Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Photography vs PhotoEditing


Dibyajit 2 9 India
5 Sep 2012 5:59PM
These days I see the photographers (especially the young or beginner photographer) with the luxury of latest software like Photoshop or photoscape tends to relay more on photo editing rather than the actual photography which is mainly dependent on the composition and at times the light of the photo or even the angle from which the photo is taken. They totally change the outlook of the snap by editing it at it's depth. I agree that modern day's photographer do use this luxury to a great extent, but does that mean we will ignore the main photography and only depended on photoediting?? Does that mean in earlier days when there was just film SLR cameras, when there was no luxury of photoediting, I wonder how was the photographers were able to cope up then. I have seen a lot of snaps these days by various photographers who does a huge amount of editing in a particular snap and does change the outlook of the snap completely. Although it looks great no doubt but is that what real photography is?? I know many would not agree with me at all but still as a beginner photographer I felt this that's why I am sharing my views

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KevSB 10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 6:23PM
First of all we have a saying here " Rubbish In Rubish Out" the only True photography that you aspire to was Slide photography, film and digitial Sinse inception have been edited to various degrees.

What Matters most to the those looking at a picture is the final image, the viewer has no intrest in how it was taken just how it pleases him, have you ever done film darkroom work. In a world that has the tools to do this you eather join in or get left behind.

Here in the uk everyone not just the young use software and modern digital cameras using raw require it as standard. If you use film have you ever burned or dodged areas to enhance, If so then what is the difference between that and photoshop doing the same job more precise, cleaner and easier.
Have you never sandwiched negetives, cropped them ect , the list is endless.
Garry1956 2 12 1 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 6:29PM
So what is real photography? Firstly I was always told at college "Garbage in Garbage out" which I believe is basicly true be it film or digital. I was also taught how to dodge and burn an image, how to double expose even how to cut and splice in the darkroom, all of which is available in Photoshop. So in my humble opinion the medium has changed but the skill level has also, there are more photographers with access to better equipment so the bar has been raised!
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 6:40PM

Quote:tends to relay more on photo editing rather than the actual photography
If they're using software to fix mistakes they made, that would be a bad thing. If they're starting with a good image and working with it in software, well, it all depends what they end up with. Usually small adjustments in software give marked improvement, sometimes a lot of work goes into finishing an image properly, sometimes too much is done and the results are terrible.

It isn't that much different from using film, there are all sorts of adjustments possible in processing film, in colour or monochrome, and the prints from one negative can be quite different.

A useful quotation from Ansel Adams
The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.

I understand from TV programs that some of his early prints are much more valuable than his later work, even though they are made from the same negatives, and his later prints are so much better, because of course he had learned so much more anbout how to make them. The difference is quite remarkable, considering both prints are made by the same person from the same negative, but the laster one is so much better.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
5 Sep 2012 6:58PM

Quote:These days I see the photographers (especially the young or beginner photographer) with the luxury of latest software like Photoshop or photoscape tends to relay more on photo editing rather than the actual photography which is mainly dependent on the composition and at times the light of the photo or even the angle from which the photo is taken


Back in the film days I would be pretty stuffed without an enlarger, my home made dodging and burning tools or my multi contrast filters Smile
Dibyajit 2 9 India
5 Sep 2012 7:14PM
@KevSB

Quote:In a world that has the tools to do this you eather join in or get left behind.


You are absolutely right about that. With advancement of technology we are no doubt able to use them in various ways to increase our luxury. But my question is does that mean you can use them limitlessly?? Whats the use of photography if you can do 80-90% of your work by photoediting??


