What's your opinion on editing photos?

Since the OP has not been back for over a week, and this was their first and so far only post, I fear we may all be whistling in the wind.

 

However, surely the first step in the editing of any photograph is deciding what to photograph. All else has perforce to follow on from that.

I fear we may all be whistling in the wind.

In forums, I generally feel and act as if I'm talking to everyone in the room rather than just the OP, so it may be the OP's loss, not ours.

 

And, at the ripe old age of 66, I still simply cannot whistle; missing a gene I guess, or not a very good human. :)

 

I've always envied Mrs. Anna ...

 

I'm glad you too feel that providing information benefits all of us, not just the OP. BTW, 'whistling' was intended as a euphemism for another activity (usually male) where wind direction can affect results ...

BTW, 'whistling' was intended as a euphemism for another activity (usually male) where wind direction can affect results ...

Indeed, an almost spontaneous art many of us perfected a whole bunch of decades ago. No editing necessary!

 

And it seems even Rodgers and Hammerstein had a bit of innuendo fun in their musicals as well. As the seemingly innocent but perhaps more experienced Ado Annie sings in Oklahoma's "I Can't Say No":

 

Whut you goin' to do when a feller gits flirty,

And starts to talk purty? whut you goin' to do?

S'posin' 'at he says 'at yer lips're like cherries,

Er roses, er berries? Whut you goin' to do?

S'posin' 'at he says 'at you're sweeter 'n cream,

And he's gotta have cream er die?

Whut you goin' to do when he talks that way,

Spit in his eye?

I'm jist a girl who cain't say no,

Cain't seem to say it at all

I hate to disserpoint a beau

When he is payin' a call!

Fer a while I ack refined and cool,

A settin on the velveteen setee

Nen I think of thet ol' golden rule,

And do fer him what he would do fer me! :p

Unless you know what you are doing, heavily edited photos usually wind up in the round-file. At least mines do. Some pictures require heavy editing such as Composites, Fine Art, Special Effects, Fashion, Restoration etc., but if you are going to apply heavy edits to portraits and landscapes photos, because you made a mistake in your focusing or exposure metering, that's when things start sliding down a slippery slope.

 

Even during film days those that developed their own pictures in the darkroom, or had them sent to a custom-lab, sometimes performed or had minor editing done to either fix a problem, or draw out a certain mood in the picture. Sharpness, Light/Dark, shadows, exposure, even removing unsightly objects, dust, dirt, dodging/burning were performed, but I don't consider those heavy editing. Many wedding photographers spend hours and hours a week just editing their images concentrating on the minor stuff and throwing out the major blunders.

 

With the advent of Digital and Photoshop we got a lot more leeway on how we edit our pictures. I mean there is not much left out there than we can do to an image if we know all the tricks of the editing software. Which to me is a good thing, but then come the question of intrinsic value. Why do people value a painting in a museum more than they do a photograph, even though the photograph might be truer to life. That's because of the intrinsic value meaning the picture was done by hand and it was the painters skills that created the beauty in the painting. Same thing for photographs ! Was it the photographer's skill, or was it Photoshop ?

Edited May 8, 2020 by hjoseph7

It's time to again refer people to a favorite book of mine -

 

Long before Photoshop, there was the airbrush, re-invented in the late 19th c. by Charles Peeler or Burdick or....

 

"Forensic" photography in the Workers' Paradise had to alter pictures to correspond to the reality of the Party Line:

 

Of course, the lessons were not lost on American photographers. Here is an ad from the Winter 1994 issue of Paranoia magazine:

 

I particularly liked their slogan

"Altering the visual record since we found out we could."

 

It finally showed me what Photoshop (then version 2 something) was good for.

Edited May 8, 2020 by JDMvW

Long before Photoshop, there was the airbrush

True, though long before Photoshop, tools of either art or deception (depending on how they were used) weren’t as easily accessible to masses of people. The current tools may make smaller differences in terms of what those tools can physically accomplish but may make a more vast and sometimes troubling difference in the ease, prevalence, and widespread aesthetic (or, in many cases, unaesthetic) and cultural effects they may have.

