Is editing pictures considered photography?

[Dead Cat]

After taking pictures, some people edit them in their computer by adjusting the contrast, saturation, and the like.

What's the attitude of some photographers towards this practice? Is this "acceptable"? In other words, is this really part of the process of photography, or is the art confined to the skills the photographer displays in the actual capturing of the picture, i.e. his knowledge of his camera, knowing proper lighting, etc.?
Fishmeister,
"If you are using Photoshop to FIX an image, i.e. fix the exposure, the composition etc.. Then that is something that you should be getting right in camera. There is no excuse for this."

Wouldn't this depend on the camera? I don't use advanced cameras. I admit that I am not learned enough to know how to get desired results, in terms of exposure and the like, but sometimes, the camera has its limits. As one said, sometimes, one just wants to edit the picture to make it look like how it looked when he saw it.

 

[Fishmeister]

There have been a lot questions this week on this subject.

I will give a short answer...

If you are using Photoshop to FIX an image, i.e. fix the exposure, the composition etc.. Then that is something that you should be getting right in camera. There is no excuse for this.

If you are using Photoshop to ENHANCE an image, well then, that is different.. These images are the perfect example of how Photoshop can be used to make a good image simply amazing...

http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=4032221
http://www.davehillphoto.com/

+++
Additional: Photography is 95% skill 5% camera. If you need to rely on Photoshop to crop your images, fix exposure problems etc, then you are not taking the image properly in the first place. As the saying goes.. 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear'

The camera does not matter, a skilled photographer can take a £50 P&S camera and make a great image straight from camera. An beginner with a £5000 DSLR will produce terrible images, and trying to fix them in Photoshop is not the way to learn. It is always best to get things right in camera and only use Photoshop if the image needs it. PS is not a necessity to every image.

As I pointed out earlier, if the image taken in camera is well focused, well exposed, well composed etc.. then you can look at enhancing it in PS and making it even better!. There is another saying .. 'Garbage in. garbage out'...

Editing images on PS is an art form in itself, but it is only as good as the photos you have to work on in the first place.

+++

 

[FotoZ 4 FX]

Every photographer I've ever known did post-editing work when they could except for some of us doing press (news) from locations away from the group but I'm sure the editor or copy modified them before putting them to print.

Whenever I had time to go in to scan or submit my work, I sat down at the copy desk and did dodging and burning... post photo editing for size and content to fit the page. It's difficult to make such determinations in camera when you don't even know if your shot is going to be used.

There are going to be arguments about this everywhere and it is one of the main reasons Camera Clubs disband... because purists think like cave dwellers.

~Galan (google me as G.Alan Fink).
.