How many doctor up their photos?

[KCmike]

I was just wondering how many of us touch up, enhance, or correct their photos?

Or do you prefer it to be untouched?

 

[zackiedawg]

I definitely fall in between - I tend to leave a vast majority of mine alone...but occasionally will edit a photo if A. it has something in it that requires touch up. B. it just looks like fun to play with. C. It came out bad, and editing might make a diamond out of a piece of coal.

In general though, I much prefer to get a great shot right out of the camera - it makes me feel like I'm getting better with this whole photography thing when I can nail composition, exposure, focus, depth of field, and white balance when I take the photo.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that the question is misleading. There is nothing natural about pictures. Every digital image starts as a series of luminosity values for red, blue, and green dots. They are translated into full color values and assigned a colorspace. Cameras also manipulate the image with anti-aliasing, sharpening, and adjustments to color.

I see the choices differently. You can either let your camera convert the RAW sensor data into a JPG or TIFF image or you can do the conversion in software on a computer. You can take the defaults for your camera or software's conversion or you can control the process more directly.

I do almost all of my DSLR processing on a computer and vary the amount of direct control over the process from minimal for bulk photos to lots and lots for important pictures. For my P&S, I let the camera do the conversion and tweak it a bit on my computer.

 

[pointandshoot]

I assume most DSLRs have adjustments for contrast, sharpness, saturation etc. for jpegs. I am not sure what leaving them natural means unless you prefer your in camera adjustments instead of doing them post.

I shoot Raw. Minimally, I tweak contrast, saturation, noise, exposure, crop, and sharpness on all images post process. More advance editing like skin retouch I might do depending on the look I am going for. I consider those techniques "doctoring". I do those on a case by case basis.

Chuck

 

[pointandshoot]

I think that the question is misleading. There is nothing natural about pictures. Every digital image starts as a series of luminosity values for red, blue, and green dots. They are translated into full color values and assigned a colorspace. Cameras also manipulate the image with anti-aliasing, sharpening, and adjustments to color.

I see the choices differently. You can either let your camera convert the RAW sensor data into a JPG or TIFF image or you can do the conversion in software on a computer. You can take the defaults for your camera or software's conversion or you can control the process more directly.

I do almost all of my DSLR processing on a computer and vary the amount of direct control over the process from minimal for bulk photos to lots and lots for important pictures. For my P&S, I let the camera do the conversion and tweak it a bit on my computer.

Exactly! Which computer do you want your adjustments to come from..the camera or the laptop. They both play a role in the process.

Just like my old days of black and white shooting. Each step in the process (capture, development of film, printing) moves the image to the vision of the photographer. Digital has its own workflow.

Chuck

 

[handicap18]

I think you need more choices.... I do some editing, most of it slight. Maybe adding or taking some exposure compensation, adjusting white balance, croping. Sometimes I wont change it at all. I rarely do heavy editing. I really don't like to do editing so a few clicks here and there maybe and I'm done.

 

[boBQuincy]

I agree with Mark and PointandShoot, there are no untouched photos, it is just a question of who has touched them. I always chuckle at the idea of the weekly contest that "it is a photography contest, not an editing contest".

Photography *is* editing! We edit the scene with our viewfinder and lenses, with exposure, with cropping, processing, and more. There is not a photograph in all of history, analog or digital, that has not been edited and processed! It is inherent to the art form.

As PointandShoot pointed out so well, "it is all to move the image to the vision of the photographer", and that is a good thing!

Or the short answer to the question, from Alain Briot's essay "Just Say Yes", yes, I enhance my images.

 

[YesDear]

I shoot in a RAW format and develop the images electronically with several different processes depending on the image!

 

[Chikabowa]

For me it's a combination of what everyone has said above... so I think that the question posed is a bit misleading.

I aim to get my shot perfect SOOC, so that's what I do, but even though it's a great file right then, I do clean up the file in general. I make sure everything is spot on, I make sure that I sharpen it properly for print (if it even needs it), color, hue, saturation. Since I show a lot of my personal photos on my blog, I work on them in photoshop to make sure that they look good for people viewing my blog, etc.

