1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - Do you get as much enjoyment from editing images...

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    It's got nothing to do with the digital age.

    "Meaning "make revisions to a manuscript, etc.," is from 1885"
     
  2. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I suspect not.

    I'm tempted to continue to use the perfectly valid, venerable and suitable, edit. Thanks though :)
     
  3. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I am far too old to be in any way involved with any of those "Places" and certainly not as places to define "Photographer"
     
  4. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Photographer = person who uses a camera to record an image.

    'tis easy peasy...

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Tony,

    You may be missing the point. Consider the phrase "making revisions": very different with a manuscript than a photograph. Besides, the point of my post was that it might be useful to have two separate words for "sort out the pictures you want to use", which was the pre-digital meaning of editing, and what I light-heartedly called bawing. The phrase "pre-digital" indicates fairly clearly that the dual meaning arose only after pictures were digitized. Before digitization we had (among other descriptions when it came to printing) dodging, burning, colouring, toning, desaturating, composite or combination printing, double exposures, sandwiching and photomontage: all words to help with making distinctions rather than blurring them.

    Oh: and the first use of "edit" that I find in my (printed, second edition) OED is 1793. "Editing" goes back to 1840. There may be reports of earlier usages by now, in the online edition. Not sure where you got 1885.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    No, I'm not.

    Mechanically different, not logically different. Removing things, changing the placement of things, changing the meaning of things, all within the manuscript.

    It was *one* pre-digital meaning of editing and only in the context of a collection of images.

    I picked a specific example of the etymology that related to making changes to a single item (i.e. a manuscript).

    The word has clearly had multiple uses since at least 1885, one of which meant to curate a group of things, and one which meant to change a single thing. The fact that photographers didn't refer to editing a single image in the pre-digital age doesn't mean the word isn't a perfectly valid description of making changes to an image using an image *editor*.

    My point is that being pedantic about the current use of the word is pointless, since it's clearly a perfectly valid use.
     
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Tony,

    Nowhere do I deny that it is a valid usage.

    My point -- which you clearly are missing despite your protestations -- is that it might be useful to have two or more words to describe two or more different things.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  8. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    I just have the three 'P's; prep, photography and post.

    I'll leave the rest of you to argue about semantics. :)
     
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Barney,

    "Post" (short for "post production", itself a slightly wobbly term) probably sums things up better than "baw", but with just your three, where does "editing" or "selection" or "choosing the pictures for post" come in to it?

    It's simply a matter of trying to describe each stage accurately. After all, you can roll the lot into "photography" if you don't need any precision in what you're talking about. This is hardly a question of empty semantics.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  10. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Roger, for me photography ends once the card is removed from the camera, everything after that is post.

    A certain amount of editing occurs before and during the shoot as well as afterwards.

    I agree with you that it is useful to words to describe specific steps in the overall process. I was being a tad flippant with my previous post.
     
  11. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Many of us have our own digital routine
    I shoot raw.. but first off, I sort the shots into chaff and potential keepers, by moving them into two files.
    The keepers are then processed into tiffs with any obvious and necessary adjustments made in adobe raw.
    They are then taken into photoshop and print like adjustments made including burning and dodging straightning and may be a few blemishes cloned out.
    All shots in the set, are then weeded again and the keeper file moved to its final "home" and renamed with a suitable and memorable meaning.
    Only then is it imported into lightroom and key words and sets added etc.
    I realise that this is quite different to most peoples use of lightroom.
    but it suits the way I think and like to file.



    This is similar to but different to my previous analogue process. But has the advantage that all prints and duplicates from that point on can be identical.

    panoramas are something of an exception as after processing from raw as a set they are stitched in PTAssembler, adjusted in photoshop, then join the others in the keeper file
     
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Three further good reasons to not misuse and conflate 'editing' for 'processing':
    1. We live in an age of confusion, do not add more!
    2. Think of the 'newbies'. We know what it may mean but newcomers to photography - who AP should seek to encourage - do not. Photography, like many activities, has a language to be learned. Muddling editing with processing does not help.
    3. Hopefully, even as amateurs, those newcomers will stick with photography and develop into serious photographers if they so choose. Editing {true meaning} your work is hard enough but is a significant hurdle to cross, as is workflow and captioning and filing, in the march to progress.
    4. AP, like the existing camera companies, has an uncertain position in the digital age. One way it can cement its position a little more firmly in both print and digital form is to be much more of an educator. Good educators teach with clarity and open up definitions and meanings.

    Four reasons, doh! I have four good reasons why ..... :eek: ..... :D
     
  13. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    I have a fifth reason for photo magazines to use processing for manipulation of images and editing in reference to selection (and captioning) of images.

    I'm fresh from looking at some graduate work where it was sadly obvious that the students had not been taught or had not learned (or both!) to edit and caption their work. This is really important if you wish to exist, be passionate about your photography, develop a good 'body of work' and earn a living outside of Fine Art photography. If you wish to work in Fine Art photography then, probably as ever, anything goes and editing & captioning is almost immaterial.
     
  14. ZenithE

    ZenithE Active Member

    I think really, it's a necessity. But I try to keep the Photoshop sorcery to a minimum, in terms of cropping, adjusting brightness an contrast and colour saturation.

    I post photos on social media sites and Photoshop is a real boon as I now watermark all albums in an attempt to prevent my photos being harvested by hackers or spammers.

    But weighing up the pros and cons, I prefer the digital editing of images to staying up to 3 a.m., up to my armpits in developer, fixer and stop bath.
     
  15. I rarely edit my images as I am only just starting out with photoshop and have not quite figured out all the functions.:confused:
     
  16. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I rarely get things right in camera, so I have to edit. The lady who produces most of our newsletter recently said that getting pictures from me was like getting blood out of a stone. The two statements are not unrelated. Perhaps because I worked in IT and am now retired, or perhaps I am merely making excuses, I much prefer taking photographs than working (I use the word working deliberately) at a computer.
    When I operate a computer these days I prefer to do so without much effort or thought. Fixing my pictures is much more difficult than that. I guess that is why I am so easily distracted by web sites like this one.
     
  17. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Some of our younger members might think that your picture displayed grain, I think that it is reticulation.
    Oops.Sorry Terry. I meant to answer Our resident senator's post with the small girl using a Rollei-something.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2015
  18. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Probably both. The main source of the effect, though, is that it's a scan from a print on stippled paper.

    She's using the original Rolleimagic, which I found to be a surprisingly useful wedding camera, although it had no manual settings available. I kept it in my bag as backup and it came into use often enough to more than pay for itself.
     

Share This Page