I'll also mention that a version of the airbrush was used thousands of years ago by Paleolithic cave painters (LINK).

 

Ain't I just a fountain of knowledge?

 

 

At the meetings I say

 

I am a professor and I haven't professed in x days.....

It's time to again refer people to a favorite book of mine -

 

Long before Photoshop, there was the airbrush, re-invented in the late 19th c. by Charles Peeler or Burdick or....

 

"Forensic" photography in the Workers' Paradise had to alter pictures to correspond to the reality of the Party Line:

 

 

And of course, in '1984', the 'Ministry of Truth' was concerned solely with providing the residents of Oceania with all the news printed to fit.

 

 

 

Funny how nothing much changes ...

"What's your opinion on editing photos?"

 

You do what you want.

 

Why would you be bothered by some toss post?

waffles, without opinions.

 

Waffles.

Anyway, a photo.

 

On a photo site.

Sometimes, I could cry, that my photos are so good.

 

Look, you are there. Really

 

Look..

Okay, I need to work on the modesty thing.;).

Don't look...feel.

I did that once and she hit me on the back of my head with a purse.

You need to work on your technique, Larry;)

 

Sam will give you a few tips if you ask him nicely.

NY Times editorial ethics regarding photojournalism: Ethical Journalism

Photography and Images

Images in our pages, in the paper or on the Web, that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping to omit extraneous outer portions). Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction, analogous to the “burning” and “dodging” that formerly took place in darkroom processing of images. Pictures of news situations must not be posed.

 

In some sections, and in magazines, where a photograph is used to serve the same purposes as a commissioned drawing or painting — as an illustration of an idea or situation or as a demonstration of how a device works, etc. — it must always be clearly labeled as a photo illustration. This does not apply to portraits or still-lifes (photos of food, shoes, etc.), but it does apply to other kinds of shots in which we have artificially arranged people or things, as well as to collages, montages, and photographs that have been digitally altered.

 

A credit line beginning with “photo illustration” is obligatory in all such cases. Occasionally, an explanatory caption may be advisable.

 

Altered or contrived photographs are a device that should not be overused. Taking photographs of unidentified real people as illustrations of a generic type or a generic situation (like using an editor or another model in a dejected pose to represent executives being laid off) usually turns out to be a bad idea.

 

If you have any question about the appropriateness of an alteration or are not sure how best to make clear to the reader that the image has been manipulated or the scene contrived, consult with the director of photography, the standards editor, the design director, or the News Desk (but before an actual post or the final proof of a printed page, to avoid last-minute disagreements and unsatisfactory improvised solutions).

Interesting to see their guidelines spelled out. The general idea is standard for photojournalism. However, it doesn't apply to much of what many of us do, which they would consider illustrations rather than journalism.

 

It's interesting to separate two things in their description: alterations such as removing objects, and modifications of tonality and the like. It's clear why a reputable news outlet can't allow the former. However, I find two things problematic in their treatment of the latter. One is this:

 

Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction, analogous to the “burning” and “dodging” that formerly took place in darkroom processing of images.

 

First, this may create a misimpression. For photography other than photojournalism, that characterization is simply wrong. Photographers used dodging and burning in wet darkrooms to change the aesthetics of an image as well--often deliberately making it less realistic. The iconic example is Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico. It makes sense that the Times would limit this for photojournalism, but it's not the case that these techniques were only used for that. They should have written something like "that were formally used in darkroom processing of images used in photojournalism."

 

Second, there is no base image in digital photography that is comparable to a negative developed with the standard technique for that film. Even opening the image in a different raw processor, or opening it in the same raw processor with a different profile, can make an image look quite different.Likewise, if you shoot JPEG (as I assume many photojournalists do), you can make a capture look quite different by selecting the "picture style" (that's Canon's term), that is, the processing recipe that the camera will use to render the raw image.

