What's your opinion on editing photos?

If a photo only looks good after being heavily edited, is it really a good photo?

 

At what point does editing a photo go too far, editing in stars? Changing the colour of the sky?

 

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

 

Just a few prompts - opinions not relevant to the above questions are fine :)

If a photo only looks good after being heavily edited, is it really a good photo?

Yes.

At what point does editing a photo go too far, editing in stars? Changing the colour of the sky?

When the photographer doing the editing decides it does and walks it back a little.

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

A good photographer usually does not go by a lot of "shoulds" and if he does, he chooses the "shoulds" he wants to follow.

 

______________________________________________

 

Must the brilliance of a writer come right off the pen or keyboard or may they edit their work? I think of editing as refinement, somewhat like a painter building up textures and depth of color by going over the same areas of the canvas with a brush.

 

______________________________________________

 

Some photographers get great joy at leaving the shot as is straight out of the camera. More power to them and more power to those who get great joy in refining and expressing via some post processing work.

 

______________________________________________

 

What do you like to do?

I went to a lecture by an Ansel Adams printer and AA workshop leader. He showed us an un-manipulated print of "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico". Truly ugly, most of up would have deleted it on the spot. It took a list of instructions (burning, dodging, times, etc) to get to the famous print we all know.

If a photo only looks good after being heavily edited, is it really a good photo?

 

At what point does editing a photo go too far, editing in stars? Changing the colour of the sky?

 

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

 

Just a few prompts - opinions not relevant to the above questions are fine :)

 

There has been at least one previous thread dealing with the same, or similar, questions. Before the digital age, along Sanford's lines, if a photographer didn't get the camera settings right when the shutter was clicked, corrections would be made in the darkroom.

 

Aside from the abstract images I produce, which often trade heavily on postprocessing, I occasionally may add some additional sharpening, modify colors if I feel the overall scene will benefit, selectively lighten (dodge) or darken (burn) for the same reason. I use the tools that are available, not just my camera. If another photographer looks down on my work for that reason, I really have no response except possibly to say that I don't apologize for my methodology.

I take photos for my own pleasure and interest. I adjust, edit and transform them according to my own whims, and to produce the result I feel best represents the image I want.

 

That said, I am not in favour of images that purport to be a true faithful record of a newsworthy event (define this how you will !) being manipulated to produce a false statement for political or propaganda (or advertising !) purposes - if this has been done, it should be stated clearly on the actual newspaper or magazine page, not hidden away at the bottom of page 27 under the Tiddlywinks results for Shrewsbury.

Yes, scientific and forensic photography require very strict standards and integrity.

 

Scenic and artistic shots, the issue is not often truth, per se. Painters always edited their views and moved or eliminated things with free abandon.

Didn't I read about a famous painter caught retouching one of his own paintings while it was hanging in a museum.

Editing of photos has probably been happening almost as long as photography has existed.

 

I don’t mind, in fact I often like what people do with their edits. Then again, some forms of editing, I’m not so fond of. At the end of it all tho, each to their own. We all seek our own levels. Besides- is there really any right or wrong in the realm of artistic expression?

A certain amount of editing has always been present due to the nature of the medium. The very fact of adjusting the developer concentration, the agitation or time of development, and same for prints constitutes "editing" in the sense that it introduced variables in the outcome from the captured image. In the case of digital, most manufacturers assume in designing their software that, outside of raw images, there will be "editing" adjustments in jpegs and in post processing. I've always found this to be necessary. Having said all this, creating unrealistic final product through over-editing generally doesn't appeal to me, but may represent artistic expression desired by the editor. So, IMHO, over-editing is OK, but not necessarily appealing to everybody.

There is, or was, a trend of printing a photo with the film sprocket holes visible on the top and bottom. Impressive when using an imprecise rangefinder camera.

Before the digital age, along Sanford's lines, if a photographer didn't get the camera settings right when the shutter was clicked, corrections would be made in the darkroom.

