Do most digital photographers edit their images?

[Ko.Fe.]

I do both film and digital.
The concept of editing is exactly the same.

On digital if exposure is right all I have to do is to "develop" it in the right software.
I'm not using Canon DSLR software, but LR. In film analogy it would be caffenol vs HC-110.

For film if exposure is right and film developed corect I would only have to choose correct contrast filter for prints.

For both if exposure is not 100% correct I would have to do exactly the same on film or digital.
D&B in LR or in DR.
But I do more editing in analog photography comparing to digital.

The only photography method I have tried so far which needs no editing was instant photography.

 

[ozreth]

As an aside, normally "edit" means to choose photos, not create them.

Ah! Good to know. Thanks!

 

[Hsg]

So I'm new to photography and am trying to become well versed in both film and digital. Sorry if this comes off as a bit naive. When reading about and looking at film photography, it seems that the aim is to get the best image you can with no editing. When looking into digital it seems that many people edit their images. Does this depend on what the images are being used for? What is the general consensus on this? Is it looked down upon if the images are not for commercial use? Does it depend on what sort of editing is being done?

I know there will be many views on this, but I'm looking for a pretty broad answer.

the simple rule is, if the digital photographer can produce better jpgs than his camera, he/she should pursue digital post-processing, otherwise nothing shouts louder, mediocrity, than a badly processed digital image.

Unfortunately, all photo hosting sites are full of very bad, garish, and simply lousy processed images, so much so that it feels like an epidemic. And there are a few reasons for this:

1- uncalibrated monitors
2- hdr-ish look due to maxed shadow highlight detail
3- too much or too little contrast
4- too little or too much midtone contrast
5- fake grain
6- saturation without contrast
7- over-sharpening, or no sharpening
8- huge watermarks
9- flat b&w images with fake grain


... And despite this epidemic of badly processed images, there is no shortage of tutorials on youtube; however, a majority of those tutorials are as bad as the images I described above.

So, this ability to edit a photo for a digital photographer is not as good as it sounds.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I was kind of spoiled by shooting color reversal, all I had to say was "make it look like the slide.". . .

And did they? Ho, ho, ho.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . there are a few reasons for this:

1- uncalibrated monitors
2- hdr-ish look due to maxed shadow highlight detail
3- too much or too little contrast
4- too little or too much midtone contrast
5- fake grain
6- saturation without contrast
7- over-sharpening, or no sharpening
8- huge watermarks
9- flat b&w images with fake grain . . .

Or as we say in English, "incompetence".

Cheers,

R.

 

[ForestCap]

It all depends what the photographers want and what the audience expect.

My observation is the majority of the audience are used to edited images. So if someone is making a living on selling photos, he/she probably have to edit the images.

As an enthusiastic, one click of Auto Level makes up 95% of my editing. I quite enjoy watching the photos in various SOOC groups on Flickr.

 

[Baby of Macon]

Ko Fe has summed it up perfectly from my perspective.

 

[hepcat]

Does this ever eliminate the need to shoot the best photo possible?

No.

So when people are looking through one of the many posts of people displaying their images on here, how are you judging the persons overall skill if you don't know whether or not they manipulated their image, and to what extent?

You judge their competence by whether or not you're looking at a strong image. Sometimes you can tell its been manipulated (HDR for example) and sometimes you'll have absolutely no clue. But if its a strong image and you like it, then it is successful and so was the photographer.

BTW, the earlier reference to Ansel Adams that suggested comparing one of his contact prints to one of his later enlargements is a bit off. AA manipulated local areas (dodging/burning in) of his contact prints just as he did his enlargements.

That was me who suggested that, and I meant a straight contact proof of that negative. It's flat and quite unremarkable. Having seen a privately owned 30"x40" original Adams print of "Moonrise" many years ago, I was quite stunned to see a contact proof of the negative. It's almost like it came from a different negative.

I do understand many are very annoyed when artists hire assistants, or have prints made by professional printers.

As an aside, normally "edit" means to choose photos, not create them. [/B]

I think you have to know how to do darkroom work to really explain to a good printer what you want. I think it is eminently reasonable to use a pro printer; that said, most successful photographers also convey successfully how they want their print to look.

And as an aside, "edit" in common parlance in the digital world has come to mean both "developing" and/or "retouching" in the old language we film folks understand. Language evolves... and not always for the better.

the simple rule is, if the digital photographer can produce better jpgs than his camera, he/she should pursue digital post-processing, otherwise nothing shouts louder, mediocrity, than a badly processed digital image.

