Photo editing

[William W]

Photography, by those who do not undertake formal training in the Craft, is generally learnt differently now, than by those who took up the film 135 cameras as an “hobby” and then became interested in Photography as a Pastime.

The key significant differences are:
 the multitude of images already available in file form
 the plethora of image manipulation tools
 the increase of the screen as the common viewing device
 societies’ move to digital generally and the amount of time spent “at screen”

Even many basic mobile phones have digital editing software, for example, and humans cannot resist the temptation to “play” with the image and thereby take some ownership of it.

Add to this the fact that each year more children more often use a computer or similar device, thus increasing the number exponentially – the methodologies of taking up Photography as an hobby is now backwards to what it was previously - it now begins with the image onto the screen and thus this is why, intrinsically, there is so much emphasis on digital PP and not the Technique of the Capture.

Even many Institutions and Curricula are slanting the Course Work more and more towards Digital Post Production - in some institutions allocating many more hours than what, Wet Work, Darkroom and Print Finishing Technique were previously.

So, whilst it is necessary to understand that Digital Post Production is only the equivalent of traditional Darkroom and Photofinishing, it is reality that many people now use Digital Photofinishing as the main Tool of Trade.

Therein is the argument as to “What is Photography” and what is: “Image Creation”, if the image is created primarily by another means.

This debate is growing in respect to many Photographic Competition Rules and Judging Criteria.

Moreover, these elements have struck at the fundamental of the Teaching of Photography (and also other Subjects) and have been the topic of many Focus Groups and Professional Submissions apropos the Subject’s Content and Practical Coursework and Teaching Delivery.

WW

[William]

Quote : William W : Photography, by those who do not undertake formal training in the Craft, is generally learnt differently now, than by those who took up the film 135 cameras as an “hobby” and then became interested in Photography as a Pastime.

I had no formal training, Dad taught me on this 64/65 : http://www.butkus.org/chinon/pentax/..._spotmatic.htm, Thank goodness it had an inbuilt light meter , But you had to get it right in camera , It was actually easy to use

PS : Sorry it was actually this one : http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_...ages/asahi.htm

[William W]

I am glad your Dad taught you. Dads and Mums with a passion for what they do, are often the best teachers.

[Roo]

Everything you can do in PS could be done in the print darkroom.

working in full colour you could copy and paste, erace items, lasso items and move them, change the colour of a item in a colour picture to add colour in an in a black and white picture, pull a potion of a pic into the centre and other nifty tricks photoshop can do? Not having a crack, I understand that many of the stuff in photoshop was borne from the dark room days, even the layering of negatives where you could cut stuff out of one negative and lay it over the other one etc. I would have thought that with pixel manipulation the modern day photoshop software program would have been able to do way more than what the dark room could have done is all.

[ricktas]

working in full colour you could copy and paste, erace items, lasso items and move them, change the colour of a item in a colour picture to add colour in an in a black and white picture, pull a potion of a pic into the centre and other nifty tricks photoshop can do? Not having a crack, I understand that many of the stuff in photoshop was borne from the dark room days, even the layering of negatives where you could cut stuff out of one negative and lay it over the other one etc. I would have thought that with pixel manipulation the modern day photoshop software program would have been able to do way more than what the dark room could have done is all.

Not really, as you say, sandwiching negatives etc could be done. What photoshop has done is gotten us out of a dark-room, away from chemicals and made the process easier and faster...nothing more.

[Roo]

hmm ok that surprises me frankly, oh well live and learn, thanks for that ricktas

[William W]

Not really, as you say, sandwiching negatives etc could be done. What photoshop has done is gotten us out of a dark-room, away from chemicals and made the process easier and faster...nothing more.

The "etc" is quite important as there are many “etceteras” in the cache of skills for a competent and experienced (qualified) Darkroom Technician.

As one example (the lasso tool) - At Technical College, for the Advanced Diploma, we had to shoot 4x5 (multiple copies of the same lanscape scene at different exposures) and use a scapel to slice sections of the negs before sandwiching – so really this technique was not just sandwiching but making a new neg(s) like a gig-saw puzzle.

The join lines were smudge slightly by very gentle movements of the paper for periods of the exposure as the surrounding area was dodged, or alternatively the print finished with photo finishing dyes to remove (hide) any join lines.

The cutting part of the exercise was a technique that I never mastered completely, but the oldest fellow wearing the Grey Lab Coat and Collar and Tie (our Teacher), was a Master of it.

Ancient History, for your entertainment: (Yes we wore Grey Lab Coats and white shirts, collars and ties in the darkroom, always, at Tech: failure rate for year 1 Diploma was 60%: in Year 1 Adv. Dip. they culled about 40%, it was nothing to have one's work ripped up in front of the class if it didn't make the Teacher's standard - politically correct was not invented)


WW

[camerasnoop]

I think there are many people from the film days who thought that their prints and negatives that came back from the lab were exactly what they captured in camera. The guys at the lab would probably tell you different. They used to fix the photographers' mistakes. Photoshop has given every photographer ready to learn them, the skills that took many years to master. Thankyou for this insight William W.

