To edit or not to edit.

[coffee]

This subject has always been of interest to me, and would like to see what others think.

I think there are a few different camps on this. Those that have no problem editing their images to the Nth degree, those that do only basic editing to get their images technically correct, and those that say they are purist, and claim they don't do anything at all to their images.

Me and a few members, long ago, had a lively discussion on this. This is the way I see it; Photography isn't what it use to be. In the 35mm era, you really had no choice to edit unless you were a professional with all the darkroom equipment. For the majority though, you took your shot, sent the film to the processors, and hoped for the best. Today with computers, digital cameras, and editing programs, fixing and enhancing an image is only limited by the editing program, and the users imagination. So the line that divides photography, and art, has been greatly blurred.

To me, photography means getting it as right as you can in camera, then fixing the basic technical aspects of the image that can include cropping, lightning/darkening, saturation, sharpening, color correcting, and possibly cloning out distractions and objects that the photographer has no choice but to include in the original. Images become more art to me when things are added that weren't originally in the capture, or changed with PS filters or similar to give the presentation something completely different than the original.

I guess there could be another category that includes stock images for sale or product images where only the final image products is considered, where it doesn't matter how you came to the final product.

I sometimes have to chuckle a little when someone speaks out about an image that has been altered claiming they are a purist and the art of photography is damaged when editing takes place. But these are the same ones that have no problem doing technical edits to an image like upping the exposure or cropping lets say. I have yet to meet someone that hasn't edited their images in some respect.

My bottom line take on this for me is in this age of digital photography, it almost impossible to be into photography without editing images in some respect. And a true pruist is one that does absolutly nothing to an image. No cropping, lightning...nothing. Only then can you be called a purist.

What's your thoughts on this?

[Kaye]

Interesting topic Joseph,
I am definitely not a purist and think that editing in many ways is fine. Since Digital photography, the true meaning of photography has changed.
In my eyes, Photography is still "an Art" and always has been, but it will still depend upon the person behind the camera that makes the difference..... it is what the photographer sees.
We cannot get away from technology. Heaven knows what we may be able to do in 20 years from now.

My main thought from my own experience: Even with Photoshop, etc, etc,. IF THE ORIGINAL IS ABSOLUTELY "NO GOOD", then not Photoshop, nor other programs will make it look better - it will just look fake.
We all know when we over enhance a photo. Just take a look the next day, and you realise this seeing it a second time. I have done this and am still learning.
Looking forward to more opinions on this.

[coffee]

Yes Kaye you are right and I should have stated that a little different. I also consider Photography an art in itself, and maybe I should have called major creative changes to an image as "photo art" or "creative photography" perhaps.

You are spot on about thinking your done a good edit job just to look at it later and ask yourself what the heck you did to it. Been there many times.

[jerryph]

"Do what makes you happy" is my motto.

I have pictures that I spend 10 hours on before I am happy and others that are straight out of the camera perfect for me. It all depends on what I feel like.

In general, though, each picture I do gets edited to some extent, even if it is a small WB correction or sharpness addition or colour tweak. That is why LightRoom works so well for me... 95% of the pics are edited using it and maybe 5% are done in PS CS3.

[Pat]

My thoughts on this very subject bubbled to the surface here (http://www.proudphotography.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22294&postcount=32) just yesterday.
My only problem (as in life) is with dishonesty; intentional misrepresentation.
But I'm a limited moral relativist in this regard. If a photograph is meant to depict a truth, as in photojournalism, you have much less leeway for alteration of any type, though some minor adjustment would be acceptable.
In Art photography, anything goes. The only limiting factors would be certain intrinsic boundaries to the genre in which you are working. If you want a film noir feel, you'll restrict your manipulations to that which has been determined by the film noir milieu to be acceptable. Unless, of course you're a rebel and like to take chances. But even that is self limiting.
So what is the determinate that defines acceptable manipulation. I believe it is our own subjective aesthetic theory. Because it is subjective there is no universal standard. Just a massive herd of egos wondering what's wrong with everybody else's sense of taste. But hey, that's life.

[melody]

Interesting topic. I have often wondered this myself.

