Hey Im writing a paper about photography, specifically photoediting and all that. Im not sure how it will come out but I think Ill be kind of explaining the differences between unedited photos vs edited photos. This from normal photography, to more experimental, going through the media and maybe also including some architectural renderings and representations because thats what Im studying.
So the question is: Unedited photos vs Edited photos, pros and cons
[editline]4th August 2014[/editline]
+ when I say edited it can be through photoshop but also by different methods of picture developing when done on film. Im not really familiar with that part though, but it would be interesting nontheless
what exactly are you writing about? what's the title? it's kind of hard to just split the whole thing into "pros and cons"
your camera is just a tool to capture light and that information will then either be shown on a screen or in print or both, which means it's never going to be exactly the same as the original scene anyway. by not editing the information you get from your camera you're basically accepting the (in the case of digital cameras) camera manufacturer's idea of what the real world looks like, but that does not mean that idea is correct or necessarily appropriate for your work as is
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
editing the image locally rather than globally (i.e. cutting something out with contentaware vs editing curves) is a bit different (in some contexts especially, like photojournalism) but yeah
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
i think you may want to spend a bit more time thinking about what exactly it is you're trying to ask
Well thats why I wanted to bring it to you guys and maybe organize my thoughts a bit.
There's definitely a thought that a photo includes the editing process, and not just the shooting. I quote Ansel Adams "You don't take a photo, you make it". I still have to read his bio but apparently he tried new things when developing his films. In his view, the photo is the process from first getting the composition to the last part of having your photos done.
But then maybe there's the other side which is saying that you're done as soon as you release the button and anything further than that is "not pure" or something. I still have to find a reference for this position but Im not an island on this matter. Like, that's why a lot of people shoot manual right? To really learn about the camera and try to get it first shot.
Then if edited, what types of editing are there? It goes from the early days of film developing to Photoshop nowadays. One can just simply tweak the colors and levels of a photo, but does it take the "Pureness" away? The pride that you have of simply pressing a button and getting the perfect shot? And what when it comes to editing your images to something else like glitching or collages? Are they now something else or are they any less of a photograph and why?
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
But that example about how the camera is just a tool is a pretty interesting way to see it
'getting it right in the camera' is a stubborn mindset imo. editing takes a huge part in presenting something to an audience properly and how you intend it
the aim in most forms of photography is to tell a story through a photograph, and camera processing/film colour tones etc. might not always represent that the way you see it in person, these are all things that can be made up for to some extent in post processing
in other fields like scientific photography and some journalism photography it's much less important to build an attractive aesthetic but rather a 'realistic' representation. but post processing like noise removal etc. is still very much a useful thing
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
but if you think your shot couldn't look any better with post processing then so be it. but that's different from refusing to post process at all
[quote]One can just simply tweak the colors and levels of a photo, but does it take the "Pureness" away? The pride that you have of simply pressing a button and getting the perfect shot?[/quote]
i don't see why it would take away any pride. editing those colours and curves is still the fruit of your own labour
many people who don't edit for 'purity' reasons can only use photoshop as far as the contrast/brightness sliders - it's mostly a lack of technical understanding of image editing that leads to them covering up their insecurities by claiming their process makes them superior
they're always the same kind of person but if they educate themselves, they come round to the idea of editing their pics after a while.
editing is split into two groups for me, correction and manipulation
correction is taking the raw data and applying all your colour post work, cropping, lum sat etc
manipulation is when you combine more than one image together, or remove elements in your image (like say, cloning out a lamppost or that example steve did where he used one photos comp and the others face)
i rarely move onto manipulation in my editing but i can see myself doing it more as time goes on - i'm trying to understand it a lot more and how i can use it as well as apply the techniques i've learnt from photography and put them into motion picture.
[QUOTE=.Lain;45594851]'getting it right in the camera' is a stubborn mindset imo.[/QUOTE]
not too sure about this, having a poper composition & exposure speeds up your workflow a lot
Unedited photos can't visually exist.
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;45597381]not too sure about this, having a poper composition & exposure speeds up your workflow a lot[/QUOTE]
nah i know that, but i'm talking about the kind of people that refuse to post process after doing all that for some arbitrary reason
well those are good points, but sometimes i see people really take pride in saying the fact that the photos they took were unedited, and they look pretty good. Maybe they used automatic settings and it came out good, or maybe they used manual settings and if in that case its already considered editing then I might as well call this "post processing vs unedited" or something.
