I remember a long time ago, I used to believe editing was wrong and not the real photo and I was adamantly against it. Until I took a darkroom course and realized all the "editing" that used to be done in the darkroom. Then when I became interested in astrophotography and realized how much the camera can see that our eyes can't without editing. I decided to learn more about how cameras worked compared to our eyes and I understood the difference between bringing out what is already there and adding things that aren't there. The art side and information side, as you explained wonderfully.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Spot on. It's absolutely about making the most of the details you capture rather than adding things in that weren't there. I'm going to pin your comment to the top, if that's OK. I think it would be great for people to see your comment because many look at darkroom processing through rose-tinted spectacles. Thanks for watching.

I have not seen a more balanced, and nuanced, treatment of this highly polarizing subject. Well done !!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it.

"If you don't know how to behave as a human" - Priceless!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

🤣 Unfortunately a very small minority don't know.

What a fantastic video. A subject that has been thrashed to death, but that was a really comprehensive answer. It's always very funny.........strange when folk say, I don't edit I just get it right in camera, when really all the credit and editing is done by Mr Canon or Nikon. If they indeed did no editing it would simply be numbers in a square. I always say to anyone starting out, shoot jpeg until you can do better editing a raw image. They should also use that jpeg image as the control for the finished raw edit as well, this I have found keeps the beginner on the straight and narrow. It has always bugged me when folk cheat in photography, by inserting wildlife into stunning landscape images. I had a heated debate with a pro about this saying that I want my work to represent reality, his reply.....................good luck with selling that. His years in the business had taught him that anything goes. Yes National Geographic are guilty of publishing many photos and articles that years later have been proven to be lies. The Afgan girl with the stunning eyes was a high profile example of such an image. But I think it all boils down to this. If you see a photo and it looks too good to be true and you don't know the photographer then you should be questioning it's reality. But if you know the photographer and follow their work then as with a good book from a well known and trusted author you accept the photo for what it is. I think there is also an issue ( for me at least) with set up or baited hide images and I would include in that folk with too much money taking the short cut that pro's offer with guided Eagle and Otter tours, this not only means they don't have any or need any field craft but this also impacts the wild life getting a constant flow of people in their territory. But as said great video which I agree with totally.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Chris. Great points on editing there - I very much agree. Particularly on the jpgs for newer photographers. Just a counterpoint about paying people to show you - I offer sessions where I take people to get photos of things like rabbits, dippers and waders. (So I sort of have to defend my position). But part of the content I offer is on the field craft - how to find these in other locations and how to approach them without disturbing them. For many of these people, they're fairly new to photography and it's about giving them some confidence to get photos when faced with a subject, and the knowledge of how to do it in the right way. But one thing I've learned from offering these sessions is that even if you put someone directly in front of a subject, it doesn't mean they can get a nice photo of it. A lot of guidance I give is around positioning and composition etc Thanks for watching.

@captinktm

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Yes I hear you, but there is a fine line between education and exploiting nature. I am talking about the Eagle and Otter tours in Scotland where they more or less guarantee results. I also had a lengthy discussion with the RSPB at Flamborough Head. One thousand people a day pass through their car park and turn table. Nice cafe and massive platforms putting the great unwashed within meters of the birds. This in my book is exploitation, and must effect the colony in some way. But because there are 150 thousand birds this will not be noticed until it's too late.

A very rational and well-articulated and composed discussion of a subject that is often contentious and opinionated. It was indeed a pleasure to watch. I will certainly be making others aware of this very informative video. Appreciate your efforts.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm pleased you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.

That was a marvellous explanation of this topic. Part of the issue today (when it comes to being challenged over ones ethics) is that anyone with a smartphone has access to the myriad of outlandish filters that come baked-in to these devices. As a consequence, this becomes the frame of reference when viewing photography and that's what they think digital post-procesesing means; just slap on a filter! And worse, this makes everyone an armchair-expert! The same people are blissfully unaware of the computational photography going on in their phone; indeed many new photographers seem unaware of the amount of in-camera processing that the average jpeg gets. Then you get the classic 'SOOC' claim or "this isn't photoshopped" claim added to a publicly shared image. It all comes down to the same issue, a lack of understanding. And you have gone a long way to addressing this here. So bravo!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Matt. I absolutely agree. Even a picture that is SOOC is edited. It's just that they delegated the editing to their device. Camera sensors can't take images, they can only take image data. That data needs to be converted to an image. Many people don't seem to understand that. Thanks for watching.

Thanks for helping me formulate an explanation to the folks not editing. The baker story I liked! Great discussion on the subject, Scott. I've been long aware about Ansel Adams' "editing skills", but didn't realize that we as photographers have been cheating for 170 years!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

8 ай бұрын

Happy to help and thanks for watching.

Great summary 👏👏👏👏👏

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi David. I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Thanks for "Walking" us through this hilariously sensitive topic.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

😂 Thanks for watching.

Well said! My biggest challenge when editing is getting the white balance "correct". I like things a bit on the warmer side but sometimes I feel like it doesn't look "real" when I do that.

