Home » Your Groups » General Chat » What is most important. Subject matter, lighting or editing? » Page 3

What is most important. Subject matter, lighting or editing?

Huw said, 1714685222

If one is ancient, and started with transparency film, one had to sort colour temperature and softening with filters before shooting.

Stanmore said, 1714685691

Starglider Photography said

MacMaghnuis said

Starglider Photography I was only posing the question as a hypothetical, not my own personal approach.

Then to answer your own question, all aspects are equally important :)

Within the PP micro-bubble this is likely correct, but if we take ‘editing’ to mean what we generally accept here today - skin treatments, eye brightening, compositing, etc. - it’s clearly not very relevant at all to the photography World at-large. The vast majority of the most globally iconic and recognised photographs are not edited at all in this sense. Some (mostly undetectable) dodging and burning maybe, but nothing else. Most are also not lit artificially in any way either. The level of ‘editing’ and the types of lighting commonly most employed / liked / awarded on here PP, are of a type I would wager most other photographic coteries would find visually jarring and ‘challenging’ (I’m trying for diplomatic here).

Starglider Photography said, 1714685932

Stanmore said

Starglider Photography said

MacMaghnuis said

Starglider Photography I was only posing the question as a hypothetical, not my own personal approach.

Then to answer your own question, all aspects are equally important :)

Within the PP micro-bubble this is likely correct, but if we take ‘editing’ to mean what we generally accept here today - skin treatments, eye brightening, compositing, etc. - it’s clearly not very relevant at all to the photography World at-large. The vast majority of the most globally iconic and recognised photographs are not edited at all in this sense. Some (mostly undetectable) dodging and burning maybe, but nothing else. Most are also not lit artificially in any way either. The level of ‘editing’ and the types of lighting commonly most employed / liked / awarded on here PP, are of a type I would wager most other photographic coteries would find visually jarring and ‘challenging’ (I’m trying for diplomatic here).

This very sentence proves that editing is important. Otherwise why would the image need such dodging and burning to correct them?

And I'd wager that the vast majority of the globally iconic photos have been edited in some way.

Huw said, 1714685991

Stanmore . ;)

Simon Cole said, 1714686302

MacMaghnuis said

Simon Cole is editing absolutely necessary? Could you not create an image without editing it once it has been captured?

Of course, it's possible. But the "straight out of camera" concept often ignores the fact that even the greatest of film photographers either did some serious editing themselves - either that or, more often than not, they had a pet darkroom bod do it on their behalf. Nowadays, generally speaking, most of us do our own editing - aspects such as cropping, digital noise, highlight control and sharpening are all necessary to bring out an image's true potential - and if done well can make a "good" image into something quite special. Even the simplest edit can be an artform in itself.

PhotographybyMichaelangelo said, 1714686332

If you get subject matter and lighting right, editing can be next to zero!

Afrofilmviewer said, 1714687275

MacMaghnuis they're all important in their own way but often you work with people who know little about one certain aspect and use one of the others to compensate.

indemnity said, 1714688032

You are capturing light. Without that there is no image, and how that light is manipulated also has a great effect.

Subject matter and how that is presented makes the image.

Quality of production is important once the first two are done.

Stanmore said, 1714688490

Starglider Photography said

This very sentence proves that editing is important. Otherwise why would the image need such dodging and burning to correct them?

And I'd wager that the vast majority of the globally iconic photos have been edited in some way.

Dodging and burning were primarily employed in the darkroom to reveal shadow and/or highlight detail from the processes of the time that had a very narrow dynamic range in comparison to today’s film stocks and digital sensors. Yes, it’s editing, but it doesn’t change the perceived physical nature / structure of the subject / content.

Walk into London’s Photography Quarter today and right beside the Photographer’s Gallery you’ll be treated to huge outdoor prints from Sian Davey’s latest project ‘The Garden’. They were taken on 120 colour negative film, then scanned (I have the book). So digital images at this stage, but really-truly I can see no sign of lighting, skin work, or anything at all ‘artificial’. That’s what I mean. Every process in photography throughout its history affects contrast, tonality and colour, but the inherent structure of the subjects / contents physicality is commonly manipulated here on PP in a way that is not representative of the wider photographic mileau.

Edited by Stanmore

Huw said, 1714688442

There are two types of photographers.

Farmers (create the photo…. Artificial light outdoors, Photoshop, etc.)

Hunter-gatherers (prehistoric, get to the right place, see the photo, take the photo).

Either is OK.

MidgePhoto said, 1714691186

Stanmore said
... Every process in photography throughout its history affects contrast, tonality and colour, but the inherent structure of the subjects / contents physicality is commonly manipulated here on PP in a way that is not representative of the wider photographic mileau.
Edited by Stanmore

If PP contains an extreme, then if we exclude it from the "wider photographic milieu" then the photographic milieu just got narrower.

PP certainly contains images which show no signs of manipulation other than the default of the machinery.

So that would appear to be the other extreme.

I think you'd do better with a polydimensional analogy though.

MidgePhoto said, 1714691406

Huw said

There are two types of photographers.

Farmers (create the photo…. Artificial light outdoors, Photoshop, etc.)

Hunter-gatherers (prehistoric, get to the right place, see the photo, take the photo).

Either is OK.

Even then I think we were hunter-gardeners.

Which is also OK.

Footpaths, some of which date from the Neolithic, tend to have edible fruit etc along them.

Elsewhere, Andean tracks had potatoes.

On some island the trick of planting a (seed from and to grow into a) tree which made no food but was easy to climb alongside a tree which made food, but was hard to climb.

indemnity said, 1714691922

If using a Polaroid it kind of limits down to subject and light, though no idea of the ratio, maybe leaning in subject direction.

Unfocussed Mike said, 1714698568

It's surprising how few great songs are particularly dependent on a single arrangement/recording/production to "work".

The composition itself offers up the scope for arrangement. It's as if the potential arrangements are there, hiding in the song, waiting to be uncovered. (Or, heh, waiting to be covered.)

It's the same with a photograph.

This is not to say that they won't be given clarity and presence by the right post-production, drawing attention to some element, rebalancing another etc. And it's not to say that basic attention to levels won't help, or some editing.

But ultimately it's either in the composition or it's not.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Stanmore said, 1714715927