[Mag]

I'm wrestling with having too many editing options, particularly with RAW. You have a photo and it is less than spectacular, so you think, I can jazz it up a bit. Well you have so many editing options it's difficult to know where you should go with it. It comes down to subjective artistic expression, what you think looks good.

Trouble is nobody else may share your subjective interpretation. This is where the skill lies, having the creative abilities, the eye to recognize what is an acceptable to many, artistic expression. I think musicians have the same problem, you can go anywhere with a song but few song creations, compared to how many songs are created, are actually hits.

However knowing a photo can be altered in almost anyway if you have the know how. I also know you must try to take the best photo you can with the camera, so you have a good foundation to work with.

Thoughts?

[navi]

KISS method applies to photography. keep it simple stupid.
too much retouching and filters can out date and look cheesey.

[charmerci]

I find that the best thing to do with photo editing is to try and get the colors as accurate to the real thing as possible. When you do this, photos come out very nicely.

As for artistic expression, that's the thing with computer editing programs, you can almost spend a lifetime making variations of a single photograph - the possibilities are limitless. 

[bside123]

It's all in the light. Go to the light... everything else follows. 

[low.pfile]

Mag

There are so many facets of photography and the answer would be different for each. And today "image making" is more prevalent than "photography" (i.e. camera phones with photo apps) So it does depend on your audience.

your comment:

... This is where the skill lies, having the creative abilities, the eye to recognize what is an acceptable to many, artistic expression.

is one I don't fully agree with, specifically the "what is acceptable". From an artistic perspective, the image that appeals to the mass audience can be fairly unoriginal, and droll. Thomas Kinkaid, the painter comes to mind.

Painting evolved from being (mostly) truly representative until photography was developed. then painting became more creative, abstract, reactive. Now photography, with all of it's digital editing options is in that stage as well.

So when you ask how much editing is too much it depends on your intent. I see so many amazing images online, that are primarily manipulated photography. I don't think any less of them than amazing paintings. But a documentary or editorial photograph of a mother and child after a natural catastrophe cannot be compared to the former. The the answer is: it depends.

From the practical side, those looking at images were usually not present at the event captured. So if you took a great photo of a guitarist wailing on stage with a powerful facial expression and you caught that amazing moment but the lighting was all green. You can tweek the RAW image to make it all blue or yellow and make the IMAGE 300% more powerful. Do you do it? I would. The image is for me and for my viewers, as I want to communicate it.

I shoot RAW most of the time but I just shoot for fun. but RAW allows us so much flexibility as you mentioned. If you truly wanted the real thing just shoot JPEG and nail the exposure and call it day.

While I am not a fan of HDR, I appreciate a good photo editor. Since my images don't go to publications, I wouldn't spend much time on it. An edit I made comes to mind 10/15 minutes in Lightroom and Photoshop. It's just a snapshot of a car on the street in Rome. but the edited image looks more representative of what I saw in my minds eye at the moment. It's not an amazing image but the edit made it better than what the camera captured—to me. Not reality but a better image.



shot with a GF2.

....the editing choice is yours.

[thunderbrick]

It's all in the light. Go to the light... everything else follows. 

+1!   

[thunderbrick]

I'm wrestling with having too many editing options, particularly with RAW. You have a photo and it is less than spectacular, so you think, I can jazz it up a bit. Well you have so many editing options it's difficult to know where you should go with it.

Thoughts?

This is way overly simplistic but I see it two ways:

1.  You shoot it with the final product in mind, and wrap it up in PS, or

2.  Shoot it then sit down in front of a computer to see what can be done, rather than just going to the changes you want.

In the first scenario, YOU use the tools.  In the second the tools use you.   

Too many people use #2, and end up with the effect-du-jour, and it becomes a cliche quickly.

I used to be in a photo group run by a woman who thought each image was just a starting point for PS, and she put down anyone who liked the photo, no matter how good it was, just as is.  That group quickly fell apart. 

Just my .02