editing vs settings

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

I have a friend who takes beautiful pictures, but he has a camera that has
all sorts of functions (and he knows how to use them).

My camera is a point-and-shoot. My original pictures aren't as good as
his, but after I edit a picture, it's as good or better.

Do you think that my edited picture is inferior to his? Or is this one of
the benefits of digital photography: that you can't tell the difference
between an inferior picture that's been edited and a superior photo that's
"as-is".

Elaine

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"sd" <sd55117@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:sd55117-2DF64E.19182029102004@news.mpls.visi.com...
> In article <10o4pbbf6c2oiff@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Elaine" <epratzel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who takes beautiful pictures, but he has a camera that
>> has
>> all sorts of functions (and he knows how to use them).
>>
>> My camera is a point-and-shoot. My original pictures aren't as good as
>> his, but after I edit a picture, it's as good or better.
>>
>> Do you think that my edited picture is inferior to his? Or is this one
>> of
>> the benefits of digital photography: that you can't tell the difference
>> between an inferior picture that's been edited and a superior photo
>> that's
>> "as-is".
>
> That's a tough call. Certainly you may be editing your photos to
> address weaknesses of your P&S. Or you may be editing to enhance the
> informational or artistic value of the photo (as photos of planets are
> sometimes enhanced). In my mind, none of those things makes your
> edited pictures "inferior."
>
> But if you're editing to address things like over- or under-exposure,
> poor composition, blurriness, etc., then I'd say your edited photo
> _is_ inferior, since editing digital pictures often introduces digital
> noise or other artifacts, and the work you do in editing really
> doesn't make the picture any better than it would have been composed
> in the camera.
>
> My $.02.
>
> sd

I totally agree. As often it's a tradeoff: P&S cams are usually so compact
and light that you can always carry them around, while cameras like digital
SLR with better initial quality can save you time in the editing phase. If
however you do heavy editing anyway (probably because you like to try out
sepia and other effects or like to combine multiple images) then the time
used up for enhancing overall image quality might be neglectible compared to
the artistic editing.

I find terms "inferior" or "superior" not really adequate in this context:
certainly a digital SLR is usually *technically* superior to a P&S, but that
doesn't say anything about the quality of images, which has a *lot* to do
with the one pressing the release button and doing the editing.

Kind regards

robert