I have zero reservations about using all the tools possible. Many of my best sellers are drastically manipulated, often with several features added, landscapes stretched or compressed, sky swapped, time of day altered, etc. No, nothing is "sacred" to arriving at the final image.
I tend to keep nearly all my images, rather than cull them because I often go back through the crap pile and see what images can go together. I do lots of composites and find the old moldy stuff valuable.
-
Patience comes with age; trust me.
Slowness comes with age...Patience comes with wisdom (which is different).
Editing is the act of doing "something" to the image be it selection editing, cropping, color correction or massive image retouching. The question is, does your edit help or hurt the image and is the image worth the effort in the first place. Yes, Photoshop can help make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (and actually, the concept of making a silk purse from some sow's ears has been proven–read this: Report: "On the Making of Silk Purses from Sows' Ears," 1921 (http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/purse/)).
So, you can...but it doesn't mean you should which is the bottom line, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. It all depends on whether or not it helps...and that's on you.
-
Apparently, the meaning of editing has been subverted.
I don't agree. Editing has always meant more than simply culling. If I edit a book, or a scientific publication, or a newspaper, do I merely delete parts of it?
Jeremy
-
I don't agree. Editing has always meant more than simply culling. If I edit a book, or a scientific publication, or a newspaper, do I merely delete parts of it?
Jeremy
Of course it has, but it's usage is usually supposed to be specific to the medium in which it's employed. Here we are chatting about photography, not making a movie or running a newspaper. Each has a specific, generally understood meaning within its application. So yep, we can subvert anything we like - as per this thread.
;-)
Rob C
-
Slowness comes with age...Patience comes with wisdom (which is different).
That's a bit optimistic, Schewe; lots of older people are patient but that doesn't denote wisdom: often, lack of wisdom gives rise to patience that is dedicated to lost causes and borders on masochism.
On today's news there's an item about ex-servicemen under thirty being more prone to violence in civilian life after having had battle experience. On the strap line it claimed three times the chances of being violent and yet on the sound, it was five. One source, two versions running concurrently. Reading and listening demands a lot of patience - wisdom dictates it's often all bullshit.
Truth is, patience and wisdom should prevent a lot of posting on the Internet, especially prevent one from becoming embroiled in hopeless threads rooted in unclear original thought.
Maybe that's a new definition of contemporary humanity.
;-)
Rob C
-
Great topic. Editing is simply getting to where you want an image to be. I have zero reservations about using all the tools possible. Many of my best sellers are drastically manipulated, often with several features added, landscapes stretched or compressed, sky swapped, time of day altered, etc. No, nothing is "sacred" to arriving at the final image.
I tend to keep nearly all my images, rather than cull them because I often go back through the crap pile and see what images can go together. I do lots of composites and find the old moldy stuff valuable.
OK for the sake of getting a bit back on topic a little bit and moving back to photography and away from wisdom, patience and civilized actions in life ( credit Rob C and a couple others :) ) I agree with Louoates. With the original question "when is editing your photo to much?", it looks like this is great topic with many layers of responses. From a wedding photographers view where I make my living with my personality and photos, I agree that editing can be an amazing thing that has the ability to bring a photo from 0 to hero. That crosses the line when our beloved love for editing actually hurts the image and sets it back, not forward.
Eagleyepro
-
Any digital photograph needs sharpening, and often, especially if it was shot in mixed light, minor color adjustment. But in the vast majority of cases, if it needs more "editing" than that to be good, then it's never going to be good. Yes, I know all about AA and "Moonrise over Hernandez," but Ansel nailed the guts of that shot in the beginning. It's one of the few pictures that falls outside "the vast majority." Same thing with Gene Smith's Haitian mental patient and Tomoko in her bath. But if you need to do extensive "editing" (other than culling) on your run-of-the-mill photographs you need to check both your equipment and your vision.
-
...I'm interested in doing a promo for my website :-)
lol, Isaac, great comment but your unfortunatley incorrect. The question and thread was 100% legit and a honest question because it's been a topic of my career and interest of mine for years. I absolutely love photography and editing. Because This is not about my self promotion i'll remit/remove that last post. I just thought that it might help people who are interested in this topic like myself.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Eagleyepro
-
Let me put it this way: the best (photographic) edit is the one that the viewer does not perceive as such, especially non-photographers.
By that I do not have in mind non-distinquishable before/after, but non-perceivable when viewed alone. For that reason I agree with previous posters who thought it is not such a good idea to push before/after comparisons.
-
Let me put it this way: the best (photographic) edit is the one that the viewer does not perceive as such, especially non-photographers.
By that I do not have in mind non-distinquishable before/after, but non-perceivable when viewed alone. For that reason I agree with previous posters who thought it is not such a good idea to push before/after comparisons.
Slobodan, Great comment and I appreciate the perspective and opinion. With my personal experience on this topic which is completely subject to my opinion, is that I have had an amazingly positive response from all of my clients. That's not to say that it's going to work for every client. When I started actually presenting this to my clients a while back, I was under the same opinion that it may not be taken or received well. But after showing clients and explaining the role of editing in many photographs (as an educator) it has only supported and solidified the hopeful positive response.
The beauty of this whole topic which is one reason why started this is that " i'm learning that Photography is completely subjective from all perspectives from the client to the photographer. What I like may not work for you and what makes me money may be a complete flop for someone else. It's so interesting how this has played out. :)....."