Other than minor editing like exposure and editing dust spots from a dirty sensor, I like to leave my picture as original as possible. If I don't have to edit, all the more better. So, I would have to agree with Joseph on this.

Yes, photography is an art but I think you also need skill to be able to take those fantastic shots.

Just my 2 cents from a newbie in photography :)

[w8jy]

Joseph, I am afraid that I have to agree with you again.

I always get a kick out of the "purists" who claim that they never edit a photo - even though they shoot only JPEGs that have been edited (sharpened, etc.) in camera!

Your definition of photography seems to be dead on. I usually restrict my editing to corrections - white balance, saturation, etc. to make the photo as natural as possible.

However, there are those times when I have a potentially good photo that has a background problem, etc. - I have no qualms about cleaning up the background. I still consider that photography, and see nothing "dishonest" about that.

When you start merging photos, editing people and objects into the photo, etc., I am inclined to call that photographic art.

I agree with Pat that photojournalism calls for little or no manipulation to remain "honest".

A very interesting topic that could be debated for weeks. I am sure that there are many varied viewpoints on this topic, with all of them being "right" to some degree.

My viewpoint, like anyone's is based on my experience and attitudes. I am NOT an artist, and am just struggling to be a photographer.

[Anni628]

I would dearly love to be able to upload directly from camera but my reality is that I'm a long way away from getting the camera settings correct to allow that. I'm hoping this course will at least reduce my editing time but I think there will always be that 'tweaking' of exposure, constrast, and cropping.

My goal is to get it as close to perfection in camera, but only because, for me, editing is a tedious chore, not because I have 'purist' tendencies! ;)

And I totally agree with Pat's observation about the intentional misrepresentation. And with Jerry - 'do what makes you happy', afterall, I pick up the camera for my own enjoyment first and foremost. If others find pleasure in the results, then all the better.

[daltoned]

I'm in the camp that tries to get images straight out of the camera. If it's pleasing to me then it's ok with me and has fulfilled my hobby interest. There may be a few occasions that a little editing may be necessary but this is a challange cause I'm not up to speed with all this digital image editing and don't have the years in my favour to learn all the PS techniques etc,. and so want to concentrate on taking pictures as my retirement hobby, getting out and about whenever possible and indeed discover many new places of interest in Dublin that I've never really had time to explore before.

[RoyalAffair]

Coming form a beginners standpoint: I like to set the photo up the best I possibly can with the camera, everything from the angle, whats in the background, exposure ect. ect. But after uploading them I have no problem with upping the colors a bit or taking down the saturation to black and white, or even cropping out a bit of extra space.

There's a fine line between "photography" and "photo manipulation". With the advances in technology these days, to have good competitive photos you need to know how to edit and photoshop. But it would be an interesting experiment to give some great digital photographers a film SLR and a darkroom and see how much comes from their use of the camera, and how much they rely on photoshop to correct their flaws.

[Pat]

A few points come to mind, Royal. First would be that it would be somewhat of an unfair comparison given the different skill sets involved. Secondly, Photoshop doesn't correct "flaws". You can't focus an out of focus image. You can't make a great photo out of a mediocre or bad photo. It just doesn't work that way. Third, image manipulation was part and parcel of the darkroom process. In fact, most, if not all manips are based on darkroom procedures, ie dodging and burning, sandwiching negatives (layers), cropping, the Orton effect (invented by Michael Orton, who overlayed two or more images of an identical scene with different exposures and degrees of sharpness on slide film).

It's a fine and laudable thing to want to reproduce an image as faithfully as it was tendered to your eye, but to do so requires manipulation. Camera sensors, or film for that matter, just don't possess the sensitivity of the human eye. Different films and sensors will render colour and light differently. The very process of recording an image involves a degree of manipulation inherent in the recording.

Some would cite a difference between correction and enhancement and manipulation. But correction and enhancement are manipulation. Can we arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say "this manipulation is acceptable but that is not". I wonder. Earlier I stated that I would have a problem with dishonesty; intentional misrepresentation. That, however is an entirely loosey-goosey representation (I love a good philosophical turn of phrase). After all, any change to an image might, or even must, be seen as misrepresentation (whether that is the intent or not) and therefore defacto dishonest. However, I believe this is a benign dishonesty and of little import (the advantage of being a moral relativist).
I think I might therefore draw the line at manipulation done with the intent to mislead with the objective of achieving a gain, with the exception, again, of photojournalism, which must be held to higher standards. All else is subjective. A matter of taste. Some will like it. Some won't.