A very clear and balanced perspective. I especially appreciated the comment about telling the viewer if you have a composite image.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Excellent. Well said! Finally, someone who get’s it!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

One of the very best discussions I’ve seen in this topic anywhere. Factual and unbiased, a rarity these days. In particular, I enjoyed the historical segments discussing very early compositing examples. Thanks so much!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Gord, much appreciated. Glad you liked it.

Photo editing has been happening since the dawn of time, the key difference it's so much easier to achieve now. The widespread accessibility of digital photography, free editing apps/websites growing ever more powerful that capability to edit is just going to increase. Then there is camera's themselves particularly with mobile phones get photos mainly through computer processing. You add in scandels like samsungs "fake moon" pictures and it's a cocktail which all raises the issue of photography ethics and believability to photos. It's up to us as photographer to navigate it and be honest in the way we work and not just take a photograph, but as a whole package.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Peter. I wholeheartedly agree. The Samsung fake moon issue was shocking - so the tech manufacturers need to bear ethics in mind too. Thanks for watching.

Personally, I believe it's the best video I've ever seen on You Tube. So human and with feeling. Great!

Wow! Thank you Scott for this informative and entertaining video on this contentious issue. All photographers could benefit from giving this one a "thumbs up".

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Bill. I'm pleased you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.

Excellent video, thank you. My personal "beef" are those who make the moon or sun impossibly big in their photos, but your explanation of the range between ID and art is very helpful.

One of your best informative videos here Scott and you explained this subject so well, thanks so much.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much Raymond, I really appreciate it, as always.

Love this video, thank you so much! I often get asked the question „But this is edited, isn’t it?“, especially when the picture has a certain „WOW“ effect. And it is always with an undertone that diminishes part of the quality of my picture. Even though I always talk about processing the picture rather than editing it, most folks who are not photographers don’t really understand or want to understand that the pictures out of their phones are also edited, without their knowledge by their phone, that is. Your take on the subject is exactly my sentiment, and AI tools in editing software will further require a delicate balance on reality vs enhancement ( I like that word for it 😏) Love your channel, great stuff here!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I completely agree, Sigurd. Thank you for watching.

"Getting it right in camera" is getting it right with the edit in mind..

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Chris. I would agree with that, for sure. Thanks for watching.

@barneylaurance1865

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it can be that, or sometimes its getting it right to not need to edit, or only to need to edit minimally. Either because you don't want to edit, or maybe because you want to or need to deliver photos very quickly.

Great, informative video. I really liked the cake analogy. I tend to be more on the "artistic" end - and I know many don't like that.... I also hear "editing is cheating' from some people - but it's a form of art in my opinion. Describing from one end to the other end of the spectrum was also really good. It was also interesting to hear about how photographers have been editing in the darkroom for so many years in the past. I appreciate you sharing! Thanks!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Kimberly. Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.

Well articulated. I am of the same mind. I love how the very act of shooting photos puts me in position to witness the beauty of the world.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Well said Jennifer and thanks for watching.

GREAT really good Video well put together

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

I have so many thoughts on this, but I’ll offer three. The first is that your channel is one of the best on bird photography today, and it deserves to have a much bigger following. Thanks for giving so much! The second is that I really like a point you made at the beginning and ended up not elaborating upon other than indirectly: you say that RAW files are made to be edited. I think this is something that needs to be said more often: treating the image in post is continuous with choosing the camera settings prior to the shot, especially as sometimes the settings cannot by themselves get the job done. I may know that my camera will not be able to properly expose my subject without blowing the highlights; I can get around that technological limitation by anticipating that I will fix an underexposure in post, and accordingly underexpose the shot to get the highlights. Such a picture is not finished in camera, and editing comes in as part of the apparatus required for reproducing the scene. The job of editing, accordingly, is not to take the photo away from what the image looked like to me, but to bring it closer to it, as part of the same set of decisions that govern my choice of settings. Knowing this helps people appreciate editing as part of the process, since nobody objects to the settings photographers choose prior to taking the picture. And then the third is that I really love the spectrum you described (between information and art) to discuss the ethics of editing. I used to think of it in terms of rhetoric: photographs present themselves to viewers with implicit claims about their purposes, and these purposes may range from the documentary to the creative. Objections to editing often arise from the concern that the images are lying -- that highly processed images that prioritize creativity (and are designed to showcase the artist’s vision and skill) may implicitly invite a belief in their faithfulness to the real world. There is room for both approaches, but the rhetoric must not be misleading: a highly altered image should not seem to be saying “here’s what you would have seen had you watched this sunset with me.” That’s when the photographer’s candidness becomes key, as you explain so well in this video.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Roger, that's a really lovely comment - and I completely agree with your points. Thank you for watching.

Absolutely spot on Scott - totally agree with everything in the video. Thanks for very well informed and interesting presentation

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Richard. Pleased you found it interesting. Thank you very much for watching.

I have just found your videos. What an absolute delight. So informative, enjoyable, and stimulating. What being an excellent educator is all about. Thank you.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thank you Ken, What a very nice comment, I really appreciate it. I'm glad you're enjoying them and thanks for watching.