Good point, though I’d like to add a caveat.

 

Re: Adams. Most photographers at his level got the exposure they wanted and knew that exposure would give them a good result from which to do the post processing they often already could foresee when they were taking the picture and determining that very exposure.

 

While lots of people use post processing to “correct” mistakes—and, again, more power to them—for many, post processing is not a corrective or even an afterthought but an organic part of the process. Often, being able to post process to such and such a result depends on getting the exposure one desires.

 

Usually, the ‘right’ exposure is the one that helps best fulfill your vision. It’s often not an objective call or the end of the game.

Good point, though I’d like to add a caveat.

 

Re: Adams. Most photographers at his level got the exposure they wanted and knew that exposure would give them a good result from which to do the post processing they often already could foresee when they were taking the picture and determining that very exposure.

 

While lots of people use post processing to “correct” mistakes—and, again, more power to them—for many, post processing is not a corrective or even an afterthought but an organic part of the process. Often, being able to post process to such and such a result depends on getting the exposure one desires.

 

Usually, the ‘right’ exposure is the one that helps best fulfill your vision. It’s often not an objective call or the end of the game.

 

Sam, throughout my history of shooting photos, especially since learning while on PN, I've been much more attentive to my camera settings. The process is far from perfect, and - in some cases - far from acceptable. But I'm still trying. Thanks for your response.

Painters always edited their views and moved or eliminated things with free abandon.

 

My wife does water color painting, I do photography. I often teased her when we'd fine some otherwise lovely pastoral scene but there were power lines and now more recently cell towers or wind generators somewhere in the view. I say how a painter had it easy (teasing), they could simply leave that nonsense out of their work. We photographers had to move on and find another scene and pass that one by. Today, in the digital age and with PS and LR, I can - and do - clone out such stuff (unless I expressly want it there to depict something specific, e.g. how modernity is encroaching on the landscape).

A news reporter would be criticized for writing something that’s made up; a novelist is supposed to write things that are made up. Photography is no different. A photojournalist or somebody else under circumstances where they are supposed to present only truthful images should use minimal editing. An art photographer should edit as much as he thinks helps him get the image he wants.

A photojournalist or somebody else under circumstances where they are supposed to present only truthful images should use minimal editing.

Good point.

 

I’d add, though, that a wise viewer of photojournalism will keep in mind that lack of or minimal editing doesn’t ensure a truthful image. For example, what’s left out of the frame or a particular perspective can sometimes present a spin or downright false impression. A photographer can do plenty of tampering with or falsifying of reality with a camera and no post processing, photojournalist or art photographer.

 

[A photojournalist can photograph a protest neutrally. Or she can favor the protestors by catching only what may be or appear to be aggressive police moves without capturing protestor provocations. Or she can favor the police by making it appear protestors are engaging in random violence when they may be, at least in part, reacting to police over-aggression.]

 

The “truth” in journalism sometimes has to be an amalgamation of several photos from a variety of sources.

I’d add, though, that a wise viewer of photojournalism will keep in mind that lack of or minimal editing doesn’t ensure a truthful image.

 

Amen! When viewing photojournalism one must keep in mind that while the photograph can be 'true' and photographically unedited it is only true in the sense that it depicts exactly what was visible the millisecond slice of time when the shutter was depressed and the maybe 10 degrees arc out of 360 degrees from the point where the photographer was standing. The relation of such a photograph to the greater situation in which it took place is no longer necessarily 'unedited'. It can be 'edited' by the photographer and his/her bias in the situation influencing the pointing and timing of the shutter click (as samstevens observes) and of course if its part of a written news story or online e-article it is edited further up the line, again by any of the biases of the various human filters through which it must pass before being published.

