Save 50% On Affinity Photo Today!

Image Enhancement


alexshairp 12 7 Scotland
8 Jul 2008 9:55PM
Something that has been bugging me is the world of digital image editing. Everyone seems to be doing nothing but taking photos, usually good or better than good, and then editing the living hell out of them. Is it just me or does anyone else prefer not to...or should I start learning the complexities of it?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Just Jas Plus
18 26.3k 1 England
8 Jul 2008 10:01PM
No......
snapbandit 16 2.3k 3 Northern Ireland
8 Jul 2008 10:03PM
I prefer not to 'fiddle' too much, don't find it fun at all (plus I don't know or want to know the complexities of adjusting them to death) & I take fotos 'cos I enjoy the process of trying (ocassionally sucessfully) to get the pic right when taking the shot so I have minimal post production to do, many a good shot has been ruined (in my opinion) by getting over-clever with the special FX etc. but if that's what pleases the authors then thats good for them, just do what is good for you, & enjoy the creation as much as the final image.

My 2p
Joe B
Just Jas Plus
18 26.3k 1 England
8 Jul 2008 10:07PM
Exactly!
alexshairp 12 7 Scotland
8 Jul 2008 10:08PM
Cheers guys, just what I wanted to hear!
Simon_P 14 487 4 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2008 11:19PM
Aside from obvious digital workups all of mine are nothing more than basic contrast tweaks.
A fair few of mine are experimental in camera FX
csurry 18 9.2k 92
9 Jul 2008 8:39AM

Quote:Everyone


Overstatement of the week goes to ....


Drumroll


Alex.

Seriously Alex, so people like that side of things. Personally as I work with a computer all day at work the last thing I want to do is spend time in front of the computer editing images. My processing takes about 30 secs per pic for uploading here, and most of that is taken by the resize and border.
agoreira 16 6.0k Wales
9 Jul 2008 8:53AM

Quote:Cheers guys, just what I wanted to hear!


Happy now? Wink
Of course, not everyone "edits hell" out of their photos. Certainly there are those that do, oversaturated, impossible skies etc, but that is their chosen way of doing it, be your own man, do what you want to do. I personally don't like it either, but they seem to have an audience for it. Recently someone here explaining his work flow to achieve, what to me are very modified images, was very warmly received. I don't object to his work, it just doesn't appeal to me. There is a guy local to me that seems to sell very well, and whilst I recognise all the places he has photographed, what I don't recognise are the the over saturated colours, the vivid skies, that he has found there. IMHO, totally unbelievable, they are well over the top, but it sells well! Can't blame him for that, if it puts bread on the table!
sut68 16 2.0k 76 England
9 Jul 2008 8:57AM
Alex, I take it then, you've never shot on film then printed your own work?

Post capture manipulation was happening wayyyyyyyyy before digital ... but in the darkroom. At the end of the day Alex, the final image is what matters to me, though that said I do try not to process for too long, but 'maximising' the shot has been going on for years!!!

A lot of people nowadays shoot in RAW and a certain amount of processing needs to be done [in a RAW editor] to get the contrast and levels right. As RAW files are unprocessed and 'flat', saturation is possibly also required too. Some people may take this too far in your opinion, and that's fine, but to them it's 'right''.

It really depends upon how much you believe that not touching a shot after capture is important to you. Go and have a look at this Paul Morgan shot and see the difference it makes. I'm not saying this is right for everyone ... hell, if we all started doing the same things then it would become quite boring on here ... but it serves to show what a litte applied technique can do for you. I personally prefer the processed version Wink

Post Process / don't ... this debate has gone on for many a year and will continue to do so ... but if you've done any darkroom training, you'll appreciate it went on wayyyy before digital too!!!

Paul
looboss 13 3.1k 7 United Kingdom
9 Jul 2008 9:39AM
so, there is a difference between the stuff one gets back from boots and what you see printed in magazines! even in the old days it happened! cant be a digital thing then? Smile
pennyspike 17 2.1k 29 United Kingdom
9 Jul 2008 10:46AM
Do what pleases you.
BUT, if you look at the shot from Paul and compare the two versions, which do you prefer?
Votes/comments on the gallery pictures that feature a fair amount of processing compared to those that don't, suggest that people here prefer the pics that have impact.
It also depends on subject matter, overprocessed natural history subjects that don't reflect reality are not popular with those who know and understand their subject.
ade_mcfade 16 15.2k 216 England
9 Jul 2008 11:18AM
in the real world, you don't need to manipulate much to get the job done - if you do, you're doing it wrong

on EPZ, you're in an ivory tower of photography where real/normal shots get overlooked so to make them stand out, you need to edit lots to get them noticed.

if I did 1/10th of the work I do on my architecture shots on wedding shots, I'd never deliver anything!
macroman 17 15.3k England
9 Jul 2008 11:19AM
Of course photos were manipulated/adjusted in the darkroon, but because it was time consuming, needed some levels of skill and could be expensive if you needed several attempts to get it right (especially for colour work) it was normally kept to what was really needed.

Nowadays it's almost done as a matter of course, and because you can keep undoing and retrying indefinitely, on screen until you've got it right, almost anyone can do it by trial and error (often badly).

Nothing wrong with that, we all have to learn and all have our own views on what makes a 'good' photo, but perhaps we should think twice before we push the 'I wonder what this does' button.
agoreira 16 6.0k Wales
9 Jul 2008 11:36AM

Quote:
on EPZ, you're in an ivory tower of photography where real/normal shots get overlooked so to make them stand out, you need to edit lots to get them noticed.



Probably true, but EPZ is not the be all and end all, there are lots of pros and very good amateurs here whose work gets very little feedback or praise, but I doubt that worries them too much! They are not prepared to sell their soul just to get a few ticks, they do their own thing, they have their own style, and good for them. I suspect there are people here that sell quite well, yet don't do very well on EPZ.
sut68 16 2.0k 76 England
9 Jul 2008 11:54AM

Quote:if I did 1/10th of the work I do on my architecture shots on wedding shots, I'd never deliver anything!

... I'd be interested to see what a bride & groom shot with verticals corrected, HDR'd from 3 bracketed exposures, tonemapped and contrast curves applied with some judicious saturation looks like though Ade, just to see if there's a market for you Wink

PS: Throw in a mono conversion for good measure too please!!!

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.