Do You Photo Edit??

[Neil M]

I was wondering how much editing you do to your pics??

Personally I'm of the "once taken that's it" approach, UNLESS it is clearly identified as a modified image....

Any other ideas??

Cheers
Neil

[David A]

I shoot RAW, I have to process it.

[Neil M]

On my hols recently, due to a prblem with photoshop on my Sis' laptop, I had to dual format (my camera takes both jpg and RAW at the same time ). Even then, with Raw, I just tend to accept defaults (at the moment...)

[freshwaterdiver]

My Fuji S602 camera (previously used the Fuji 7000 till I dropped it and smashed the lens ) creates JPG's up to 6 million pix. I normal shoot at 3 mill.

I use Paint Shop Pro 7 although I used to swear by Adobe photo shop.
For most occasions I just use the manual Histogram settings to bring the contrast and brightness into balance if its required when I plan to use a photo on the website. I do use cropping as and when it suits.

[hopper]

Why wouldn't you edit?

Unedited


Edited

[Neil M]

Originally Posted by hopper

Why wouldn't you edit?

Unedited


Edited

Flame proof suit - check

Yes I agree that you can make your pics look better.... but personally I think it is cheating a little to make more changes than you have to.... (unless you admit to the fact...)

I could be being nieve here or are the ways of the wet images too ingrained in me!!!
Cheers
Neil

[hopper]

I am by no means an expert at either photography or editing but when I see the end results from my camera, I know that they don't always show the subject in the same light as I saw it in therefore IMHO I see no reason why I cannot help to put some light and colour back into the subject that my camera was unable to pick up.

Take the example of looking at a subject and then looking at it with a torch shinning on it, the difference in the colours is starteling. We both know the colours are there however my camera doesn't, why cant I help it out?

Maybe a bit simplistic but thats my take on it.

[Neil M]

Originally Posted by hopper

I am by no means an expert at either photography or editing but when I see the end results from my camera, I know that they don't always show the subject in the same light as I saw it in therefore IMHO I see no reason why I cannot help to put some light and colour back into the subject that my camera was unable to pick up.

Take the example of looking at a subject and then looking at it with a torch shinning on it, the difference in the colours is starteling. We both know the colours are there however my camera doesn't, why cant I help it out?

Maybe a bit simplistic but thats my take on it.

I can understand it.... dont get me wrong (not trying to start a fight )..... and as they are your shots, you can do with them what you please.

Personally I try to avoid using editing tools to enhance a photo (i'm just curious to know other's point of view...)

Were you using a strobe underwater?

EDIT - BTW I do like how you have enhanced the photo it really does bring out the colours. I need to learn how to do more of this stuff me thinks!

[samui13]

i tend to use PS CS for my editng. As others have said you need to replace colours that get lost when at depth. Also the hue usually gets tweaked for my wide angle shots. Macro shots dont tend to need as much editing. I usually edit a photo and then sit it next to the original and see if it has worked.

[JohnK]

Yep - Photoshop is great. Now then, if editing is OK for the experts (yes, even on good old fashioned film) then its OK by me. You could argue that using a flash underwater is falsifying results as true colours (to our eyes anyway) are all tinged green or blue dependant on depth and water colour.

Come on Neil - I`ll have the strobe (and batteries - thanks for the pm).