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

If any of these ingredients are absent then the whole project falls flat - so yes, proportions of each are variable and can be adjusted to suit specific tastes/requirements. That said, they all have to be there and imho are all equally important.

Of course all aré important, but ‘subject matter’ is a very, very broad concept. Even in the context of photos of people, it is not just the ‘model’ but encompasses what they are wearing, make-up, expression, pose, background, etc. I would also include more abstract notions of ‘subject’ - concept, story, background, context, composition. And even with all that, I think your lecturer was wrong. A great photographer can take an interesting photograph of a ‘boring’ subject (is there such a thing?) - and there are many, many examples.

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

MacMaghnuis said

A long time ago I did a photography qualification and a lecturer said to me that photography was 50% pointing the camera at something worth looking at. I've always agreed with that so I think In would say subject matter is the most important aspect. On this site that normally means the model and sometimes the mua the photographer chooses to work with.

I'm going to go with 25% lighting and 25% editing as well. I can't choose between them.

Opinions?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, 'pointing the camera at something worth looking at' can refer to much more than just the subject. Angle, composition, viewpoint, environment, colors, tones, relevance, etc all play a part. A boring subject, photographed in an interesting way, can result in an interesting photograph; it's just harder to pull off. I do agree in concept, just wanted that that caveat.

Stanmore said

For the photography I most appreciate and enjoy viewing today, subject / concept / content are absolute king. Lighting can enhance or complement this to a degree, but in many instances, flat / soft / diffuse is the answer. Editing is barely a factor at all. 

MacMaghnuis said

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

Can you say that none of your photos haven't been processed in some way through an editing package?

Could you produce what you do without doing so?

JonC You might have a point, but it might better be expressed by saying a crap photographer can take a boring image of a great subject?

composition trumps everything imo

MacMaghnuis true, but definitely not the point I was making.

Starglider Photography For me, personally no. I've messed about with all my images. I think they need it and I enjoy doing it.

Starglider Photography Although, embarrassingly I do have an unedited image hidden on my portfolio that I uploaded as a before photo, that got picked as an FPI, and has almost as many likes as the edited image.

MacMaghnuis

It might, or one might point at an object as part of exploring conveying or exploiting an idea.

Do we sum a lot of that up as content or is that the finished article?

MacMaghnuis said

Starglider Photography For me, personally no. I've messed about with all my images. I think they need it and I enjoy doing it.

Then how can you ask if editing if editing is absolutely necessary? If you yourself (as I do) require it to complete your images, then surely it's incredibly important*... as is the idea, the subject matter and the lighting to bring it all together.

*There are very few people who are so good that they don't need to edit after the shoot, but here that's definitely the minority.

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

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 :)

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply