Snappiness Photography ForumShare Your Work: Share Your PhotosDo you ever re-edit old photos?

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Do you ever re-edit old photos?

#1 · June 15, 2022, 9:32 pm

It's funny how tastes change isn't? Like when I edit a photo.... I'll think "man I nailed that". Six months later I'll look back at the same photo and think "man, what was I doing". To much vibrance, bad crop, horizon is off, colors are all wrong, over sharpened.... the list goes on.

I'd love to improve my eye somehow to definitively know what is right and what is wrong when editing a photo (lifelong pursuit?). I don't want to have 12 versions of the same thing! I'm not sure that's even possible but there must be some established guidelines. Perhaps someone knows of a good book on the matter? Not the usual software specific guide but a more general book on photo editing.

I'm on Linux so my software isn't the usual Photoshop/Lightroom situation ( I could make a post about this topic alone ). My editing tools change, my workflow changes, and most importantly my tastes seem to change. Does this happen to anyone else?! It can be fun to re-edit but at the same time I wish I'd just get it right the first time.

I looked back at a few photos and had to make a few edits. For now, I like them 😉 ....tomorrow who knows; I'll probably think I over-cooked them

Some re-edits attached. I'll accept any and all comments. Happy Snappin 😉

Uploaded files:

SpruceBruce and HeggenDazs have reacted to this post.

#2 · June 16, 2022, 4:07 am

@grover I'm constantly reviewing my Lightroom Library, you're not alone in this. I look back at old edits I did, and wonder why did I bumped the saturation so high, too much dehaze, clarity etc.....

Also that abandoned prairie landscapes are so awesome! Where were they located? I'm a huge sucker for that type of composition.

It's kind of fun in a way. I guess that's how the dark room worked originally in theory, you could edit your prints with the enlarger to your liking.

grover has reacted to this post.

#3 · June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am
What editing tools are you using on Linux? I used Linux for a while, went back to Windows, and now I'm on a Mac. Still like all of them for various reasons. I used to use gimp a lot, then for some free tools I've used darktable and rawtherapee, but I can't remember if they have Linux versions. My mac now is an M1 mac and one of my only but major complaints is that a lot of those opensource tools don't work yet. The teams will probably have to make M1 compatible builds, and I don't know how long that will take if they ever even do it. I miss the compatibility with virtually anything on Windows 🙂

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

What editing tools are you using on Linux? I used Linux for a while, went back to Windows, and now I'm on a Mac. Still like all of them for various reasons. I used to use gimp a lot, then for some free tools I've used darktable and rawtherapee, but I can't remember if they have Linux versions. My mac now is an M1 mac and one of my only but major complaints is that a lot of those opensource tools don't work yet. The teams will probably have to make M1 compatible builds, and I don't know how long that will take if they ever even do it. I miss the compatibility with virtually anything on Windows 🙂

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

grover and Jonathan Watson have reacted to this post.

Happy snappin' 🙂

#4 · June 16, 2022, 3:15 pm

Quote from SpruceBruce on June 16, 2022, 4:07 am

@grover I'm constantly reviewing my Lightroom Library, you're not alone in this. I look back at old edits I did, and wonder why did I bumped the saturation so high, too much dehaze, clarity etc.....

Also that abandoned prairie landscapes are so awesome! Where were they located? I'm a huge sucker for that type of composition.

It's kind of fun in a way. I guess that's how the dark room worked originally in theory, you could edit your prints with the enlarger to your liking.

I live in Calgary Canada which straddles the line between flat prairies and the Rocky Mountains. Those shots were taken East of Calgary and into Western Saskatchewan. The best prairie photos are had when the sky is dramatic!

#5 · June 16, 2022, 3:58 pm

Quote from grover on June 16, 2022, 3:58 pm

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

What editing tools are you using on Linux? I used Linux for a while, went back to Windows, and now I'm on a Mac. Still like all of them for various reasons. I used to use gimp a lot, then for some free tools I've used darktable and rawtherapee, but I can't remember if they have Linux versions. My mac now is an M1 mac and one of my only but major complaints is that a lot of those opensource tools don't work yet. The teams will probably have to make M1 compatible builds, and I don't know how long that will take if they ever even do it. I miss the compatibility with virtually anything on Windows

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

I'm a software developer so I have loads of computers/servers at home. I work on an M1 mac, my kids are on a mix of Windows and Linux... I even have Sun SPARC machines (you say what?!). I've personally invested in the Linux platform (since the late 90s!). It just has a lot to offer for software developers (not as much for photographers) and I appreciate how the future of the "platform" is governed by its users. Open source is not a religion for me and I'll happily pay for software (but I prefer to avoid subscriptions). Lastly, I tinker with my hardware and I like that I can run Linux on anything.

I've been using a combination of things on Linux:

Corel Aftershot Pro (paid)

Decent non-destructive editor. Not a library management tool.

Has a small handful of useful plugins

Fairly intuitive

Windows/Mac/Linux

Reasonably priced (pay once)

Pixeluvo (paid)

I love this app! I probably use it more than anything else.

Photo editor that has a number of things I use regularly (among many other features)

raw editing

layers

spot removal

"quick color"

magic wand for selection

all the other typical editing tools you'd expect

I like this app because I find myself "in-and-out" quickly.

Windows/Mac/Linux. Free trial. Small one time cost thereafter (pay once)

Downsides:

It hasn't been maintained in a while

Destructive editor

Photomatix (paid)

I was tipped off on this by one of Lee Haze's youtube videos

HDR editor

combine multiple images

use a single RAW file to extract more dynamic range

Lots of interesting presets from very natural to outrageous.

When I use Photomatix, I typically use it with a single RAW file to bump the dynamic range. I stick to the more natural looking presets.

Windows/Linux/Mac

Not cheap but not expensive (pay once. cheaper for Linux).

DigiKam (free/open-source)

Photo management tool

It's decent. I have mixed feelings but haven't found anything better

free

Windows/Linux/Mac

I use Gimp for graphics, but not for photos.

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

What editing tools are you using on Linux? I used Linux for a while, went back to Windows, and now I'm on a Mac. Still like all of them for various reasons. I used to use gimp a lot, then for some free tools I've used darktable and rawtherapee, but I can't remember if they have Linux versions. My mac now is an M1 mac and one of my only but major complaints is that a lot of those opensource tools don't work yet. The teams will probably have to make M1 compatible builds, and I don't know how long that will take if they ever even do it. I miss the compatibility with virtually anything on Windows

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

I'm a software developer so I have loads of computers/servers at home. I work on an M1 mac, my kids are on a mix of Windows and Linux... I even have Sun SPARC machines (you say what?!). I've personally invested in the Linux platform (since the late 90s!). It just has a lot to offer for software developers (not as much for photographers) and I appreciate how the future of the "platform" is governed by its users. Open source is not a religion for me and I'll happily pay for software (but I prefer to avoid subscriptions). Lastly, I tinker with my hardware and I like that I can run Linux on anything.

I've been using a combination of things on Linux:

Corel Aftershot Pro (paid)
- Decent non-destructive editor. Not a library management tool.
- Has a small handful of useful plugins
- Fairly intuitive
- Windows/Mac/Linux
- Reasonably priced (pay once)
Pixeluvo (paid)
- I love this app! I probably use it more than anything else.
- Photo editor that has a number of things I use regularly (among many other features)
  - raw editing
  - layers
  - spot removal
  - "quick color"
  - magic wand for selection
  - all the other typical editing tools you'd expect
- I like this app because I find myself "in-and-out" quickly.
- Windows/Mac/Linux. Free trial. Small one time cost thereafter (pay once)
- Downsides:
  - It hasn't been maintained in a while
  - Destructive editor
Photomatix (paid)
- I was tipped off on this by one of Lee Haze's youtube videos
- HDR editor
  - combine multiple images
  - use a single RAW file to extract more dynamic range
- Lots of interesting presets from very natural to outrageous.
- When I use Photomatix, I typically use it with a single RAW file to bump the dynamic range. I stick to the more natural looking presets.
- Windows/Linux/Mac
- Not cheap but not expensive (pay once. cheaper for Linux).
DigiKam (free/open-source)
- Photo management tool
- It's decent. I have mixed feelings but haven't found anything better
- free
- Windows/Linux/Mac

I use Gimp for graphics, but not for photos.

#6 · June 16, 2022, 4:24 pm

Quote from grover on June 16, 2022, 4:24 pm

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

Back to the actual discussion (lol)

I can't find what book you are referring to. Mind sharing it here?

Part of my dilemma is that I can't always decide what effect I'm going for when I edit a photo. The ones posted above are clearly on the "dramatic" side.

Sometimes the choice is clear and sometimes it's not.

I'll post this case in point. This is a photo I shot years ago (my wife and her friend walking down the back-lane behind our house). It could have been done on a 5mp camera. I don't even have the choice to enhance this photo ( it would fall down ).... but I don't need to. It exactly captures the mood I want. So in this case it's easy. But for photos like a house on the prairies the desired outcome can change day-to-day. I think it's time to read up on theory. Just need to find that one book that doesn't dive into photoshop and on the other hand isn't meant to be part of an exhaustive academic study!

Side note: I started photography in the dark room back in the late 90s as a teenager. I was part of the photography club at university and we had a dark room on campus. I would process my images at 6:00am before class. I wasn't that good at it, but it was a truly an immersive experience. I enjoyed film a lot. I contemplate reviving my old film gear (Canon A-series) but there are just hurdles to it now that didn't used to exist. Film used to be cheap and you could buy it at gas stations. Processing was done everywhere cheaply.

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

Back to the actual discussion (lol)

I can't find what book you are referring to. Mind sharing it here?

Part of my dilemma is that I can't always decide what effect I'm going for when I edit a photo. The ones posted above are clearly on the "dramatic" side.

Sometimes the choice is clear and sometimes it's not.

I'll post this case in point. This is a photo I shot years ago (my wife and her friend walking down the back-lane behind our house). It could have been done on a 5mp camera. I don't even have the choice to enhance this photo ( it would fall down ).... but I don't need to. It exactly captures the mood I want. So in this case it's easy. But for photos like a house on the prairies the desired outcome can change day-to-day. I think it's time to read up on theory. Just need to find that one book that doesn't dive into photoshop and on the other hand isn't meant to be part of an exhaustive academic study!

Side note: I started photography in the dark room back in the late 90s as a teenager. I was part of the photography club at university and we had a dark room on campus. I would process my images at 6:00am before class. I wasn't that good at it, but it was a truly an immersive experience. I enjoyed film a lot. I contemplate reviving my old film gear (Canon A-series) but there are just hurdles to it now that didn't used to exist. Film used to be cheap and you could buy it at gas stations. Processing was done everywhere cheaply.

Uploaded files:

#7 · June 16, 2022, 6:59 pm

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 6:59 pm

Quote from grover on June 16, 2022, 4:24 pm

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

Back to the actual discussion (lol)

I can't find what book you are referring to. Mind sharing it here?

Thanks for the comprehensive list of what you're using! I am also a software developer by trade, but I've never been as handy with the home projects. Not very good at them, and I don't hold enough interest I guess. My sister was the one growing up that always had the home servers, so I learned some things here and there. Anyway, that stuff is super cool. Props to you.

Also off topic, but have you played with Ricoh's SDK for wireless communication with their cameras? It's pretty limited, but I had some fun with it when it was released.

The book is called "Photography: The definitive visual history" by Tom Ang. I'm very new to photography history, so I can't say it really is the best book out there, but I really enjoyed it. Lots of nice pictures and a good overview of some key events and practices. The earlier history in the beginning is definitely more interesting than later in the book. I just checked it out at my library, but looks like you can get it used pretty cheap too.

