"I hate photoshopping and I hate editing"

[Dylan & Marianne]

I don't want to implicate any individual for the line above and I suspect it may have been taken out of context , but
That was the caption beneath a picture published locally (in a newspaper) quoting the photographer.

Your thoughts /reactions?

I'd imagine that with photoshop's bad press to the general public , many people would be thinking 'good on you!'
As a photographer, my personal reaction was a mixture of and

The image by the way, was a good one of a local icon

[Bennymiata]

The photographer probably has no knowledge of Photoshop, and is too scared to use it.

He/She can't be much of a photographer either.

[livio]

I think everyone will have an opinion on this, personally I think that when processing digital images photo shop is a requirement. The adobe Light Room product is good but it is a crippled version of photoshop. For the purists they will depend on getting the image right through the camera, I have to admit I'm in this camp. I have also seen many a young photographer fix up their images with photoshop and enhance the image. When taking portraits, wedding photos, significant events photoshop is your friend. If your paying customer is happy with the result you can be assured you will have bought someone joy. If anything photoshop is more of an artists tool but then so is a digital camera. If you really want purity and photographic skills you need to specialise on a medium to large format cameras shooting on film.

[JM Tran]

Well, maybe he would prefer a Polaroid camera then, zero processing and editing, instant gratification

[fess67]

I prefer to post process. I actually enjoy it even though I am not good at it. For me it is an additional aspect to my hobby.

However, let me take a balanced view. It is perfectly possible to get very good images in camera and take them in JPG form. No need to process and perfectly acceptable results. If he was more moderate in his language and stated he sees no need to photoshop or edit as he takes care to get it right in camera then it may have been more acceptable. Of course creating it as a JPG is in itself processing however you get the gist.

[arthurking83]

I can relate the general idea.

Not that I'm a big fan of Photoshop, but I don't care either way which editing program I use ..

the process of editing is tiresome and cumbersome and tedious.

I suppose I'm the type that likes cheap thrills and everything done for me .. all I want is a camera that knows what I want from my images and they come out looking the way I want them too straight out of camera!




Seriously tho I don't particularly enjoy editing, as I'd rather be doing something else, so I like trying to stick with the simple edits in life using simple editor software, but on occasion I've enjoyed watching an image 'come to life' with tweaking here and there, but on the flip side I've had more enjoyment seeing an image the way I wanted it to be SOOC.

[ameerat42]

This basic issue - PP - has been raised before, along with a substantial degree of ire, in a thread roughly titled "To PP or not to PP", or p's and q's to that effect.
Or have we all 4-gotten it and all the heated P's and Q's?
m.

[Siggi]

I can relate the general idea.

Not that I'm a big fan of Photoshop, but I don't care either way which editing program I use ..

the process of editing is tiresome and cumbersome and tedious.

I suppose I'm the type that likes cheap thrills and everything done for me .. all I want is a camera that knows what I want from my images and they come out looking the way I want them too straight out of camera!




Seriously tho I don't particularly enjoy editing, as I'd rather be doing something else, so I like trying to stick with the simple edits in life using simple editor software, but on occasion I've enjoyed watching an image 'come to life' with tweaking here and there, but on the flip side I've had more enjoyment seeing an image the way I wanted it to be SOOC.

I'm with you on most of the thoughts but I do have to say its also nice when you tweak that little bit extra out of a already good shot.

[jim]

Perfectly fair comment; perhaps they became a photographer because they like taking photographs, not out of love of sitting in front of a computer editing them.

Of course digital photos generally do need some post processing, but that's a different issue.

[mpb]

I totally agree, I hate photoshopping and editing too, however I do realise that it is necessary and as I shoot raw it is a necessary part of my process.

[JM Tran]

when I was working in a photo lab developing photos for ppl who drop off rolls of film, a lot of them think by pressing the shutter button thats all there is to having a nice photo

but developing negatives and positives is a laborious effort for film, just as it is for digital processing and editing in front of the comp. Not to mention we also do some slight tweaking for them to better the exposure or white balance etc, thus giving ppl a false impression they got it right in camera

ignorance is bliss for some I guess

[Dylan & Marianne]

I can relate to it as well - Marianne for a start hates editing images hence I end up doing alot of them lol
It depends on how you expect your general audience to interpret the comment though
To me, I think it just adds to the bulk of bad press out there about post processing - I should add that the previous editorial line before the quote read " [insert description of gorgeous scene] ....and its all 'natural' ....[insert the quote]
'natural' ? really?
ps. arthur, I also love it when all I have to do is export , sharpen and resize for the images that look great SOOC - I actually like post processing though !