Interesting to see their guidelines spelled out. The general idea is standard for photojournalism. However, it doesn't apply to much of what many of us do, which they would consider illustrations rather than journalism.

 

It's interesting to separate two things in their description: alterations such as removing objects, and modifications of tonality and the like. It's clear why a reputable news outlet can't allow the former. However, I find two things problematic in their treatment of the latter. One is this:

 

First, this may create a misimpression. For photography other than photojournalism, that characterization is simply wrong. Photographers used dodging and burning in wet darkrooms to change the aesthetics of an image as well--often deliberately making it less realistic. The iconic example is Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico. It makes sense that the Times would limit this for photojournalism, but it's not the case that these techniques were only used for that. They should have written something like "that were formally used in darkroom processing of images used in photojournalism."

 

Second, there is no base image in digital photography that is comparable to a negative developed with the standard technique for that film. Even opening the image in a different raw processor, or opening it in the same raw processor with a different profile, can make an image look quite different.Likewise, if you shoot JPEG (as I assume many photojournalists do), you can make a capture look quite different by selecting the "picture style" (that's Canon's term), that is, the processing recipe that the camera will use to render the raw image.

 

The quote was meant for photojournalism. I'm sure we all understand that for non-photojournalism photos people process for effect or any other reason they have, and at least don't need to be concerned with accuracy. As to the second point, I think its just splitting hairs. Sure, each editing program bends the curves a little differently, but not so much as to alter the basic photograph, and in fact there is a digital negative, its the raw file. Yes, I know, the raw file is useless until interpolated by the editing program, but it still exists and carries all the information possible in the photo. The process is not going to turn a car into a tree or turn green to purple.

The quote was meant for photojournalism. I'm sure we all understand that for non-photojournalism photos people process for effect or any other reason they have, and at least don't need to be concerned with accuracy. As to the second point, I think its just splitting hairs. Sure, each editing program bends the curves a little differently, but not so much as to alter the basic photograph, and in fact there is a digital negative, its the raw file. Yes, I know, the raw file is useless until interpolated by the editing program, but it still exists and carries all the information possible in the photo. The process is not going to turn a car into a tree or turn green to purple.

I agree.

 

When these sorts of discussions come up, I often opt for realizing that a lot about manipulation of a photo is a matter of degree, not a matter of it either it is or is not manipulated. There are those who will say that simply adopting a perspective from which to shoot is manipulative. Yet, I can often tell whether that perspective seems to be more or less objective, and that's the call that's important. It's not whether a photojournalist can adopt no perspective at all ... that's, of course, impossible. It's how relatively objective she or he can be. And just because a photojournalist can't be totally or purely objective doesn't mean there can't be objectivity in photojournalism

It should be obvious that there is no such thing as an "objective" photograph, but no one would argue that a photograph should never be allowed as evidence in court, and I think it should be up to the court to decide if the photo is evidence or not (which it is, fortunately). It is also obvious that, in many situations, the level of "objectivity" in a photograph is completely irrelevant. Some good pictures are completely surreal, and that's what makes them interesting. Unless one is a police photographer, or doing "science", or trying to prove something to someone, I say edit away to your heart's content because the question is moot. I may not like what results, but no photographer should care.

Photograph.

Corrupted Photograph.

Art.

I have no idea...I don't know why I press the shutter when I do, or a millisecond earlier or later is somehow "wrong". I've been doing photogaphy for 50 years, and I still don't know. Back when I shot film, I didn't know why the contact sheet spoke to me in split seconds...no, no, no, yes. The image in my head was NEVER what I got on film...NEVER! It got closer in prints, but never what my head told me was "right". Photoshop is the new darkroom...but still the image in my head is different than the camera provides...and it doesn't matter what I photograph, it's never "right". Perhaps that's why I persist...the more I do it, the closer I get to what is, (and always has been) in my head.