I think there's also a somewhat arbitrary distinction about when "editing" occurs. In the continuity of the process, there are a lot of edits, or choices, I make about a photograph long before it hits my harddrive, or the sensor captures the exposure. Up +1EV or down -1.5EV to achieve a certain exposure, a shallow DOF to isolate a subject (an edit that doesn't resemble how we see things naturally), moving two feet to the side to crop out something I deem a distraction, coming back to a scene when the light is right, because that's what makes the photo look good, etc. My most important edit has been to just not take the picture, or prodigious use of the delete button.

If a photo only looks good after being heavily edited, is it really a good photo?

Sorry, the question doesn't occur to me as a spectator, wondering "am I looking at a nice texture?" <- My consumer POV.

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

You mean we all deserve co-travellers or such competitively volunteering to work on our RAW files and presenting impressive results? - A wonderful world!

 

Tongue out of cheek; might the "good photographer" you are talking about be real?

While some photographers surely are better than others, I'd still define them as "illusions of good photographers" their published output is most likely decent +x but hey, what about all that trash? If a mediocre photographer trashed enough of their work to keep just the stunners, they'd look "good" too.

If you bin framed slides, you got back from the lab, you re already editing(!) your vacation pictures. (Sorry if I side tracked too far.)

There is also the "f8 & be there" issue in photography: You have to be there; something camera too. With enough time + zoom range we could frame precisely. But do we want to bring that much gear everywhere? Why not shoot a too short lens we brought and crop later? - Better than no image at all.

 

If we don't edit others might do a even worse job to our images.

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

Sure, if they can afford to hire somebody else to do editing for them. But it's backfiring sometimes, ask Steve McCurry.

OP, does not matter.

 

No photo police.

 

There are legit problems when photogs lie about their photo and misrepresent things. But if that is not a concern, do as you like...no rules.

For myself, I make a clear distinction between shooting 'raw images' en producing 'photos' from these. I first review and rate the raw images, select the couple of best ones, correct/enhance these as necessary (for example to reduce the effects of harsh outdoor lighting, especially on people). Then I crop to the required format before exporting in the required size (in pixels).

 

When I have a camera in my hand, I'm fully aware that I'm shooting 'raw images', though I do have final 'photos' in mind. Most of the photo's I take these days are for publication on-line or in a local newspaper. They're of people who move around, blink, yawn, etc. Their body language and expressions changes from one second to the next. So I usually take 'bursts' of images in which - hopefully - there'll be at least one that's usable. For the newspaper, the photo's need to cropped to formats that are non-standard. I have a camera with a 3:2 sensor but I also have to deliver photos in (not quite) 3:2 and 4:3 formats. All my edits are non-destructive so that I can deliver multiple crops for different media.

Two recent examples:

- a photo of a 91 year-old woman standing on her 4th floor balcony of a care home and taken from a distance with a 400mm lens (!). I couldn't get closer to her and she couldn't get closer to me due to corona restrictions

- a photo of a moving woman blowing bubbles; even in close-up, the bubbles were pretty transparent and it only by boosting the clarity and saturation of the bubbles that you could clearly see them in the photo

 

Mike

Read these:

 

History of Retouching: Photographers and Retouchers Synergy in the Analog Photography Era – Retouching Academy

Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

 

Alterations that are deceitful are one thing; alterations that are part of the photographer's artistic tool set are quite another. Photographers, including the greats, have been doing extensive editing for generations. Adams had in his mind an idea of what he could create from the capture that became Moonrise. Was he supposed to stick with the original capture, which is quite boring, instead? If you are outdoors and happen to have lousy light, should you leave your image looking drab because the light wasn't better?

 

Also, keep in mind that NO digital images are unprocessed. If you don't process them yourself, they are processed by the algorithm you chose when you shot, which is just a recipe an engineer working for the manufacturer created. Most of these recipes increase contrast, sharpen, fiddle with color balance, etc.

