One of the most successful pieces of media I've every produced involved using Lightroom to edit my images. Thus, the irony is not lost on me while writing this very article on how not editing your images can be so enjoyable. In this video, I cover just how much I would edit images in the past and how that has evolved over the years. Last year, I picked up the Fujifilm X100VI and let myself just explore the idea of getting it all right in camera.
I was still shooting raws on the Fujifilm X100VI, you know—just in case I wanted to edit. As time went on, I let that control go and just let myself enjoy photography without the need to sit in front of a computer afterward to turn my photos into something presentable. I realize this won't be for everyone, but I encourage you to watch the video with an open mind. It almost felt wrong to look at the back of my camera and simply like the image without an edit necessary.
Don't get me wrong, editing will always remain part of my workflow. Now I just feel like I have permission to enjoy photography in a different way than I had for most of my career. Have you gone through something like this? What's your opinion on editing? Would love to know in the comments!
I have always thought the best photography started in the camera. My goal has always been minimal editing after the photo is downloaded to the computer. This probably comes from starting my photography with a Pentax SLR film camera 3 decades ago and not being able to afford too many rolls of film and developing! Since I picked up the hobby again, and a decent digital SLR, my goals have been to learn more about capturing the photo than editing it later. I wouldn't mind learning more about the editing, but I spend too much time at my desk and not enough outside as it is, so not a high priority.
Don't post your photos here then. You'll get the maximum of 2 stars and "needs work".
Well, of course that's not guaranteed. But to me, it feels as a kind of arrogance in that along with their photo they include a blurb saying it has little to no editing, as if that is something they need to be superbly proud of. If shooting Jpeg, modern cameras, like phones, will do a lot of Editing in camera already for you. They have AI brains in them. But yes it could just be a 2-star photo, that actually needs a bit of contrast, cropping, or aspect changes...haha.
I've always believed that editing is half the process towards a compelling image. Family snapshots, OK. That said, you make good points about photographic freedom, you do you! "Think Different" is my motto too!
For me it became a requirement and it feels nice for it to not be anymore
Alex Armitage wrote:
"I Quit Editing My Photos and It Transformed My Photography"
Alex then wrote:
"Don't get me wrong, editing will always remain part of my workflow."
I am having trouble trying to justify these two statements, to find a way that they will not be in contradiction to one another. The statements are mutually exclusive, yet here they are, presented to us in the same article.
Perhaps one of these points (probably the first one) is overstated, in an attempt to get people to click on the article. This is the very epitome of "clickbait". I would appreciate if in the future, the titles of articles here on Fstoppers be written accurately and factually, and that the truth not be stretched or misrepresented in an attempt to get us to click.
Did you watch the video?
No. I actually don't like linked content or content that refers us to content that is hosted elsewhere. I prefer to just read what is here. Maybe I will make an exception for this video, but it goes against my grain ..... ha!
EDIT: I recognize you! I have seen other videos of yours and thought you were great! Ha! So I will definitely watch this one over on YouTube.
Pro tip... When you watch youtube videos embedded on fstoppers.com, I get no extra youtube ad junk. However, if I were to actually click on the 'watch on youtube.com', thats when I would get the extra ads that youtube puts in the videos. I think its however, slightly illogical to be a longstanding member of 'FStoppers' and completely abstain from watching any of the videos of writers and/or videos even from the likes of Lee and Patrick our founders. I don't think any are actually posted natively on fstoppers.com, but are always posted on youtube, and you'll notice will have dual-comments on fstoppers and youtube.. comments.
Actually, I never get any YouTube ads because I am a YouTube Premium member. And when a content creator has some sponsorship crap in-video, I either skip past it or immediately close out of the video altogether.
The reason I am against watching linked videos is because I hate any business model that uses cross-promotion. When a writer here uses this platform to help generate more views on his YouTube channel, that rubs me the wrong way because it seems self-serving. And when Fstoppers posts a lot of "articles" based on someone else's YouTube video, that seems like a cheesy way of getting YouTube content creators to pay more attention to Fstoppers.
I like things that stand on their own and do not try to use one platform to expand another platform. That is why I shy away from things that are based on linked content.
