File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i would like to know..
are there any photographers out there like me who DON'T edit there photos?

i feel as though people who edit their photos are almost cheating. the picture they took was obviously not good enough so they had to cheat it and change its appearance to the point where it looks fake.
yes there are different types of photos, but it seams everyone these days, amateur or professional edits there photos. i find it lame/fake/fraudish.
what is /p/'s thought on this subject?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpiVertical Resolution1 dpiImage Created2006:02:08 11:36:00Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3456Image Height2304
>> Anonymous
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>283742

-10/10.
>> Anonymous
well, i'm fine with editing, as long as its only with colour balance. that's why im trying to get away from photoshop and go from raw -> lightroom -> publish
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here,
>>283744

I just prefer real raw uncut photos, that are actually amazing and stunning without being edited. sometimes you can almost get the same affect.

photo is my own from Dallas supercross, un-edited but i think still looks quite stunning.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:05 20:07:56Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Brightness5.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1071RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
The only thing I do in photoshop that can't be done in a dark room is more sharpening (I think?)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283746
Oh hai I fix'd ur foto

30 seconds in photoshop on an uncalibrated monitor

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerPicasa 3.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:28 23:26:14Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Brightness5.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height536RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> i don't mean to hate Anonymous
>>283746
but if that's what you consider stunning then you might want to forget photoshop and invest in some basic photography classes.

artists regardless of medium develop after getting past their own personal preferences/opinions. not everyone will share your same bias.

and honestly, no one's going to care that your photo wasn't shopped if it isn't a good photo to begin with.
>> Anonymous
>>283746

I read "HOLT PARTS" as "HOT PANTS". I must be horny.
>> ryusen
Every Photo is "edited," bar none. What is the difference between shooting with a red filter or doing it in Photoshop? What is the difference between adjusting exposure in Photoshop and during film development? All digital cameras internally edit the picture based on pre-programmed settings. It's not if you've made any edits to the pictures, it's if you lie about it.
>> Anonymous
>>283752
that is your personal preference

i guess if people really like fake shopped photos, then thats fine, i believe real photographers shouldn't have to edit their photos,

and if you dont like my photo, "not everyone will share your same bias".
people have different opinions.
>> Anonymous
I don't adjust colors/light on my pictures because I'm a lazy, amateur nigger. But if I did, they would be ten times better, so maybe someday it will be raining and I won't have anything else to do and I'll make all my pictures look like pure sex... :/
>> Anonymous
I agree with op, its like watching the new HD sets, they all look over sharpened, overly saturated, and fake as hell. Very few days during the year do colors appear absurdly unreal do to a absence of moisture and haze in the atmosphere.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ITT: people who don't consider photography and photo manipulation the same skill set. If i hear another Adobe zealot call himself a photographer.... RAGE
>> Anonymous
I am of the opinion that you can't polish a turd, but if all it takes is something you'd do in a darkroom anyway, more power to you.
>> Anonymous
This all relies on the ideal that a photo will be captured developed to the 100% same visual "Settings" that your eye saw when you took the image.
>> Anonymous
>>283776
of course some of us use raw to eliminate that whole settings problem, unless you are referring to the capturing methods that are inherent to all cameras
>> Anonymous
I'm of a similar mindset. The only things I'll touch are levels and contrast in my photos, which are what I can easily do in the darkroom (B&W film fag: signing in). I just like photography to be simple and pure, while still being visually interesting and hopefully stimulating.

Fuck I'm gay.
>> Anonymous
>>283741
if you have ever got access to a darkroom and are using negative film to process your photographs then you can understand that manipulating the image can give you a better picture to suit your needs.effects like vignette where a fashion to enhance the finished product aimed at a certain clientele.this was done with a cutout held over the photographic paper while exposing the image.these are now simple technoques that can be obtained in post processing applications.
>> Anonymous
The print is the performance, faggots
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
     File :-(, x)
I don't edit them, but I don't really care if you do.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>283741

if i shoot film, i dont need to edit. Shooting digital requires that some post processing must be done, though when i do that post processing is very, very minimal.
>> Anonymous
>>283868
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>283741
Yeah, if it's digital, some pp is pretty much required, just due to the way the medium works. Flat tone-curves just don't cut it. But that mostly means basic changes to the curves/levels, color saturation, color balance, contrast, sharpening, that kind of thing. Even with jpeg. Of course if you're shooting raw, everything must be done after, so it's a moot point. HDR and tone mapping are a whole 'nother beast, and are often poorly done. BTW, the term "unsharp mask" comes from the darkroom, so yes, sharpening in the darkroom is possible.
>>283746
I don't mean to be a dick, but that is not a stunning photo. I think you're blinded by the spotlights.
>> Anonymous
This "anti-photoshop" sentiment is pretty common in the under 18 crowd, as proved by OP, who's obviously never shot film in his life. It's like trying to prove how bad-ass you are a photographer by never metering. Or focusing. Or using a camera with light leaks. Or using an un-flat film plane. Or buying expired soviet film.

