I haven't been getting out a lot lately. I deal with health issues that are worse in the winter and it's been hard to get out. But I had an early morning appointment today and it gave me a chance to see this lovely spot just about an hour and a half after the sun came up. There were still some pastel colors in the background. I was thrilled to be able to get some nice pictures of the light snow and hoarfrost that decorated the landscape.
When I got around to uploading my pictures a few days later, I had my regular dilemma:
To edit or not to edit.
Photographers differ on this. Some feel that a photographer has sullied their photo if they do anything to it. Just take it as it comes from the camera. What skill it takes to get all the right settings on the camera and have them come out just right!
But nowadays there are computer programs that can correct a lot of errors in lighting, clarity, and so forth. Is it wrong to take advantage of such conveniences or is that taking too much artistic license? Truthfully, I really enjoy playing around with my photos to get a better pic. Does that make it "fake art?" I suppose there is a point where that becomes the case, but that's for each photographer/artist to decide.
I don't think so. For one thing, with today's cameras, many photographers are able to shoot in a RAW format. The camera takes in all the info, but the picture that results does not necessarily reflect all that the camera captures. The resolution of the JPG is usually around 5-7 megabytes, whereas the resolution of the RAW format photo may be 30-40 megabytes! By working with the photo in a photo editing program, changes can be made to bring out more of the hidden qualities the camera captured.
Usually, when I work with my photos, my goal is to work with the photo as much as I need to in order to get it to look like what I saw. For example, the picture above is the lower res JPG pic, and I used only my PC's rather primitive editing features to lighten or darken and to add or subtract a little clarity and color. The picture below has been edited from the high-resolution RAW photo, which can lighten and clarify to a much higher degree, while offering other tools to get more of what the camera really captured.
Usually, when I work with my photos, my goal is to work with the photo as much as I need to in order to get it to look like what I saw. For example, the picture above is the lower res JPG pic, and I used only my PC's rather primitive editing features to lighten or darken and to add or subtract a little clarity and color. The picture below has been edited from the high-resolution RAW photo, which can lighten and clarify to a much higher degree, while offering other tools to get more of what the camera really captured.
So, which photo actually looks closer to what I saw? I'd have to say that what I saw lies somewhere between the two. I might play around with it a little more to try to get it to look just what I saw. But either way, it was a lovely shot of a beautiful spot.