I always enjoy your videos, and thank you for tackling this subject. As someone who has a limited budget, and can't afford great lenses, the latest eye tracking cameras and super Mega Pixel sensors I have to combat high ISO noise, motion blur, poor depth of field and a host of other minor issues. I find that editing (can't afford photoshop) provides me with the balance that gives me satisfaction in the end product. Sometimes no editing is required, and provides more pleasure than normal, and also provides motivation to learn more about the subject. It's worth mentioning that shooting .jpeg automatically provides an edited image. Looking forward to the next video.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Bob. Great points and I completely agree that the most satisfying images are the ones where little or no editing is needed. Thanks for watching.

Best explaination of this subject I've ever heard. Bravo! It all makes perfect sense to me the way you share it. Thanks.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

9 ай бұрын

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it.

Brillant video that covered a very wide range of informations! I share pretty much the same opinions about photography that you have! And I do think that being honest about what has been done to the picture (composite, multi exposure ans so forth) is one of the most important thing for me! I do have real reservations about AI applications that used photographs from other photographers to build their platform database to create or add content to an image that is not 100% from the person publishing it as his own… And sadly, I do really feel sad for photographers that used to or are still trying to earn a living with the sales of theirs photographs. Nevertheless, I think that if we enjoy going out to capture some pictures of whatever makes you happy, then you are in the right spot! Cheers!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Great points, I'm glad you enjoyed the video. On the subject of AI, there might be something out on this soon too. I've recently recorded a video on it. It's a different take on AI, although I agree with the point you made. Thanks for watching.

Great video and comments on the full spectrum. Thanks for putting it together is a sane and informative way.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure. Thanks for watching.

A fascinating subject which I think you tackled brilliantly!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Photo editing is absolutely part of digital photography these days! I’ve been a photographer for nearly forty years and I have lots of experience of many different photographic genres, however a few years ago I decided to really learn Adobe Photoshop, now I’m much more proficient, my images all look improved and I get even more pleasure from photography, yes it takes effort to learn editing but it’s more than worth it in my opinion! I really enjoy your well balanced and informative videos here on KZread, thanks for sharing them with us, have a great photographic summer! Cheers Tony.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Tony - I completely agree. Learning the whole process from start to end, including the editing, makes the whole thing much more enjoyable. Glad you liked it and thanks for watching.

Thank you for this Scott! I found the video very informative, very well organized, and very thoughtful. I was particularly taken with your spectrum of photographic purpose, from art to information, and it really helped to organize a jumble of creative issues I have been dealing with in my photography.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi David. Glad you enjoyed it and I'm happy to help. Thanks for watching.

This was so well articulated. Thank you and love the channel!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Chad. Much appreciated and thanks for watching.

Totally agree with everything you say and in a crystal clear manner

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Thank you for telling the history and the reasons for how we have ended up here ! I started taking black white photos back in the 1960s ... could not afford a colour system . We are taught to get it has right has possible ' in camera ' but with only 100iso and 400iso film to work with you had to squeeze every drop of information out of a negative. This had to be done in a very darken room with trays of smelly chemicals water and wet paper ... hours of fun !!! 😞 Now in my 70s I have nice dry darkroom ... and no smelly chemicals... its called Lightroom and I wish with all my heart I could have had it in my teens ! 🙂 Thank you Tony for a great video.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I've never had the experience of working in a dark room, but I have to say Lightroom sounds much nicer and easier. Thanks for watching.

Excellent A++ some great information. I am one of those who actually like to edit. But within boundaries. I really enjoy making sticks and branches disappear! Great info on the history of sky replacement and I had no idea that composites were created that long ago!!!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Andrew. I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Excellent video Scott sounded a little bit like a rant at first but got so many points across and I totally agree with you on them all. Keep it up sir.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm pleased you like it. (It probably was a bit ranty at first). Thanks for watching.

WOW! Brilliant take on the subject. Thank you very much for sharing such great content. Really like your information, the pace and tone, it's time well spent. I will surely follow your videos, or should I say lessons, closely. Thanks again!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Wow, thank you. I'm so happy to hear that and glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching.

Excellent video Walks!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Excellent video! I can’t say I’m an expert, but I find editing half the fun! I love trying to bring out the best in a scene or a critter. Thank you for all your instructive videos!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure, David. Thanks for watching.

An excellent discussion of all of these important points. I totally agree with your position.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

11 ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Photography is a fantastic experience, capturing a special moment in time and being in that moment, especially in the great outdoors is so cathartic as an antidote to modern life. Editing that image brings that catharsis into your home and extends that moment, sometimes for hours. I use Affinity Photo and like Photoshop/Lightroom it is quite overwhelming at first, I'm "self taught" in the respect that most of what I've learned has been via creators/educators like yourself on You Tube, although I have worked through a couple of books directly related to the software. It has taken years to get to grips with layer work and there have been many many fails. Looking back at early work I wonder how I could have possibly thought I'd got it right. Submitting images for critique via a photographic community has really helped me on this journey. I always say, "Take photographs with your enthusiasm; not your ego" It's a mantra that I've found really useful as it encourages a mindset that is responsive to constructive criticism, negative comments are sometimes better than positive ones as they help you to grow. The positive ones stand out, don't get me wrong, it's important to know when you've got it right too. Once all my critique submissions are largely praised, only then will I think that the journey and the goals of that journey have largely been met. The caveat being that in photography the learning curve is neverending so it's always better to keep that ego in a jar in order to continue adding to your knowledge without hubris. Your video has really helped me realise that my manipulations are acceptable, I'll continue to swap skies guilt free and blur out my backgrounds with abandon!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

You never stop learning photo editing either. Particularly with the pace of change that the software developers are providing updates nowadays, there's always something new to learn. Thanks for watching.