None of this are bad per-se, but not doing them, or doing them doesn't really matter in the end. It only matters if you brag about it, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>283887
As someone who knows nothing about photography, please tell me what is the major effect or difference in using expired soviet film, as opposed to some other brand of older film?
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
So you're calling Ansel Adams a fraud?
>> Anonymous
>>283903
It's just a joke. Soviet era photography equipment was mostly a combination of reverse engineering and shoddy quality control. To get that in a film, would be horrible. Not only would it probably be not worth using, but even if you got a brick that had been frozen since the beginning of time, it would probably have shitty tonality. Or horrible grain.

And the implication of that joke is that expired exotic film + light leak camera =art. It's a new level of bad that can't be replicated in photoshop.
>> Anonymous
I don't like to edit my photos. I don't even like to crop them, so i try to get the best shot possible.
>> Anonymous
I crop in camera aka do it right the first time
>> Anonymous
>>283741
I used to feel the same way but that was before I ever stepped foot in a darkroom or had any formal photography education. Basically, I knew fuck about photography and was trying to justify my ignorance.

Now, I do edit my photos. Digital or film. Sometimes a lot and sometimes a little. It's part of the art. You manipulate the camera to get your original (negative/file) then you manipulate that to get your final print/file.
>> i - !EoFJjFcCco
Photoshop is to digital photography what the darkroom is to film.

That said, if the finished product doesn't give an accurate reflection of the scene you captured then you have an obligation to make it clear to the viewer.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
I post process my photos to make up for the limitations of my camera, the real world and sometimes yes, I admit, myself. I'm quite Machiavellian in nature. As for color and levels, I make the decisions to recreate/enhance the scene, not my camera. As for cropping, I prefer to think of it as multi-stage composition. Clone tool makes up for being unable to physically remove objects from the scene. There is no cheating if there are no rules. I don't need to ask anyone's permission to be a photographer or adhere to a specific code.
>> Anonymous
Use whatever you need to get realize the image you want. If you're not pushing it to the best it can be because of some retarded limitation you've imposed on yourself then you're only hurting yourself and your work.
>> Anonymous
>>283881

OP here,
if your not into motocross/supercross then no, its not stunning.
but if you've ever been to a race, you'd understand.

and if its not stunning..it was featured in three magazines and two websites for motocross.
so obviously thats another one of those personal preference things that some people dont get over,
not wanting to make your pictures look fake as fuck to me just seams more fun and less fraud. thats like painting a metal necklace gold to sell it as a "gold necklace" its not really gold..but it looks like it,

i do mess with my photos to an extent. on camera only.

>>283887

i am 18, and i've only been kind of serious about photography for a year. i have shot film, my grandfather has pieces hanging in the Chicago museum i've helped him develop some photos, but of course i dont remember any of it.
and if your saying im trying to brag about it, i was just trying to get other peoples opinions on the subject i wanted to know if there were other people like me who try to leave their photos untouched, and still eye catching.


>>283907

no im not calling him fraud, its just my thought on it.
>> Anonymous
>>283944
And in the motorcross realm, your photos will stay.

Seriously, your 18 and only been kind of serious for a year. Your opinion will change on this once you've been completely serious for a few years.
>> Anonymous
>>283956
FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

Your opinion will change, I meant.

pardon the mongol moment.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>283944
>yes there are different types of photos, but it seams everyone these days, amateur or professional edits there photos. i find it lame/fake/fraudish.

He's famous for his post processing skill, and quite clearly by your definition any post processing makes you a fraud. Thusly you have called Ansel Adams a fraud, and just about every other widely respected photographer at that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283959

its just in my opinion.
i still respect photographers who edit their photos.
when i look at a photo i cant stop but thinking how it looked before it was edited.
i guess i rather see natural beauty in the photos than over saturated light and vivid landscapes.

again photo is my own. and to me it looks good without being edited.
but im sure one, if not all of you will tear it apart. i still think it looks good un-edited and un-touched

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:12 17:04:42RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Brightness10.5 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1071Image Height1600
>> Anonymous
OP looks like something on the Singh-Ray site. When S-R snobs say Cokins have a "color cast" I wonder how they can tell.
>> Anonymous
>>283978

Ok man, good luck with that.
>> Anonymous
>>283984

good luck editing your pictures to the point where you cant even recognize them:]
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283978
taking out the people would be a better picture.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerPicasa 3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:29 19:18:51RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Brightness10.5 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1071Image Height1600
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>283978
Except this would significantly better if you removed the crap under the wing, corrected the exposure on the plane and sky, and removed the terrible dirty sensor spot on the cloud.

