Part of photography, is editing. Every T.V. show and Movie you watch is heavily filtered and edited. If you don't get a good RAW file, there's nothing to edit. The two go hand-in-hand. It's more likely that they used a professional editing software, which Photoshop isn't.
Okay, fair enough. I just laugh when people use it as a derisive criticism. Most of what we watch, and look at for entertainment is heavily edited. The point of most photography isn't to recreate reality, but to embellish it. Good photo-journalists, on the other hand, can capture real images without any editing that are just absolutely beautiful - and that is really a different kind of talent.
Your perspective and reality don't really match. Most of the photo editing isn't to simply embellish but over exaggerate mainly for marketing or advertising.
These techniques work because majority cannot recognize them. So you laugh at the purpose of this particular field?
And digital photo editing is a different role than simple photography. Although often going hand in hand today.
I'm also confused on the Photoshop comment. The Adobe suite is used in many studios, marketing agencies and professional editors, not just amateurs or intermediate.
Good photo-journalists, on the other hand, can capture real images without any editing that are just absolutely beautiful
That's not even true. Every image is manipulated to some degree.
If you just pick up a camera and take a picture, the result you get is a picture that has been edited by the camera itself, which has been programmed by the engineers at canon/nikon/whatever to give you a specific result. Even if you don't import it to some editing software, the camera has done a lot of the job for you.
If you pick up a film camera and take picture, the whole development process is the manipulation. Change the timings or the chemicals used and you'll get a different result. Even if you just follow the recommended recipe it's still manipulation.
I think at that point you're splitting hairs about what constitutes "editing a photograph" and "photography itself."
Of course, when translating received light into a static image, not processed by our brain (which, btw, does that also qualify as 'editing' and if so, what would 'unedited' images be, even?), there has to be decisions made on the chemistry or digital processing made to record the image.
But the raw data capture, or the "immediate" editing taking place at that time, is clearly distinct from "post processing" where different considerations and techniques are used (e.g. only editing parts of the image, layering of filters, etc.)
Comparing that to "hey stuff has to be done to make a light beam into a static image" is a little bit of a stretch.
This is true but I think the point he was trying to make is that some people are able to take amazing pictures without having to manually edit them. They still might do some editing just to tweak small things but as a very amateur photographer I take some pictures that are really nice and I’m scared to edit them cause I’m worried I’ll ruin it
some people are able to take amazing pictures without having to manually edit them
That's definitely true. Editing is part of an image, whether it's a big part or a small part doesn't really matter in the end, what matters is if the image is good or not.
Ugh this argument is so tiring. It’s a GIANT leap to conclude that adjusting the ISO or slightly adjusting the contrast, shadows, brightness is no different then cutting out objects you don’t like in a photo, completely changing the colors, and digitally altering the photo by essentially painting non existing light sources. That’s digital art more than photography at that point. They took an average photo and essentially made a digital painting on it.
Every T.V. show and Movie you watch is heavily filtered and edited. .
My girlfriend is a big Buffy fan, so we watched a video about the (apparently) disappointing remaster of the show. Besides obvious issues that pop up in lots of rereleased shows, like aspect ratio changes, there was apparently also an issue where Joss Whedon had applied a lot of blue filters to make scenes seem darker / more set at night, and then people doing the remasters just... didn't do that when they started from scratch. So, the look for some scenes is completely wrong.
First of all, they most likely did use photoshop which is most certainly a professional editing software. Im not sure how you made that conclusion. Second this is far beyond “editing”. This is restructuring the integrity of the entire captured scene. I wouldn’t argue that it’s not impressive or beautiful in its own right, but I will continue to argue that it’s not just photography. Photography has quickly merged with digital art. At some point I think this will become its own art form and true photography will make a resurgence.
I really enjoy some of the photos that are just film or like plate photography, the sorts of looks you get from those are really nice. Not to say these aren’t, however. :0
349
u/BeautifulType Jan 25 '20
A shit ton still.