# Photographers that don't edit



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 23, 2012)

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


----------



## ann (Jun 23, 2012)

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.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 23, 2012)

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.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 23, 2012)

A camera is just one of the many tools that photographers use to create art.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 23, 2012)

even selecting from the images you took, which specific images you want to present, is already editing (strictly speaking).


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 23, 2012)

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!


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 23, 2012)

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...


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 23, 2012)

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.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 23, 2012)

Another one: Rembrandt was the worst cheaters of all, he did not even use a proper camera, he did it all in post!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2012)

Photographers who do not edit....don't know how.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 23, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> Photographers who do not edit....don't know how.



Is that like the saying "those who can't teach... Teach gym."


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 23, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Mike2000 (Jun 23, 2012)

Even the Grand Master, Henri Cartier-Bresson used a master printer, Voja Mitrovic.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 23, 2012)

The OP needs to read_* this about Voja Mitrovic *__*http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/voya-mitrovic-part-i.html*_so he can understand what happened before photoshop.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 23, 2012)

Most serious photographers shoot in RAW because it allow more latitude in PP.  For someone who is really into photography, I would assume that some kind of manipulation is a must.

And with film photography processing is a MUST so....

I also find it funny how people who don't process their photos are so quick to tell you that....again...and again...as if to say "I'm sorry my photos are mediocre."


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 23, 2012)

Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 23, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.



It's the same reason for both -- they don't know how, it's just that one of those groups has a problem admitting it.

Joe


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 23, 2012)

I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 23, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"



Because Joshua needs some reassurance.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"



You know there is a magic x button that lets you do that without being rude.
Repeat discussions will always happen because we get new members joining all the time with all levels of skills. So long as we get new people new to photography we will get repeat discussions. Either partake in them if you want or move along to a discussion you find interesting. There is no need to leave silly remarks about "oh this again" and it is somewhat rude to new members.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 23, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Only amateurs and the pretentious don't edit..... the first because they may not know how to, the second... well, I shouldn't have to explain that.



I'm not certain it's always pretentiousness. 
There is such a technical barrier to learning PPing that, when insecure people are faced with it, they'd rather find an excuse not to do it, than to do it and not do it well or even just fail. 
They don't want to look foolish/stupid/insecure.

It's sort of the same as people who, finding that producing art is hard, get frustrated at not being able to produce 'good' pictures and then become pixel peepers.  Knowing everything about the techie stuff but able to produce only perfect but empty pictures.

If there is a continuum of picture-making that goes from _*technically perfect but empty*_ all the way along to _*filled with lots of stated meaning but no picture value*_, I want to be somewhere in the middle with pictures that have some impact and that are technically adequate.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

There is a point, and it's probably different for everyone, when a photograph ceases to be a "photograph". Dodging, burning, cropping, cloning dust, saturation and lighting adjustments, for me, keep it in the "photograph" realm. When you start doing heavy editing; selective color (yech), putting someone's head on someone else's body, cloning out or in a subject; all of that, for me, takes a "photograph", which is made with a camera, to a "picture", which can be made any number of ways.

The OP said something interesting:



> I saw some of his most famous shots and didn't even realise that they were edited...



That tells me that the edits, at the very least, were done well...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> There is a point, and it's probably different for everyone, when a photograph ceases to be a "photograph". Dodging, burning, cropping, cloning dust, saturation and lighting adjustments, for me, keep it in the "photograph" realm. When you start doing heavy editing; selective color (yech), putting someone's head on someone else's body, cloning out or in a subject; all of that, for me, takes a "photograph", which is made with a camera, to a "picture", which can be made any number of ways.
> 
> The OP said something interesting:
> 
> ...



That should be the goal for all edits.... IMO!


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 23, 2012)

Overread said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am just going to skip the posts and say,"Why are we talking about this again?"
> ...



Fantastic! I'm glad that you expressed your opinion about my opinion about Joshua's opinion! 


Little Tommy runs to mom asking,"Mom, Rob says that Santa doesn't exist. Is this true?"
Rob,"come on, not again!"
"Don't be rude, Rob!" Dad says.

Even the sugar coat they use on your cake isn't all pure sugar, who still expects to fine pure black or white? Why not spend the time mixing your own shade of grey? You see with your mind and feel with your heart. Do whatever it takes to produce something that inspires.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 23, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



If you've ever moved around to get a better view or shifted your camera to get your subject framed properly/on a third line then you are guilty of editing as well.  

Relax, it's just part of the process of maturing from being a snap shooter to a photographer.


----------



## daarksun (Jun 27, 2012)

I doubt any image is perfect out of the camera. I just don't see it, the perfect crop, etc. There are to many variables when taking a photograph.  Why would you take a perfect untouched photograph but the bride had a zit on her forehead? Do you leave it that way or remove?  

The problem is the photographer that believes his or her photo is perfect and everyone will love it.  Let's face the facts that people simply like what they like and it may not be the perfectly processed photo. Some my like more contrast or color saturation.  Why do so many hate the HDR over processing but none photographers eat that crap up?  They love the detail and saturated colors. It's eye catching over a perfect photo of the same image.  

As photographers we have learn to find out what the person we are shooting for likes. Not what we think is perfect. So for most the "out of the camera" crap doesn't work.  I think we have to do what sells.


----------