Question for you: (Slobodan) In photography there are many parts and areas that need to be considered or take place to produce a great photograph. One of those is editing/processing the photos you take. If we as photographers can sell or make light of our abilities (to produce excellent photos) from style to equipment, then why would we not want to show the client the process/art of editing because (in my experience) it appears to be almost as important as actually taking and composting the photo. (This could be a new perspective for the digital area we are in)
I would love to hear what you think. (great photos on your viewbug by the way)
Eagleyepro
-
If it wasn't in the viewfinder, and it's in the finished photo, it's probably too much. I'll remove a blemish if it would have been gone on a different day, but I leave a scar. I might even remove an out of focus bird that looks like a blob from an out of focus sky in a worse case scenario, but if there is any semblance of reinvention afterwards, it is too much. My original transparencies and negs on a light box are immediately recognizable as the digital versions on the computer screen. My adjustments are minimal. What would be the point of designing, directing and executing the shots right to begin with? If I want a red leather chair, I just take a red leather chair to shoot, I don't take a blue vinyl one and fix it after. I want to be out having fun shooting, not sitting alone at a computer fiddling. :)
-
Any digital photograph needs sharpening, and often, especially if it was shot in mixed light, minor color adjustment. But in the vast majority of cases, if it needs more "editing" than that to be good, then it's never going to be good. Yes, I know all about AA and "Moonrise over Hernandez," but Ansel nailed the guts of that shot in the beginning. It's one of the few pictures that falls outside "the vast majority." Same thing with Gene Smith's Haitian mental patient and Tomoko in her bath. But if you need to do extensive "editing" (other than culling) on your run-of-the-mill photographs you need to check both your equipment and your vision.
So all B+W digital photos are automatically rubbish then?
As what you are basically saying is 'all images that need work on them after capture are crap, except of course the ones I like.'
-
That the sun, hitting the right side of the pillars, could be that orange is actually believable. Anything else, given that it is in the shade, isn't - shades are typically cooler, bluish.
Shadows are relatively bluer to the camera, as cameras can only cope with a single colour temperature at a time. But our eyes are smarter and adaptable than that. So I think there is no problem with the shadows.
There's this perception regarding how film looked, that informs what we perceive as truth in photography. The reality is that film lied all the time and is the main reason it looked so good. But because film came first, it set the standard.
-
If it wasn't in the viewfinder, and it's in the finished photo, it's probably too much. I'll remove a blemish if it would have been gone on a different day, but I leave a scar. I might even remove an out of focus bird that looks like a blob from an out of focus sky in a worse case scenario, but if there is any semblance of reinvention afterwards, it is too much. My original transparencies and negs on a light box are immediately recognizable as the digital versions on the computer screen. My adjustments are minimal. What would be the point of designing, directing and executing the shots right to begin with? If I want a red leather chair, I just take a red leather chair to shoot, I don't take a blue vinyl one and fix it after. I want to be out having fun shooting, not sitting alone at a computer fiddling. :)
So what if you only have a blue leather chair? Do you spend days tracking down a red one or shoot the blue one, change colour in PS in a few seconds and then go and have fun taking more pictures?
Also do you go out shooting in with other people as most photographers work alone when shooting? Not a lot more sociable than being at a computer. Which could be in a busy office or studio and even if it isn't you can be chatting to friends all over the world on say FB, Skype or here on LuLa whilst editing. ;D
-
At the end of the day all that counts is the final print/internet image. If you don't show someone what the original was then all they have to look at and judge is the final output. What you do to get there is up to the photographer and his conscience. Try your best to get a good image out of a camera and then try to edit it to match your vision. It is a simple concept but difficult to achieve. ;) :)
-
At the end of the day all that counts is the final print/internet image. If you don't show someone what the original was then all they have to look at and judge is the final output. What you do to get there is up to the photographer and his conscience. Try your best to get a good image out of a camera and then try to edit it to match your vision. It is a simple concept but difficult to achieve. ;) :)
Precisely.
Jeremy
-
At the end of the day all that counts is the final print/internet image. If you don't show someone what the original was then all they have to look at and judge is the final output. What you do to get there is up to the photographer and his conscience. Try your best to get a good image out of a camera and then try to edit it to match your vision. It is a simple concept but difficult to achieve. ;) :)
I definitely agree that the end result is the most important thing and that your client is more than happy with your work. That applies despite the light or heavy editing that has transpired.
Eagleyepro
-
In photography there are many skills and processes that need to be considered and take place to produce a great photograph. That can include but not limited to experience, equipment, artistic perspective and so on. One of those skills is editing/processing the photos you take.
As a professional photographer we sell or make light of our abilities (to produce excellent photos) by highlighting those skills and abilities. My main question is that if we highlight are skills and ability as a photographer then why would we not want to show the client the process/art of editing because (in my experience) it appears to be almost as important as actually taking and composting the photo. (This could be a new perspective for the digital area we are in)
Whats your take? Highlight only our abilities in taking a photo and the end result or highlight everything including our ability to edit/process as well?
Eagleyepro
-
My "take" is that most sane clients couldn't care less about your "ability in taking a photo" or your "ability to edit/process." They don't want a course in commercial photography; they want a product. Does a gastrointestinal patient want a course on colonic surgery? Does a car buyer want a course on metal press work or industrial painting? Does a guy about to eat a hamburger want a course on cattle farming?
-
My "take" is that most sane clients couldn't care less about your "ability in taking a photo" or your "ability to edit/process." They don't want a course in commercial photography; they want a product. Does a gastrointestinal patient want a course on colonic surgery? Does a car buyer want a course on metal press work or industrial painting? Does a guy about to eat a hamburger want a course on cattle farming?
Quite, Russ, but it does litter forum space with a load of old bullshit.
This world is overflowing with great, mediocre and lousy photographers; do we require any more telling us what a splendid transformation they make in magicking sheep into goats? Heysoos, everybody can do that these days! Even when they can't.
;-)
Rob C
-
Quite, Russ, but it does litter forum space with a load of old bullshit.
This world is overflowing with great, mediocre and lousy photographers; do we require any more telling us what a splendid transformation they make in magicking sheep into goats? Heysoos, everybody can do that these days! Even when they can't.
lol, thanks for the comment Rob.
Now even though I completely disagree with Russ he is entitled to his opinion and I understand that. I asked the question knowing that there will be some contradictory or unsupported opinions. :) Nothing wrong with that.