Bonjours de Normandie, j'apprécie toujours autant vos vidéos ainsi que les points de vue apportés aux retouches et réglages matériels et comportements en général dans la nature. Une bonne continuation dans votre démarche constructive...

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Bonjour Didier. Je suis ravi que la vidéo vous ait plu et je vous remercie de l'avoir regardée. Meilleurs voeux du Royaume-Uni.

I watch a lot of photography videos. This one is now my favorite. Well-considered and wise. Especially at the dawn of AI editing, this is a must-watch for any photographer.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Very kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching.

Great explanation of photo editing. I have nothing to add. 👍

@WalksOnTheWildSide

11 ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

This was brilliant! Thanks for sharing this perspective.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi David. My pleasure. Thanks for watching.

Excellent topic and video!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Excellent video on a widely discussed topic. Agree with your take and have now subscribed!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Guy. Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for subscribing and watching.

Very informative and a cogent argument succunctly put forth

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Hi Scott, on allowing usage of an image - circa 2014 I had an author approach me to use an image of mine of a juvenile Grey Goshawk. He'd found my image on a birding forum and tracked me down and contacted me via email. I was pretty happy to get an image published in a book. In return, I held copyright and ownership of the image, allowing hiim to use said image in the book in question ("Australian High Country Raptors by Dr Jerry Olsen, published by the CSIRO) and I got a copy of said book for free. Jerry was a prominent author on Australian birds and very highly respected. He sadly passed away in 2021. I was absolutely stoked at this, despite being a non-working amateur photographer. I get what you're saying that it potentially harms the working professional, but I also find it selfish that the working professional says a non amateur should knock back alliowing an image of theirs to be used. There are 2 signs of the coin. I've also had some macro work of Blue Banded Bees published online for eductaional purposes (gratis, but copyright ownership held by myself, and copyright ownership clearly stated on said website) - this was on a website owned by a prominent Australian entomoligist who specialies in native Austrlian bees. I also had a university in the US (I think it was the university of Arizona from memory) want to use One of my macro images for edcucational purposes. They never got back to me after the original email. I also had National Geographic want to use One of my images too, but they wanted to use it for free (perpetual) and retain ownership of said image and I flatly refused. As nice as it would have been to be pubished by National Geographic, I wasn't prepared to give said image away for free without any recognition or remuneration of some sort.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi David. Firstly, congratulations on having those photos published/interest in your photos - no mean feat at all. I agree with much of what you wrote. I also completely agree with what you're saying about educational purposes. And under those circumstances, and for research purposes too, I have allowed my photos to be used for free - perhaps I should have mentioned that. But let me offer a counterpoint on the ones for commercial purposes. I believe that anyone, no matter whether amateur, semi-pro, full time pro etc. should be recompensed for their work. Under these kind of arrangements, the publisher makes money, as do the advertisers, as do the staff of the publication, as do the retailers - in fact everyone in the supply chain makes money from the arrangement, except for the photographer who has been asked to give away their work for free. So where's the selfishness really? It's with the publisher who doesn't cut the photographer in on those profits. But I'm glad to be generating some discussion on this, even if if there are a few minor points we don't agree on. Thanks for watching.

@davepastern

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide yes, I fully agree on being compensated when offering an image for commercial work. I got a book out of it (~AUD $75) and considered that good compensation. Again though, I'm not everyone, and some people are just simply happy to get an image published, and don't care about remuneration. They should be able to choose that if they so wish.

So well said!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Well said !! Totally agree!!.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

Great video, love it.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

23 күн бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Great video Scott

@WalksOnTheWildSide

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching Peter.

I have to admit that until now I have often been critical of post processing editing. First, because I don’t particularly like sitting for hours in front of my Mac. Secondly, although I do some editing, it is limited to brightening or darkening the scene, adding a little bit of contrast, reducing any noise (or trying to), occasionally enhancing the colours, etc. However, I never, move a tree, a mountain and certainly not a pyramid! I like to think that if anyone of my children or grandchildren were to visit a site where I captured a photograph maybe 20 years before, they would be able to recognise it from the landmarks in the original image. However, I was so impressed with your explanations of how editing can be used, ethically, I intend to make a genuine effort to learn the basics of one of the better known editing suites such as Adobe Lightroom or Capture One (I currently use Apple Photos and a little bit of Skylum Luminar AI. Although I have captured tens of thousands of images (both film and digital) over the past 50 years or so, my knowledge of editing is limited to the minor adjustments referred to in the foregoing. I would therefore appreciate your advice on which editing software would be best for a virtual beginner like myself. Thank you for a great, well balanced video. Alun

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Alun. Glad you found it useful. Similarly to you, I much prefer the act of capturing a photo than editing one, but I'm sure once you've invested some time in learning more about editing you'll find it more enjoyable. And you might even get moments of great joy on those occasions where the photo doesn't look as good on your computer as it did on the back of the screen and you can sort it out with a little editing. As for which software, if you're a Fuji user - definitely Capture One - none of the others handle Fuji files as well as Capture One because the two companies collaborate. But other than that, I think Luminar Neo is the easiest to learn because everything is quite instinctive, and even if you don't know what something does, they give it common sense names and you can figure it out. However, it does use more processing power than Lightroom. So if you've got and older/slower machine, Lightroom might be better for you. There are also more videos on Lightroom for you to learn from. I'm sure your archive of 50 years worth of photos would be fascinating to look through. And there might be some photos from years gone by that didn't quite hit the mark, but could now do something with them through photo editing. Thanks for the question and for watching.

