julesannb

I am new to this forum and fairly new to photography, but finally have the time to learn and enjoy photography and maybe sell some prints. I always wonder and marvel at the beauty of the images on this forum, but I am curious. Why do photographers need to edit or manipulate images to look so much more colorful and sometimes almost unworldly? Well, not sure what words to use. Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say. I realize the need to crop or correct under exposure or other flaws, but should we manipulate the image to look far superior to what we actually see through the viewfinder? For instance, like most people, I love seeing stunning magazine images of the Grand Canyon, but they always look more vividly colored and have more contrasts and shadows verses what the canyon looks like to the naked eye. I’m just curious as to how other photographers feel about this. Please go easy on this newbie if this is not a proper topic for here.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Welcome to the forum. I am a natural guy. I just Crop, correct exposure, clone stamp. That's me and I am happy with it.

Just cropped image and tweaked exposure

So it will be your decision as to the level of manipulation you want to do in Post Processing.

(Download)

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

The photographers who post on UHH have a wide variety of styles. Some want only natural shots and others go through many stages of manipulation to get the picture they want to present. Everyone has their own style and you can benefit from seeing what everyone can do.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

You'll see everything from no processing to over-processing.
Depends in the individual's likes, or dislikes and their interpretation.

Igbar

I too enjoy a more *natural* form of photography. I use sw for crop, straighten or color/luminescence when needed. There are those that take a picture of a person on a blank screen and put them in various environments .. not for me. To each their own.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

If you shoot in jpg format you will get images, as interpreted by your camera, fully processed and ready to display. That is just like the old point shoot cameras. If you shoot in RAW format you will, by definition, be required todo some basic processing, a RAW to jpg program of some kind, to get a presentable image.

Photogirl17 Loc: Glenwood, Ark.

Wonderful Capture Stan..

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Good question. To begin your journey to understanding, begin with an investigation of RAW that requires the photographer to edit all their images. Just use google for 'RAW vs JPEG' and read the many photography sites that will be in the search results for your first bit of research. Related topics would be: HDR, WB and Picture Styles.

There's an infinity of possible edits between exactly as your eye witnessed the scene and how the camera captures the scene and how / if the photographer over-bakes their edited result. If you shot film back in the day, you might already know you could select films that were more or less saturated as well as you could over- or under-exposure against the camera's suggested meter and achieve wildly different returns in the processed film. You could also perform any number of darkroom tricks to manipulate the image, things that are now done on computers.

You should seek to develop your own unique photography style, whether forensic 'as-is' ness through highly artistic saturation and color adjustments. You'll probably land somewhere in between these extremes.

"Photography has no rules, it is not a sport. It is the result which counts, no matter how it is achieved." ~ Bill Brandt

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

julesannb, here comes a semantics discussion. I process my photos. The process starts with selecting an exposure that will capture the scene so that processing will provide the image I imagined it to be when I took the photo. Editing, manipulating, and retouching are reserved for those photos in which I intend to partake of those technical tools.

When doing the majority of my photography, I expose to place the scene's values in their appropriate Zones. In processing, I adjust the image to achieve the tonal values I saw in the original scene. I use burning and dodging to adjust tonal relationships.
--Bob

Bob Mevis Loc: Plymouth, Indiana

I prefer as natural as possible. Perhaps a crop or slight color adjustment. Welcome to the forum.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

It is an artistic or client driven decision.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

The current genre in digital photography seems to be to over-saturate. I don't care for it. That is me. IMHO it will make the image look dated in short order when the craze changes. But it is the current "craze" and many (but not all) subscribe to it. Perhaps it sells. But obviously there is a limit. When does it stop? It stops when suddenly somebody does something different and it gets the attention of the masses, because it's different. You can join this rat race or make things that look good to you. Your choice.

You as the artist are free to use artistic license as you see fit and to create the images that you like. I encourage you to do just that.

srt101fan

You say:
"Why do photographers need to edit or manipulate images to look so much more colorful and sometimes almost unworldly?"

I hear you julesannb. I wonder about that myself. I have nothing against manipulations such as photo composites or artistic renditions that use bold colors to make a visual statement. But I think you are talking about something else.

It seems to be a given these days that, with some exceptions, images, particularly landscapes, have to have very vivid colors. No pale green trees or gray rocks allowed! Light blue clear skies? Bad! Photoshop in a dramatic sky that would cause a turtle to withdraw into its shell.... Normal, natural colors are boring, they have to be pumped up to make a good photo.

As to why.... I think it's a cultural shift. Subtlety is out; loud, in-your-face, over-the-top is in. When was the last time you heard a ballad on the radio?

Go your own way; chart your own course. But, if you're trying to sell photos, you might have to kick up the colors. From what I've read, that's what photo buyers want.

Good luck and happy shooting....

AnthonyBiss Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Welcome to the forum. The question is subjective. Every one sees an object in their own likes and dislikes base on what one's eye sees and processes by our brain. Natural, while is the way to go, it all depends on using the camera normal metering system vs a grey card approach that will require minimal adjustment in keeping with the natural image of the object. Remember the light spectrum plays a major part in whether you must post process minimally or extensive in what one expects the image to be. Fall colors is a great example to play around with. No two photographer will see an object in the same way. For me, it's natural where possible.
Dr.Al

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I think you're already starting to realise that much of it is a matter of vocabulary. "Natural" can mean so many things. So can the word "strengthen". The simple fact is most shots can be strengthened in one way or another. The problem is those same processes create the possibility of over-cooking - i.e. overdoing things. It's an easy mistake to make and the skills required to avoid it require a constant process of making fine judgments and looking for a fine balance point (which means a bit more work).

Some say that it's all a matter of taste and intent, but the simple fact is there are a lot of things that can be described as bad decisions and even mistakes. Over-cooking is one of the most common mistakes that the more experienced post processors learn to avoid.

You're looking for the right kind of mind set so I'll describe my own approach to PP and hopefully you'll find something to relate to and possibly adopt:-

A a general rule, most situations don't provide ideal circumstances for taking the shot that you had in mind. Is there some rule book somewhere which stipulates that you must accept what circumstances have provided? No. Is there anything wrong with using PP to bring a shot closer to what it would have been like if it had been taken under ideal circumstances? No.

NB. So far I haven't said anything which excludes the possibility of retaining a natural look. With the right skills it's possible to apply significant amounts of strengthening and boosting and still end up with something that looks natural. Learning to identify and avoid an over-cooked look is one of the most useful PP skills that you can develop.