At the end of the day, you have to do what works for you. Oh and Russ despite your opinion (which is completely ok) on not giving a client a lecture on the process of where their service has come from, in my line of work this perspective has made me an excellent living and client following. As a professional photographer it has blessed me in many ways. :) After all it's not about forcing it on clients, but providing them with that information if they show interest and not shying away from it. Transparency.
To each there own. :)
Eagleyepro
-
Any digital photograph needs sharpening, and often, especially if it was shot in mixed light, minor color adjustment. But in the vast majority of cases, if it needs more "editing" than that to be good, then it's never going to be good. Yes, I know all about AA and "Moonrise over Hernandez," but Ansel nailed the guts of that shot in the beginning. It's one of the few pictures that falls outside "the vast majority." Same thing with Gene Smith's Haitian mental patient and Tomoko in her bath. But if you need to do extensive "editing" (other than culling) on your run-of-the-mill photographs you need to check both your equipment and your vision.
Russ - I see you completely ignored my previous reply to this post,
So all B+W digital photos are automatically rubbish then?
As what you are basically saying is 'all images that need work on them after capture are crap, except of course the ones I like.'
I bring this up again as whilst looking for a particular B+W photo by a photographer whose name I annoyingly cannot recall, I came across W. Eugene Smith talking about how he produced 'Tomoko in the bath'. His explanation really underlines your daft double standards.
The photograph of Tomoko in the Bath from the Minamata story represents another one of those impossible lighting situations. There were high windows almost the length of the picture. If I had used only the light that was entering the room, I would have had no shadow detail on the near side of the mother’s body at all. In this photograph I also happened to use a small, battery-operated strobe, this time bounced off a fairly clean brown ceiling instead of a dirty brown floor.
There is a basic exposure for the whole picture, in which I dodge the area of the mother’s right breast. This is all the dodging necessary, except for the water at the edge of the tub. I burn in various sections of the white towel around the mother’s head, something like sixteen times the original exposure, giving the face just one extra shot. Then I burn in the face of the child, maybe six, eight times the original exposure. In other words, the child’s face takes much more exposure than the face of the mother or the main body of the picture. And I give the iron edges of the tub a very narrow exposure. I burn in both ends of the picture to make sure there is no grayness creeping up from the edges — it must get darker toward the sides. I burn in the stomach and chest of the child just once or twice. In the upper-left-hand part, you see some boards, or lines, going along. This is where the edge of the bathtub meets the back wall. I give three or four exposures just to that area, and then I give the whole bottom part (masking off all the body sections except a touch of the child’s left foot) maybe another four or five exposures, so this would get progressively darker. Then I burn in the top highlight on her right leg as steadily as I can, but it’s very awkward. I use either a formation of my fingers or a cardboard cutout. Mostly I use my hands, even the fingers that are misshapen.
I burn in the left leg to some extent, but I never burn in the top area long enough because it’s so strenuous that at this point I’m too tired. I use a 250-watt bulb in the enlarger with a heat-absorbing glass negative carrier. It holds the negative flat, which keeps it from buckling when the basic exposures are short and the burning in long.
That's a lot of jiggery pokeberry going on with that image. So why is is acceptable for that shot or for people whose work you like to do a lot of work in darkroom/computer, but not for others to do the same thing?
Plus how is tweaking shot using flash, which Smith also used or any lighting aide for that matter whilst taking a photo any different from tweaking shot once out of camera? It's all manipulation.
(http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/smith_minimata.jpg?w=635&h=427)
-
This world is overflowing with great, mediocre and lousy photographers; do we require any more telling us what a splendid transformation they make in magicking sheep into goats? Heysoos, everybody can do that these days! Even when they can't.
The thing you seem to be be missing Rob is that you should only judge the end result, not the unfinished article.
If end result is good, then it is good. The fact that the halfway stage in say the case of photography where the raw file looked a bit dull, is not actually relevant. The raw file is not the finished article or even close to it on occasions - particularly if your end goal is say a B+W print. It's like complaining about a neg not looking good because it's a negative image.
You wouldn't judge a richly layered oil painting by looking the pencil sketch the artist first put on canvas.
Then again some people here would. And witter on for days about how sharp the pencil was or wasn't.
And that you needed to use a particular type of blade to get pencil to the correct amount of sharpness. ;D
-
Russ - I see you completely ignored my previous reply to this post
I'll have to confess that I did, J, but in my defense let me point out that it was irresistibly ignorable.
I bring this up again as whilst looking for a particular B+W photo by a photographer whose name I annoyingly cannot recall, I came across W. Eugene Smith talking about how he produced 'Tomoko in the bath'. His explanation really underlines your daft double standards.
That's a lot of jiggery pokeberry going on with that image. So why is is acceptable for that shot or for people whose work you like to do a lot of work in darkroom/computer, but not for others to do the same thing?
Plus how is tweaking shot using flash, which Smith also used or any lighting aide for that matter whilst taking a photo any different from tweaking shot once out of camera? It's all manipulation.
It appears you need to work on reading comprehension, J. Yes, I've read Gene Smith's explanation of his Tomiko photograph many times. Are you suggesting that when Gene made that shot he screwed up and had to correct his error in the darkroom? How about AA's "Moonlight Over Hernandez?" When Ansel slammed on the brakes and rushed his camera up to the platform on top of his van, forgetting his light meter, having to guess at exposure, are you suggesting he blew the shot?
I think not. Both these guys knew exactly what they were after, and when they tripped their shutters they got everything their equipment was capable of getting. That's not the same thing as the guy who bangs away in wild abandon, not really knowing what he's after but hoping he'll be able to make a picture in his darkroom.
As far as artificial light is concerned, it's a no-no on the street, but there are cases where you can't avoid it. Here's an example. I wanted a readable picture of a local gravestone. The inscription was barely scratched into the surface of the stone, and has been worn away over the years. The sunlight never gets to the stone except in patches. But with a light stand and an SB910 zoomed to 200mm, I was able to bring out the surface detail. But this is an unusual situation
-
"This world is overflowing with great, mediocre and lousy photographers; do we require any more telling us what a splendid transformation they make in magicking sheep into goats? Heysoos, everybody can do that these days! Even when they can't."
