The ethics of digital photo editing

[KmH]

As new techniques and processes became available, Ansel Adams used those new techniques and processes to make new prints of many of his popular images.

 

[gsgary]

All of that and more was done in the darkroom

 

[HoboHunter]

Your always gonna have to edit, but I feel some of the newer photographers rely on post way to much. There is a lot of things you can do in camera to get it close if you just take the time to compose each shot.

 

[Buckster]

I feel some of the newer photographers rely on post way to much.

It's no skin off anyone else if they do or they don't.

 

[Patrice]

Unless your image is commissioned for use as documentary evidence in a court of law or some similar circumstance then just edit to your heart's content. It's your image, do what you want with it. Who's to say if you should or not? The viewers and/or your clients will tell you if they like your edited image or not, but how you get to that image is your prerogative.

 

[480sparky]

Whose to say how much 'artistic. license' exists in paintings like The Last Supper and Mona Lisa.....

 

[AaronLLockhart]

You should ask your father what he thinks of Ansel Adams who did much of his celebrated work in the 1930's to 1960's. Most if not all of Adams photographic prints are the result of EXTENSIVE editing in the darkroom. Ask dad what the fundamental difference is now, then go back to your work in Photoshop.

^----- This guy beat me to it.

 

[nmoody]

It took me a good amount of convincing to get my mom to use Lightroom just because it had the word "Photoshop" in the title. It took me showing her how to use the tool to fix a "unrecoverable" picture that meant a lot to her.

 

[techniker]

I went to see an Ansel Adams exhibit at the Peabody Essex Museum last July that was also hosting a collections of Jerry Uelsmann's work. I was surprised and impressed to learn that all of his work was done in the dark room. Jerry Uelsmann

I do my best to capture the composition I prevision using my camera's settings. However, digital photographs seem withered compared to film and I think some touch up is necessary. Ultimately, photography as expression of art isn't explicitly documenting exactly how things appear. Creating art how you see it is a worthy objective in its own right and needs no external validation.

The error is relying on a computer program to make an otherwise poor shot look good.

 

[Buckster]

The error is relying on a computer program to make an otherwise poor shot look good.

How is it an error if it succeeds?

 

[480sparky]

.........The error is relying on a computer program to make an otherwise poor shot look good.

The larger error is not utilizing the available tools needed to accomplish the task.

 

[techniker]

The error is relying on a computer program to make an otherwise poor shot look good.

How is it an error if it succeeds?

Being consistent with what I said before that, I have to agree. I suppose what I meant to imply is that being good at editing photographs using computer software doesn't make a person a good photographer.

On a personal level, I think photography should be about using focus, shutter speed, aperture, filters, ISO and flash to your potential to create the composition you see and then ironing out the wrinkles in post. In other words: I try to edit my photos as little as possible to achieve the composition because I am capable of so much using just the hard ware.

 

[Trever1t]

I don't edit, my camera is magical!

 

[Ilovemycam]

I pretty much only do the same I did in the wet darkroom. No edit police, we can do as we like.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

The error is relying on a computer program to make an otherwise poor shot look good.

How is it an error if it succeeds?

Being consistent with what I said before that, I have to agree. I suppose what I meant to imply is that being good at editing photographs using computer software doesn't make a person a good photographer.

On a personal level, I think photography should be about using focus, shutter speed, aperture, filters, ISO and flash to your potential to create the composition you see and then ironing out the wrinkles in post. In other words: I try to edit my photos as little as possible to achieve the composition because I am capable of so much using just the hard ware.

To some degree, even this can be disagreed with. If the end result is the same, why does it matter how much post is done to a photograph?

In reality it doesn't. I like to try to spend very little of time in post as I possibly can, unless I am doing HDR or trying to make some art piece out of my work. However, that doesn't change the point. The end result is the end result. It doesn't matter if it takes you 5 minutes in post, or two hours.

Therefore, even a good photoshop artist can be considered a great photographer. In the same sense a great darkroom specialist is considered a great photographer. That is literally what photoshop is, is the "digital darkroom."

Manipulation and composites are the hardest part for people to grasp when done in photoshop. However, the only reason this has become a problem is due to the fact that Photoshop has extremely simplified the process. Film photographs also can have manipulations and composites made in the Darkroom as well. It's literally no different.