Just a question

[Ruski]

Since getting interested in photography over the last couple of months one aspect that i didn't realise was how many photographers use photo editing software to post process their images. Now i know they go hand in hand and in an ideal world it would be good to be good at both of these things but the question in my mind is..are you better off to be a good photographer with bad photo editing skills or a bad photograper with good photo editing skills.

I am a new to all of this so hope that this is not a silly question but just wondered what other peoples thoughts were on this.

Ruski

[crf529]

A good photographer won't need any extensive editing prowess to produce good images, whereas a bad photographer will be entirely dependant on it...

[kiwi]

I like that answer :-)

You can be a good or even great photographer without editing skills, but, you'd also be significantly disadvantaged and cutting yourself short if you aren't very good at both

My nanny told me that you can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.

[Ms Monny]

One of the quotes that has been put around this forum is (and I whole heartedly agree) - "get it right in camera first!".
You still need to learn all the aspects of good photography because no amount of PP is going to fix a bad photo.

Trust me, I know. I posted a photo up here back in Jan/Feb and I couldn't get it right. Others tried to make it better but it was a crap photo - the light was at the wrong time of the day, it was totally overcast and it was a dull, flat, lifeless image that just couldn't be make to look even slightly good.

So, you can make a good photo great with PP, but not a bad photo. PP should be done on all digital images anyway, especially if you shoot RAW - sharpening, levels, white balance etc, but the rest really just enhance the image that you have IMHO.

[mikew09]

I like that answer :-)

You can be a good or even great photographer without editing skills, but, you'd also be significantly disadvantaged and cutting yourself short if you aren't very good at both

My nanny told me that you can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.

Me too - that answer about sums it up.

[ksolomon]

Agree with Ms Monny comments, I too have taken and posted here a bad photo of the SS Dickie and there was nothing anyone could do to make it better.

From all the photographers I have learnt from (here and others) the main thing is to learn and understand photography and get it right in camera, every image taken in Raw needs processing in some way. If you think back to film all film had to be developed and processed in a dark room, similar with Digital our "darkroom" is now our computer and editing software. I have also learnt on this forum that if you do not process your image it will remain flat, soft etc. You need to bring your image to life (so to speak)

Just my 2 cents

[James T]

Both are important skills. Whether you possess one, the other, both or neither doesn't really matter. Do what you like doing.

On a professional level, some people do both, others do one or the other.

Examples; many in advertising photography will have a person or whole team who process for them in-house. Others will outsource it. Others will hand over to the client who then employs a post production team to work on them.

Marcus Bleasdale, one of the best documentary photographers around today, outsources much of his post production work to a team of digital wizards. Of course he will be the one who does the edit (choosing the photographs that get processed). And yes, post production is just as important in documentary work, non of this 'straight out of camera' rubbish.

[Nikkie]

No matter what we do in life there is always somethings were better at and others not so good at most things will go hand in hand a mechanic can't fix a car with out his tools a cook can't cook with out a kitchen a doctor can't do his or her job with out his tools. I look at photo editing programs a tool that is available to be used did the photographer of yesteryear have a dark room ? bet ya life he/she did now days we have digital camera's and digital dark room think about how could a photographer do photography with out the his aides all the things we use to help us are good things lens tripods and of cause out digital dark room our editing darkrooms

[Bennymiata]

Here's a good example of what PP can do for you.

This is the original image.
FireFlowersOrig-6771.jpg

The exposure etc are fine, but the photo is flat and uninteresting.

Now, with a bit of PP in Lightroom it looks like this

June11-(6-of-7)-2.jpg

Once you get familiar with using the software, you'll find that the computer work is almost as much fun as the actual taking of the photos.
Once someone can show you what to do and how to do it, you'll find it quite easy to learn and once you've learned a few things, it's easy to try more and more and you'll find what seems very daunting in the beginning, to be easy and a lot of fun to do.

[ricktas]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-..umm-why-not

The answer is in this link

[triptych]

I love editing as much as I love taking the photo, I am slowly getting better at both photography and editing and I just LOVE photoshop.

But in saying that I love when I dont have to do alot of editing on a photo, its satisfying!

It all depends on your style, and I believe that editing skills are a very important part of photography.

[geoffsta]

It pretty much sums it up in the above posts.
I have a 2 minute rule with my photos. If it looks like it will take more than 2 minutes to process, I leave it alone, or delete it.
Mind you I have a slow computer. If I had my sons computer, I'd bring that down to a 30 second rule.
What I do is open in camera raw, adjust exposure, contrast and maybe add a bit of clarity. (If it needs it) Then I open it in CS5, check the curves, save it as a .tiff file, and then save it for the web, so I can upload it to flickr.

[James T]

It pretty much sums it up in the above posts.
I have a 2 minute rule with my photos. If it looks like it will take more than 2 minutes to process, I leave it alone, or delete it.
Mind you I have a slow computer. If I had my sons computer, I'd bring that down to a 30 second rule.
What I do is open in camera raw, adjust exposure, contrast and maybe add a bit of clarity. (If it needs it) Then I open it in CS5, check the curves, save it as a .tiff file, and then save it for the web, so I can upload it to flickr.

Of course it depends on what you're doing. For example, if I've shot 1,200 images at an event, I'll try to spend less than 30 seconds on each one where I can. But, if I'm putting together some complex composite with 30 layers in Photoshop, I'll generally spend a bit longer on it.

Out of interest, why take your images into PS for curves adjustments? At the raw stage you have more data to shuffle around.

[geoffsta]

why take your images into PS for curves adjustments

I like to just last minute check before I save as a .tiff (Monitor is not calibrated) I'm also not all that good with Photoshop, but I'm slowly getting there.

complex composite with 30 layers in Photoshop

Boy.. Would I like to know how to do that.

[rookie]

I like that answer :-)


My nanny told me that you can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear.

just a little bit picky but should that be a sows ear

[James T]

just a little bit picky but should that be a sows ear

I challenge you to make one out of either..

EDIT: and while we're being picky, it would be sow's, not sows.

[I @ M]

just a little bit picky but should that be a sows ear

I challenge you to make one out of either..

EDIT: and while we're being picky, it would be sow's, not sows.

C'mon guys, this is Kiwi we are talking about, he is used to only having to deal with sheep.

Maybe it should be a ewe's ear.

[Nikkie]

C'mon guys, this is Kiwi we are talking about, he is used to only having to deal with sheep.

Maybe it should be a ewe's ear.

sorry I just could not stop laughing so funny

[kiwi]

Defriend x 3

[KLi]

Post process is part of photography, just like how chefs learns to plate up.