Rob C
The thing you seem to be be missing Rob is that you should only judge the end result, not the unfinished article.
JJ, do you really think I can possible miss that, not know it? Can you imagine I'm referring to anything but what I see as the pomposity of the OP?
But credit where it's due: he manages to laugh and roll with the punches and keep this tedious thread alive. Not all bad, then!
;-)
Rob C
-
I think you done fabulous job in both photos. The first photo is great because the you catch nice moment. and your editing was great in sense of sunset lighting.
ibecamewe,
Thanks for the comments and kinds words. I had a blast shooting that couple and you are right that I wanted to highlight the sunset lighting and warm feel. Compositionally the photo has a really creative feel with a shallow depth of field and an almost 3D look as the differently elements at the same depth as the couple are highlighted. Unfortunately it's a small sample to actually see that.
A larger version of that is here: http://www.theartofediting.ca/rustic-fence-detail-pose/ If your interested in any more photos that highlight the before and after check out http://www.theartofediting.ca
Thanks again,
Eagleyepro
-
ibecamewe,
I just checked out your website and you have some awesome shots as I never really get to see any Indian weddings. Wow the details and really interesting rituals in a marriage.
Very Cool.
Eagleyepro
-
I'll have to confess that I did, J, but in my defense let me point out that it was irresistibly ignorable.
Is that because it showed up your hypocrisy?
It appears you need to work on reading comprehension, J. Yes, I've read Gene Smith's explanation of his Tomiko photograph many times. Are you suggesting that when Gene made that shot he screwed up and had to correct his error in the darkroom? How about AA's "Moonlight Over Hernandez?" When Ansel slammed on the brakes and rushed his camera up to the platform on top of his van, forgetting his light meter, having to guess at exposure, are you suggesting he blew the shot?.......
Nope not at all.
Maybe you cannot read your own writings correctly. I pointed out that you say anyone who changes anything more than basics in post didn't get it right in camera - your words not mine, yet somehow people you like can tweak the image as much as they want after shutter is released. Adams and Smith certainly liked to spend a lot of time manipulating their images in darkroom.
Also it's W. Eugene Smith or can't you even read that part without getting it wrong. :P
......I think not. Both these guys knew exactly what they were after, and when they tripped their shutters they got everything their equipment was capable of getting. That's not the same thing as the guy who bangs away in wild abandon, not really knowing what he's after but hoping he'll be able to make a picture in his darkroom.
Good photographers using digital capture do exactly the same as the two photographers you mentioned. They capture the best raw file under the circumstances and then develop the image as best they can using modern tools. Nothing has actually changed other than the tools we use, which thankfully are much better than they used to be
It seems that just because some people aren't very good at photography and try and fix it in post, then all work in post [other by the scant few people you approve of naturally] is bad.
So I'm curious, who put you in charge of all photography?
As far as artificial light is concerned, it's a no-no on the street,.....
Funny as Magnum's Martin Parr uses flash very obviously when doing his colourful street photography and Satoki Nagata (http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/03/chicago-lights-flash-street-photography-by-satoki-nagata/) does some interesting B+W street photography using strobes. Not to mention all those press photographers.
but there are cases where you can't avoid it. Here's an example. I wanted a readable picture of a local gravestone. The inscription was barely scratched into the surface of the stone, and has been worn away over the years. The sunlight never gets to the stone except in patches. But with a light stand and an SB910 zoomed to 200mm, I was able to bring out the surface detail. But this is an unusual situation
Yeah freaky unusual! :o Strobe lighting, wow! Not many people use that!
But hey isn't that cheating? Adding lighting is not real photography after all, as flash was not the natural light present in the scene. [/sarcasm]
Now something that I've noticed over the years is that the people who constantly berate others for using Photoshop or who dare to move more than two sliders in LR are without exception in my experience, awful at post production. And most of the time, their basic photography is severely lacking too, with scant evidence they have any eye for catching a photograph.
Though not surprisingly, quite a few armchair critics choose not to show their photography whilst they casually slag off other people's work.
-
Eagleyepro - this web page may interest you as the photographer has a page showing typical non skilled shots next to those lit/framed professionally.
Crappy Vs Snappy (http://miningindustrialphotographer.com/crappy-vs-snappy/)
-
Quote
"As far as artificial light is concerned, it's a no-no on the street,.....
Funny as Magnum's Martin Parr uses flash very obviously when doing his colourful street photography and Satoki Nagata does some interesting B+W street photography using strobes. Not to mention all those press photographers.
jjj"
Unfortunately for your argument, in Parr you've chosen to illustrate your point with my least favourite photographer of such genres. I think his renditions of the British Working Class Dream are hideous. If anything, I see them as insult to the poor sods trapped in the life. But then, I suppose we all have to pick our lunch much as do lions, tigers and even hyaenas.
You have no idea how I dislike exploitative people.
Rob C
-
Eagleyepro - this web page may interest you as the photographer has a page showing typical non skilled shots next to those lit/framed professionally.
Crappy Vs Snappy (http://miningindustrialphotographer.com/crappy-vs-snappy/)
JJJ,
Thanks for the link and that's a pretty cool site. I'm definitely on point with the concept and it really does show.
On a side note, I started this thread asking "when is editing your photo too much". I soon realized that within actually getting people to respond to that question, there has been ton's of comments on people's opinions of genre's and "counsel on wisdom and cheeky comments from as you put it "side chair critics" that I didn't expect. :) It's a learning process that in a public forum, I may actually only get about 10-20% of genuine comments of real value and pertaining to the question. Priceless and learning that's part of the process.
As you can see i'm not afraid to give my opinion and share my work. :) Thanks for the comments and ideas.