Do I add stuff like words, or fake lightening over a castle, fantasy elements or run pre-programed filters (like pen/pencil etc)? No.

If you go to this URL, you'll see photo I did that shows SOOC, final color and final B&W. You can see how the file was super clean right out of camera, but how just a little tweaking and massaging in photoshop takes it to another level. (Please note... this link is of a couple kissing pretty hot and heavy. If you don't like it, don't look at it. )
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3731907341_3ca131ee42_o.jpg

 

[Experiment_626]

Cameras don't see the way we see. To me, all my photography is impressionism. It is up to me to make the image my camera captures into what I remember seeing -- or better, if I choose. It's all about the image for me. The process can be fun, and I do try to get everything possible correct at the moment I fire the shutter. But I don't make photos primarily because I like wielding a camera in the field; I make them because I like the images I get.

It's art -- everyone should create his or her images exactly as he or she chooses. In general, I have no time for anyone who looks at another's work and says (unbidden), "That's not really photography." The only exception I can think of is photojournalism. Few people watch a painter at work -- outside of a art class -- who would say "You're doing it wrong." I don't see why photography should be any different. As long as each choice a photographer makes is an actual choice consciously made, who is to say it is right or wrong?

SSB

 

[TheGoofster]

My first digital camera (that I got about 10 years ago) was, to put it nicely, a piece of junk. Yet it's all that I had until recently. Unless I had ideal conditions and location, most of my shots came out looking, well, rather needy. For example, I like to submit photos (that I took with that camera) on the various Disney photo contests here. I do it simply for the fun of doing it, because I know that even if I had the best shot in the world, there would still be no way that I could win a contest because the quality is so poor. (I suppose my pictures also help make people appreciate the quality of so many of the great photos that are submitted by others).
So, with the photos I took with that camera, yes, I did as much editing as I possibly could to try and make the pictures at least look a little better (BTW, I don't edit the photos I submit to the contests).

Recently I purchased a much better camera (still not what I really want, but it's a step closer). I've noticed that I am very content with the pictures I've taken, and really don't find much of a need to do any editing (unless it's for fun, or a bit of cropping).

So, do I edit? Sure, some times, but not nearly as much as I used to, and now mostly just for fun or for minor corrections.

One thing I would like to add, because I was doing so much editing before of my photos, I am now pretty good at the whole editing process. I'm amazed at some of the things I actually figured out how to do.
I'm also looking forward to some day getting back to Disney, and taking tons of new shots with an improved camera. Who knows, maybe someday I'll take a shot that might actually get a vote or two in a contest.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I'd much rather be a great photographer that can shoot stuff SOOC and have it come out the way my eyes see it. But I've found that unless I post process, more often than not it doesn't look the way my eyes saw it. I especially seem to have problems with shooting stuff in broad daylight - everything comes out too dark or too washed out. I haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong. (I'm thinking it's so bright that I should probably use fill flash or any flash for that matter! Sorry, I digress...) I know many will say I'm shooting at the wrong time of the day. But if that's the time I'm out and about with the camera, then what else can I do but take the shot, hope it comes out, try to find better settings and when all else fails, throw it PS to see if I can fix or save it.
I've had to learn to do some PP just by necessity, because I'm not a good enough photographer! But it makes me feel better that many of you who are really great photographers also do PP. I don't feel so bad now! At any rate, imo, PP can be a picture saver that's for sure! I just started learning how to PP and edit and have no idea how to do PS layers and all that stuff. (Not enough hours in the day.) I'm glad that I have the software to do try and save some of the clunkers that I've gotten. The RAW conversion has saved many photos for me. Mike, you might want to look into Lightroom if you're thinking about shooting RAW. They have student pricing on these (not sure if you have to be a college student or not, I know on PS CS4 you have to be a college student on the sites I've seen). I've seen LR as low as $50 on some of those student websites. That was a couple years ago though....

 

[kaffinito]

I'm learning how to use photoshop so I take a lot of pics that I never "tweak". Before that I would use Picasa sometimes, but I really tried hard to learn how to take natural photos that didn't need editing. I did it for the learning experience since I was really new to photography.

 

[alan]

I agree with DisneySuiteFreak here, as well as most of what has been said before.

