Natural or Edited Pics?

[riddell]

The answer to this wildly differs dependant upon your definition of 'edited' and what the subject is.

For a start if you are any way making adjustments to a photo to correct a mistake then you have failed totally as a photographer.

also performing common 'editing' tasks such as replacing a sky, swopping backgrounds etc. rarely work at anything above an amateur level unless you spend a LOT of time editing it, and quite frankly you may as well have shot it right in the first place, because its quicker.

There are many, many examples where shooting right in the first place is quicker and gives better results than performing an edit.

But then sometimes its quicker and cheaper to edit an image. And if you shoot with that specific idea in mind, then I don't see it as an issue.

The most important thing to remember is an kind of editing is not there as a substitute for photography, its there to give it a polish and you should only be polishing nice things. As the old saying goes you 'can't polish a poo'

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk

[Keitht]

So is your prof really claiming that in the good old days of film photography every image was printed 'as-is' with no work in the dark room? If so he is talking absolute ....... (you add your own word). Probably the 'purest' version of photography is/was transparency work as there is little scope to modify what is seen through the viewfinder apart from using filters on camera.

[RonSutton]

Does it matter?

Personally I do very little editing but that's only because I'm not much good at it!

If we follow the professor's line of thought - that there is only one way to do things - then if we applied that rule to painting for instance we would never have moved on from, say, the style of the Old Masters. So no Van Gogh, no impressionists etc etc.

Sounds like your professor has something of a closed mind - not good for an acedemic I would have thought. Of course he could just have been playing Devils Advocate?

Ron

http://www.ronsuttonimages.com

http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/user/RonSutton

[Chris Humphreys]

Chaps....this is a spam post from somone trying to sell patio umbrella bases. I've reported it.

Interesting debate though..

[footloose1949]

Maybe it is Spam, but thinking about it, such a thing makes a brilliant all-weather mount for wildlife photography in the back garden! ... But back to the subject ...
I wonder how many people realise that the likes of Caneletto and the Dutch masters used the camera obscura in their work? The proof is there for all to see, in the reflections shown in the mirrors, glass, and the accurate perspective. between 10 and 30 years (because the resulting image took that long to produce!) after Fox Talbot took his famous Laycock Abbey photograph, the Scots Adamson and Hill worked on what is probably the worlds's first photo-montage, using 300-400 Calotypes, to produce the 5' 11" x 11' 4" 'Disruption' painting which was eventually finished in 1866. If you look at this link,
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/
because they used semi-translucent oil paints, the original images are clearly visible.
I'm guessing that building up an image as complex as this nowadays, using something like Photoshop, would tax the skills of a fair number of users, which makes their efforts over 140 years ago, all the more remarkable. Image-editing has now become so accessible and commonplace that the views held by this Tutor, just fly in the face of modern conventions. Having said that, like the electronic calculator, over time has proven to be as much a blessing as it has a curse to those teaching mathematics in schools. It's here to stay, but with it must also taken on board and addressed more vigorously by the Media, the very dubious shenanigans that a minority of photographers will employ in order to get that 'perfect' shot which picture Editors want. I also gather some news-agencies now supply their 'Togs' with cameras which produce image files that address this issue.

[photographyxfactor]

If you're using photoshop I recommend opening both photos (yours and theirs) and adding a desaturation layer to both, so you are just looking at tonal values. Then add a curves layer to your photo and try to match the tonal values of the their photo. Once you have a good match, delete the desaturation layer. This makes it easier to focus on just the tones instead of the colors.

[Marlon]

I like natural pics more than edited pics, because natural pics are more beautiful and nice.

[james66]

I agree, a natural picture has a lot more quality. I am fed up at looking at over cooked images that don't even look like photographs. People use photoshop to cover over the cracks and their photos end up looking like a rotten window frame with a bad paint job. Photoshop should be used just to "finnish" the image not to patch it up.