Eagleyepro
-
JJJ,
Thanks for the link and that's a pretty cool site. I'm definitely on point with the concept and it really does show.
On a side note, I started this thread asking "when is editing your photo too much". I soon realized that within actually getting people to respond to that question, there has been ton's of comments on people's opinions of genre's and "counsel on wisdom and cheeky comments from as you put it "side chair critics" that I didn't expect. :) It's a learning process that in a public forum, I may actually only get about 10-20% of genuine comments of real value and pertaining to the question. Priceless and learning that's part of the process.
As you can see i'm not afraid to give my opinion and share my work. :) Thanks for the comments and ideas.
Eagleyepro
I’m surprised at your surprise. In essence, your question was nothing more than yet another version of ‘how long is a piece of string’, an open and impossible subject for any meaningful discussion, which is why you imagine that you failed to bring one about. All you managed to air was that you felt you had a great personality (for your business) and the feeling that came across to me was that you felt you were far more intelligent and visully aware than your clients, whom you implied were thrilled to discover your powers of Photoshopping.
And that may all be perfectly true. But the problem is, this is LuLa, and it is a relatively sophisticated site where people alread know the power of their toys and tools fairly intimately. In effect, you are preaching to the wrong audience.
Whether or not only ‘ten to twenty percent’ of the responses are of value (to you) is just subjective judgement; to that remaning ninety to eighty percent of souls who took the trouble to reply, you display nothing but scorn by writing that.
What you have forgotten is this: LuLa offers a lot of very different things to a vast spread of personality types: some are here for the joy of seeing photographs, some to enjoy the company of like-minded others; some people like to write and express their world views where others prefer to wiggle around in semantic duels. Others find pleasure in measurbating with the best, and yet more find the whole thing very funny and remain on the sidelines having a giggle at the dramas of others. In that reality, getting what you think to be ten to twenty percent of public interest isn’t such a bad score: be happy; you survived.
Rob C
-
Quote
"As far as artificial light is concerned, it's a no-no on the street,.....
Funny as Magnum's Martin Parr uses flash very obviously when doing his colourful street photography and Satoki Nagata does some interesting B+W street photography using strobes. Not to mention all those press photographers.
jjj"
Unfortunately for your argument, in Parr you've chosen to illustrate your point with my least favourite photographer of such genres. I think his renditions of the British Working Class Dream are hideous. If anything, I see them as insult to the poor sods trapped in the life. But then, I suppose we all have to pick our lunch much as do lions, tigers and even hyaenas.
You have no idea how I dislike exploitative people.
Rob C
Whether you like Parr's work or not, is not at all relevant. He's just an example of a street photographer who uses flash.
Not a huge fan of his current style myself. His B+W work from the 60s is completely different however.
-
Rob,
Interesting and well put. (Giving context, i'm saying this in a jovial tone and completely unargumentative) For the record I meant no judgement and scorn for anyone's (80-90%) responses that I may not have perceived as value pertaining to the question. All opinions are important despite correlation to the thread topic. As I stated I had no idea what to expect with responses when posting and this had been a great experience for me despite the naive understanding of what to expect on a forum.
With your very winded and lengthy response I am all but educated now on the way that I should be thinking when posting on this (LuLa) forum.
I have no regrets and I'm quite excited to continue and post comments and learn what others have to say. It's been a very liberating and satisfying experience regardless what anyone says. Worthwhile.
Thanks for your post comments and I hope that you continue to share your wisdom in the forum world.
Eagleyepro
-
I’m surprised at your surprise. In essence, your question was nothing more than yet another version of ‘how long is a piece of string’, an open and impossible subject for any meaningful discussion, which is why you imagine that you failed to bring one about. All you managed to air was that you felt you had a great personality (for your business) and the feeling that came across to me was that you felt you were far more intelligent and visully aware than your clients, whom you implied were thrilled to discover your powers of Photoshopping.
Alternatively that only describes what you thought Rob. As that's not what I thought. And the truth may well be something else again.
And that may all be perfectly true. But the problem is, this is LuLa, and it is a relatively sophisticated site where people alread know the power of their toys and tools fairly intimately. In effect, you are preaching to the wrong audience.
as some people on LuLa love to slag off modern working methods.
Whether or not only ‘ten to twenty percent’ of the responses are of value (to you) is just subjective judgement; to that remaning ninety to eighty percent of souls who took the trouble to reply, you display nothing but scorn by writing that.
Or maybe he accurately described armchair critics who love to sneer. :P
When you ask for feedback online and you get 10-20% useful info that's pretty darn good in my books, given the nature of how humans work.
Rob - LuLa despite your claims to its sophistication can, like many part of t'interweb, at times be a quite unwelcoming. As illustrated by some posts in this thread.
Nothing wrong with an alternative point of view to one's one, but some attitudes here need tempering at times.
-
Though not surprisingly, quite a few armchair critics choose not to show their photography whilst they casually slag off other people's work.
No kidding. For some reason I can't seem to find your web site.
-
Though not surprisingly, quite a few armchair critics choose not to show their photography whilst they casually slag off other people's work.
No kidding. For some reason I can't seem to find your web site.
Is the reason the fact that you are a complete buffoon? :P
After all, it being at the bottom of every post I make and also being in my LuLa profile would indeed, make it rather tricky to find.
And once again you ignore the points I made about your double standards and your contradicting yourself. Too busy trying [and failing] to be a smart ass it would seem. ;D
Just in case you are still struggling try
www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com)
or
www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/herrang (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/herrang)
-
... Too busy trying [and failing] to be a smart ass it would seem...
Seems contagious.
-
After all, it being at the bottom of every post I make and also being in my LuLa profile would indeed, make it rather tricky to find.
By golly, you're right. There it is. Now I understand. You run a cliché shop.
-
Seems contagious.
Why are you at it too? ;)
-
By golly, you're right. There it is. Now I understand. You run a cliché shop.
Looks like time to block your crazy ramblings.