As stated, correct me if I'm mistaken, all videos on here, are posted from youtube, they are not hosted on fstoppers.com.
I believe that is the case. It is truly a case of cross-promotion.
Don’t tell Ansel😎
The goals and objectives for every photographer are different. Some place far more value on the process and experience, especially with landscape photography where simply being outdoors in nature, away from the rat race of traffic and cities, is far more important than the results. There is no right or wrong, or best approach. In fact, I've found that most people, myself included, change their perspective on a lot of things about every decade or so.
My way of seeing has evolved from primarily the grand landscape to smaller intimate nature and still-life scenes; and from color more toward black and white. So where I'm at now is a totally different photographic style than 20 years ago. That said, the common denominator for me has always been post-processing and printing. My goal has always been to make a print that I would enjoy as much as I do picking up a book to read. I'm really not all that nuts about hiking for miles or spending the night outdoors in a sleeping bag. But many people do. Whatever makes you happy. I don't make ridiculously over-edited pictures, but I have something in mind for an image from the moment my eyes see something to photograph. It might not be a perfectly literal translation of the landscape. I enjoy my time in front of the computer making it happen. And ultimately I get the most satisfaction from holding the print.
Ed,
What a well-written and insightful comment!
I understand what you are saying about most people changing their perspective every decade or so. In fact, with many people, not only does their perspective change, but their values and interests change, as well. I've been photographing wildlife seriously for about 18 years now, and I haven't undergone much of a change yet, but I guess I am due for such a change soon because it's been almost double the amount of time that you say it takes.
Another thing you wrote resonates with me:
"I have something in mind for an image from the moment my eyes see something to photograph"
Yes, this! I often have that picture in my mind's eye even before I see something similar to it in real life. I usually go out searching for something that I have thought up, something specific, something that matches the picture in my brain. I usually already know exactly what I want to photograph and how I want to photograph it, and then just have to put the time in to try to find something in real life that is similar enough to my vision that I can make it work.
If I can't get exactly the photo(s) I want, then I am content to just not do photography at all instead of settling for something less or different. If I am in nature and there is not enough time to get really excellent images, then there are lots of other things I can do there, such as scout for future opportunities, formally list all of the birds I see, take casual photos for taxonomical submission to iNaturalist, explore new areas, or just toss a tarp out on the ground, lie down, and take a long nap in the sun.
I try to instill the message in any video I make that there is no definitive right or wrong way to approach photography. I tend to just talk about my personal experiences and highlight those exact changes you mentioned.
My personal experience was that content over the last 15 years (mine included) and how cameras capture images basically required you to edit photos. It was nice to try to see otherwise and let that go in some ways. I genuinely hope no one watched this and the take away is that one way is the correct way, definitely not.
Most definitely I did not feel like you were wielding a hammer in behalf of one approach or another. Your ideas were expressed as a possibility, one that has resonated with you more so now than before. And especially insightful with regard to Fuji recipes, something that puts a new twist on getting closer to what you want in camera, without the trouble of editing. I still feel like post-processing for me is a critical portion of making a picture, but I see your point that it may not necessarily be the best approach at all times, and certainly not for everyone.
I suspect your video might be especially helpful for the newer photographer trying to figure out camera modes and editing strategies. Most of us who have been doing this a long time are probably set in their ways, and even the mere suggestion of an alternative path will probably fall on deaf ears. But your comments provide a good balance for novice photographers who are getting battered from self-proclaimed experts telling them that editing RAW files is the only way they'll ever become better at photography. Which is sort of nonsense but I hear it all the time anyway.
I’m not an editor, I’m a “found object” artist, and I love your thinking about making a physical print with as much to appreciate as a book.
Prints are something to hold and think about... something that lasts beyond the few seconds it takes to scroll through a social media, mind-numbing, stream of images. Maybe it's just me trying to hang on to something familiar from the past. But, yes, regardless of how you create it, a good photograph inspires one's imagination. Thank you.
I've done this most of the time. But I have to confess that I still spend sometime in the 'digital lab' (the software I use running in my computer) to achieve a look that I want. My goal is to have my cameras set in such a way that my RAW images come out with no post production and if I need a jpeg out of some, to get it off the camera. I hope to view the video as soon as other important matters including taking care of my wife permits me. Thanks for this article.
