Editing

[Nicole]

I have posted a few photos at a couple of other sites (I'm very sorry Sean! ) and it is interesting to get feedback from an often largely 'digital' audience.
Comments include ie. "I'd remove the hand and place it elsewhere so it looks more 'attached'" and many other examples I can't be bothered posting, but it goes to show that the digital age promotes manipulation in most images, removing authenticity.
I am not shy of cropping, asking the lab to match skin tones in cross-processing (since I don't develop or print my own yet), requesting a dodge or burn here or there... but when you start cutting and pasting objects and editing beyond the norm (what is considered norm?) , why not preplan and shoot the way intended in the first place?
I take comments with a grain of salt and appreciate anyone's view as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it worries me a little when editing goes beyond the actual photograph.
I work in both graphic design and photography and to me all the digital photo manipulation comes under the heading 'Graphic Design' and not 'Photography'.
Hmmm, thinking out loud here, I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

 

[modafoto]

I work in both graphic design and photography and to me all the digital photo manipulation comes under the heading 'Graphic Design' and not 'Photography'.
Hmmm, thinking out loud here, I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

My POV as well. But there are a lot of mixes between the two and it is sometimes difficult to say it is one or the other.
With digital people I can't understand a lot of the ways they work. Some will almost absolutely have to remove the background and add another...something I can't understand shall happen in 90% of their photos/images.
Others are very loose with their exposure and say that "I can always darken or lighten in PS". Of course you can. And you can do that in the darkroom as well, but either way there is nothing more important than getting as much raw material back for the afterwork. A lot of them are just shooting away, which is one of the advantages of digital, but they often put their brain on standby, and forget about composition etc.

Greetings Morten

 

[Nicole]

Thanks for your views Morten. Since I'm a convert I can't totally object to digital shooting, I think there is a time and place for it. But it certainly does make for sloppy work habits which I'm still trying to break and are costing me during my 'conversion' stage in my success ratio at present.
Actually, what is an average 'success ratio' of good shots from a 36 exp or 12 exp on 35mm or on 120 back for a pro?

 

[rogueish]

I agree with the "sloppiness" of most digital shooters (quite a few of snapshot analog shooters as well). If you can take an extra minute (or2) and take a nice shot, why rush 10 shots that will require a 30-60 minute computer session? (Or darkroom too, hey I'm trying to fix that bad habit myself ).
As for your success ratio, my first teacher (my Dad) said "If you get one photo your truely happy with, you did good. As you get better you'll see that VERY few images are truely good. Most will require some editting in one form or another."
My next teacher (night class) said almost the samething. Starting out, if you get one or two per roll, you should be happy, but continue striving to improve. The one thing that really stuck with me was "you'll NEVER get a perfect roll, as there will always be one that never looks right no matter how much you play with it."

 

[Nicole]

Gee Rogueish, I'm doing OK! Thank you.

 

[John Koehrer]

You do realize that W Eugene Smith was known to manipulate images in the darkroom to give a stronger photograph. In some cases even to the extent of manipulating portions of the image by "moving a hand to give stronger composition"

 

[Foto Ludens]

You do realize that W Eugene Smith was known to manipulate images in the darkroom to give a stronger photograph. In some cases even to the extent of manipulating portions of the image by "moving a hand to give stronger composition"

Well, yeah, but that does not mean it's ok to do it. Especially when shooting documentary, where the truth is essential. I admire Smith's work, but not this.

BTW, I usually get one or two frames per roll, be it 35mm or 6x6. Sometimes less.

 

[Nicole]

Hi Shaggy & Andre, great to hear from you. Thanks!

 

[papagene]

Nicole,
I agree with you completely on the "Graphic Design" designation for the PS manipulation used by digital shooters. The "I can fix it later in PS" attitude is just an excuse for poor judgement and sloppy working habits.
My $0.02 worth.

gene

 

[jim kirk jr.]

I tend to bracket my images a great deal(more so when shooting IR)which tends to lower the "good shots" per roll to really be how many good compositions per roll.I
usually get several good negatives for each image,it's my initial composition that sometimes is flawed(ie-due to shadow areas way too dark,blown out highlights,etc.
because of the high contrast inherent in the film and not previsualising accordingly)

Jim

 

[anyte]

Nicole,

You've hit on the exact reason that I no longer attempt to post on any other forum. I do minor editing to some of my scans, but the majority I scan and post as is. I will make minor adjustments to try and match my scan to the print or negative. I will not crop to correct a bad composition. I have cropped some closeups for sharing with friends - that's an issue of equipment and not a lack of knowledge (I can't afford what I want and need). I wouldn't post the crop for a critique though. For critique I would post the full image and explain any editing I have done and possibly why I did not get closer to my subject.

I will not color correct the sky if I exposed it poorly. I will not crop out something that I thought would fit the composition but ends up looking out of place on the print. I will not correct things to disguise mistakes due to a lack of knowledge or experience. I have cropped out little things that didn't appear in the view finder when a shot was taken - a small problem that I have learned to compensate for.

I don't post on other forums because I grew tired of comments on how to digitally correct or improve my images. I prefer to learn to do the work with my mind and camera and not with a series of mouse clicks.

I think I might be one of those "uptight" film photographers that a lot of digital photographers like to make fun of. I suppose there are film photographers that make fun of people like me too. But as everyone says, you gotta do what makes you happy - and what I'm doing, while it makes me nuts at time, does make me happy.