No point debating with someone who avoids responding to anything that actually contradicts their bizarre world view and even when you've made such a dumb mistake such as saying I don't show my work online, you still weasel around like a small child, making silly comments and avoid the point being made in the argument. Anyway I can't see anything you post now so I bid you farewell.
-
The Art of Editing: When is Editing your photo too much?
I've edited it too much when it looks to me that I edited it. Then I figure others will think the same thing. It has to have the look of the original scene. That all I was doing was capturing reality. Cropping and adjustments to correct lighting, white balance and colors due to the limitations of cameras and film and digital sensors are acceptable to me.
In another area, cloning is too much or combining two pictures such as replacing the sky using a second picture. Even if I could get away with it, (I couldn't because of my limitations with Photoshop), I would know it's fake so I don't do it. How would I explain a scene in my photo to others that I never saw?What would I say when they asked me if it's real? That's my personal compass although I know many others feel every tool in Photoshop is acceptable to use. That's OK too but would consider it photo art not photo reality.
-
Anyway I can't see anything you post now so I bid you farewell.
That's a relief.
-
I've edited it too much when it looks to me that I edited it. Then I figure others will think the same thing. It has to have the look of the original scene. That all I was doing was capturing reality. Cropping and adjustments to correct lighting, white balance and colors due to the limitations of cameras and film and digital sensors are acceptable to me.
In another area, cloning is too much or combining two pictures such as replacing the sky using a second picture. Even if I could get away with it, (I couldn't because of my limitations with Photoshop), I would know it's fake so I don't do it. How would I explain a scene in my photo to others that I never saw?What would I say when they asked me if it's real? That's my personal compass although I know many others feel every tool in Photoshop is acceptable to use. That's OK too but would consider it photo art not photo reality.
Alan, Thanks for the comments and I completely agree. Many times people refer to Photoshopping which I don't use. My program is lightroom 4 which is only designed for photos. I've never cloned or added any objects because i'm into enhancing the photo not creating a new picture from what I had originally saw. (new picture meaning adding in a person, an object etc)
Great comment.
Eagleyepro
-
Eagleyepro - Here's different sort of before and after (http://burkeheffner.com/before-after/) set of shots that you may like.
I used to have some shots on my site that demonstrated the amount of work that went into some images. And I should do that again as the problem with showing only the finished article is that some people will not appreciate the time and therefore money that goes into producing a good shot until they've seen a plain Jane version.
-
Eagleyepro - Here's different sort of before and after (http://burkeheffner.com/before-after/) set of shots that you may like.
I used to have some shots on my site that demonstrated the amount of work that went into some images. And I should do that again as the problem with showing only the finished article is that some people will not appreciate the time and therefore money that goes into producing a good shot until they've seen a plain Jane version.
Problem there is that people like to imagine a great snapper does it all in the camera: his genius... if it boils down to later construction, then maybe their own snaps might be workable too; not a nice mental path to encourage. Your fees should be beyond that: they should be what you say that they are, take it or leave it, and because they see that you believe it, I suspect they will take it.
I think you flirt with unnecessary danger by attempting to employ subliminal attempts at justifying the financial issues.
Rob C
-
Problem there is that people like to imagine a great snapper does it all in the camera: his genius... if it boils down to later construction, then maybe their own snaps might be workable too; not a nice mental path to encourage. Your fees should be beyond that: they should be what you say that they are, take it or leave it, and because they see that you believe it, I suspect they will take it.
I think you flirt with unnecessary danger by attempting to employ subliminal attempts at justifying the financial issues.
Rob C
There are those, such as Jay Maisel and Antonin Kratochvil, who simply shoot jpeg without any retouching and are considered great shooters. Sorry but I still refuse to call retouching as editing since I am old school.
here is an interview with Antonin Kratochvil, in which he talks about his process.
http://youtu.be/n4Lfx8fh8_E
-
There are those, such as Jay Maisel and Antonin Kratochvil, who simply shoot jpeg without any retouching and are considered great shooters. Sorry but I still refuse to call retouching as editing since I am old school.
here is an interview with Antonin Kratochvil, in which he talks about his process.
http://youtu.be/n4Lfx8fh8_E
You have no beef with me: editing is nothing to do with retouching, in my book. It was the misuse of the term in the early posts that pissed me off too.
Rob C
-
Likewise, though I guess that's pretty clear.
-
Problem there is that people like to imagine a great snapper does it all in the camera: his genius...
Such as Ansel Adams or W. Eugene Smith for example...?
-
You have no beef with me: editing is nothing to do with retouching, in my book. It was the misuse of the term in the early posts that pissed me off too.
Your book has been out of print and was removed from library shelves for being out of date a long time ago.
Us folks from after the stone age like to edit our photos after weeding out the ones we don't like. ;D
Few things dafter that resisting how language changes.
Except of course if you object to the correct use of a word like edit.
All the definitions of edit if you actually look the word up, had something along the lines of
To alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file>
Prepare by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.
as one of the definitions.
-
Photo Editor:
Old definition (http://mediacareers.about.com/od/mediajobprofiles/a/PhotoEditor.htm)
New definition (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Photo+Editor&aq=f&oq=Photo+Editor&aqs=chrome.0.57j59j5j61j0j62.505&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Blame the software companies for blurring the line.
Cheers,
-
Photo Editor:
Old definition (http://mediacareers.about.com/od/mediajobprofiles/a/PhotoEditor.htm)
New definition (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Photo+Editor&aq=f&oq=Photo+Editor&aqs=chrome.0.57j59j5j61j0j62.505&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Blame the software companies for blurring the line.
Doesn't alter the fact that editing work of whatever kind is not just selecting down as some people inaccurately think and is the reason why photo editors [the software kind] are so named, it's because they allow you to edit images.
Also you got one thing wrong they are not old and new definitions. They are both used currently. Words very rarely have a single specific meaning.
It's like insisting *bow* is a greeting and is not decoratively tied ribbon or a weapon or the front of a ship or.....