@Henry30065

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I currently use Apple Photo and Luminar AI on a modern Apple Mac. In your opinion , it worth my buying Luminar Neo in addition to Luminar AI. Thank you again for your helpful comments/advice. Alun

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Alun. I've never used Luminar AI so I can't really compare it with Luminar Neo. But Neo seems to be where most of Skylum's development is focussed. This page has a comparison of features if that helps (scroll down to a little over half way) skylum.com/luminar/neo-ai-comparison

@Henry30065

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Thanks again Scott. From the comparison list you sent me, there appears little doubt that Neo is the more up to date and feature packed software. I shall now purchase the offer you outlined on KZread as it is clearly very attractive, especially when you add in the 10% through you. All the best. Alun

Great video and superb perspective on a topic I often debate with my wife. A photographer mentor of mine once made the comment “you don’t take a photograph, you MAKE a photograph. You TAKE a snapshot.” So your example of the rare bird in the feeder is a snapshot. Nothing is wrong with that because a photograph wasn’t your purpose. I often shoot photos of birds in less than ideal conditions. Perhaps it is backlit against a bright grey sky. Perhaps there is a lot of brush in the frame. Sometimes there might be a feeder or building in the frame that can be distracting. While it is always best to find the right framing in camera, field conditions don’t always make that possible. So I have no issues erasing distracting elements in the frame (if they can’t be cropped out), replacing the sky, or replacing the background altogether so long as the final product still looks natural. While my skills are nowhere near professional level, and I will take snapshots for documentation purposes, my aim is to “make a photograph”. So I have no issues with this sort of editing.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Steven. I completely agree that our aim should be to make a photo and not take one - the difference is the intent to create rather than simply capture. Thanks for watching.

Brilliant explanation 👍

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching.

From someone who is doing this for 20+ years. You know the difference between an edited photo and a nonedited? Skill. Both are edited. The better/cooler/more amazing photo is just edited by someone with more experience ... 😉 Why i usually tell people to learn to edit. You don´t need to be the best photographer, but if you master editing, you will produce far better results. Excellent overview, cheers! Oh and use suncream on your nose 😆

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

😂 I’m British and a red head. My nose is supposed to look burned in the summer! But apart from that I completely agree. Thanks for watching.

I'm not a nature photographer but damn I learn a lot of your channel that I can apply in my field of photography. Thank you for making very educational videos!

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad you're enjoying them, thanks for watching.

Great discussion Scott. Are you aware of the "Content Authenticity Initiative"? the discussion has been opened up more recently due to AI. My guess is that it will all lead to a way for photographers who wish to - to state and embed the genre of their images, individually. I can see three categories, to keep it simple - 1 WP of the Year style criteria, 2) Between WPY criteria and AI, then 3) AI. Those who do not wish to use any such system are of course free not to - but i think in the future that more and more of the public will wish to know - again due to the coming preponderance of AI images that will hit the web.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Darcy. No, I hadn’t heard of it, but it sounds really interesting and a positive step. I think I need to research more to form an opinion, but I just checked the website and 3 things spring to mind. (1) I worry that Adobe is the only software developer involved. It reminds me of the development of the DNG file. It had real potential to become an industry standard raw format, however, Adobe’s control over it meant the other software developers and camera manufacturers didn’t really run with it. (2) People who want to deceive their audience into thinking that their AI generated image is real will continue to do so, as the scheme is purely voluntary. (3) There are lots of types of AI involved in photography. AI, editors like the Topaz suite. AI in hardware such as the AI auto focus in Sony A7RV, and AI generative tools. The CAI doesn’t appear to differentiate between these, and it would be helpful to do so, because only the latter can be used for deception. That being said, I’m definitely gonna dig deeper into this when I have time. So thanks for letting me know.

Really interesting video! Thanks for responding in detail to my comment on the editing video Scott. You said yesterday that you didn't expect us to agree on everything, but actually your answer my core question - was it creating misinformation to brighten the iris and where is the line in this sort of photography - was extremely reasonable. You said it wasn't misinformation because you know that puffins can and do look like that with different lighting and/or different camera settings, and the line is to keep the subject looking like what it potentially could have looked like in reality. I can't disagree with that. I will add another comment or expand this to clarify some of the things I was asking in the comments on the editing video - as you've paraphrased my questions I think you've taken some of the nuance out of them. But I'm certainly not part of the "photo editing is cheating" crowd. I do I appreciate good editing, and I do edit my photos, so my question wasn't about whether to edit or not to edit, it was about exactly how to edit.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Barney. I'm not trying to imply that you're part of the editing is cheating crowd. So if it came across that way, I'm sorry. As I think I mentioned at the start of the video, I combined your perfectly reasonable questions with others that I sometimes get asked to try to address this topic as fully as possible. I tried to make it clear when it was one of your points or not. But I'm glad you found it interesting, and judging by the comments so far, I think it has been an interesting topic for other viewers too. So thanks for agreeing for me to use your questions for this, and thanks for watching again.

