The ethics of digital photo editing

[kevinglover]

Hi ladies and gents,


I have something of a philosophical question about enhancing photos on the computer. My dad was really big into photography - had a dark room set up in the house and all - and now that I'm starting out in the hobby, he's really shocked to see how much you can 'enhance' a photo on the computer.

Now, I'm not talking big-ticket work on PS or Lightroom, but things like upping the contrast, adjusting the tone and things like that in a very basic program, like Apple's iPhoto.

What are your opinions on this? Does enhancement take away from the essence of photography? Is it acceptable to use when you're trying to go for a really particular look? Or, in B&W, is it OK to work on the contrast a little bit? As a total noob, I'm not quite up on all the camera techniques that affect contrast... I'll be working on it though

Personally, my ideal would be take shots that don't require editing. It seems, though, that it would be the rare photo that couldn't be made more pleasing to me with a little bit of editing.

For instance, check out these two shots. No. 1 is the original, no. 2 is what it looked like after I got done working on it.

1:



2:

View attachment 34832



I'd love to hear what people's thoughts are on this. I hope I don't offend anyone!

Cheers,



Kevin

 

[SCraig]

This topic comes up every couple of weeks. The bottom line is that there is no way to take a digital photograph without some level of "Enhancement" because it's done in-camera whether you want it or not. The level of manipulation done after it comes out of the camera is up to the photographer.

I will say that many of the tools available in most editors mimic the tools available in a darkroom. Changing contrast is no different from using a different grade of paper. Dodging and burning are both common darkroom tools.

 

[skieur]

Simply put your dad's darkroom has moved to the computer. Although it was much more difficult in the darkroom, that same capability is present using computer postprocessing. Moreover computer postprocessing brings what you see with your eyes closer in line with the final image.

 

[pixmedic]

ouch...this old debate again.

editing isnt anything new, and certainly wasn't started with digital photography.
if your dad had a darkroom, and did his own developing....guess what? he edited his photos.
dodging, burning, cropping, contrast, color adjustment, exposure....ALL done in the darkroom.
done with filters, chemicals, enlargers...
just like you would do with lightroom or Photoshop with a digital file.
the medium has changed, but the processes have not.

 

[cgipson1]

We have a million threads like this.. one pops up every other week or so. When I (and many others here) worked in the darkroom, we would dodge and burn, color enhance, desaturate and do many of the things that are now done digitally. It is the same process (except much less messy)... it is just much more available to every one now.

It looks like you change hue (White balance), added contrast and cropped it... we could have done the same thing in the darkroom, no problem!

There was a thread a week or two ago about what we considered ethical....how far one could go, before the image was more "photoshop" than original image... everybody had a different opinion! Most agreed that trying to pass a heavily photoshopped image as a SOOC (straight out of camera) image would be unethical... but that was about the only common ground. We have good photographers here who use editing to lightly enhance an image... we have so-so photographers that are VERY good at photoshop, and who's images are 90% edit... and it is easy to tell the difference. We have some people who run Actions and Presets that modify their images in major ways... even though they have no clue what the presets and actions are actually doing.... and they don't care. They bought the presets and actions because they like them (and some are truly horrible!) lol!

As far as the little things you mention, not much different than what a good printer would do with a negative, or in the darkroom. If you shoot RAW.. which is not actually an image, just a collection of data of what the camera "saw"... you have to "edit" it before converting it to a Jpeg.. or it will look not so nice. That is more a function of the technology tahn anything else. Even your camera "edits" what it takes (when Jpeg).. surely have noticed you can change things like WB, sharpening, color, Vividness, etc.. in your camera menu...

Hopefully that will help a bit.. maybe do some searches to find similar questions here...

Oh.. and Welcome to TPF!

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Take a look at your two posted photos and you decide which one you like to look at better and decide if post editing enhances photography or not. It is obvious that if you want photos that stand out you will need post editing most of the time. I would imagine that it's extremely rare to find a photo in a magazine which didn't receive some sort of post editing.

 

[CA_]

Computers are simply new tools of an old trade. They're ways to unlock creative places in our minds that we would never have been able to create. Anything that allows us to express even more abstract things than what is seen day to day is a blessing.

 

[kevinglover]

Whoops. Sorry guys, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse. I'll make sure to search the forums next time! Beginner mistake haha.


I appreciate your comments though - definitely some really great perspectives from you all. Thank you!

 

[Blitz55]

This is a very interesting topic for me. My question was always sort of how much is to much?

The reason I ask is before I started photography which was recently (Actually took a break because I just got so busy over the last year) I did drawing and illustration in Photoshop. I know photoshop pretty well, I have been using it since 1996. So it's very easy for me to get carried away with editing a photo.

Now as far as ethics, im not the kind of person would make an image better and say thats just how I took it. Id always own up to the level of editing I did on an image. I suppose what some people worry about, like myself, is if your editing abilities are stronger than your photography abilities, then are you and your work less impressive?

I used a Dark room for a short time in High School, but nothing to the extent of what these guys are talking about. You can do a lot of the things in photoshop that they had to do in a light room. But respect to those guys, because I believe that it's not that those tools (Dodge, Burn, contrast..etc) are more available, they are easier to perform. There is a whole science to what they had to do in the dark room, sometimes im just sliding sliders in photoshop, I can do a sample on another layer, if I don't like it I delete it and try again all in the matter of a few minutes, the undo button is great as well.

But there is still skill involved so don't get me wrong. To me there is a difference between taking a nice photo then spending time in photoshop editing it with the tools you have at hand, and people who take a pic, run it through a pre-made instagram filter. But even that it helps to have good composition as well as lighting but those filters are just made to make things "cool" looking I believe no matter what the image.

At the end of the day it will best suite you to learn how to take better and better photographs using your camera, but still have a good practice at editing and touching up a photo to get the look that you want because thats what it's all about, the look that is unique to you.



For a fun, this is the kind of stuff I draw and paint in Photoshop to get an idea of my background. http://imageshack.us/a/img7/6184/zeldawp.jpg

 

[manicmike]

This is a very interesting topic for me. My question was always sort of how much is to much?

That's always a subjective question. Granted, there are times when almost everyone agrees on there being too much processing.

 

[Blitz55]

Thats true Manicmike


Also, I have no idea why this struck me as funny but when I saw your location I thought our posts were in perfect order.

 

[skieur]

This is a very interesting topic for me. My question was always sort of how much is to much?

That's always a subjective question. Granted, there are times when almost everyone agrees on there being too much processing.

The answer is not subjective. Editing/postprocessing should be "transparent" as in not noticeable by the viewer. If it is noticeable, then the image is "overcooked".

The skill of a good photographic postprocessor is demonstrated when there is lots of praise for his postprocessing of an image that he has NOT touched in post and there is lots of praise for an image "photographed" that he actually created on the computer.


skieur

 

[Ashlee_Duh]

I like the first photos non crop better. Maybe that's just me? :scratch:

The edited one makes me feel that I'm headed toward the "Misty Mountains" though. Very interesting.

 

[bhop]

Let it die already...

 

[runner2541]

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.