Straight out of the box? Remember the Peter Lik scandal? We all edit. Even Alex admits that he edits at the end of the article. This is misleading.
From the the 10 seconds of the video I watched it seems like he prefers the Fuji presets over his own editing. No accurate colors anywhere in the video I saw.
How would you define or describe accurate color?
Accurate color would be colors meant to emulate the observable colors to the naked eye at the moment the photo was taken. (as close as possible, we all know perfect match is impossible)
Adam makes a poignant point though. Its not that Alex isn't "editing" his photos, its just he is editing them in camera, rather than doing it on the computer and he is doing so using the camera's built in editing profiles. Not "editing" would be to use a jpg conversion of the raw file with no setting changes whatsoever.
Couldn't you argue that interpreting the raw data into a visible image could be "editing?" What if one raw processor creates a completely different looking image than another based on their preferences. One flat muted image vs one saturated contrast image. Where do you draw the line?
Well exactly, I have always made the point that there is no such thing as an unedited image because a camera is actually incapable of recording an image that is the same as what an observer of the scene would genuinely witness.
That said, I would still argue that choosing a color grade in camera is fundamentally no different than choosing one in lightroom.
Gotta pay monthly for Lightroom :P
I think the point you're making is a step removed from the one Alex is making in the video. I doubt many knowledgeable photographers would argue that a JPG is an unedited image, or that a Fuji recipe is not an edited picture. Of course they are. The point raised though is how much time are we wanting to devote to the editing work? The Fuji recipe is a quick decision made in the camera... the editing is performed instantaneously. On the other hand, laboring over a RAW file can take hours. They're both edits, but the question is whether spending hours in front of a computer is worth it. That's all. It's only a question. A point to consider when considering the options. People here in the comments are hammering on Alex like he's telling the world how to go about doing things, or that some great epiphany has permanently and forever altered his way of making a photograph. But anyone who is open to "possibilities" should realize that nothing is etched in stone forever, and we all go through stages where the way we do things feels out of whack. Especially when it's our career and the stakes are higher.
I think I was click baited into reading this post. And straight away I found the contradictory statements of Im giving up editing my photos, but editing will always be part of my work flow, I mean, what the heck!!!
I do not ever click on linked videos either.
But back to editing. A couple of years back I bought a photo editing program for my PC, it wasn't cheap, but it was overly complex. I gave up trying to use this software within a day. I haven't used it since.
My cameras have no on board editing software, and even if they did I wouldn't use it. I wonder how many person years are wasted doing so called editing?
If you've spent two to five thousand pounds on a camera, and then you have to spend hours of your precious time changing what your expensive camera recorded, then my advice is don't waste your precious money on over priced gear, when there is great camera gear out there on the used market that will do the same job for you.
I use three digital cameras, a Canon 200D, a Minolta Dynax 7i, and a Fujifilm S100FS. For film shooting I use a Minolta Dynax 5 and a Canon 50e For editing (should I need it) I use Google's photo tools, which are free, easy to use, and it's pretty good.
I'm not a pro photographer, but I love photography, being out and about in the country side or in woodlands, or wherever, recording what my camera sees. The joy of photography makes me happy. I know my cameras inside out, what they can and can't do. Let's face it editing is boring, mostly frustrating and why people spend hundreds of pounds on overly complex editing software is beyond me. Rant over.
You said in your "About" page that you'd like to "emulate the stunning work of Ansel Adams." You realize of course that the photographer you admire so much devoted much of his life to the tedious darkroom work that bridged the negative and the print (the equivalent of Photoshop). His approach was not one of pulling out a camera and wondering what might result from pressing the shutter. His approach was based on previsualizing the image in his mind, and religiously working each step to express his intention in print. And much of that work involved editing in the form of dodging and burning. He was even known to retouch a negative in order to remove an unwanted element in his picture. The capture on film in camera was merely a beginning... just one step among many. As it should be, because so many variables can be adjusted in the editing process. It's nearly impossible to get an image exactly as intended in camera without post-processing. A master of photography carefully controls each of the steps in making a picture. Amateurs push a few buttons to see what happens and let something else, generally easier, like a JPG setting dictate the final image. It's all about control... something Ansel spent a lifetime learning and educating other people. That's how he got to the point where we admire his photographs.