>i guess i rather see natural beauty in the photos than over saturated light and vivid landscapes.

A camera cannot capture something exactly as you see it because a camera cannot see the same amount of light at a time as you, nor will it's brokeh ever quite match the human eye. A lot people edit photos to make them look more natural, not less natural as you presented in the op post.

The HDR movement is more towards what you seem to hate most. A lot of established artists and photo art critics have rejected it for being to unreal. I fear that that HDR will do to photography what impressionism did to fine art painting.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283978
Wow, you're right. Now that the photo is edited it looks totally fake and shitty.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerPicasa 3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:29 17:58:36RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Brightness10.5 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1071Image Height1600
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
Problem is people take bad photos and try to edit them into good ones.
>> Anonymous
OP, you do know that that OP picture isn't edited, just hdr, right?
>> Anonymous
>>284213
facepalm

HDR is a form of editing.
>> Anonymous
>>284222
Not really, you can do it with film.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>284255
And what, if it's film it isn't editing?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I don't edit. I too feel like it cheapens the shot. So much cooler if you can get a cool effect WITHOUT editing. Like this pic, shot on expired film.
>> Anonymous
>>284260

I think by editing he means post processing effects, or maybe digital editing on a computer.
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
i dont. but im not going to sugar coat it and say i dont do it because its not true photography and its cheating.
i dont edit my photos because i dont know how to use photoshop
yet i have CS3.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>284334

it's not too hard. go to barnes and noble/your local bookseller, grab a photoshop/cs book, and read the first few chptrs to get the gist of it. next, go home and messa round. you;ll get comfortab;e

and fuck poor vision in the dark i can't se shit for typing
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>284327

OP here, that photo is beautiful,
and see you didnt have to use editing to make it look amazing,
thats what i enjoy, taking a photo thats good without having to edit.

props my friend.


pic is another one of my own with no editing.
tear it up as you might, i've won two local photo contests with it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 19:02:43Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Brightness6.2 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1071RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>283746
I think I see what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. I don't edit then so much as enhance them, just boosting the contrast and saturation by about +12 on photoshop, that's about all I do. But I think saying "all editing is cheating" is being very closed minded of you.
>> Anonymous
>>284778

well, its my own personal preference, this thread wasnt about critizing people who do edit their photos, i just wanted to see if there were people who dont edit their photos. as of now photography is just my hobby with some cashflow, i was hoping to see if professional photographers today didn't edit their photos.
im not trying to be close-minded. its just in my opinion, if i edited one of my pictures i'd feel like i was cheating on a test. just my own personal problems i guess.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>284774
Haha, jokes on you, it's actually quite shooped to fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>284774
Ok, OP pic is quite obviously shopped and BADLY. The lighting on the ground doesn't even match the sky.
>> Anonymous
So all photoshopping is out in your book... so what does that mean to people who convert to gray, is that cheating or damn it they had better print a transparency and make a darkroom print on BW paper?
>> Anonymous
Damn it op you're perfectly right. You should only be allowed to use neutral color film with a 50mm camera that lacks an exposure meter.

None of those filters either, polarizing filters are cheating, sit there and wait for exactly the right on exactly right day.

No range finders or focusing prisms, you do it by knowing exactly how far away you are from your subject, otherwise it's cheating.

The chemical times that come on the boxes and websites for my chemicals are my bible, if I'm off by 1 second I'm cheating and toss the print away, and I don't even think about doing my chemical in other temperature than 68 degrees.

Scanning it is right, silly computers always change stuff and there's no helping it, hell computers are strait out because people's monitors are different and they wont see my work in it's perfect truthfulness of the scene.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>284791
Demn it oop yuoo're-a perffectly reeght. Yuoo shuoold oonly be-a ellooed tu use-a neootrel culur feelm veet a 50mm cemera thet lecks un ixpusoore-a meter.

Nune-a ooff thuse-a feelters ieezeer, pulereezing feelters ere-a cheeting, seet zeere-a und veeet fur ixectly zee reeght oon ixectly reeght dey.

Nu runge-a feenders oor fucooseeng preesms, yuoo du it by knooeeng ixectly hoo fer evey yuoo ere-a frum yuoor soobject, oozeerveese-a it's cheeting.

Zee chemeecel times thet cume-a oon zee boxes und vebseetes fur my chemeecels ere-a my beeble-a, iff I'm ooffff by 1 secund I'm cheeting und tuss zee preent evey, und I dun't ifee theenk ebooot dueeng my chemeecel in oozeer temperetoore-a thun 68 degrees.

Scunneeng it is reeght, seelly cumpooters elveys chunge-a stooffff und zeere's nu helpeeng it, hell cumpooters ere-a streeet oooot becoose-a peuple's muneeturs ere-a deefffferent und zeey vunt see-a my vurk in it's perffect troothffoolness ooff zee scene-a.