Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I do follow much the same guidelines, not because I am a photojournalist but because that is the kind of photos I tend to like. At times I do try out something more in the artistic realm, usually to try out some new software that is geared to that use. Generally I don't like the results but the occasional exception is when I convert an image to monochrome (or something close to monochrome) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-598125-1.html.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Limited, yes, but unedited, not likely if you consider any changes you make in the camera or on your computer to be editing.

If you frame and compose your image properly in the camera, it's possible to get a decent JPEG that may require little or no editing at all on your computer.

Those of us who used transparency film, especially Kodachrome, learned to do this instinctively and avoided scenarios where we knew it would fail.

I currently shoot both JPEG and raw. Because I know that some of the shots may need some correction, I typically transfer both versions from the camera into the editor but edit only the raw files. Other than what happens during leveling, I don't crop. Because most of what I shoot is in daylight, I almost never fiddle with color balance and leave it set on Daylight. Occasionally I might recover some shadows but just as often I will do the opposite - make them darker.

But for about half of my images, a properly composed and exposed image cannot be improved on with raw development. This may involve setting up your camera to something other than the default JPEG settings.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

The moment you make an exposure you are making edits of a sort with your camera. The camera does immediate processing which we don't call Post because it's instant, that is, based on choices made before the picture is taken. When you use only SOOC JPG files, that forces you to think about everything up front instead of relying on post for things like framing, shadows, highlights, hues, etc. You save a lot of space by throwing away the RAW data once the in-camera processor converts it to JPG. it's not a bad skill to work on. You just have to accept the times when you don't get a special moment quite right and then feel like you're in a V8 commercial, saying "I could'a had a RAW file!"

ratjones

I think the function of editing boils down to making an image conform to what the photographer visualized. Keeping in mind that the human eye sees things in a different way than current cameras present to us right out of the gate (when the photographer presses the shutter release)... it would seem to me reasonable that you would want to manipulate an image only as far as you originally conceptualized the final result to be. I have found that every camera I have owned has given me an image that is close to what I wanted - but never exactly what I wanted - even with all sorts of external lighting manipulations and camera adjustments - I have never found an image to be perfectly alligned to my vision from the get go - Therefore I will tweak said image to the point I am satisfied. I recently purchased a Nikon Z6 mirrorless camera... I have found this camera to come closer to what I visualize - and thus, I enjoy doing very little editing compared to previous photographic gear.

Cheapshot Loc: California.

Don't take pictures...make pictures! You can do a quick edit in LightRoom in 15 seconds and then move on with your life. These pictures almost always look better than the originals.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you think the photo looks 'photoshopped', just use Affinity or ON1 or any of the other PS competitors ...

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Please excuse if duplicating didn't read all post; Took a little time to wrapping my head around camera RAW, the way I resolved it’s a data image and not a photograph. (keep your shirt on I know the thread is about editing) You create the photograph by developing the raw data not editing, much like film you developed in your lab or someone did for you commercially.
I have no problem with anyone editing their photograph anyway they would like, some I like some I don’t. However I don’t think you should judge ability of a photographer on editing its relating your photograph to someone else the way you would like.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Adobe earned that pejorative but you can screw up an image with almost any post-processing software.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I usually edit to the way I saw the picture which is often not the way it comes out of the camera.

Photec

Remember, PHOTOGRAPHY means LIGHT WRITING. As a photographer you are writing a story using light. As an author, you have the choice of writing your story however you want it. It can be a true to life, unaltered depiction of exactly what your camera saw, or it can be a totally fabricated image of what your mind has made up. Just as in Art, there are many different categories of photographic images from court room legal, Unaltered; to totally fictional, Altered Reality, images. Artists have been creating these images forever. Just make it the way you want the world to see it.

coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA

The only way to make a comparison of unedited SOOC images is to limit the subject images to one camera brand and model with a specified firmware version; and to limit the camera lens to a single model with (if appropriate) a specified firmware version. Without these restrictions, each image is subject in some degree to the editing decisions made by the camera.

NatureRocks

Galen Rowell, who was an exceptional mountaineer and photographer, always argued that the picture you shot should be the picture you print. Ansel Adams obviously complied with those strictures, but also he worked diligently in a darkroom to optimize images. So, the line, if there is such a thing, between unedited and edited is at least blurry, if not non-existent. I do object to photos that obviously have been "cooked" through addition of other images, etc. But in efforts to maximize macro images of leaves, I have allowed myself to introduce colors that are at best only somewhat connected to the colors in the original. I would suggest that any photo has to undergo some type of evaluation and probably 'improvements,' if only correction of light. When images are cooked, however, that should be make explicit, so the viewer recognizes the nature of the process giving forth the final image. And, sometimes the cooking really does enhance the artistic qualities. On other occasions, the cooking approximates a McDonald's burger: better to not know what they did to the thing.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Wow, your response is interesting...somewhat "aggravated" and "offended" and I really was not trying to do that to you, only giving you my opinion and I did not think it was any of the things you said. Yes, if I were an illustrator I might be able to create an image in PS, although then I would actually use Illustrator as a friend of mine does. Images are not generally created in PS, original images are altered in PS. An image created in Illustrator, or actually created if that happened in PS, would be called an alternative image or something similar, not a photograph. What I said to you was that every digital photograph is edited, I don't think that is offensive, just a truth. I'd say you are a bit sensitive and perhaps reading things into responses that are not there simply because many of us don't agree with you. It's your art, do it your way.

maranatha

I don't edit for the simple reason I don't know how but if I could I would spent most of my life with film but admire the excellent photos I see here