To Edit Or Not, It's Part Of The Art Of Photography

[smoke665]

How Photography Is the Art of Editing | Fstoppers

Editing shapes photography from the moment you frame a shot, not just in post-processing. Explore how composition, subject selection, and intentional choices define the final image.

fstoppers.com

 

[TJMcG112]

Not a new topic, for sure, but one that comes up incessantly.

Today, of course, the criticism has shifted slightly due to the advent of AI involvement in imaging. I have never considered myself a purist; I always post-processed, edited, or Photoshopped, or whatever you choose to call it, and always defended that as part of the craft. AI is different, though.

We once spent hours removing things that we didn't want in an image, making selections, masking, cloning, blending, and copying a little at a time, to try to get a believable image that didn't look too "computerized." We endured the criticism of those who believed that a photo "SOOC," or in other words, a pre-processed JPEG, that was done in manual mode, was the only "real photography." Of course, we had previously heard the same about cameras with meters, with semi-auto exposure settings, and autofocus.

Yet despite all this angst over how easy photography had become, there were still people who could get a better image than others, and some who just never got it. It wasn't really that easy; you still had to know things, especially when it came to using editors like Photoshop, where so much time and effort went into just learning how it worked and how to make it do what you wanted.

But AI? You don't have to know anything except how to type. "Prompt Engineers" are a thing now. Describing a thing or a scene makes you a visual artist in the modern world. We used to call people who did that "authors," but now we have "AI photography," and people who can expound at length on just why AI is going to make cameras obsolete as "photography" via the keyboard becomes the norm. Note that I am referring to images created solely with AI, and not just the machine learning tools that allow better selections, removal of distractions, etc.

I may be just too parochial, but I don't get it. Some say that if you describe in minute detail a composition, lighting, and color properties, that this is proof of your artistic ability and that you don't need to actually create the image. If that view were universal, then I guess you would be able to copyright the images that you "created" simply by typing a few words. As it stands today, you cannot.

The arguments are endless, and there are points to be made and considered all around. This is just my opinion...

 

[smoke665]

@TJMcG I agree with much of what you say, though we differ slightly when it comes to AI generated images. I've used text to image generation frequently for backgrounds, it's quick, saving hours of searching, and gives me exactly what envision. I've also tried creating images from text prompts, it's not as easy as most think, one little word can change an image significantly. As to where artistic ability begins, it's the same whether AI generated or camera captured....as the article points out it begins in the mind (before the camera comes up or text is typed). Also lacking in AI is the ability to capture real emotion.

 

[cgw114 140]

How Photography Is the Art of Editing | Fstoppers

Editing shapes photography from the moment you frame a shot, not just in post-processing. Explore how composition, subject selection, and intentional choices define the final image.

fstoppers.com

Interesting. Guess I've gotten better at pre-visualization and simply seeing the "shot" within the "shot" before fretting about editing.

 

[smoke665]

Interesting. Guess I've gotten better at pre-visualization and simply seeing the "shot" within the "shot" before fretting about editing.

I found a reawkening. In the beginning shooting film I was slower, more deliberate, planning my shot before I click the shutter. Then when I moved to digital it prompted the spray and pray method, looking for the perfect shot out of a bunch. However once the newness wore off I drifted back to the old methods.

 

[cgw114 140]

I found a reawkening. In the beginning shooting film I was slower, more deliberate, planning my shot before I click the shutter. Then when I moved to digital it prompted the spray and pray method, looking for the perfect shot out of a bunch. However once the newness wore off I drifted back to the old methods.

Yup. Came late to digital after voracious film shooting. Lots of eye-balling still before taking a shot. Shoot only primes, so foot-zooming also makes things a bit more deliberate.

 

[AlanKlein79 18]

Photography is shooting an actual moment in time in God's world. AI is not recording anything. It;s making an image in a computer that never occurred.

 

[KJ_North]

How Photography Is the Art of Editing | Fstoppers

Editing shapes photography from the moment you frame a shot, not just in post-processing. Explore how composition, subject selection, and intentional choices define the final image.

fstoppers.com

Very good article. I think editing also gives us the confidence to shoot in conditions that are certainly not favorable. Knowing that we can at least recover something salvageable. I would love to get a shot better directly out of the camera and slowing I am improving, however knowing I can at least improve my images after the fact is part of the process for me. It ties into why i print at home for me its the final stage of the process and I can hold something I created.

 

[smoke665]

Photography is shooting an actual moment in time in God's world. AI is not recording anything. It;s making an image in a computer that never occurred.

So...when you dodged and burned a print in the darkroom, was that capturing the "actual moment"? What about now when you change the white balance on a digital image because there's a reflection off a red wall is that the "actual moment" captured? , Using AI to edit a photograph doesn't change it from a photograph, it just makes the edit process faster.

As to an image made with a camera vs an AI created image, interestingly when I asked ChatGP "What is photography?" this is what it said "Photography is the art, practice, and process of capturing images using light". When I asked it "What is an AI created image, this is what it said "An AI-created image is a picture that has been generated by an artificial intelligence system rather than being taken by a camera or drawn by a human. Even AI has no illusions that it is photography, they are two different processes, but neither is oil painting, watercolor, pencil, pen & ink, or any number of other mediums, the only similarity is that they are an artistic representation of the artists mind.