[Seabee]

It's all part of the digital process for me and I enjoy both sides to 'digital photography'.
I don't think you can have one without the other and how far you delve into either side is completely subjective to the individual and the end purpose!
As with all things you can either enhance or destroy!
It is simply a game of scales and balance............... We really need to stop comparing to film, they are two separate beasts but with many similar attributes!!

It is technology and fads have come and gone with it already in a short period of time!
It will keep evolving as we will also.
How much you do of either is completely in line with where one is at in their ' learning stage'

When skilled at something it is hardly noticeable............ When learning, mistakes are glaring!
So yes learn to get it right in camera and editing becomes less.......
Or learn to do both seamlessly well and the two beats can serve you very well!
Give them both their due to those that take the time to study them artfully!

[ricktas]

I bet a heap of people just rolled there eyes and thought 'here we go again'

People who state this, generally do so, cause they do not know HOW to post process WELL, and use it as an excuse to cover their own failings.

[farmer_rob]

when I was working in a photo lab developing photos for ppl who drop off rolls of film, a lot of them think by pressing the shutter button thats all there is to having a nice photo

but developing negatives and positives is a laborious effort for film, just as it is for digital processing and editing in front of the comp. Not to mention we also do some slight tweaking for them to better the exposure or white balance etc, thus giving ppl a false impression they got it right in camera

ignorance is bliss for some I guess

Film development may well require laborious effort, but it was someone else's effort. Now it is all my effort!

However, I like the reality that it is now in my control. My dislike is the time, and that i am often not happy with the result (so get it as close to right in camera, which really means "take more time early to avoid wasting time late").

Regards,
Rob

[LJG]

Probably pretty right there Rick. I am pretty hopeless with PP and like the photographer in question I hate doing it. Maybe if I actually liked sitting in front of a computer I may get better at it. I sit in front of a computer every day for a living so it is the last thing I want to do on my leisure time. The actual getting out and shooting is what I prefer. I try to get it as right as I can in camera, so minimal processing is required. The photographer in question also did not say the image was not processed or edited, that this is just his general feeling on the subject.

I do not think people can jump to the conclusion that a person is a bad photographer just because they do not like doing processing or editing. As Dylan pointed out Marianne doesn't like doing it either, and I defy anybody to say she is a bad photographer because of that reason, as she is an outstanding photographer. The 2 different camps, edit or not edit, are probably as divided as the Nikon / Canon camps and each side will ferociously defend their particular feelings on the matter.

[rellik666]

I do not think people can jump to the conclusion that a person is a bad photographer just because they do not like doing processing or editing. As Dylan pointed out Marianne doesn't like doing it either, and I defy anybody to say she is a bad photographer because of that reason, as she is an outstanding photographer. The 2 different camps, edit or not edit, are probably as divided as the Nikon / Canon camps and each side will ferociously defend their particular feelings on the matter.

The thing is people who associate PP with doing something dodgy. Marianne doesn't like PP but understands that it is mostly necessary as she gets Dylan to do it!

I actually enjoy it, but don't have the time to put into it to learn to do it better. And there in lies the problem for most. In years gone by you would take the picture and give it to someone else to develop. Now you do the developing yourself. I know this isn't for the pro or serious amateur who probably developed their own anyhow, but for the majority it is.

[gerry]

There is a good article regarding PS in regard to landscape stuff, its a good read and teh comments are also worthwhile reading (yes i know thats rare)

I think many people fall into a trap when talking about this subject. They assume there is a right way to process photos. There is also a general lack of understanding about how digital photography has completely changed the way we process photos. Photoshop and other photo applications are the digital darkroom.

This debate boils down to the philosophy and intent of the photographer. For a documentary photographer, except for maybe sharpening and minor tonality tweaks, processing tends to take away from the veracity of an image.

http://www.photocascadia.com/blog/ho...-zack-schnepf/

[davearnold]

I am another one who enjoys the "processing" as much (probably more then) taking the photos .... so many differnet paths for different results to go down.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I like Zack's stuff he happens to also be a very 'aggressive' editor of his images as is Marc Adamus
The said image in the paper was a landscape image

And once again I'd like to stress that the quote may have been taken out of context - for all we know, the photographer may have said "Images in digital media these days require some degree of refinement, especially landscapes where the end result is a presentation of fine art. However , I hate photoshopping and I hate editing ......so I try to get it as correct as possible in camera"