[QUOTE=D3TBS;45597556]well those are good points, but sometimes i see people really take pride in saying the fact that the photos they took were unedited, and they look pretty good. Maybe they used automatic settings and it came out good, or maybe they used manual settings and if in that case its already considered editing then I might as well call this "post processing vs unedited" or something.[/QUOTE]
i don't think i've seen anyone but beginners say that truthfully
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
i'm not editing my photos because i think they're bad without it, i just think they could be made that much better with it. it's a detrimental habit to take pride in not having edited something to be honest
and in that case, would lightning and all that count as editing already? If so then the purest form would be a snapshot at automatic settings haha
What is 'purity' in this case? Is it the photographers ego that is searching for the need to take a photo so 'good' that it doesn't require editing? Why is it so apparent for you that people need to strive for it?
A defining editing style is something that can bring out the best in an image, and give a photographer a personal look to their work.
You say you've seen people "take pride in saying the fact that the photos they took were unedited", why are they claiming for other people to see? Does it even need to be said if they think the photo is good enough already? It seems like they're trying to get 'points' for having it not edited.
I edit the fuck out of my pictures, its half the process of my photography. Theres no 'vs' in this case for me, unedited pictures you are leaving up to chance for their look; the film stock, if its been exposed to any forms of radiation/x-ray, the developing that has been done by the lab, and exposure at the time. When you edit a picture, you can create a style and a look which is completely up to you to decide the fate of how it looks, it can be the sign of a professional and change the impact of the image.
Well the more I read from here and other places, the more I get that its really edited and thats just part of the process. Be it from just developing or photoshop. If it is this unanimous then I guess theres not much of a discussion.
Although I found this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_photography[/url]
Which then I thought maybe it would be interesting to compare that to a more manipulated type of photography, which I could then relate to architectural renderings and images and how they affect the viewer. But then again, these are simply 2 different styles of photography, would it be fair to compare them?
So in this case the "Purist" term wouldn't have the same connotation of an ignorant photographer who refuses to edit his photos due to his lack of knowledge, but as a realist, someone who presents us the world and scenery as it is in a factual and objective way and not add his personal style.
presenting a photo as 'objective' or to-eye would usually still involve editing to some degree. cropping, white balance, noise removal, lens distortion correction etc.
Yeah, it doesnt have to do with editing anymore in this case. For example Ansel Adams, who experimented so much in the darkroom and developed hundreds of photos to just choose one, his photos are still objective and clear, devoid of any soft focus and all that stuff I guess people call "manipulating"
Maybe shift your focus to explain how journalism-and-documentary, versus art-and-expression are the two majorly different ways photography can work as a medium. I think you'll have more to go on if you drop the editing thing being the main point.
[editline]5th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=D3TBS;45598291]Yeah, it doesnt have to do with editing anymore in this case.[/QUOTE]
Ninja'd
Yeah but thats a really big thing to write about. We've had discussions before in our seminars and never got to any good conclusion.
I just read an article that maybe could be the conclusion of this discussion of Pure vs Manipulated photography. In it, the author mentioned that this whole "pure photography thing" came up in the digital era, when before that people didn't ask much about how the images were edited in the darkroom, even though people did edit their photos. And this may be compared to the whole thing of media distorting the truth in their photos since Photography grew into one of the preferred tools in journalism, so people want to get the real thing, the unedited photo that tells the truth. Somehow this gets into the expressionist part of photography, and thus here we have it?
I guess once you know how this whole thing came through, it makes more sense. Maybe for photojournalism its less acceptable to fuck around with the photos because what youre selling is the truth and the facts. But once you come in the subjective side of photography, there is no reason to just show the reality if you don't want to and editing your photos in any way you want is just as valid as leaving the photos "untouched". Its not better, its not worse, it just is what it is. Its a different language.
And then I could question the architectural images and renderings. Is it ok to manipulate an architectural representation of a to-be-built building? To decorate it and make it look good as a photo when in reality it doesn't look like what it is in reality? Does that create false expectations or are people just supposed to get the "feel" of the image?
So the question he asks in the end is "What exact point along that spectrum of distortion lies the division between an acceptable representation of reality and an unacceptable distortion of truth?"
[url]http://www.danheller.com/faq-manipulation.html[/url] nevermind the shitty page design.
Pretty sure that's a failed panorama, probably not done purposefully.
my head
Well, clearly today there is this movement against edited photography, due to people wanting to see the real, unmanipulated photo that tell a story in the media, or how a girl really looks and her imperfections. But would it be a correct guess that this "fad" then was transfered into the more artistic expression of photography, and therefore we today have people taking pride in unedited, fresh off the camera photos?