Quote from grover on June 16, 2022, 4:24 pm

Quote from James Warner on June 16, 2022, 11:17 am

But back to the actual discussion, haha. Yes, I do go back periodically and re-edit images. It's usually for a photo contest where I look up my best whatever category picture and then realize, like you, that often I edited it differently than I would today. I do have those over saturated, over sharpened, etc finds, but it's usually that I have had such a basic understanding of editing for so long they are almost underedited. I didn't pull them out to their full potential. I'm still a novice, but I've been learning more and more about color theories along with some basic editing techniques and it's helped a lot to get my vision out.

@sprucebruce That's what my history of photography book was talking about (the one I've referenced to you like three times now, haha, you can tell I'm learning good stuff from it.) A lot of famous photographers made their name in the darkroom and their unique styles and processes there rather than just the photo taking itself. It was really interesting because to me it totally blew out of water the argument some people have against digital processing all together and how when it was film it was more pure. Maybe if you just had your lab develop it for you and never did anything to it, but the pros were doing stuff to it. Sure, you can still argue how much is too much, and they did argue about that even back then. I mean, they would edit out objects from photos much like we clone out in photoshop. Really crazy stuff I never realized.

Back to the actual discussion (lol)

I can't find what book you are referring to. Mind sharing it here?

Thanks for the comprehensive list of what you're using! I am also a software developer by trade, but I've never been as handy with the home projects. Not very good at them, and I don't hold enough interest I guess. My sister was the one growing up that always had the home servers, so I learned some things here and there. Anyway, that stuff is super cool. Props to you.

Also off topic, but have you played with Ricoh's SDK for wireless communication with their cameras? It's pretty limited, but I had some fun with it when it was released.

The book is called "Photography: The definitive visual history" by Tom Ang. I'm very new to photography history, so I can't say it really is the best book out there, but I really enjoyed it. Lots of nice pictures and a good overview of some key events and practices. The earlier history in the beginning is definitely more interesting than later in the book. I just checked it out at my library, but looks like you can get it used pretty cheap too.

grover has reacted to this post.

Happy snappin' 🙂

#8 · June 26, 2022, 12:49 pm

Before I respond, I'm Dutch and I do all my responses with Google Translate 😉

I always edit my photos after. No camera gives the images the way I want it to be. Nor do I strive for the representation of reality, but an interpreted image of that reality. However, photos from different cameras provide different material for post-processing. I used to always photograph in RAW, nowadays I use JPEG, the image processing has become so good that this can also be justified, although of course you have some loss.

I look at my photo and then what I want to express with the photo and then I edit the photo. I have a strong tendency to saturate the colors more, weight up contrasts and make the photos more vibrant. In addition, I like "warm" images more than "cold" images. I am also not afraid to use ready-made solutions (scripts) that immediately give a photo the appearance of a Kodak photo, ISO 400 from 1980, for example.

I mainly use older cameras because I have noticed that I shoot more consciously. Your buffer is full faster, the autofocus is slower, so you have to consciously anticipate. And when you come home, the photo is always a surprise, the screens from the past were actually nothing more than a display of, okay looks reasonable. I enjoy those "inconveniences".

I use photos from the Mac, Pixelmator Pro, Luminar AI and Gimp.

grover has reacted to this post.

Within the limits of my equipment consciously looking for painting with light.

#9 · June 26, 2022, 7:01 pm

Quote from Bart Kerste on June 26, 2022, 12:49 pm

Before I respond, I'm Dutch and I do all my responses with Google Translate

I always edit my photos after. No camera gives the images the way I want it to be. Nor do I strive for the representation of reality, but an interpreted image of that reality.

Either your English is very good or Google translate has come a long way.

I know what you mean by "an interpreted image of reality".

The human eye has better dynamic range than my camera so when it comes to landscapes like this, the images often look much flatter than I remember. Unless I take the shot during that perfect golden hour moment, I need to edit the photo to bring back some of the drama that made the moment special in the first place.

I would like to try Luminar to see what I may be missing. I'd like to know what kind of sheltered bubble I'm living in by choosing to stick to Linux 😉

Thanks for your response. Happy shooting!

Do you ever re-edit old photos?

Recent forum posts