Is it wrong to edit photos with computer programs?

[o hey tyler]

Sorry, I'm new here and didn't see any threads pertaining to my question..

So, no it is not wrong to edit photos?
Do professional photographers do it?

Depends on the genre. PhotoJournalists..yes but they get fired if they get caught.

Not true. PJ's don't get fired for adjusting exposure/clarity/sharpening and that sort of thing. They WILL get fired for falsifying reality though.

 

[chuasam]

Sorry, I'm new here and didn't see any threads pertaining to my question..

So, no it is not wrong to edit photos?
Do professional photographers do it?

Depends on the genre. PhotoJournalists..yes but they get fired if they get caught.

Not true. PJ's don't get fired for adjusting exposure/clarity/sharpening and that sort of thing. They WILL get fired for falsifying reality though.

Adjusting exposure/clarity and sharpening isn't editing. PJs have another way to lie...they can crop judiciously.

 

[cgipson1]

Everyone edits photos to some degree using a digitial camera, whether they know it or not. It is not wrong.

Choosing to not edit photos on the mistaken belief that it somehow makes you a better or more ethical photographer is really selling yourself short and limiting your ability to create impressive looking images.

The only time it is not ethical to edit photos is in the field of photojournalism, I would venture that almost every other professional photographer edits their photos to some degree.

That's what I had thought, but then I was told that it was wrong and real photographers would laugh at me for doing that to photos so I just wanted to get the opinions of everyone on this site. I've always had an interest in photography and have taken many photos but am now trying to develop my hobby into something more.

Thanks everyone for the help and clarification, it is appreciated!

Whoever told you that was not a "REAL" photographer! Obviously they don't have a clue!

 

[jdong217]

I used to be pretty musical, particularly classical music, so I think of it like this:

The raw image you take with your camera is like the score to the symphony and you are the conductor. It's up to you as the composer to choose an interpretation that suits YOU. You can do this by emphasizing dynamics, telling the violins to play more staccato, changing the passage with 2 flutes to a flute solo etc. The possibilities are endless.

A picture is no different. Editing the photos is just your interpretation of the scene. Choosing not to edit them is fine too - another interpretation.

 

[MLeeK]

EDITING to fix short comings-yes-kind of. If you have to fix what you screwed up it is wrong. However editing in general is not WRONG overall. There are plenty of times when images are edited to produce a piece of artwork from it-not to fix what you screwed up.
Post processing to tweak things like your contrast, curve, white balance, etc is developing as is done in the darkroom in film.
If you are shooting in jpeg your camera is doing it for you. You have a bit of control by using your picture style settings in camera, but the camera is deciding what that negative will look like when it is turned into an actual image.
If you are shooting in raw you are getting just that-raw data. It's not even an image file, it's a data file that you have to decide how it looks when it becomes an image file. That is done by developing in a raw program. It's not invasive-it doesn't change the pixels in the image. It is just a matter of telling the program which information you want to keep and what to throw away when we convert to an image file.

I consider myself a "real" photographer and I am pretty sure the others in here do also. However... I DO process every image to appear the way I want it to appear. So maybe I am really a fauxtographer and never knew it. Seeing how my clients pay me pretty well for what I do? I will continue to be delusional and think I am a real photographer.

 

[jriepe]

The image straight from camera is not always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Here's a simple scenario to consider. There is something hanging on my white wall that I want to take a picture of. Because of incorrect white balance the wall has a yellowish tint. Am I being dishonest in correcting that or just being sensible? Post processing is used many times to correct. How is post processing any different than using a CPL to make the sky appear bluer than it actually is? If you make it bluer with a CPL or in post processing you are still taking control in manipulating the final image. I shoot a lot of macro and when I sharpen the image I am bringing out more visible detail. I'm not creating it just using pp to bring it out. Look at an image editing program as a tool that is used for correcting images and not only for manipulating images.

Jerry

 

[ph0enix]

It's "wronger" to edit photos with a chainsaw, IMO.

 

[o hey tyler]

It's "wronger" to edit photos with a chainsaw, IMO.

I can agree with that. Even down to the usage of "wronger." Which sounds terrible IMO.

 

[Hickeydog]

Editing a photo is just fine. Altering a photo, that's a bit different. If you cover up a tree do make a good wedding photo that's fine, but if you put someone else's face on a porn shoot.........

 

[jasonmb]

Thanks again everyone.

While we're on the topic, what is a good photo editing program that is either free or relatively cheap?
I used to use Photoshop awhile back when I did graphic/web design but I don't have it anymore so I'm not sure what I should get now.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Sorry, I'm new here and didn't see any threads pertaining to my question..

So, no it is not wrong to edit photos?
Do professional photographers do it?

Depends on the genre. PhotoJournalists..yes but they get fired if they get caught.
Fashion and Commercial Photographers - sometimes...if there isn't a budget for a retoucher.

That shows a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what editing entails. A photojournalist would not want to edit a picture in the sense of altering the composition and important elements of a scene as it was. However, adjusting contrast, saturation, and color, or converting an image to monochrome would not be unethical in the slightest bit. In fact, if the image was captured in JPEG, most of this already occurred by the cameras processing capabilities or the type of film that was used.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Thanks again everyone.

While we're on the topic, what is a good photo editing program that is either free or relatively cheap?
I used to use Photoshop awhile back when I did graphic/web design but I don't have it anymore so I'm not sure what I should get now.

GIMP

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks again everyone.

While we're on the topic, what is a good photo editing program that is either free or relatively cheap?
I used to use Photoshop awhile back when I did graphic/web design but I don't have it anymore so I'm not sure what I should get now.

GIMP

Bitter.... you have a broken "link" in your sig! Looks like some threads are getting deleted?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Bummer. It really was the best thread ever.

 

[Overread]

It wasn't me!!
Seriously now I'm tormented wanting to know what thread it was!!