Photographers that don't edit

JoshuaSimPhotography

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
96
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi there!:)
this question has been really bugging me for some time...are there any famous photographers that don't edit there photos.
I recently went to this seminar where the speaker kept on talking aout how great god has made this world, i was really interested in his theories , but then...he kept on talking about how important it was to edit your photos! I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited, but I was blown away about what he edited! I then realised how fake some of his shots actually were, so may faith in his photographic skill dropped massivly. So I was wondering if there are any photographers that only rely on their skill and not a computer?

Thanks for viewing,
JoshuaSimPhotography
PS: Nearly every photographer i know uses photoshop. I was sad to also find out that even Ansel Adams used editing techniques :(
 
By editing I am assuming you mean manipulation, and yes that has been going on since the beginning of photography.

Film people have been creating in the darkroom for ever, even those images you took to the local corner drug store where edited. It is extremely rare not to dodge/burn etc with a negative. How did you think Ansel Adams made the west look like that? It doesn't in it's natural state, it was his creative vision to make it more dramatic.

Ansel Adams along with every other fine art photographer have been editing their negatives to reflect their vision and style.

There are those who feel they shouldn't touch a file after it comes out of the camera, but the chip within the camera is making all sorts of decisions about how the final product will look, so what is the difference?

There are types of photos that aren't supposed to be changed, think journalism, but even in the days of film those negatives were tweaked.

If you could see Richard Avedeon's printing map it would shock you as to how much burning and dodging occurred .

How much editing becomes a different question.
 
Why would it make you sad to hear that Ansel Adems produced a photo OF HIS OWN, and didn't leave his art with what the camera produced in his stead? Why would it make you sad to find out that the individual who considers photography to be heir own means of artificial expression take TIME to create a photo that is THEIRS, much rather than the camera manufacturer's settings? In analogue times, as soon as you had access to a darkroom, you'd be "manipulating" your own photo, by length of developing time of the negatives, temperature, whatever ... and later in the production of your own prints. Photos have always been the artist's work (IF they were his work and not shot on AUTO and later handed in to the drugstore to be printed by a big printing company who'd apply THEIR means to bring out the photo), which includes time on the photo AFTER the shutter's been pushed. Nothing to be sad about, I say.
 
A camera is just one of the many tools that photographers use to create art.
 
even selecting from the images you took, which specific images you want to present, is already editing (strictly speaking).
 
also, no camera is perfect and the physics of photography is limited. Hence, in order to create the perfect image, you will need more than just the camera!
 
Alex, there's you wishing (hoping) that more people'd be MORE selective as to what photos they present in the end?
Well, I certainly often think so...
 
also, you should distinguish between editing as in "trying to heal mistakes you made while capturing the scene with your camera" from editing as in being part of the creative process of realising your vision. The first is repairing, the second is art.
 
Another one: Rembrandt was the worst cheaters of all, he did not even use a proper camera, he did it all in post!
 
Alex, there's you wishing (hoping) that more people'd be MORE selective as to what photos they present in the end?
Well, I certainly often think so...

That comes as the photographers level of taste is improved. You know, after the idea that cameras are magic wanes, and that the moment captured in time, can still be a boring moment.
 
Trever1t said:
Photographers who do not edit....don't know how.

Is that like the saying "those who can't teach... Teach gym."
 
Hi there!:)
this question has been really bugging me for some time...are there any famous photographers that don't edit there photos.
I recently went to this seminar where the speaker kept on talking aout how great god has made this world, i was really interested in his theories , but then...he kept on talking about how important it was to edit your photos! I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited, but I was blown away about what he edited! I then realised how fake some of his shots actually were, so may faith in his photographic skill dropped massivly. So I was wondering if there are any photographers that only rely on their skill and not a computer?

Thanks for viewing,
JoshuaSimPhotography
PS: Nearly every photographer i know uses photoshop. I was sad to also find out that even Ansel Adams used editing techniques :(

You may like this even less, but, some of the most famous of all photographers have someone else do the editing for them. Typically, only after they've become famous and can afford it.

If upon first seeing this photographer's images you did not identify them as "fake" then you should in fact have experienced an increase in respect for his skills once you realized the degree of editing.

Alex makes a really critical point in one of his comments. Photoshop and/or the darkroom do not exist to help a photographer cover-up their mistakes. Editing what the camera captures is a seamless part of the process. Old Ansel even had a term for it. He called it pre-visualization. By which he meant standing there in front of the scene you're considering and seeing in your mind's eye what you'll be able to produce as a final image when the entire process camera to print is complete. Photoshop/darkroom is an integral part of that process.

As a photographic artist it's your choice to pre-visualize a result that remains "photographic" in character and remains faithful to the subject (editing still required) or that enhances the subject in subtle, positive ways or that steps right out of the realm of reality and into the realm of illustration.

Joe

P.S. There is a cultural element involved where the public is engaged. When you produce a photo that appears to be faithful to reality then the public tends to expect that major editing didn't take place. I think this is involved with your reaction. As photographers we have to deal with this. Where I used to work I would frequently bring new photo prints down to the main office and show them off. I had a secretary there who would always first ask, "Photoshop?", before going on to express like/dislike for the photo. It mattered that I hadn't removed a mountain peak or building or moved one of the pyramids so to speak. Enhance the color or contrast -- that's OK, just don't take stuff out or add stuff in if it wasn't really there.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top