Editing versus processing

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
jrtrent Veteran Member • Posts: 4,683
Re: Editing versus processing

jackdan wrote:

Perry Kivolowitz wrote:

One view: If it has an analog to a darkroom, it's processing. Else, editing.

nice analogy

Another view: A modification to content is editing. Else processing.

I might subscribe to the second. To add or remove image content such as a person.

It seems we pretty much agree. Thanks for stopping by.

Another interesting take is in this article:


He considers anything corrective in nature to be editing (e.g., white balance, exposure adjustment, dust and spot removal) and attends to these matters first, giving him a "clean" image to which he can then apply creative processing (such as color shifts, dodging & burning, and tonal adjustments).

I kind of like the idea of editing as being a corrective process; it matches the use of the term as I've long seen it in an elementary school setting, where students edit their work by fixing such things as spelling, punctuation, and usage errors.

For myself, I've never considered "processing" as part of digital photography.  Processing is what a lab did to my slide film after I exposed it, and they sent back pictures in plastic or cardboard mounts that I could see in a viewer or project onto a screen.  When I transfer pictures from my camera to my computer or some other viewing device, they've already been processed by the camera's JPEG engine, so processing isn't something I do directly (though I have input into the process via the image parameter settings).  The terms relating to what I can actually do with a picture after it's been taken are image editing and post-processing, and these seem to be synonymous (considering that we post-process images with image editing software).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow