to photoshop or not

basflt

its not a habit of me to edit photos
for this one i wanted to make an exception , to make it look the way i want



original , untouched

paddler4

For what little it is worth, here is my view of this. The idea of leaving photos 'unedited' is misleading. I think of it as developing, not editing. All digital images are developed, using some algorithm for saturation, sharpness, etc. So if you don't edit photos, you are simply giving up control over HOW they are developed. Even if you want entirely realistic results, deciding not to edit means trusting that (1) your camera settings and composition are exactly as you want, and (2) whatever developing algorithm you have decided to trust happens to match what that image requires. It may partly reflect my own expertise, but in the case of my images, neither one of these criteria is met all that often, and the things that are not optimal vary a lot from image to image. E.g., because of differences in lighting and exposure, some images correctly show rich colors, and some don't. Your two images are a great example. Just IMHO.

basflt

paddler4 wrote: »

For what little it is worth, here is my view of this. The idea of leaving photos 'unedited' is misleading. I think of it as developing, not editing. All digital images are developed, using some algorithm for saturation, sharpness, etc. So if you don't edit photos, you are simply giving up control over HOW they are developed. Even if you want entirely realistic results, deciding not to edit means trusting that (1) your camera settings and composition are exactly as you want, and (2) whatever developing algorithm you have decided to trust happens to match what that image requires. It may partly reflect my own expertise, but in the case of my images, neither one of these criteria is met all that often, and the things that are not optimal vary a lot from image to image. E.g., because of differences in lighting and exposure, some images correctly show rich colors, and some don't. Your two images are a great example. Just IMHO.

thanks for reply , and you are right , but
IMO there is a different in normal processing/ developing and editing

me , i normally use only LR
but , editing means for me ; altering / changing
so , then i go for photoshop , for cloning , adding layers and other goodies

i guess the line between those two lies different for everyone

paddler4

I think we probably draw the line is a similar place. Most of my macros I edit only in LR--so often, in fact, that I am really incompetent in PS. But I routinely fiddle with exposure, contrast, sharpness, vibrance, clarity, etc. Anyway, the result you got in #1 is very nice.

basflt

thanks , again
result would not be possible in LR
i think i follow your hint , and re-adjust my "line" a little:D

Lord Vetinari

Think in this case I prefer the original but I do like soft natural light shots.
Re the Editing, I think you shoud just do what you need to to give you a result that you like.

Brian V.

basflt

thanks , Brian

that would be another challenge
making an underexposed or blown-out shot look like natural