Hellobee Boards

I don't think so . . . I think editing can make up for things that are beyond your control (environment), and can also make a series of photographs look more like a *collection* in that the photographs all have the same look/feel to them?

I know what you mean. I'm too lazy to edit afterwards or adjust settings on the camera, so I always point and click. I give a lot of thought to composition though, which I think makes people think my photos are half-decent.

The photographer who did my maternity and newborn shots had a preview on Facebook the next morning after the shoots, and the whole albums up to look at within a couple of days. I am certain that she edits very little, if at all, so I would prett much agree with the idea that a good photographer is one who doesn't need to edit. Also, think of all the great photographers that existed long before digital cameras and photoshop- it was so much more about skill then. Now, I think there are more people who are good at photoshop than there are good photographers.
However, I am not a photographer, so I would be interested to hear their point of view

I don't know if I agree with that. I can see that a better photographer might not blur the edges and ad heart graphics to every photo, but I'm sure they all do some sort of post processing. Look at the gazillion dollar wedding photographers, they all do something right?

I agree.. I want the photographer to shoot well and know how to adjust for different lighting situations. I don't want overly processed pictures that are fixed with Photoshop actions.

I agree with it a bit. I think editing can add a lot sometimes but the colors often get messed up. I like natural looking colors better than the highly edited colors that are popular lately in photos.

I don't think so. I'm sure all professionals do some editing. It's important to be able to take good photos in the first place which would save time editing, but I don't think that means you're a better photographer. When film was used didn't they "edit" the photos with how they developed the film?

Photography is my hobby. I like to take RAW photos too and fix the white balance, exposure, up vibrance, etc. just basic edits and it makes my photos just pop so much more.

I tend to agree with the statement, but a little post processing is sometimes necessary to have the client happy if certain aspects were beyond control, speaking as a pro photographer.

AND with film they were "edited" aswell, processes in the darkroom were used such as "dodge" and " burn" to either lighten or dark areas of a print. digital just made it a lot easier!

A good photographer will be able to correct light issues etc with camera settings but use of their knowledge.

I think a talented photographer does not need to edit much because they have accounted for the proper settings when taking the photo. DH is experimenting with film, and there is no going back to edit the photo. He has to be very careful that all of his settings are correct and that he is able to focus on the subject. Digital photos allow us to keep clicking and just worry about post processing to fix our mistakes. Of course I fit into this category and admit that I don't know enough about photography.

I don't know any professional photographers who don't edit their photos in some way or another!

That being said, the BEST edits still cannot do what a great camera / lens / flash / lighting / settings / etc. can do.

I think a good photographer doesnt need to edit as much. I have DSLR and I'm not a great photographer so I do edit a lot

@MrsTiz: That is... um... wow...

Without editing, a person has raw talent, reflexes and a great naked eye. To me that is better than an edited version. Granted one must learn to edit as a professional and that is a talent in itself. I lean old school in the be natural camp. However i occasionally break out the artist tools to craft a photo's mood. i find the question/answers going down the lines of ..is putting on makeup true beauty? What about plastic surgery? Where do you draw the line? So subjective.