 

[cgw114 140]

So...when you dodged and burned a print in the darkroom, was that capturing the "actual moment"? What about now when you change the white balance on a digital image because there's a reflection off a red wall is that the "actual moment" captured? , Using AI to edit a photograph doesn't change it from a photograph, it just makes the edit process faster.

As to an image made with a camera vs an AI created image, interestingly when I asked ChatGP "What is photography?" this is what it said "Photography is the art, practice, and process of capturing images using light". When I asked it "What is an AI created image, this is what it said "An AI-created image is a picture that has been generated by an artificial intelligence system rather than being taken by a camera or drawn by a human. Even AI has no illusions that it is photography, they are two different processes, but neither is oil painting, watercolor, pencil, pen & ink, or any number of other mediums, the only similarity is that they are an artistic representation of the artists mind.

Sane, rational response. Frankly, what AI-enhanced stuff I've seen hereabouts is, well, obvious.
All recalls a wonderful early days manipulated image of two kangaroos in silhouetted overlooking a sunset on Lake Titicaca...

 

[DanOstergren24]

I learned Photoshop before I ever learned anything about photography. As a matter of fact my introduction to it was in Junior year of high school (2003-2004), when I took a "Digital Photography" class that should have been called something else, as 100% of the curriculum was how to use Photoshop, with none of it being based around using a camera whatsoever. I'm grateful for it though, as I learned so much about using Photoshop (Version 7 at the time), all of which has been very useful to me as a photographer, and that class is what sparked my initial interest in digital photo editing and learning about photography and how I might use my Photoshop skills in photography. To me, because of that, Photoshop has always been an integral part of my photography, though I generally only use it for retouching and color grading. I think it's fun, and it greatly interests me alongside photography. I'm not the type to replace skies or add objects that were never there to begin with, but I also don't look down on those who do, nor do I try to really define it for others. As the author alludes, photographs are shaped by a series of decisions long before any file exists. For many photographers including myself, editing just continues that process of decisions made for guiding the viewer toward the experience or intention behind the image.

In the context of AI, I think it's nuanced. I have nothing against AI assisted retouching with extensions such as Retouch4me, despite preferring to retouch my own work by hand. I simply like my retouching better than what AI can usually achieve. I do however love it's ability to clean a backdrop, as sometimes when I rent a studio and use a cyc-wall, it's dirty and I can't simply clean it or re-paint it, so editing is the next best option for that and AI has greatly reduced how long that task takes me. In regards to adding AI-generated objects to a photograph, I still view it as partially photography, more in the realm of a composite than a true "photograph". I have nothing against this, except when someone tries passing it off as completely real. In regards to fully AI generated images, I'm not a fan, especially when someone calls it photography.

All this to say I don't look down on using things like Photoshop, I celebrate it. If someone else feels that not doing post-production improves their photography, well it's their photography and I think it's their rightful way to approach it. If they don't like that I or others use Photoshop in their process, well that's their opinion but it won't stop me from continuing to do so. I imagine it's the same for those who enjoy adding AI-generated objects and backgrounds to their photos. If they like it, they will hopefully continue to do that despite other's opinions.

 

[smoke665]

editing just continues that process of decisions made for guiding the viewer toward the experience or intention behind the image.

So true! Something that isn't thought of often is, "what" the mind sees through the eye, is already edited to some extent. Color temperture is a good example, the mind registers a white wall as white because it knows it's supposed to be white, but a camera records the actual temperature/hue being reflected. Another example is emotion, the eye can read emotions into a scene, but a camera only records whatever is reflected. Editing post let's you better match what you saw in the beginning.

 

[TJMcG112]

So true! Something that isn't thought of often is, "what" the mind sees through the eye, is already edited to some extent. Color temperture is a good example, the mind registers a white wall as white because it knows it's supposed to be white, but a camera records the actual temperature/hue being reflected. Another example is emotion, the eye can read emotions into a scene, but a camera only records whatever is reflected. Editing post let's you better match what you saw in the beginning.

Also, there are times when physical constraints don't allow the angle you would like, or your time doesn't allow you to keep returning to a scene when the lighting is perfect. Editing software allows you to make adjustments that could have been there if you had not had to catch that plane. Maybe, when you get the image on the screen, you just think that a tighter crop looks better. Why beat yourself up and say, "I should have cropped more in camera, so now I have to throw that out..."

I liken it to a sculptor beginning with a block of granite and creating that masterpiece one little chip at a time.

 

[webestang6410]

Every single photo we print in the lab from a wallet to a 40x60 inch print is edited. I edit big time in the darkroom. ALL photos are edited in some way. Even your phone's camera software automatically applies editing processes like adjusting color, contrast, and sharpening to create a vibrant, finished image.

 

[smoke665]

Sane, rational response. Frankly, what AI-enhanced stuff I've seen hereabouts is, well, obvious.
All recalls a wonderful early days manipulated image of two kangaroos in silhouetted overlooking a sunset on Lake Titicaca...

This is an early attempt at a Text to Image, it took a few times to get the text prompts right, but then it created it in a flash. In the old days it would have taken hours to create this by hand. Is it perfect, nope, but it isn't bad either. With all the improvements, and practice it could create something very close to perfect. The last update to PS integrated Nano Banana,I haven't even begun to explore it.