Quote:What Matters most to the those looking at a picture is the final image, the viewer has no intrest in how it was taken


Its no doubt it looks really nice when you set a hd wallpaper in your desktop of your PC or in any other decoration purpose. But doesn't that changes the originality of the real snap?? You take a snap of a sunset or sunrise with the beautiful colour of the sky and the surroundings made by NATURE HIMSELF and later when you edit that picture by increasing or decreasing it's auto level or auto contrast etc, may be it may look much better than the original one, but doesn't that change the original colour made by the NATURE and that was captured in the snap. And as a real Nature or photography lover would that pleases your eye more??
Dibyajit 2 9 India
5 Sep 2012 7:25PM
@keith selmes

In earlier days when there was no luxury of such photoediting wasn't there no great photography?? Or I must say that in spite of having no digitization of photography and just having extremely limited scope of the number of photos taken because of film camera the early days photographers were much more talented than the modern day's one. Because in spite of not having many luxuries that the modern day's photographer enjoy due to technology's advancement they were able to take many stunning shots which could still earn a great praise even today.
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
5 Sep 2012 7:53PM

Quote: Does that mean in earlier days when there was just film SLR cameras, when there was no luxury of photoediting
Really???

Photo editing has gone on from the very early day. All(or vast majority) of terms in photoshop were borrowed from the darkroom.

A good image is a good image - personally I don't care how it's derived if it gives visual pleasure.


Quote:You take a snap of a sunset or sunrise with the beautiful colour of the sky and the surroundings made by NATURE HIMSELF and later when you edit that picture by increasing or decreasing it's auto level or auto contrast etc, may be it may look much better than the original one, but doesn't that change the original colour made by the NATURE and that was captured in the snap. And as a real Nature or photography lover would that pleases your eye more??


So Velvia gave (gives??) a true representation of the colours at Sunrise/Sunset?
Graysta 9 1.1k England
5 Sep 2012 8:25PM
Nick_w
In a nutshell

Graham
Paintman e2
8 902 173 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 8:46PM
I recently went to the Russell Cotes museum and art gallery in Bournemouth where they currently have an exhibition of Marcus Adams' (1875 1959) photographs of the Royal family. One photograph was made from two glass plate negatives to make the DOF appear greater. This was done by bleaching the b/g of one negative and the second had the f/g removed by bleaching. These were then sandwiched together and a print produced.

This is an early example of focus stacking ( there are probably even earlier examples of this technique as well ), so many 'modern photoshop' techniques have been done before, but using photographic plates, film or slides.

I think it is the image that matters as this is the photographer's vision and artistic intent. A photo either works or it doesn't.
Dibyajit 2 9 India
5 Sep 2012 8:58PM
Nick_w


Quote:A good image is a good image - personally I don't care how it's derived if it gives visual pleasure


It might give visual pleasure to many and at times to me too, but only if I look the the snap just as scenery to decorate something for example in a desktop background of my PC, not if I look it as a true Nature lover as at times with many snaps, because of too much editing the natural colour gets totally lost.
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 9:00PM

Quote:In earlier days when there was no luxury of such photoediting wasn't there no great photography??
The point is, they mainly did their photo editing in the darkroom, although a certain amount can be done in daylight processing. All without computers, but they still did it.


Quote:the early days photographers were much more talented than the modern day's one
I don't think talent has much to do with it. Early photography was a slow and cumbersome chemical process, and people had to be able to work with their hands and with chemicals, and preferably have their own darkroom. Nowadays they have to understand complex digital cameras and computer software. I think most people find digital modern methods more pleasant nd convenient, as you don't have to shut yourself in a special darkened room and work with poisonous chemicals to process your work. Therefore more people do it than used to. Modern photography doesn't need as much manual skill, but that to me is a different thing from talent.
KevSB 10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
5 Sep 2012 9:12PM
I'm not sure where you get the natural colours idea from, that could change from brand of film to another, and when printed down to the settings of the enlarger. A camera cannot see the same amount of stops that the human eye can so that comparison is not a good one.

What you print was and is always your personal idea of the scene at the time!. The fact is manipulation has and will continue and this point of view that there is some pure image does not exist
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
5 Sep 2012 9:34PM
I am not sure why every time I see someone complaining about the use of photoshop /postprocessing /manipulating /photoediting, they are normally those who can't really do it themselves....Wink
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
5 Sep 2012 9:39PM
... But I'm not complaining Cole Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.