@barneylaurance1865

Жыл бұрын

Just responding to the points in the video where you replied to my questions. I know you were responding to other people's questions at the same time. For reference my original comment that you reference is at kzread.info/dash/bejne/epp20tGnqLnYqaw.html&lc=Ugw1K0ItW-fLg359GY54AaABAg - 10:35 Question about publishing vs self publishing. I'm sure you're right that the vast majority of photos published are self-published, at least if counted by the number of original photos used. Maybe if counted as a total number of print copies / online impression many more are published by publishers, but even then I don't know. I certainly don't think that National Geographic or anyone else is perfect, I mentioned them just because they're the most famous photo focused publisher known to have some set written standards. You answered the question of whether the puffin edit would be within Nat Geo's rules at 16:46 - "that wouldn't be within their rules". I agree of course that no-one else should have to follow their rules, but it's useful to know that this wouldn't be. I'm not sure whether the rules themselves are published freely anywhere, if they are I'm not seeing them in a quick google search. I guess I feel like it would be nice to have some statement of rules followed I could look for and claim on photos. Not "#nofilter" claim because that's almost meaningless, but a "filters-applied-responsibly" claim, that would refer to some document setting out a list of rules I could self-certify that I followed when self-publishing. As an unknown amateur writing my own set of rules and referencing it on a photo would feel pretentious and self-indulgent. The football analogy is a good one - yes, if you're playing football with your mates no-one says you have to follow the published laws of the game. But you might well want to discuss what those laws do and don't allow, and be clear about where you've made different rules. But there isn't any equivalent to the laws of the game in photography, because it's not a game. - 17:34. You paraphrased my question as "Is photo editing unfair on photographers who don't edit their photos". I think that's a different question to the one I asked. I didn't say "don't edit their photos", I said "want to share a less manipulated picture". That's not the same as not editing at all. I don't think concern was as much about the overall impression the audience gets being potentially distorted, rather than concern for the photographers not being able to get the attention they want. - 20:00 "What if I faked a photo of a lion in my local park". As you say in the answer, we should "always make people aware of what we're creating". I think in my question I made clear that I don't think it would be a problem if I made clear that it's fake, but it would be a problem if I presented it as real. We're in agreement on that. I just meant it as an extreme example of misinformation to frame the question - if that's extremely misleading, is something more mundane and realistic like the iris brightening very slightly misleading, since any caption for that photo wouldn't describe the edits. Just to reply to the advice you gave at 21:51, I don't agree that I should necessarily make sure that I've taken both parts of those photos. I just think I should avoid claiming to have created more than I did, e.g. by giving credit to the photographers that did create the photos. Sampling is a very legitimate part of many art forms. And I might also need permission to use the photos, unless i could claim fair use / fair dealing. - 22:18 "What if people believe it, how far is too far?" This was really my main question. I agree photography can be on a spectrum - although really it's more complicated than a spectrum. Maybe a plane, with information value as one axis, artistic value as another axis. Maybe more complicated than that, with the artistic and informational values bound up together. I think with wildlife they probably usually are bound up together, the artistic value would be lost for many people if it wasn't in some way a true record of reality, and also the ability to reach people and communicate information would be lost without the artistic value. We often want some sort of of truth from art in many forms. I think in some ways photography has aspects of performance art - the selection of a subject, capturing images from it, and then selecting and editing an image to present is a performance that we appreciate as an audience. We don't watch the performance, but we get know something about it via the image we see, and what the photographer tells us about it. For that to work it seems have to believe the photo is a truthful record of the performance. I'm thinking of the very popular photo "A wren's breath" by Oliver Wright. The photo shows a wren and its breath in the cold air. It doesn't really tell us much we didn't already know about wrens. We could guess that they have moist breath like most animals, and so that the breath would be visible in cold conditions with the right lighting. And it's a beautiful looking photo, but I think would have much less impact without the photographer's story about how they captured it. If he hadn't managed to capture the breath with the camera and had inserted CGI breath (and been clear that it was CGI), I expect the photo would have had almost none of the attention it has had, because that wouldn't be a compelling story. You say "I was trying to make the puffin look more like they look in real life". And that seems like a very good potential answer to where the line of what's too far should be. Maybe even a big conservative. My concern was about people going beyond to that make them wildlife "like they look in real life, except subtly and systematically more attractive". I think it might be almost impossible for most of us to avoid doing that sometimes. Apologies for the wall of text.

Hi, I'm a new subscriber. I agree with all your points. I think everyone should have their own ethics when it comes to editing and as long as they are not hiding it it is ok. Personally, I am ok with adding brightness/saturation etc to parts of image in case the light was not good, but I will not add things to the photo that were not there (like adding a branch, making background out of focus in post etc). Thanks for all the videos, cheers 🥂

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm with you on that. Thanks for subscribing and watching.