-
Such as Ansel Adams or W. Eugene Smith for example...?
Good examples: they did it in camera and then worked very extensively on the image in their darkrooms. Their 'editing' was done in the field, so to speak.
Rob C
-
Problem there is that people like to imagine a great snapper does it all in the camera: his genius... [ if it boils down to later construction, then maybe their own snaps might be workable too; not a nice mental path to encourage. ]
Such as Ansel Adams or W. Eugene Smith for example...?
Good examples: they did it in camera and then worked very extensively on the image in their darkrooms. Their 'editing' was done in the field, so to speak.
Except it wasn't. As you even say yourself in the last of your contradictory statements.
Were you a contortionist before you did photography? ???
AA + WES did the same as many photographers people do now. They took a photograph, then went home and did their post production work as we now call it, transforming their images in the darkroom. This romanticising of past masters is a bit bonkers, they simply did the same as we do know only with different kit. Some used darkrooms a lot, others had printers work up their negs and some took slides - today some people use LR/PS a lot, others have photo editors tweak their images and some shoot jpegs. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - the more things change the more they stay the same.
And your insisting on using 'editing' differently from how the vast majority of photographers use it, still won't make your inaccurate definition right. That is not how language works.
It's not the 60s any more you know, that's 1860s BTW. ;D
-
"Except it wasn't. As you even say yourself in the last of your contradictory statements."
I'm still looking, but the contradiction evades me yet.
Yes language changes, for better or for worse, but newspeak doesn't destroy the validity of the tried, tested and universally understood meanings.
As far as I can see, this bullshit is all about the use of the word 'edit'.
Let me clarify my position: to edit, in its photographic sense, always meant to look at the sum total of one's shoot and throw away the crap, and then preset the client with the 'edited' selection from which he would make his final choice, with a little gentle guidance (where possible) from the snapper.
Post-digital, the sellers of software have created so-called editing-suites which are nothing to do with editing: they are about processing and altering images; they are darkroom equivalents and, as such, are really post-editing functions.
You may prefer to use a different language - that's your right. But it doesm't make me wrong, nor you correct: it simply means you just cast your vote within a different political mass. It's a photographic parallel to the way some young Britons speak today, with the accent on certain words where they hope to create a question without actually forming one; where the speech patterns of Friends becomes fashionable and adopted by people for whom such use of language is not only totally inappropriate but actually pathetically funny... in a manner they don't intend. I am so not excited by a Scottish voice speaking New York. Nor Valley.
;-)
Rob C
-
Post-digital, the sellers of software have created so-called editing-suites which are nothing to do with editing: they are about processing and altering images; they are darkroom equivalents and, as such, are really post-editing functions.
Editing is what it is defined and understood in galleries, museums, and art sphere. Editing and retouching are clearly different in terms of definition and scope of work, and they are what are understood by many, including those jpeg shooters, such as Jay Maisel and Antonin Kratochvil, in my previous example, who simply edit but never retouch their work. Not every software vendor abuses the defintions. For example, PhotoMechanic, which is an editing (not retouching) workflow software that is mostly consumed as the bread and butter by photojournalists, still labels itself correctly as "the Essence of Editing."
(http://www.maxdrukpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Photo-Mechanic_Feauture-image-copy.jpg)
-
"Except it wasn't. As you even say yourself in the last of your contradictory statements."
I'm still looking, but the contradiction evades me yet.
No surprise there.
Yes language changes, for better or for worse, but newspeak doesn't destroy the validity of the tried, tested and universally understood meanings.
And yet again, there's a contradictory statement.
Of course words meanings change, some words end up meaning the complete opposite of what they started out as. Let used to mean prevent for example.
And meanings are certainly not universal if some of us use words in ways you refuse to acknowledge, despite the dictionary definitions agreeing with us. Edit amongst its other meanings, means to change or modify, which describes exactly what photo-editors do funnily enough and is why they are called that.
As far as I can see, this bullshit is all about the use of the word 'edit'.
Only on the part of old fogeys still living in a past which never really existed.
Let me clarify my position: to edit, in its photographic sense, always meant to look at the sum total of one's shoot and throw away the crap, and then preset the client with the 'edited' selection from which he would make his final choice, with a little gentle guidance (where possible) from the snapper.
Just one of several meanings of the word, certainly not exclusive.
Post-digital, the sellers of software have created so-called editing-suites which are nothing to do with editing: they are about processing and altering images; they are darkroom equivalents and, as such, are really post-editing functions.
And to repeat myself - They are called editing suites are they allow you to edit photos. Easy concept for most of us to grasp. ;D
You may prefer to use a different language - that's your right. But it doesnm't make me wrong, nor you correct: it simply means you just cast your vote within a different political mass. It's a photographic parallel to the way some young Britons speak today, with the accent on certain words where they hope to create a question without actually forming one; where the speech patterns of Friends becomes fashionable and adopted by people for whom such use of language is not only totally inappropriate but actually pathetically funny... in a manner they don't intend. I am so not excited by a Scottish voice speaking New York. Nor Valley.
Actually you are wrong as many, if not most current photographers use the term to mean altering images and remember the dictionaries are in accord with us, not you. Now as language works by consensus, we are using the word correctly.
The fact editing also means selecting images is something no-one has disputed as both meanings are correct. Denying the existence of the meaning most commonly used by photographers today however, is a bit bonkers.
And protesting changes in language is a proper grumpy old man/woman territory. :P
-
Editing is what it is defined and understood in galleries, museums, and art sphere. Editing and retouching are clearly different in terms of definition and scope of work, and they are what are understood by many, including those jpeg shooters, such as Jay Maisel and Antonin Kratochvil, in my previous example, who simply edit but never retouch their work. Not every software vendor abuses the defintions. For example, PhotoMechanic, which is an editing (not retouching) workflow software that is mostly consumed as the bread and butter by photojournalists, still labels itself correctly as "the Essence of Editing."
