To Edit or not to Edit. That is the question (Page 2): Fully agree, as it would give us a far greater understanding of where the op is coming from.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

via the lens wrote:

I think you should show some of your "perfect" shots so we can see by example and learn.

Fully agree, as it would give us a far greater understanding of where the op is coming from.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I agree with you completely. I'm not against editing which I believe I stated in the state if this thread. I believe in each to his own. I crop occasionally I will adjust exposure and every now and again I do some hdr combining just for kicks. What I guess I'm trying to say is what I believe I ask. How about a place for unedited photos. A place to post our straight photos so the camera skill is what is being measured.

What transparency film will you be shooting then? An unedited digital photo looks something like the image below. That's a photo of one of my wife's lilies. And it really is unedited from the camera. Is that what you're talking about? I don't see the point.

If on the other hand you're talking about the JPEG image your camera creates -- that's a highly edited image, because it starts out just like the image below. All digital photos must be edited -- the only option is who does the editing.

Joe

jcboy3

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

Good evening fellow Hoggers. I am having trouble w... (show quote)

You don’t have to edit if you don’t want to. Shoot JPG. Shoot slide film. That’s what I used to do.

But you must realize that your images are not what you see. Because as you move your eyes about a scene, you change focus, change exposure, compensate for color balance, and ignore some elements of the scene.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

jcboy3 wrote:

You don’t have to edit if you don’t want to. Shoot JPG. Shoot slide film. That’s what I used to do.

But you must realize that your images are not what you see. Because as you move your eyes about a scene, you change focus, change exposure, compensate for color balance, and ignore some elements of the scene.

JPEG images are edited by the camera prior to you seeing them. There is no option for a completely unedited digital image, even RAW files may have a bit of tweaking prior to you seeing them. I don't understand why the fascination with what used to be, although even that was not really the case. Many film images were edited in multiple ways. I also don't understand why someone can say "O, it's ok if you do this, but not that." Really???? And why is it ok to "edit" by the use of filters while shooting, would that not also be a type editing the "natural" scene? In the "old days" photographers put vaseline on the lens to get a softer feel, was that not editing? There appears to be no rational thought about this subject.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I agree with you completely. I'm not against editi... (show quote)

As a new member, you might not be aware of the many specialized sections. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the 'all sections' link. Then, subscribe to those that interest you. I wouldn't expect anyone to second your idea of a dedicated SOOC section. If you haven't been into the Photo Gallery, you should, as you'll find plenty of SOOC being posted daily in all their glory.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

JohnSwanda wrote:

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. First of all, I'm not sure I believe any photo is perfect. There are certainly things in a photo which can't be fixed. You can't fix lousy composition, you can't fix out of focus, you can't fix large exposure errors, get detail in blown highlights. You can't fix excessive noise.

The statement isn't really that absurd. There are skilled digital illustrators who can create a deceptively photo-realistic image from nothing - from a "blank canvas", as they would call it. With such skills, virtually any photo edit is possible. Of course it may require dozens of hours of pain-staking work and frequent zooming down to pixel level, but it can be done.

srt101fan

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I agree with you completely. I'm not against editi... (show quote)

You pose some interesting thoughts but a separate place for posting un-edited photos just doesn't make sense to me. You say you want a "place to post our straight photos so the camera skill is what is being measured." How do you define a "straight" photo and what camera skills are you evaluating?

In the creation of a "straight" photo, would you allow use of in-camera adjustments such as contrast, sharpness, monochrome settings, saturation, etc.? If so, how does this differ, in terms of your criteria for "straight" shots, from shooting RAW and then making similar adjustments with editing software?

You seem to imply that editing is done only to improve images that should have been taken better in the first place. I'm curious what you think of photographers who pre-visualize their final image and INTENTIONALLY use exposure settings that produce crappy straight-out-of-the-camera images but great edited photos.

In some ways I can see something in your idea of learning by comparing "unedited imperfect pics". But I don't think a separate UHH section for doing this is practical.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I agree with you completely. I'm not against editi... (show quote)

Since what you wish for will not get much support in this forum, perhaps the Nat Geo Your Shot web site with its rules about using minimal lighting changes and cropping and absolutely no alterations will be better suited to your wishes. But you could still hang out with all the old geezers here and trade ideas. Besides, someone with the skills you have would be a perfect fit in the Post Processing Digital Images section. I think your input would be appreciated on the images presented.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rook2c4 wrote:

The statement isn't really that absurd. There are skilled digital illustrators who can create a deceptively photo-realistic image from nothing - from a "blank canvas", as they would call it. With such skills, virtually any photo edit is possible. Of course it may require dozens of hours of pain-staking work and frequent zooming down to pixel level, but it can be done.

We're not talking about starting from nothing. Of course you could take ANY photo and erase it and make an illustration. You could fix blown highlights by just drawing in some detail. Bad composition? just draw your own. But that's not photo editing.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

via the lens wrote:

Actually, with digital photography you don't have ... (show quote)

Are you telling me you cannot create an image in Photoshop? Please. I don't know why anyone is offended and aggressive. I simply ask if anyone else did not prefer to edit. Then praised all those who do edit. No wonder the world is odd. People do not read what is written. I'm becoming aggravated with every negative comment because if you cannot create an image in Photoshop you need more training. Lol

Linary Loc: UK

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

Good evening fellow Hoggers. I am having trouble w... (show quote)

We do have a Post Processing Section on the Forum which may well fit your needs and also you may teach us a thing or two about improving photos.

The section can be found at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

Don't forget to subscribe

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

Linary wrote:

We do have a Post Processing Section on the Forum which may well fit your needs and also you may teach us a thing or two about improving photos.

The section can be found at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

Don't forget to subscribe

Thank you very much. I feel that if I can see and share unedited photos I can get advice on how to improve. Thank you again Bob

Brokenland

mwsilvers wrote:

There is no camera in existence that can capture a... (show quote)

Instead of attempting to answer the opers question, you attempt to discredit what I've said. Just another reason I'll never take sides or argue anything I've said or done with anyone here. Stop attempt to find flaws in others or others methods. Opers as for opinions mines is but one of them. He or she can take it or leave it. So don't try to convince me i'm right or wrong. After all it is how I view and do things. It is what it is and I think I'm doing very will with this "zero editing" movement.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

There is no such thing as SOOC. To get the image it must be jpg only. The camera software does the processing for you.

There is a difference to me in processing an image or editing one. Editing you can mask areas and adjust light and make things you want the viewer to focus on. Through editing you can hopefully create an image you had vision of.

We are talking two different types of photographers here and either way is fine. What I see a lot of though is photographers telling others what they must do. We each develop our own styles and methods over time.

Myself, I want to create, and choose to do a lot of HDR. It is my thing, as I like the saturation I can get, like the old slide film Kodachrome. I also like the dynamic range and trying my best to control that takes some computer time I willingly will spend doing. This can't be done without editing.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Bokehen wrote:

My advice, don't edit anything, you're projecting a false image ......

Are you suggesting that by editing you are projecting a "false" image of what your eyes saw, or, of what the camera produced?