@barneylaurance1865

Жыл бұрын

Aren't you imposing your ethics on others when you say they SHOULD have their own ethics? :)

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Are you suggesting people shouldn’t have ethics? Or have I misunderstood what you mean?

@barneylaurance1865

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Just a joke really, but pointing out an irony of yash saying people should have their own ethics. That's itself an ethic. It would be more consistent to either not care about what other people do at all, or say they should behave in a particular way. Saying they should have their own rules is neither one nor the other. "Follow your own rules" is itself a rule.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Not if it contains the word “should” - that’s advice. On the other hand, If I were to say people “must” have their own rules, then it would be a rule. 😂 If you want to debate semantics.

Good shot at a very complex and disputed topic. Next step is AI (people shooting landscape without leaving their desk).

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Thierry. Thanks. I think we might be a while away from people taking photos without leaving home, but I'm not as nervous as some people are about AI. There seems to be a lot of doom mongers at the moment. Thanks for watching.

Everything you said in this video is so true! I think editing is just as important as fieldcraft and knowledge of species/subject. Thanks for an entertaining video, keep them coming. Best regards Mark.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi Mark. I'm pleased you like it. Thanks for watching.

I still have my darkroom in a box in the garage. In that box, is my enlarger, my very beloved film cameras, filters, film developing cannisters, dodging tools, all sorts. If I could get the papers and film so easily again, I would ditch all this digital rubbish and go back into my darkroom. The b&w film emulsion captured so many nuances of the light. I still remember the first time I used color film and it was at a shore preserve, where I photographed a patch of brilliant green moss under deep browm pine trees using my Pentax ME SLR. I loved the color but made a conscious decision to NOT buy a color enlarger and darkroom setup. In that era I took lots of TriX (ASA 400) photos of events in Manhattan (or fires, car accidents, etc) and then went to the New York Daily News and dropped off the film, signing a release. They returned contact sheets, the developed film, and $50 for each picture they publish (plus a byline).

@abbracia

Жыл бұрын

As for pyramids and puffins, film was, and digital photos are, art. Like a collage of cutouts children make at school, it is all art. If you try to market your art as being real (i.e. creating fog in a movie set), it's creative and art. You get to make art! But if I had created flames coming from a building and tried to sell the photo to a newspaper as being news of a fire, my credibility would have gone to zero and I would lose my newspaper client.

If I have to post only the photos representing what my bare eyes can see, everything would be out of focus unless they're 5cm-18cm away from the tip of the lens. 😅

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

🤣 Good point, thanks for watching.

On a separate issue - I do take issue with editing vs non-editing (or low editing) in competitions - for example, i take a photo of a Salticidae @ f11 (avoiding diffraction etc). At 1:1 the DOF isn't going to be humungous (typically ~4mm from memory). imagine if I enter a competition and get voted down our beaten by an image where someone used digital photo stacking (either in camera, or via softare such as Zerene). They have gained an unfair advantage imho. These days, most competitions allow digital stacking sadly. I'm not being a purist, and I'm not being unreasonable in a fair and even playing ground. I mean, imagine if a pro footballer was allowed to use bionic legs...would that be fair? I think many competitions have simply softened their stance because the majority of modern digital photographers are using tools such as digital stacking and to omit them would see a very narrow competition entry. My view is that perhaps those photographers (in my particular example) should get off their asses and take the photo "as is" based on the technical limitiations of actual optical physics instead of using technology to effectively cheat. i don't know what your point of view on this particular example is, and whether you'd say this as going over that "line" of what's reasonable. I look forward to your view on this.

@davepastern

Жыл бұрын

PS I don't mind editing images - I do tend to keep it pretty simple (NR, slight curves, some very minor hue/sat and some sharpening, that's about it, all within very reeasonable limits). The real question is where does editing go to the point of being beyond that "line"?