There are many excellent reasons to edit a photo, from expression to correction to experimentation to amusement. I have no problem with a photographer's altering his or her images in any way at all, if the purpose is to better communicate the concept being presented. I'm no fan of wildly dramatic edits that turn an image into a bizarre caricature of the content for no purpose obvious to me. The makers of photo editing programs may think that they can turn anyone into Picasso or Dali, but I respectfully disagree. Nevertheless, I'm fine with doing it if it says what the artist wants to say, even if I can neither figure out what that is nor find a story in it myself. And I sometimes overdo it just for fun, to see what comes up.

 

Even documentary, scientific and forensic photography are limited by the simple fact that no imaging device or medium renders a perfect image of the subject. No photo provides perfect color match, perspective, or freedom from the many aberrations that affect various parts and characteristics of an image. Thoughtful, measured editing can bring these and many more photographic parameters closer to perfection, and editing may in fact be absolutely necessary to create a consistent, durable record of anything from a pathology slide to the tilt or shifting of a building over time.

keep in mind that NO digital images are unprocessed

Not only is this true, but no emulsion-based image is unprocessed. The emulsion itself edits the image in many ways, e.g. color characteristics & apparent sharpness. I've always preferred Ektachrome's characteristics to Kodachrome's, and there have always been staunch supporters (and haters) of every emulsion ever made. I absolutely loved Cibachrome because the process enhanced contrast. But some of the prints I made in 1975 now look a bit like HDR to me, and today I'd use it only for images in which I want a bit of color drama.

 

If there were any camera, lens, film and chemistry or digital process capable of perfect rendition, we'd all be using it wherever accuracy is desired by the photographer or demanded by the job.

Even documentary, scientific and forensic photography are limited by the simple fact that no imaging device or medium renders a perfect image of the subject.

 

I guess we can take all the discussion in this thread to the ultimate limit by including the variability and uniqueness of the sensors and processors with which each human being views an image: our own personal eyes and brains. They too 'edit' what is presented to them.

 

So just was is the "perfect image of the subject"? Each of you reading this have unique and different (from me and from each other) ways of seeing and processing what your eyes see and forming feelings and opinions of what you see. There are the easily obvious differences such as color blindness that separate individuals but how about something more subtle like color saturation in a photograph? Who doesn't know two people A and B, where A can't get enough saturation and B is easily offended by the slightest tweak upward of the saturation slider. What's going on in their eyes and brains that account for the differences? Their (our) sensors, eyes, and processors, brains, are real time editing what's presented in ways unique to their individual nature and nurture formation.

I do wonder, though I agree that a form of ‘editing’ can be said to take place at all times during the process, if there isn’t a reasonable case to made for distinguishing ‘editing’ that amounts to decisions, perspectives, framing and exposure choices, etc. from ‘editing’ that is post processing? (While I reconfirm and encourage the freedom for all but photojournalists and forensic photographers to do what they want at any stage.)

 

Editing itself can be a different art from writing even though they are intertwined and together complete the process whereby a book gets written and published. Something similar is true for photography. The skill set I use out in the field seems related and in sync with but still different from the skills I use once I’m back home post processing on the computer.

 

This is why writers often work with expert editors and photographers may hire someone to do their post processing work. And even when the person doing the shooting and post processing is one and the same, I think there are important differences in the stages to be recognized. What gets done in planning to go out and shoot, in the actual shooting, and once the shooting is complete seem like reasonable dividing lines to work with even though there’s a kind of seamlessness to the process as a whole.

 

My answers remain the same to the OP’s question even as I am mindful of drawing a distinction (even with the overlaps) between shooting and editing.

 

I may take a more deliberate approach to my first draft, which is the shooting, than the following quote suggests. Nevertheless, part of post-shot editing is also a matter of culling, knowing what shots to elevate and what to get rid of or at least keep private. And sometimes, you are shooting toward the choices you will make later.

I'm writing a first draft and reminding myself that I'm simply shoveling sand into a box so that later I can build castles.

―Shannon Hale