[jewlzs]

I feel to edit ONLY for the sake of art that is edit to enhance the photo that will become a piece of a bigger piece...(articulation not my real strong point)...

I feel that digital can't give you what the aperture, shutter speed combination control.

example: one roll of 400 speed 2:00pm summer sun one rose on the bush. snap shot 400 1000 4.5 - 400 1000 8 - 400 1000 etc. The developed results in subtle unexpected shots varying by a fraction of aperture alone.

I do own a digital - I gave it every benefit - I cant let go of the mental process and need to fuss with speed aperture angle etc. I do envy instant view...

Most important thought on edit...Contests I have reviewed other sites and 90% or better submissions are confirmed edited photos...when did skill not be necessary...?

[RoyalAffair]

A few points come to mind, Royal. First would be that it would be somewhat of an unfair comparison given the different skill sets involved. Secondly, Photoshop doesn't correct "flaws". You can't focus an out of focus image. You can't make a great photo out of a mediocre or bad photo. It just doesn't work that way. Third, image manipulation was part and parcel of the darkroom process. In fact, most, if not all manips are based on darkroom procedures, ie dodging and burning, sandwiching negatives (layers), cropping, the Orton effect (invented by Michael Orton, who overlayed two or more images of an identical scene with different exposures and degrees of sharpness on slide film).

It's a fine and laudable thing to want to reproduce an image as faithfully as it was tendered to your eye, but to do so requires manipulation. Camera sensors, or film for that matter, just don't possess the sensitivity of the human eye. Different films and sensors will render colour and light differently. The very process of recording an image involves a degree of manipulation inherent in the recording.

Some would cite a difference between correction and enhancement and manipulation. But correction and enhancement are manipulation. Can we arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say "this manipulation is acceptable but that is not". I wonder. Earlier I stated that I would have a problem with dishonesty; intentional misrepresentation. That, however is an entirely loosey-goosey representation (I love a good philosophical turn of phrase). After all, any change to an image might, or even must, be seen as misrepresentation (whether that is the intent or not) and therefore defacto dishonest. However, I believe this is a benign dishonesty and of little import (the advantage of being a moral relativist).
I think I might therefore draw the line at manipulation done with the intent to mislead with the objective of achieving a gain, with the exception, again, of photojournalism, which must be held to higher standards. All else is subjective. A matter of taste. Some will like it. Some won't.

Thank you for pointing that out, my extent of knowledge on the any matter of photo work is slim compared to most and you've made some very good points that have opened up a whole new point of view for me.

[Pat]

Hi jewelzs.
I'm fairly confident that digital manipulation or enhancement can be every bit as subtle as camera adjustment I would venture to guess that there isn't a photograph in a magazine today that isn't manipulated, and mostly in fairly subtle ways. We might draw a distinction between gross manipulation (removing your ex from last years family reunion pics) and a petite, or suble manip, (minor hue, saturation, contrast, sharpening adjustments).

And you can, of course, fuss with speed, aperture, angle with digital as well as analog cameras. There was a time, in the not distant past, when the quality of digital images was questionable when compared to film. I believe this is no longer a valid distinction.

And skill is important whether digital or analog is your preferred medium. But as important is a certain artistic sensibility...an appreciation of what makes an impactful image. No amount of photoshopping can create an artistic masterpiece out of a poorly executed rendition of a scene of little artistic merit or interest.

Your mention of contests brings up an interesting point. Perhaps there should be film only contests. But then would you have to further stipulate that there must be no analog manipulation involved? Given a degree of compatabilty in the degree of skill used in the execution of the images put forth for consideration, what then might account for a difference in quality of execution in those images that the judge(s) would use to choose the "best" (putting aside artistic merit for the sake of illustration). Given equal skill sets, would not the person who could afford the best equiptment offer the best technically executed image, most likely to be deemed "the winner". Is this a "fair" result? Does "fair" even matter? And lastly, is this not a form of image manipulation?