How much photo editing is too much?

[Alex_B]

any manipulation which has the desired effect is OK. Just from some point onwards the image is more defined by those manipulations, and so much by what you did when taking the image. If that is the case, then I'd not call it photography anymore, but maybe photographic design or art.

 

[ksmattfish]

I am not a photojournalist, and make no claims that my photographs are an accurate reflection of reality, unless a client has specified such a need. I work on the photo until it is to my liking whether in Photoshop or the traditional BW darkroom.

I'd be happy to discuss what editing and manipulations I've done, but feel that I'm under no obligation to go out of my way to educate the viewer as to how I created the photo, unless asked.

The idea that photos equal reality has been perpetuated by ever more automatic cameras, and dropping film off at the lab for processing and printing. Photogs who know how their cameras, lenses, gear, materials, and processing work understand that fairly extensive manipulations of reality occur all thoughout the process of creating a photo, starting with the decisions made before the photo is even taken.

Here's a quote from the early 20th century...

In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability.

If you'd like to know more about manipulation in the traditional BW darkroom just read Ansels Adam's books: The Camera, The Negative, and The Print.

 

[theApe]

I do think there is added value in a remarkable photograph that has been unmodified. An added value due to the skill and patience of the photographer.

On the other hand, if you were to come over to my house and flip through my photo album or look at the pictures on my wall, most of them are modified in some little way. It saves a lot of pictures from the never-to-be-seen pile.

Why? Because I shoot with a point and shoot camera, I have the patience of a child with ADHD and I tend to try and take my pictures from the sidelines instead of getting into the mix of things.

Three final thoughts:
1. If a "real" photographer snaps 35 rolls worth of pictures and takes the best three, is that skill or luck?
2. If you feel guilty about modification, hide a secret, unmodified version of the picture in the frame and then, sometime in the future, it'll be discovered. If nothing more, they'll appreciate how you took a good image and made it into a great one.
3. If I buy a framed photo from a photographer, I'd want it to be an unmodified reflection of the photographers skill. That would be more important to me than the actual picture.

 

[Edu_Lopes]

I don't have nothing against heavily manipulated photos, but some of them look like CG(computer graphics). If I want to see good PHOTOS, I expect NATURAL skin tones, textures, contrast... It's important to make the difference between a good photo and a good manipulation.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here's an example of a fairly popular, valuable photograph that has been extensively manipulated beyond what the camera captured. Does it detract from the photographer's skill that he couldn't create this in camera, but relied on other tools and processes? Does it detract from the value?

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_moonrise_full.html

 

[fmw]

Every digital image goes through a digital post process just like every analog image. What is too much? That is a matter of taste. In my own opinion, if the image can't stand on its own as good photograph then whatever manipulation was applied, digital or analog, doesn't fix it. It just adds manipulation. As long as the photographer is enhancing the image and not trying to fix it, it is a good thing.

Take a look at last month's contest winner. Remove the oversaturation and what do you get? An ordinary photograph. This is an example of a photographer trying to fix an image with manipulation. It doesn't work for me but, obviously, it worked for the group in general. That means my tolerance for manipulation is well below average so take that into consideration with my remarks.

 

[brighteyesphotos]

In terms of ethics, in photojournalism, editing, save for fixing exposures and color balances, is a no-no to me. Some of those images we saw that were later revealed to have been photoshopped were unethical to me.

In terms of art, editing and manipulation have been around for a long time. When a painter was creating his piece, do you think he painted the scene exactly as is or did he choose to leave out or add in certain things. Wouldn't that be considered early editing and manipulation? I have nothing against editing. Sometimes color balances, contrast and whatnot need to be bumped to create a better image. No matter how hard we try, the camera's eye is not going to reproduce our eyes in terms of colors and light. Not 100%. However, images that are so edited, so post-processed, manipulated, etc to a point where they look fake or are obviously photoshopped are distasteful in my opinion. I saw a site once where there was so much editing done afterwards that not a single model looked like a real person. They all looked like porcelain dolls with over-exgaggerated round eyes, smooth skins and even tiny lips. That is almost perverted. I'd rather have my images look as natural and unedited as possible.

 

[ksmattfish]

Remove the oversaturation and what do you get? An ordinary photograph. This is an example of a photographer trying to fix an image with manipulation.

Remove the dramatic burning in of the sky, and bleaching of the tomb stones/crosses, and 'Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM' isn't much more than an ordinary travel snapshot of a desert village. Adams even describes how he pulled over as he was driving, jumped out of the car, and made a quick guestimated exposure as the sun went below the horizon; it was effectively a point-n-shoot photo. By printing it with manipulation it became Adam's most popular photograph, and prints are valued at $50,000+. Not bad for a photo that had to be "fixed."

 

[fmw]

I said tried to fix, not fix. I have no problem with post processing. But when it is too obvious and the image has little merit without it, it doesn't do it for me. Adams Moonrise was a good photo without the manipulation. We are arguing two different things.

 

[abraxas]

Daddy- other Daddy! DoN"T FiGHt!...

 

[THORHAMMER]

let your father know that professional photographers have been add/removing things to help get the perfect shot since photography began, thats all that happens in studio/portrait photography, in journalism of course none of that happens. But when you say he wants you to be sucessful thats totally relative, sucessful at what? If you intend to make money shooting products be prepared to edit everything, if your doing fine art be prepared to edit everything, if your doing landscape photography, be prepared to edit everything. etc etc.....

Only if your 100% journalistic shooter you can lay off the editing.

It boils down to the mindset, small changes to get the best shot possible is great, but to 100% rely on post production to get a good shot will never work, this is what you have to discover for yourself on your journey not just take his word, itll mean more to you if you discover it for yourself through trial and error....

 

[Mike_E]

Trenton, you didn't mention if your father said you shouldn't use PhotoShop ever or if he had a time limit in mind. Could it be that he wanted you to first become a good photographer as a foundation before moving to the editing aspect of the business? I'll not add to the many and varied opinions expressed here on photo editing. I will say that editing a photo can bring you happiness but getting a photo just right in camera will bring you Joy! Good light to you! mike

 

[Kent Frost]

Anyways, what do you all think about it? Where do you stand? How much alteration is too much?

The only rule is not to copy anyone else's work. Beyond that, there is no limit to what can be done. The results may or may not be acceptable to others, but the image is no more or less yours than if there were no alteration.

 

[Christie Photo]

...I guess that's just how my father brought me up, he always taught me to get what you get and take what you get.

And that's the difference between those who "take pictures" and those who "make pictures."

As photographers, we "make" pictures. Now, my wife... she "takes" pictures. That's what snapshots are... when someone "takes" a record of a life experience. Those images are important too... often more important than the images I make.

Pete

 

[Kent Frost]

And that's the difference between those who "take pictures" and those who "make pictures."

As photographers, we "make" pictures. Now, my wife... she "takes" pictures. That's what snapshots are... when someone "takes" a record of a life experience. Those images are important too... often more important than the images I make.

Pete

Exactly. It's almost the same as having a plain, clear window, versus having a stained glass window. You don't need a stained glass window, but they take a lot of time and effort, and they're beautiful.