Editing Photos

[Binkrin]

I just wanted to get some opinions on what people think about editing photos.

When shooting RAW photos you can do so much and make the photo look so much different that when you originally took the picture. Is there a line where you say that you edited it so much that it's not the original photo anymore? Or is it ok because you are just making it look the best it could possibly look?

I am asking because I recently took pictures for someone I know and I find myself editing them a lot. (the lighting conditions weren't the best and I tend to like photos on the more saturated side...) I just don't want to feel like a fraud when I hand these pictures over and accept money for them...


Does this even make sense?
Thanks!

 

[jann1033]

they are your photos you can do whatever you want with them imo...however if you make your friends look like donkeys or monkeys or something they might complain. for a paying customer i think i would strive for "enhanced natural" ie make the colors pop some but not artificial looking
stuff gets corrected for color sharpness etc all the time as did film yrs ago so imo make them look the best you can..post processing is part of the process. my favorite stuff is to add some artistic license to photos,,,i've seen some really beautiful and remarkable photoshopping/painting type effects done..that's what i would love to be able to do someday if and when i grow up.
check out the adobe after capture magazine sometime(it is free plus i think online) really great stuff in there( although the last cover just looked really scary to me, like a demonic alien, rather than beautiful like usual)

 

[GrillMouster]

It depends on the image. If the purpose is to create fantasy art, then do whatever you want. If the purpose of the image is to have something you can look at in the future to remind you of a beautiful time or place, then enhance the picture until it most closely represents what you saw or felt (e.g. I remember the grass being greener, or the sky a little more vibrant, etc). Just keep it looking realistic, not too fake or obviously Photoshopped. If someone is paying you for these pictures, then you had better enhance them to make them look their best (but realistic), because they'll expect it, even if they don't come right out and request it (just make sure you include your post-production time in your fee). However, when it comes to retouching portraits, don't go too far. For example, if you're photographing an 90 year old woman, don't erase her wrinkles, just tone them down. She should still look elderly, but good for her age. It's okay to remove temporary blemishes, like acne or peeling sunburned skin, but if someone has a permanent, prominent blemish, like a giant mole or a dark discoloration on his forehead, don't erase it. It would be best to try to de-emphasize it through lighting, posing, angle and position of the subject to the camera. You still want the subject to be recognizable. You could retouch an image to make a person look like a supermodel, and they may love it at first. However, after your client shows the picture to her friends or co-workers, and hears them snicker and laugh, because she looks "too good" in the picture, she'll no longer be a fan of yours.

 

[thomas998]

You know there is no reason you can't edit them to what you think they want and then edit one or two to some stylized level you like... you might find that they like the stylized version... who knows you might find by word of mouth that you get more people requesting the stylized versions... Don't automatically assume that because it doesn't look like a perfect copy of reality that other wont like it.

 

[Anewman]

It has been the subject of some serious debates, especially in the contest threads.

Some feel that making adjustments during the RAW conversion process equals editing and that the all settings should be left at default. But even that will produce greatly different images from the same RAW file because every converter is different.

And remember one can do plenty of tweaking with "straight from camera jpegs", anyone can boost SATURATION and COLOR in camera to makes images look very vibrant but if we boost saturation in the RAW converter some feel it is all of a sudden editing.


IMO, if the raw file has not been processed(converted to a usable format) any adjustments are not really considered EDITING. I mean EDITING by definition equals altering the original, but making adjustments b4 the original jpeg(or other) is produced should not be considered editing.

 

[NostalgicDad]

I also do not consider PP RAW files as "editing". I simply see it as an extension of creating a digital image and a RAW image to me is not complete until converted to a usable format. Whether tweaking your settings is done in-camera or during PP shouldn't matter and isn't altering the capture. We live in a digital world from the minute the shutter opens.

When shooting RAW, I have a work flow that includes batch processes depending on what type of event I'm shooting. Typical adjustments are exposure compensation, white balance, and un-sharp mask. When I'm shooting I can concentrate more on composition and preparing for the next capture rather than making small exposure adjustments to get the image "just right" for my eye. I don't view any of my post processing as if it's "fixing" an image.

 

[Binkrin]

Thank you all very much for your comments. This is all very new to me and it helps to see how others think about things like this.

And don't anyone worry, I am not making anyone look like a donkey unless they ask for it...