Unfortunately, all photo hosting sites are full of very bad, garish, and simply lousy processed images, so much so that it feels like an epidemic. And there are a few reasons for this:

1- uncalibrated monitors
2- hdr-ish look due to maxed shadow highlight detail
3- too much or too little contrast
4- too little or too much midtone contrast
5- fake grain
6- saturation without contrast
7- over-sharpening, or no sharpening
8- huge watermarks
9- flat b&w images with fake grain


... And despite this epidemic of badly processed images, there is no shortage of tutorials on youtube; however, a majority of those tutorials are as bad as the images I described above.

So, this ability to edit a photo for a digital photographer is not as good as it sounds.

Amen. Well said Hsg.

 

[rscheffler]

Just want to point out that 'commercial' images, such as those used in ads, are probably some of the most edited/retouched photos of any kind in order to make whatever they're selling look the best possible. It's 'editorial' images, such as those traditionally used by newspapers and news agencies that are handled to a much stricter ethical standard. Generally this means cropping and minimal color and tonality adjustments. Though of course there is a range of how much is allowable depending on the organization publishing the images.

As for my own work, I consider editing an integral part of the photographic process. Just as when I shot B&W film and printed in my home darkroom, I had ideas of how I would want a given image to look. And over time that general standard has changed somewhat, which I see when looking back at my past film and digital images - how the 'treatments' have evolved. One of the frustrations with film, particularly colour print, was having to work with a lab as an intermediary and how the lab's 'vision' for your images likely differed from your own preferences. With digital the photographer has much more control over how the final image looks, but the tradeoff is a lot more time spent chained to the computer to realize the final results.

I look forward to the day when there is 'smart' image editing software that learns the operator's preferences and can suggest and implement intelligent processing options. While I sometimes enjoy tweaking images, I'd much rather be shooting them. But currently I feel somewhat burdened by the mountain of backlog images I eventually intend to work through, to the point where sometimes I question why I shoot more, further increasing the backlog.

All I can suggest is try to stay on top of what you shoot... try to see it through to the end - the final image. However you get there.

 

[btgc]

My scanner and camera both do this before I've even started with editing.

 

[willie_901]

Editing = selection and sequencing a group of photographs for a project, series, client or personal library, the first step in both analog and digital post-production work

Rendering = adjusting the luminance tonality, contrast, color temperature globally and, or locally

There is really not much of a difference between film and digital post-production work. For both media it takes time, money and thoughtfulness to produce an optimum result. Pure analog color negative printing is complicated and requires great deal of time and experience. B&W analog post-production is simpler. Still, tweaking global and.or local brightness and contrast can be time consuming.

Optimizing a raw file's rendering can also be time consuming. Doing this well is also expensive. At the least one needs a decent computer, software and a monitor that will accurately render color. The final output must be compatible with the intended printer technology (gamma and color calibration). Except with monochrome digital cameras, working in B&W is no less simple than color post-production rendering. There are software products that both streamline B&W rendering and produce excellent results. Nik's Silver Effex Pro 2 is just one of these.

Color transparencies are a bit like highly compressed in-camera JPEGs. It pays to get things (including color temperature) right in camera.

Both film and digital post-production renderings are completely at the mercy of the photographer. A look some people hate others will love. Unfortunately it is easier to digital render color work compared to film work. This means the probability of unskilled, gratuitous renderings is much higher with digital media. The same holds for video, music and even digital art production. More work is shared so it is easier to stumble upon poor work.

Many photographers simply do not have the time or interest required to edit and render their work. In this case in-camera JPEG rendering becomes important. The meaning of photographs is evolving to a medium focused on quickly sharing images for a single view and then generating more photographs for the same purpose.

It's no surprise that editing digital images is practically non-existant. Why bother to delete poor images? There is no motivation whatsoever. There is an alternate view. Some believe digital are handicapped photographers because they delete their mistakes in-camera or in the first stages of editing. This means they do not learn from their errors.

For the most part, rendering is only valued as a means to differentiate one's images from the deluge of shared images. Since speed is more important than aesthetics, vendors sell apps that attempt to create unique renderings without any skill or forethought called filters. The idea is you tap your phone screen a few times and generate a look that others might not have. This only delays the sharing process by seconds.

 

[bmattock]

I don't know about y'all, but there's nothing I enjoy more than watching an interesting thread go down the tubes as the usual rants are posted about how if someone does something photographically that the person posting doesn't like, they're clearly a hack and not a 'real' photographer at all.

So much fun. Please, continue.