Uh, you can edit your images in both senses of the word in PM.
The only people abusing definitions are the ones like yourself denying both vernacular + dictionary meaning.
-
A word may have several different meanings.
Even the Pocket Oxford Dictionary provides half a dozen meanings for "edit" which, for a reasonable person, should end this dull squabble.
Sadly, reference works do not count as facts when they do not agree with the naysayers.
Debate is however bit of a diversion whilst waiting for work to tediously render, which is waaaaaay duller.
-
...Debate is however bit of a diversion whilst waiting for work to tediously render, which is waaaaaay duller.
A faster computer should fix that. Just kidding!! ;D
Tony Jay
-
No surprise there.
And yet again, there's a contradictory statement.
Of course words meanings change, some words end up meaning the complete opposite of what they started out as. Let used to mean prevent for example.
And meanings are certainly not universal if some of us use words in ways you refuse to acknowledge, despite the dictionary definitions agreeing with us. Edit amongst its other meanings, means to change or modify, which describes exactly what photo-editors do funnily enough and is why they are called that.
Only on the part of old fogeys still living in a past which never really existed.
Just one of several meanings of the word, certainly not exclusive.
And to repeat myself - They are called editing suites are they allow you to edit photos. Easy concept for most of us to grasp. ;D
Actually you are wrong as many, if not most current photographers use the term to mean altering images and remember the dictionaries are in accord with us, not you. Now as language works by consensus, we are using the word correctly.
The fact editing also means selecting images is something no-one has disputed as both meanings are correct. Denying the existence of the meaning most commonly used by photographers today however, is a bit bonkers.
And protesting changes in language is a proper grumpy old man/woman territory. :P
jjj, you must be the most charming young man on LuLa. Glad to have met you here.
Rob C
-
Uh, you can edit your images in both senses of the word in PM.
The only people abusing definitions are the ones like yourself denying both vernacular + dictionary meaning.
Really? You can do both editing and retouching in Photo Mechanic? That's something your copy allows you to do?
Learning any trade is to learn its jargon first. At least for me, I haven't encountered any professional "retouching" firm calling itself an "editing" firm yet, and all the retouchers that I know haven't started to call themselves editors yet. At least from my own experience, all curators who I have interacted with well understand the precise difference between editing and retouching.
-
You're spinning your wheels mshi. The guy you're trying to reason with has shown he can't be swayed by reason. Of course there's a difference between editing (culling) and retouching, and neither Photo Mechanic nor Photoshop nor Lightroom is designed for editing, unless you argue that Bridge and Lightroom give you thumbnails that'll help you make editing decisions. But these distinctions are too much for anyone whose mind is made up.
-
A faster computer should fix that. Just kidding!! ;D
Even more tedious than talking to people who speak English from Ye Good Olde Days is waiting to see if Apple are ever going to update the MacPro.
Few things are dafter than objecting to how a language changes, as languages don't give a monkey's what a word used to mean.
Those of us that live in the 21st century and whose brains are not yet ossified, will continue to edit our images in our photo editors, after we have culled them first of course. ;D
-
Really? You can do both editing and retouching in Photo Mechanic? That's something your copy allows you to do?
PM is not just limited to culling images as you stated, but can also edit them, in albeit in a extremely limited manner. Though less than I recall it having when I gave up on it a decade ago, I have to say. Probably the reason why I did move on, as for my needs PM is slower to use, because it adds an extra and pointless stage to my workflow.
Amusing the wiki page on PM says - "While Photo Mechanic has basic support for simple image edits, such as crops, it is meant to be used in concert with a dedicated photo editing program, such as Adobe Photoshop" - Notice how 'edit' is used.
And tellingly on PDN, PM is not even considered to be a photo editor - "And unlike Lightroom and Aperture which keep adding editing functions, Photo Mechanic isn't really a photo editor at all. Sure, there are some very basic tools such as being able to rotate and crop images but these are almost afterthoughts." It's a Digital Asset Manager [DAM] application in their view.
Learning any trade is to learn its jargon first. At least for me, I haven't encountered any professional "retouching" firm calling itself an "editing" firm yet, and all the retouchers that I know haven't started to call themselves editors yet. At least from my own experience, all curators who I have interacted with well understand the precise difference between editing and retouching.
English is a wonderful language and we have a silly amount of words at our disposal, many with multiple meanings. One of the benefits of that is that there can be a whole range of subtleties of meaning with different words and amongst groups of people use the same words, such as in this case of editing where curators and photographers will correctly use the same word, albeit in slightly different ways. It's all about context. For example if I talk to a curator or a photographer about editing, I'm actually talking about different things depending to whom I am speaking.
As for retouching, it is usually used to mean altering images in ways beyond simple grading and it's a far more specialist skill, which is why you get places that specialise in retouching. Now if I was retouching an image I may not use the word editing as retouching involves more than a simple edit. Just like if I was running for a bus, I wouldn't say I was jogging for the bus, despite jogging being a type of running. However, I would do my retouching in a photo editor like Photoshop.
Grading is yet another word for altering an image. One which is borrowed from the film industry where in film post processing, grading and timing are often used interchangeably. The reason being is that the time you developed film for, altered its look or grade. And as I work in film as well as stills I sometimes refer to tweaking my images as grading them, which is more about giving a specific overall look to a photo than say removing dust spots or darkening the sky, which would be editing. But if I was cloning out things, adding a third eye or making skin look like weird melted plastic, then I would say I was retouching.
Now at this point the folks who behave like religious zealots when it comes to languages changing will start stamping their feet and insist that grading is what you do to college essays and should not be used for altering the look of film or images. :P
Anyway I have some new photos that need some tweaking/post processing/grading/retouching/editing/altering/fine tuning/manipulating/photoshopping/developing.
-
Personally, I do not process my images that much. Usually, I am compensating for the photographic process to achieve a result that is natural, but reveals the structures I saw. I am interested in the world as it is.