Where do you draw the line with photo editing?

I don't count myself as a purist but I also don't like to do things to photos that make them look like they could not have been taken naturally. What I personally am usually after is what I had in my minds eye when I took the shot, which is not always what was captured or indeed what was exactly there. It can be a fine line though. For example this photo I just developed I edited more than I normally would have to get the look I wanted. See the original as shot, then only with lighting adjustments and finally what I had in mind.

Wonderful book on the pre-photoshop 'editing' of photographs in Stalin's Soviet Union

The Commissar Vanishes

 

This all didn't start just yesterday, you know.

 

Sometimes it's OK too, to edit out the odd tin can or bit of tissue, if it doesn't falsify the message, I think.

 

I myself, have posed with many world leaders at historic events, thanks to Photoshop!

"Where do you draw the line with photo editing?"

 

What line....

 

And who are those folk who decide the line?

If we are talking about intent to deceive, one thing. If we are talking about achieving a photographic (I hesitate to say Artistic) goal, quite another. I am an amateur at Post Processing, but any tweaks to improve a shot, why not. I confess, except for a few folks work, when I can recognize Major adjustment, I don't find it all that attractive. If I can't see it, it is probably good (to me).

JDM - Imagine the world if they had managed to erase the guy with the big 'Stache.

Imagine the world if they had managed to erase the guy with the big 'Stache.

Didn't Khrushchev try? I understand Putin has tried to rehabilitate Uncle Joe.

 

As to the OP: There is no single, correct (or incorrect) answer to the question. Even for me, I will apply one standard to a landscape photo, another to my daughter's prom photo, and a very strict set of criteria to documentary images in my work. For example, the following image was made at the Center for Wooden Boats in Seattle. The light was very flat, and the original color image contained some very distracting blue painter's tape. Changing to B&W allowed me to emphasize what little contrast was available, and the blue tape becomes just another part of the background. I also heavily cropped this image, since my available perspective was severely constrained by having to stay on the pier. I chose not to edit out the bird droppings, though, as they are part and parcel of the scene and ambiance. (I may yet change my mind on the bird poop.)

 

Other images, such as the following posted in another thread today, are true and honest photographs, but, using the photographic process, show something impossible to see with natural human eyes:

 

My point, again, is that the range of answers is so broad as to be either all-encompassing, or meaningless. There are photographic styles frequently posted that are not to my taste, including some which contain extremely obvious processing artifacts. I usually go to substantial effort to remove such artifacts when they are otherwise unavoidable. (Halos due to high clarity slider values are one example.) I think the OP's approach in the sample images is one, but only one, of many useful techniques.

Edited August 30, 2018 by DavidTriplett

Deception speaks to motive.

I have seen photos that I like that were obviously manipulated after the capture.

I have seen photos that I like that were manipulated before the capture.

I have even seen photos manipulated very heavily, but that conveyed a point of wit or amusement that I enjoyed.

 

But the photos I appreciate most are the ones that are captured in the most simply straightforward way but convey a bit of magic of time, place, subject, and circumstance. That perfect fleeting moment, a twinkle in the eye, a fleeting reflection or shadow that simply “works”.

They have the quality to lift my Spirit.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Moving On

When I worked for a newspaper, the editor would send me to shoot an event attended by local politicians. He cautioned me to place them on the outside of the group. so they could be edited out of the photo.

 

I was also sent to photograph a meet-and-greet of contestants for the Miss Illinois pageant. He said there was only room for two or three individuals (out of 6 or 7). You can guess how that went over. I think that was a "fetch a bucket of steam" moment. I got them all in a 3 column, posed in two rows, cheek to cheek.

I was also sent to photograph a meet-and-greet of contestants for the Miss Illinois pageant........ I got them all in a 3 column, posed in two rows, cheek to cheek.

Shooting from the back, eh.....

Wonderful book on the pre-photoshop 'editing' of photographs in Stalin's Soviet Union

The Commissar Vanishes

[ATTACH=full]1260220[/ATTACH]

 

This all didn't start just yesterday, you know.

 

Sometimes it's OK too, to edit out the odd tin can or bit of tissue, if it doesn't falsify the message, I think.

 

I myself, have posed with many world leaders at historic events, thanks to Photoshop!

 

Lol that's a fascinating looking book!

"Where do you draw the line with photo editing?"

 

What line....

 

And who are those folk who decide the line?

 

Point taken :P

Shooting from the back, eh.....

Not in a family newspaper in 1965 ;) However a UPI photographer sharing our lab wasn't as inhibited.

Didn't Khrushchev try? I understand Putin has tried to rehabilitate Uncle Joe.

 

As to the OP: There is no single, correct (or incorrect) answer to the question. Even for me, I will apply one standard to a landscape photo, another to my daughter's prom photo, and a very strict set of criteria to documentary images in my work. For example, the following image was made at the Center for Wooden Boats in Seattle. The light was very flat, and the original color image contained some very distracting blue painter's tape. Changing to B&W allowed me to emphasize what little contrast was available, and the blue tape becomes just another part of the background. I also heavily cropped this image, since my available perspective was severely constrained by having to stay on the pier. I chose not to edit out the bird droppings, though, as they are part and parcel of the scene and ambiance. (I may yet change my mind on the bird poop.)