Also, is there any famous photographer that only or has worked in this "unedited" fashion? I can't find any proof whatsoever
I don't know if he outright refused editing but Cartier-Bresson swore against cropping photos and promoted proper framing from the camera, so I think it would be reasonable to assume he didn't do much post processing.
I think the movement against edited photography that you're speaking of is more strictly in the vein of models/celebrities/socialites (which you mentioned) for the purposes of allowing people to improve their self esteem and body image or whatever. Considering that, it isn't really a movement against edited photography at all but a movement against edited people. I believe this because coincidentally more and more people are adopting instagram/vsco/afterlight and all manner of mobile camera editing apps every day. People enjoy properly edited photos because they look good. And I think that people who adamantly deny post processing (especially digital because it's so easy) are kind of snobs. But I don't want to cause a riot, so I'll just say that I think reasonably editing photos is nice.
I have seen people in forums and all talking about how its bad to edit because of this and that, but I never found any real mention-worthy photographer to represent the other side. And without someone at the front the points the other people are making, however valid they are or not don't seem to be very credible if I list the source of this so called movement from the internet
what defines an unedited image anyways? as bopie already pointed out; unedited photos visually can't exist.
when you shoot analog you will have to develop the negative and get this printed to present a photo.
when you shoot digital you will have to copy your image to another device to make prints to present your photo. Anyone with a bit of IT background knows there is data loss when copying, it's not significant to mess up your image but it's altered.
in both situations the photographer has to alter the 'original image' to get to a point where it is presentable.
so once again; what are the criteria for 'unedited', are there any at all?
[QUOTE=D3TBS;45613631]I have seen people in forums and all talking about how its bad to edit because of this and that[/QUOTE]
in what way were they saying that its bad to edit? I don't see any cons.
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;45614154]in what way were they saying that its bad to edit? I don't see any cons.[/QUOTE]
its nothing official, just a blog that was writing about the results of a facebook discussion they had. I can't find it anymore but I think it was just the usual. "Oh photoshop is cheating and if you can't take good pictures with your camera and have to resort to editing then you're not a real photographer." and also despise any form of digital because thats not real or whatever. Then the other side responds back and kind of what was already said here too. The "pure" side replies back but they never address the fact that people were already editing in the darkroom before photoshop.
Ive also found other people that say that pure photography is more shooting manual and zone system and the whole analog thing. Other say that it's shooting with automatic settings. Its a whole fuckball of nothing I guess
[editline]7th August 2014[/editline]
Cartier Bressons way of justifying it however, has nothing to do with manual or automatic settings but rather composition and getting the geometry right. Which if he thinks is what it should be then its as valid as any other thing. But then again he didnt develop his own prints nor did he have any interest in it.
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;45614628]The unedited side of the "argument" is just the typical case of vocal elitists in a hobby/career sector. There's not much for valid points, they just have a contrived belief that they're better because it makes them feel good about something that doesn't fundamentally exist: pure, unedited images.[/QUOTE]
Woah, that's a bit harsh, innit?
Why do you belittle a bunch of people's opinion like that? Why is it so bad to prefer to keep your images unedited? Maybe some photographers want to hunt for the perfect shot though the viewfinder alone.
What about the unvocal side - maybe there are people here who don't edit their images, and keep that to themselves. How would we know - we only see the final product, which is what photography is about. The end result.
And like if someone posts his pictures here and all of them are unedited and people go "oh wow, great shots man" - is it a worse photograph only because it is unedited? A lot of people here say that it's basically 100% necessary to edit your photo and make it sound like unedited photos are not as good, because they couldn't possibly be.
it's kind of rare for the camera to match what your eyes saw 1:1 and if you want to really be faithful to what you saw and document it, i think going into Lightroom/Photoshop is needed. It doesn't matter if they edited it or not, the final end photo is all that matters. It's all about the ends, rather than the means.
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;45615847]
-The processes you use for your shot don't necessarily make you a superior, or inferior photographer
[/QUOTE]
You can boil all of it down to this thesis, and I can absolutely get behind that.
Apparently though, according to some people here, editing your photos does indeed make you a better photographer. Which is a bit hypocritical as I see things.
[QUOTE=Stopper;45619150]You can boil all of it down to this thesis, and I can absolutely get behind that.
Apparently though, according to some people here, editing your photos does indeed make you a better photographer. Which is a bit hypocritical as I see things.[/QUOTE]
Editing your photos does help to make you a better photographer? What is hypocritical about that? The fact that a photographer edits their pictures doesn't make them better automatically, but having a great editing style and getting the best out of your images does make you better at the trade overall in my opinion.
Photography to me is about the whole process of creating an image, from start to finish. It's not just solely about the capturing of the image.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
