Is it wrong to edit photos with computer programs?

jasonmb · Mar 6, 2012

I'd assume so. Does it not take away from the photography aspect of it all and bring it more into the realm of graphic design?
I mean, I suppose you wouldn't edit a photo much, I try not to when I do. But even tweaking certain things; contrast, clarity, ect-- is it wrong to do so if you want to call your work actual photography?
Although, I see some people's work and I don't understand how they would take the photo with just a camera. I'm very new to all this, so I know there's plenty I don't know about camera affects and such, but I was just wondering what is the general consensus on editing photos?

dxqcanada · Mar 6, 2012

This topic has been brought up many times before.

The answer ... is no.

analog.universe · Mar 6, 2012

There are lots of threads about this actually... the general consensus is that if you don't do the editing, the camera does it for you, so it's happening no matter what.

To me it's simpler than that: NOTHING IN ART IS EVER WRONG

jasonmb · Mar 6, 2012

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?

jasonmb · Mar 6, 2012

Hmmm.. ok. Well, thank you both for your input.

EDIT: I had been told it was wrong, that's why I was asking.

bhop · Mar 6, 2012

How else would you edit your digital photos?

chuasam · Mar 6, 2012

jasonmb said:
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.

chuasam · Mar 6, 2012

bhop said:
How else would you edit your digital photos?

Really sharp scissors, a darkroom and lots and lots of patience.

fokker · Mar 6, 2012

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.

jasonmb · Mar 6, 2012

bhop said:
How else would you edit your digital photos?

That's the point.. The question was whether or not you should edit your photos on the computer or simply use the camera and it's settings to create effects in the photograph, which I suppose is a type of editing in itself but yea..

Josh66 · Mar 6, 2012

Yes, it is wrong. I don't even develop my film, so that the photos will be "real".

Everybody edits their photos. Some more than others.

jasonmb · Mar 6, 2012

fokker said:
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!

dxqcanada · Mar 6, 2012

jasonmb said:
... I was told that it was wrong ...

Did a "Photographer" tell you that ?

Overread · Mar 6, 2012

Most forms of photography require that the negative from the camera be processed before its presentable. Your negative from the darkroom had to be processed before it became a print and during its time between stages it could be edited in many ways. Heck the idea of merging photos together, cloning out subjects, sharpening, contrast boosting etc... - these are all methods you can do in a darkroom with your 35mm film.

Digital just makes it a lot lot easier and faster to do.

How far you take things is mostly up to yourself (unless you shoot for a company/newspaper). Though generally things like contrast, sharpness, noise, brightness are pretty much yours to edit.

Editing is part and parcel of the photographic digital world - if you move onto shooting RAW you'll have to process your shots before they can be used anyway. During this process you can unlock the full potential of what the camera captured at the time and also realise your creativity more fully. It does not mean that capture in camera is made any less important, in fact most of the heavy editing people I know shoot as good as they can to ensure that when they come to edit they've the best possible photo to work with - that cuts down time and increase their overall potential with the shot.

A lot of "oh don't edit its cheating" people are often people that simply don't understand editing. Often they spent many years shooting 35mm colour film - film that was posted off to the lab and thus they never spent any time in a darkroom to edit or even basically process their own shots. Many of the common editing changes were performed, by default, at the lab. Many others are also of a generation where computers were not a mainstay in their lives and thus there is some intimidation of the computer and the software over them.
Most will often revert their stance once they are introduced and learn some of the basics of editing and also learn that its not all "click a button and its all perfect" that the advertising often claims

SCraig · Mar 6, 2012

jasonmb said:
That's the point.. The question was whether or not you should edit your photos on the computer or simply use the camera and it's settings to create effects in the photograph, which I suppose is a type of editing in itself but yea..

I didn't print exactly what came out of the camera when I worked on them in a darkroom, I'm not going to start now. Keep in mind that many of the "Features" of editing software are based on darkroom techniques. If you think everything printed in a darkroom is "Straight Out Of The Camera" you are badly mistaken.

I really don't understand why this question comes up so frequently. In the first place, the only person who has the right to decide is the photographer. In the second place, is the goal to create a photograph or simply use a camera? Software is a tool just like a camera is and in my opinion it is the combination of the two that makes a photograph. If one edits their photographs outside of the camera, so what?