How much photo editing is too much?

[hazzayoungn]

i think the debate boils down to interpretation vs intention. is a picture taken with a fisheye lens, holga, lomo, diana, pinhole, etc. any better or worse than a picture taken with a "normal" setup? maybe, maybe not. however, the pictures look much different than those taken with more traditional cameras

in your opinions, is this picture "too much?" or, is it only good because it has "enough." i think it accurately portrays the counterculture at the time

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/hazzayoungn/300px-Beatles29ra.jpg

 

[montresor]

Crop, push or pull, burn-in. Whether in the darkroom or computer. Th-th-that's all, folks.

This reminds me of the war between the Pictorialists and the Documentarians of the 1920s and '30s, with Stieglitz, Weston, Steichen, et al arrayed on the side of Pretty Art, and Evans, Abbott, Strand, et al on the side of relatively unfussed-with images, usually of the harsher side of life. Count me among the latter!

 

[Thor06]

Hey guys, I just have a couple questions about post processing image editing. Does doing so destroy the integrity of the photo or is it completely fine to edit the daylights out of it, or is it somewhere in between. I have never really edited my photos much until a couple that I took in Georgia came back not exactly as I wanted, they were definately much prettier in person. A buddy suggested to edit them a bit so I did. I had never played with contrast or color levels or anything so I experimented a bit in the following pictures. I love how they turned out, but is how I got them ok?

Ok, here is the original of the first pic I touched up:
1)


And here is the doctored version.
2)


Another I edited, original:
3)


Finally, the doctored version of the above.
4)


So I am really open to any and all comments on these primarily on "photography ethics" but also on comp, color, etc. Also I want to add that I dont really want people editing my photos, but if you think you can help it a lot PM me about it. Thanks guys.

EDIT: Sorry if this is in the wrong spot mods, I wasnt entirely sure where it belonged so I just went where I thought it fit best.

 

[Big Mike]

As for the ethics of it...that's a personal issue. Some people don't like it, some do and some don't care. I think it's perfectly fine, unless some is trying to misrepresent something or someone.

Photography is an art, there is no right or wrong. If you, the photographer, thinks it should look a certain way...then make it look that way.

I edit almost every shot that I keep. I shoot in RAW format with the idea that it will require some editing before it's ready. Think of it like developing film and/or working in a dark room.

 

[gmarquez]

My opinion is that you have to determine the "end user" for your photos. Are they for you, for your enjoyment, for photos that will hang on your wall? If so, do as much or as little post-processing as you like and feel right about.

Alternatively, are your pictures going to be used in a court of law? If so, then it's probably best to not mess with them much at all.

Most other cases are somewhere in between.

One small note, at least when using a digital camera - even though you may take a photo and vow never to alter it, the mere act of taking the photo will involve some processing, either in-camera, or in-computer, or both. Even going from camera->usb card->photo printing will involve changes, translations, and alterations to the data to some extent, even if you never knowingly make changes yourself.

 

[Flash Harry]

My opinion is that if your edit is representative of how you "see" the image at the taking stage then its fine, but, the best images are achieved with subtle editing/enhancing and overcooked images look just that.

 

[LaFoto]

Thor, this discussion has been started in the Photographic Discussions before on the very same topic, so I feel it is ok to merge the two into one and you have all those answers to read now biggrin: :greenpbl: ) that have been given before you started the new discussion with your example pics. Heehee.

 

[Thor06]

Thanks for the replys and merging LaFoto. I love asking questions here because they are always answered in a super timely manner and theres no "anti-noob" sentiment. Anyway, thanks a bunch guys, I appreciate it! I'll try to keep the editing tasteful and as subtle as possible.

 

[RMThompson]

My opinion is that if your edit is representative of how you "see" the image at the taking stage then its fine, but, the best images are achieved with subtle editing/enhancing and overcooked images look just that.

I totally disagree. To me a photograph is inherently not the truth, because we take them at angles, or use lighting tricks to "fool" the eye.

So I take that a step further! I purposefully edit most of my photos to look fanastical (not fantastic, Im not conceited), and fake.

Examples:

 

[Flash Harry]

Well, if you want your images to be fantasy then that is how you visualise them on capture but I dont reckon my wedding parties would appreciate being endowed with vampire teeth/solarized/posterized etc, they do however wish to be spot and blemish free.

 

[RMThompson]

Well, if you want your images to be fantasy then that is how you visualise them on capture but I dont reckon my wedding parties would appreciate being endowed with vampire teeth/solarized/posterized etc, they do however wish to be spot and blemish free.

Well that's another situation altogether. I don't add vampire fangs without request... most of the time.

See I can do stuff somewhat realistic:

 

[gmarquez]

RMThompson's last photo posted is actually a good example of how we "process" photos to make them look nice. Notice that his/her last picture is in black and white. That doesn't fully reflect the reality of the shoot. However, shooting (or post processing to) black and white isn't considered "messing with the photo". It's called "artistic license".

In the area of color there is a similar debate between the subtle color group and the intense color group. The intense color group tends to shoot on slide films such as Fuji Velvia, which gives the resulting pictures "pumped up" colors. However, those that prefer the more subtle or pastel films sometimes deride Velvia as "CartoonChrome" or "DisneyChrome", because they feel that the intense colors are just a gimick. In "the real world", I myself see some pretty intense colors, yet some people prefer the look of subdued colors on film, because to them, it looks less "gimicky".

Again, it all comes down to the purpose and end-use of the pictures. If they are for your enjoyment, do what you want with them. If you are trying to impress your friends and outsiders (blech!), do what they think is appropriate.