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Hi David. I can offer you some experience on this as I occasionally get asked to judge competitions. In fact I'll be judging two this summer. One is for a national photographic society (equivalent to your Australian Photographic Society). This competition has very strict rules about photo editing - very much along the lines of the type of editing you say you do. It is a competition that is only available to their members - but the other competition will be available to all and I'll be able to announce something about it on KZread in a few weeks' time. The second competition has a few categories, which will allow minimal editing, but it has one category which specifically allows heavy editing - pretty much anything is ok in this category except additive processes (so you can't add a second bird, or a different sky, for example). There are a range of competitions available to people with a variety of rules. My general opinion about this that as long as everyone is playing by the same set of rules, everyone knows what the rules are, and the rules are enforced, then there's no fairness issue. If you enter a lightly edited photo in a competition that allows heavily edited photos - you have equity in opportunity - you could have edited more heavily. Conversely, if someone enters a heavily edited photo in a competition that doesn't allow this, they should be disqualified to maintain the rules that are set. I think there's enough diversity of competitions out there to suit everyone's preferences. But, fairness is something that all sorts of competitions have to wrestle with, all the time. Very similar to your footballer with bionic legs example, it's not too long ago that Paralympian, Oscar Pistorius, wanted to enter non-disabled competitions but was denied entry because it was felt that his blades gave him and unfair advantage. He went to court, won a legal battle and was allowed to compete in non-disabled competitions. (Setting aside the murder he committed after this, it sparked a lot of interesting debate.) There are also lots of debates over fairness in sports for transgender athletes and there are some pending court cases over this. The point is that fairness isn't always an easy thing to get right, in any walk of life. What's fair from one person's perspective, isn't from another's. And sometimes its so complicated that the decisions have to go through legal disputes to get any kind of resolution. And you've got to remember that the people who run these things are only human - they all have their own preferences, opinions and biases. But these differences can cause problems. It was not so long ago that some photography competitions outright banned the use of the Topaz suite. The problem that they had was that many of the photographers that these competitions used as judges, or to promote the competitions, were Topaz users, affiliates and ambassadors. So it sparked a lot of questions from people when photos that were used to promote the competitions were/could have been edited with Topaz, and yet Topaz was banned. Eventually the people who ran the competitions came around. I'm not aware of any that specifically bans Topaz nowadays. So, the decisions about fairness also have to move with the times. Sorry for quite a long answer (I probably could have turned your question into a video too, and I probably could have given your answer a lot more structure if I had done so). My general feeling on the matter, though, is that as long as there is equity for all involved - a consistently applied set of rules - and as long as there is diversity amongst the competitions, everyone has a fair chance.

@davepastern

Жыл бұрын

@@WalksOnTheWildSide yes, that's a very fair point. I don't bother with competitions, waste of time imho. I've entered a few local council competitions and let's just say the judges, imho, vote for their friends, rather than what's best in the category. Not gonna waste my time again with biased judging. To each their own.

Hey there! I have come up with a clever diffusing solution for my kx800 twin flash and I'd love to share it with you. How can I contact you in more privacy, like telegram or something?

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'd be interested to hear about that. There is a contact form on my website, walksonthewildside.co.uk. Thanks for watching.

Great video! Technically speaking human eyes can see black and white since rods and cones are not equally sensitive. When the very first light comes through the curtains in the morning the entire room is viewed in black and white. We're so accustomed to it we don't even realize it. Perhaps the brain is filling in some color for us as well. But of course this is not relevant for the point you were making in the video. In broad daylight we can't see in black and white.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Interesting to know, thanks for sharing that and for watching.

Ansel Adams was the king of photo editing hell he even used a pen or marker to edit his negatives, I told am auditorium full of photo students that black and white photos were all fake, you could hear the gasp from across the street LOL, then I asked if anyone in the room has is 100% color blind and can't see any color, none stood up, and I said there you go everyone sees in color so how is a black and white real? It's like selective color images the whole photo is B&W but there's a red balloon in it LOL. Every digital camera processes the raw image, the algorithm that records info from the sensor to the file goes thru an algorithm which tells it what to do with the info.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely - that's a fact not many people seem to understand, but it's true. Thanks for watching.

@barneylaurance1865

Жыл бұрын

And indeed the colour info in the raw image only generally has something like a half or a quarter (depending which channel) of the resolution of the light-dark info. Any higher frequencies in the colours have to be guessed by the demosaicing algorithm.

I think it’s a bit sneaky and misleading of you to say that film editing went on back in the day. Clearly when someone thinks of editing a photo they think more than just the kind of touch ups that would be typically done in a darkroom. Some of the ‘editing’ you’re suggesting was very time consuming and not practical. I learnt my photography back in the film days and know how difficult some of what you say was and when working professionally, just wasn’t done. Time was money. To remove an object from, say a wildlife image, was literally impossible. Now it can be done in seconds digitally. The whole notion of darkroom editing has become a myth within a myth. Dodge and burn would typically be as much as you would or could do. It just doesn’t compare with today. The examples you gave were extreme and could only be done by really good experts. Anyone with a mobile phone now can completely transform an image with just a swipe of a finger. Just to be clear, I have no problem with digital editing as long as any extreme editing is disclosed, just be honest and don’t compare it with film and darkroom editing, to make out ‘it was just the same’ back then.

@WalksOnTheWildSide

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure in what way you think it was "sneaky" - it's right there in the video for everyone to see - no sneaking. As for misleading - I dispute that. Your argument seems to be that it was difficult and therefore wasn't done. But historical facts are facts. As I said in the video, Ansel Adams would spend a whole day developing just one photo. In fact he thought the developing process was so important he left all his undeveloped photos to a university and was excited by the thought that the students would create something different to him. I had countless other examples, which I couldn't include or this video would have gone on forever. But some of the most famous photos in history have been edited. Even this famous image of Abraham Lincoln, and arguably the most famous photo of him, was actually photo of another man with Lincoln's head added afterwards www.chasejarvis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/chasejarvis_photoshop8-620x413.jpg. It certainly wasn't "literally" impossible to remove an object. In the video I showed a photo from the mid 1800s that was a composite of five different photos. That means they had to remove a lot of parts of those five photos to create it. I don't disagree with you that it's much easier today. And I don't dispute that there would have been far fewer people doing this type of editing. However to whitewash their contribution to photography is a travesty. These photographers and editors were our photographic forefathers.