 

...

 

Thank you! I will continue to do what I was doing as it seems fairly in line with what you and Sandy describe. I know the answer should be "just do what you like". But I don't personally like heavily edited works myself and have found myself straying farther in that direction to get the look and feel that I want. But in so doing I've found the quality of my output vastly improved. I used to only allow myself very minor contrast adjustments. But as I've freed myself from those constraints and taken to very heavily cropping photos I've found I've freed up my eye to take most photos from what was shot to what I've seen, or much closer to what my vision was. I just don't want to land up in kitch territory if you know what I mean. Those are great shots btw!

I know the answer should be "just do what you like".

That hasn’t always been my answer and doesnt seem to be yours. Kudos.

 

We can learn by doing things we don’t like or at least didn't think we’d like until we did them.

 

I bet a lot of the great photographers purposely did things they didn't like just to add to their repertoire and experience.

 

On another note, some disney stuff is great and very different from the Mona Lisa. When I want an apple I eat an apple, when I want an orange I eat an orange. When someone’s shooting for the Mona Lisa but unwittingly winds up in Disney territory things get out o’ hand.

As long as you declare it, you can do anything you want. News outlets (and photographers who are documentarians) have very strict standards, however.

 

Edit: Editing in photography is simple: it is the process of selecting frames. Manipulation and post-processing are different concepts again.

Its just one's aesthetic choice.

Those are great shots btw!

Many thanks. You are too kind...

To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on defining obscenity: I can’t define it but I know it when I see it. That is the same way that I feel about over editing/ manipulation.

When I first learned darkroom photography, I learned about dodging and burning in, but never really got interested in doing it.

 

I am more of an engineer, and less of an artist, so I tend not to want to make even obvious changes.

 

I mostly never got interested in the digital equivalent, either.

 

Nothing against editing, or those who do it, but it just isn't me.

I don't believe in a line. If I had a message to convey and skills, why not use photography to walk John Heartfield's path again? - Getting a background right during image capture doesn't seem mandatory to me. - Cutting your subject out isn't work I enjoy doing but once in a while the way to go.

Photo editing: "To taste", period! - IMHO color makes you a slave of reality (As in "*insert name*'s face lacks that green tint it has in your picture") while B&W grants more freedom. Shoot something, dabble with contrast and curves, present a result. People might like it, although they see the world differently and in color. It is up to you to go for a washed out all white sky or to filter clouds in or maybe copy some kind of fitting ones you shot another day. Its been done that way all the time. Sometimes a Moriyama look might work, other times you'll settle for something different.

I was neither a darkroom wizard, nor am I skilled in post processing or Photoshop (I haven't mastered working with layers yet) but I don't want to make my laziness and incompetence a guideline. Try to edit as you like, maybe save original and work in progress and carry on, once you learned what to do how.

That “line” doesn’t really accommodate mood.

I guess the best way to describe my view is that post processing to fix mistakes has its limits......

Where the line is depends on what you are trying to accomplish . . . Jerry Uelsmann didn't cross any lines with his work . . . Time magazine crossed a line when they simply used "levels" or "curves" (I forget which) to make O.J.'s mug shot look more sinister.

I just don't want to land up in kitch territory

 

I proudly confess; I am an amateur photographer, without any education or training as such. As a result, I am still trying to improve my skill with a camera, and I am absolutely thrilled when I have gotten a shot right in camera, thus obviating the need for post work. However, notwithstanding my abstract stuff, I will not hesitate to engage in postprocressing in order to bring an image to where I want it to be.

II am absolutely thrilled when I have gotten a shot right in camera, thus obviating the need for post work. However, notwithstanding my abstract stuff, I will not hesitate to engage in postprocressing in order to bring an image to where I want it to be.

Applaud you not hesitating to post process when you want. I think the same.

 

One thing - getting a shot right in camera may be just the ticket at times. But getting the shot right in camera doesn’t necessarily obviate the need for post work. As Ansel Adams and many other fine photographers knew, getting a shot right in camera gave them the most flexibility to do just the kind of post work they envisioned, often in advance of ever snapping the shutter. In some cases, getting the shot right in camera is a desired end in itself, in some cases, it’s just the beginning.

When they draw a line in painting, I'll draw one in photography. Wait. I can't really draw a line with a camera; I'll have to use software, except I draw the line at something like that. :)

getting it right in camera is only the begining. its a good start to getting the final image up to your minds eye.

 

manipulating is where photography meets art. i scan my negatives, work on them in photoshop to get close to what i expect my final prints.

 

when in the darkroom, i now have a better idea of the task at hand to get my print to my previsualized image when i shot it.

 

manipulating on the computer allows me an oportunity to experiment without wasting materials. sometimes my photoshoped versions have things i couldnt possably do in the darkroom, or at least will take alot of work to achieve.

 

then otoh, ive seen a moon cut n pasted right in the big dipper, or an eastern rising sun cityscape in nyc of a northerly view... but who am i to criticize?

 

its your art.