And to your claim that editing is boring, well... that's your opinion. For me it's the stage of photography where the image comes alive. RAW images are typically flat and need a lot of editing, and JPG images are essentially defined by imprecise camera settings. The real magic of photography happens in post-processing. It's not easy, either. To expect that you might learn anything significant in a single day of editing software, would be like picking up a violin for the first time and making anything less than hideous noises. I sincerely enjoy my time working in Photoshop... have for 30 years or more. It's only frustrating if you see no reason to learn how it works, or fail to recognize how it can improve your photos. I too was enamored with Ansel's photographs, but quickly understood that it would be a life mission to make something comparable.
I'm not sure if your comments are in reply to my rant on editing. But here is my response.
Photography as a process of capturing images is loaded with a panopoly of individual opinions and philosophies.
One essential of my photography philosophy is composition, I spend a lot of pre shutter pressing time finding the composition I want as, I hope, the majority of photographers do, along with my knowledge of shutter, aparture, ISO (ASA) and, importantly light and shadow relationships.
I didn't mention Ansel Adams in my comment, but since you have, I would say Ansel Adams was a fine compositional photographer, but, more so in his day, he became a skilled darkroom manipulater of the negative.
I keep my editing to a bare minimum utilising basic tools. I don't shoot in raw either because I don't want to. The only raw mode I do use is when I shoot film, I manipulate the camera to get the result I want (I only shoot in black and white).
Opinions are important, but should not be judgemental in the critical sense. The world is full of critics and so called experts. Photography is about freedom of expression no matter how we utilise our cameras or the post capture tools.
I'm not trying to convince you to do something differently, especially when it makes no sense to you. No, you did not mention Adams in your comment, but you do mention him in your About/Portfolio profile. The "wow" factor of Ansel’s photos did not come straight out of the camera. It's impossible to appreciate his photographs without recognizing the critical role that "editing" plays in his finished photograph.
Yes, I agree. With many of Ansel's most iconic photos, his final edited versions looked completely and utterly different than the original image that he made in the camera. He just used the original frame as a starting point, and then used many advanced darkroom techniques to actually create the image that he had in his mind's eye.
Robert Stammers wrote:
"I think I was click baited into reading this post. And straight away I found the contradictory statements of Im giving up editing my photos, but editing will always be part of my work flow, I mean, what the heck!!!"
I agree. The author made a statement that is not actually true, just to get more people to click on the article. That is kinda deceitful and I do not appreciate such underhanded and misguiding tactics being employed here. I greatly value honesty, especially at the semantic level.
Welcome back to how film photography works... and why it was called an art and photographers were called artists. With no way to review what's taken and only a limited amount of frames to work with, film photography relies heavily on paying more attention to capturing the image so it needs little to no editing (what some call SOOC or straight out of the camera). Yes, sometimes you still need to edit (just ask Ansel Adams) but at least you're starting with a more refined image than picking one out of a stack of "spray and pray" frames.
The whole conversation here about Computer editing and Darkroom editing raises a question for me...well, something I thought I knew but maybe I don't know as much as I thought.
I did a little darkroom work in B&W for the school paper/yearbook, and we didn't 'edit' in the darkroom. Just develop and print. Mostly I had to rely on the 3rd party company to develop and print my work. I believe in the dark room there is some control over contrast, lighting, and ???
In the computer, there seem to be WAY more editing options from minimal to drastic abstract.
How much editing can be completed in the computer that cannot be done in the darkroom? How much editing did Ansel Adams Really do versus what he could have done on a computer?
I have seen it written many times, that there is NOTHING that can be done on the computer than wasn't done in the darkroom. At first I thought this was a preposterous statement. But every time I mentioned something that I thought could only be done on the computer, like complex cloning or wholesale compositing, people would tell me about how they used to do that in the darkroom. People would cut all kinds of little bits and pieces from negatives and combine them with bits and pieces from other negatives and make amazing composites in the darkroom. So now I believe that statement.
I am not sure that it holds true for the very recent advancements in AI technology, but other than the use of AI, I believe that everything that can be done on a computer can also be done in a darkroom.