I always need to do some form of editing on the RAW pictures I take... but I am continuously trying to learn more of the techniques of photography to reduce the amount of editing needed.

regards,
/alan

 

[annnewjerz]

I would say that I do a bit of editing. Usually it's things like adjusting the saturation slightly, adjusting the WB and upping the contrast a little---but there are photos that I do a lot more to, and photos that I do nothing to. For me, I think it really depends on my mood. Some days, I like the look of a more "natural" image, some days I really like the look of sort of overly saturated colors, some days I like a shot that looks sort of over exposed. I think the longer I shoot, the more I will start to really figure out what my style is and do less and less work to get the photos to look that way. Right now, it's a lot of experimenting.

Here are two shots I took on the 4th of July. The first one is what I got SOOC and the second one is after I did some editing. I tried to erase the guy in the background from the picture, I did a little cropping to eliminate the Yoohoo that can be seen and upped the blacks a little bit. Using my Sigma 30 I found that I often get over exposed pictures because I like to shoot with it wide open. I'm trying to get the hang of using in-camera exposure compensation to help that.

SOOC.

Edited.

 

[wenrob]

Mike, you might want to look into Lightroom if you're thinking about shooting RAW. They have student pricing on these (not sure if you have to be a college student or not, I know on PS CS4 you have to be a college student on the sites I've seen). I've seen LR as low as $50 on some of those student websites. That was a couple years ago though....

If you are a student or have a student K-12, Collage or Higher/Continued education you can get the discount. They're actually pretty loose about it. We've purchased Light Room, CS4 and an audio program through Academic Superstore with DD's 6th grade ID. (there your proof is good for two years)

I think there is a huge difference between post processing and "doctoring" your photos. Striving to get everything right SOOC is of course what everyone hopes to do. Even if you do manage to get it right 100% of the time (which IMHO is impossible) photos can still benefit from a little tweaking here and there to get the right feel. Same as what was done with film.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If you are a student or have a student K-12, Collage or Higher/Continued education you can get the discount. They're actually pretty loose about it. We've purchased Light Room, CS4 and an audio program through Academic Superstore with DD's 6th grade ID. (there your proof is good for two years)

They are really loose. My second grader took an interest in photo/video/web software last year and ordered the entire Adobe Master Collection. We sent in his second grade report card and they gave him the discount on the entire suite. Maybe it helped that he had all A's. Oddly, he doesn't use it all that much, so I've start working with it...just in case he has any questions, of course.

 

[My2Girls66]

I haven't gotten into learning much about post processing or doctoring so most of mine are as they were taken. I do know how to straighten a horizon now, remove red eye and blemishes. Other than that I'm a pp dummy!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

They are really loose. My second grader took an interest in photo/video/web software last year and ordered the entire Adobe Master Collection. We sent in his second grade report card and they gave him the discount on the entire suite. Maybe it helped that he had all A's. Oddly, he doesn't use it all that much, so I've start working with it...just in case he has any questions, of course.

But of course! Thanks for this info, it's good to know!

 

[jann1033]

Cameras don't see the way we see. To me, all my photography is impressionism. It is up to me to make the image my camera captures into what I remember seeing -- or better, if I choose. It's all about the image for me. The process can be fun, and I do try to get everything possible correct at the moment I fire the shutter. But I don't make photos primarily because I like wielding a camera in the field; I make them because I like the images I get.

It's art -- everyone should create his or her images exactly as he or she chooses. In general, I have no time for anyone who looks at another's work and says (unbidden), "That's not really photography." The only exception I can think of is photojournalism. Few people watch a painter at work -- outside of a art class -- who would say "You're doing it wrong." I don't see why photography should be any different. As long as each choice a photographer makes is an actual choice consciously made, who is to say it is right or wrong?

SSB

yep what they said much better than i could.


i don't ever consider it
"doctoring" since to me that has the connotation of something inferior or a mistake that has to be improved.

sometimes i take photos that i know i want to be pretty much like i saw them, other times i take photos i know i want to add a bunch of effects to it imo that is my call. sometimes i take photos just to see what it would look like if i did this or that. sometimes i like it sometimes i hate it but it's creating something so that is part of the process