She shoots.....she edits....she RAWs!!!

Ok we have all heard it spouted out, the age old arguement.....

"If you take a technically perfect picture in the first place, you wont need to edit...."

Well, id like to demonstrate my reasons why you should edit and would like to see an reasonable discussion to counter or support this.




On the left you will see a technically perfect image. nicely exposed and sharp. On the right, an edit.

Shooting in RAW allowed me to pick up the details more in the shadows and reduce the colour cast that can be seen in the left.

I then photoshoped the image to bring out a nicer skin tone, colour, clone out any imperfections that can be seen on the camera bottom right and middle right. The liquify tool was used to enhance JJs facial expression, making the shot have a warmer more "open" appeal. There was no point in a reshoot as i know it would have taken me longer than to edit, and to replicate this same shot would have been a struggle for my subject.

Furthermore, editing a shot for me gives my pictures a more personalised feel and style, which i hope would give me an edge on competitors and a wider appeal.

KK - no argument here. Your editing works very well and has enhanced what essentially was a fairly flat and uninspiring picture. IMHO, the camera is merely a tool within a larger process.

I'm sure given the choice, your customer would have chosen the edit over the original too.

I agree too, that most shots, to have their true potential realised need some editing .No offence, but the shot on the left is nothing special,it is nicely shot and exposed but doesn't have anything . But, the one on the right you have made so much better , just by a few minor adjustments.

You mentioned the liquify tool, I am just learning about this, I never have used it, but I can see the difference where you just tweaked the corners of JJ's mouth, subtle but it makes his expression more open and happy Will have to try this tool .

Good point you raised ,that a few tweaks in photo shop, is a lot more practical than setting up and reshooting too. Especially when shooting kids or pets even.

The more I am learning about portraiture, the more I am understanding that to give your shot an edge over the next photographers you have to develop "your style". The left pic could be by any of us, the second, I can tell is a "KK" pic. (Meant that in a nice way .)
Obviously getting exposure, lighting, sharpness and composition are extremely important, but give a shot your own personal stamp, some editing is usually beneficial.

Think there are 3 types of editing and all have a place.

The first as mentioned above is to tweak a well-shot image to improve or comply with the artist’s wishes.

The second is to make an image supplied by a third party suitable or more suitable for the required purpose.

The third is when an image is deliberately changed to become something totally different, the edit becoming the tool of imagination, the image being the basis on which the imagination is released.

Most definitely agree there KK! Your 'style' is very good and I'm sure would make you stand out from the competition!

Why is it wrong to try an achieve a technically perfect picture out of the camera.

Does a cabinet maker say "oh I'll use a blunt chisel and hack this out because I can use a Sander later to make it better" I don't think so.

Surely it is better to strive for the best result from every stage of the process and not just say "oh that'll do 'cause I can sort it out in PS later."

Steve

Steve, of course you need/should shoot to achieve a technically perfect image, at the end of the day you cannot polish a turd. You have missed my point completly. The idea of PP is to enhace a picture. As iv shown above, the photo on the left is perfectly acceptable. Its technically correct, but, its improved considerably with light PP.

Just playing Devils Advocate really

However, and I am not saying this is the case with your demonstration images, I feel that a lot of togs who have been brought up in the digital age think that anything can be sorted out in PS when we both know that is not the case.

I think my view would be Enhancement - Yes, Dependance - No.

By the way, I like both images and I agree the edited version is more pleasing to the eye.

Steve

I agree

I edit my shots to make them my style, however i take them in my own style in the first place.

Sammy


ps KK i sent you a pm a few days ago... wondering if you had checked it yet.

Slight digression, but today had to do a series of technical shots for work. Used my D70s and my 60mm Micro Nikkor. I took them straight back into work and put them onto my PC there. Although it's a new PC, I kept the old flatscreen CRT monitor when it was changed a few weeks ago. On that screen the pics are biting sharp and looked brill! I haven't seen anything like that quality before at home as I generally use my laptop or desktop matt finish LCD screens. I didn't realise my camera was capable of such quality (just when I have agreed to buy a new one!)

Reason I put this in this thread is because I now know that to edit and PP properly and see the best results the monitor is also so important. I knew that CRT's were meant to be better but it was the first time I had used one for looking at my own pictures for a couple of years...bring back the old technology!