[CHardy]

I have the same opinion as you ausbob, but mainly because I have seen photos that are so "overcooked" they are quite frankly horrible. I have photoshop elements 9, and I am trying to change my ideas and use it. Recently I removed a wire fence from in front of a horse....biggest change to my photos to date Unfortunately this subject brings the good and bad out in people...I left another forum before joining this one because I dared to say I didnt use photoshop. I was accused of thinking my photos were too perfect for editing
( if only they knew how wrong that statement was !)...I am led to believe that once I understand how to use elements 9 I will be more comfortable with post processing of my photos. I do know my photos would be better if I tweaked them, but at the moment, I try my hardest to get it "just right" at the time of shooting....ie no ballons popping out of someones ear etc... and I have only just begun shooting in RAW + Jpeg.. Im struggling to find the time to be bothered with editing the RAW images ( once again probably due to lack of understanding the process) . I am always on the look out for courses / workshops, but where I live there is nothing readily available. I have joined a local camera club, and next year they are separating into two groups..one for absolute beginners, and one to teach the post processing of images using photoshop...I need to split into two, so I can attend both classes Maybe after I see some of my images edited I might be a little more accepting of photoshop...who knows .......as yet I have not captured THE perfect image, but I keep trying.
PS: I hope I havent offended anyone..that is NOT my intention

[ricktas]

I think there is a difference between using photoshop and abusing photoshop. Any photo, over processed, whether in a dark room, or via photoshop is going to look bad. It is these bad end results that make people question their use of post processing.

The fact that you can identify and see that these photos are overcooked is a good start, cause you will not make the same mistakes (and they are a mistake), when you start delving into post processing. As often said, less is more, or, everything in moderation, is true for photo editing, just as it is for most other aspects of life.

Photoshop, or any other editing software, used well, can turn a great photo (out of camera), into a superb photo, but abuse of editing software can turn a great photo into a horrid mess.

Photoshop is not the evil doer, the person sitting at the computer is!

[ameerat42]

...I try my hardest to get it "just right" at the time of shooting....ie no ballons popping out of someones ear etc... and I have only just begun shooting in RAW + Jpeg... Im struggling to find the time to be bothered with editing the RAW images ( once again probably due to lack of understanding the process)...

Hi Charmaine. No offence at all from your post. You have made a good point above, "just right". There are lots of things a photographer can start to do when taking the picture. (I realise often enough when reviewing mine!)

I won't go on about the use of Photoshop etc as it's been quite adequately covered.

I hope the time comes soon when you realise that editing processing your raw images is far from being a bother. This is about the 2nd most important thing in digital photography, "developing" your raw files "just right". You will find it far more rewarding than trying to tweak some life out of a jpeg using any software, let alone P'shop.

When I had "jpeg only" cameras I'd feel exasperated sometimes in trying to get the photo to look the way I saw it at the time I took the picture. Since using raw I have never looked back. Once you get to know what you're doing you will hardly PP a jpeg again. At first I used to go raw to tiff (to tweak some more) to jpeg, but not any more. Now it's raw to jpeg (for posting on forums and printing). I still use Photoshop to fix up panoramas (stitched with yet other software).

The main reason for using raw is that it preserves much more info (and there are threads here about this, so no more here) than a jpeg, and working on a raw gives you so much extra scope. It might slow down your work rate, but not for long.

Anyway, good photographic travelling.
Am.

[William]

Can I dare say it , Yes I will , All images out of a Digital camera need some form of Post processing , Even if it is a little sharpening , PS : Another example , Finished product and original RAW out of camera , OK I know I cant show a RAW image , But this is as close as I can do to show you dont have to go overboard Original Raw converted to a tif file into PS and converted to jpeg for web viewing , No processing

Next the finished product

[zeroharm]

I am new to photography as well and agree to a point with all opinions posted here. I look at photography as an art form and appreciate all artists interpretations.. Some photos I do not like, but that is my taste and my opinion. It is not about what you look at, it is about what you see, and when I see something beautiful I do not think about how it came to be i quietly thank the photographer for making me smile.
so essentially I do not think it matters how a photo is processed, it is about what the photographer was wanting to achieve, and the joy that picture gives others. I don't take photos to win comps, I get more pleasure from sharing something I love doing with a group of likeminded people.
I know it is a bit of a fence sitting response, but I am new to this

[easty1]

Hey your not fence sitting you have made some valid points and I'm inclined to agree with you

[ausbob]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

[kiwi]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

There is no line. It's art and completely subjective. It would be like saying to Piccasso that he'd crossed the line when he made one eye bigger than the other if you see my point.

[William]

Quote : Ausbob : The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant

Of cause Bob , Thats the idea , It is more what I saw on the day than came out of Camera with the RAW Image which has no in camera processing done to it

[ameerat42]

CHardy, I think that was the point I was trying to make. I have seen a photo where the foreground and background have been removed than the remainder of the photo was tinted. It wouldn't have looked anything like the original. A good graphic artist could have replicated the image without the original photo. The photo in this thread was only enhance to make the colors more vibrant.
I suppose it's where the line is drawn with regards to changing a photo, I am still undecided??

I guess what you're saying here is that "...changing a photo..." is what you are undecided about. This thread has, however, amply covered the many ways/reasons that this can be interpreted. The two main themes have been the idea that "art" is involved, and the idea that "some PP is often necessay". I suppose that where "the line is drawn" is something that affects everybody to some extent, whether in the "art" sense, or the "required PP" sense.

Welcome to the forum: we do the foregoing here much of the time. And are there any pics to admire?

[William]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

[camerasnoop]

Bob how about showing us some of your SOOC images in the forums so we can have a look at what you are doing , Would be good to get an idea of what you consider good after all the work and help we've put into this thread - Bill

Hear! Hear!