# The ethics of digital photo editing



## kevinglover (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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_ (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 2, 2013)

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 (Feb 6, 2013)

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 (Feb 6, 2013)

Blitz55 said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2013)

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 (Feb 6, 2013)

manicmike said:


> Blitz55 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very interesting topic for me. My question was always sort of how much is to much?
> ...



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 (Feb 6, 2013)

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 (Feb 6, 2013)

Let it die already...


----------



## runner2541 (Mar 29, 2013)

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.


----------



## KmH (Mar 29, 2013)

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 (Mar 29, 2013)

All of that and more was done in the darkroom


----------



## HoboHunter (Mar 29, 2013)

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 (Mar 29, 2013)

HoboHunter said:


> 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 (Mar 29, 2013)

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 (Mar 29, 2013)

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


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 29, 2013)

runner2541 said:


> 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 (Mar 29, 2013)

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 (Mar 29, 2013)

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 (Mar 29, 2013)

techniker said:


> 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 (Mar 29, 2013)

techniker said:


> .........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 (Mar 29, 2013)

Buckster said:


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



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 (Mar 29, 2013)

I don't edit, my camera is magical!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 29, 2013)

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


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 29, 2013)

techniker said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > techniker said:
> ...




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.


----------



## timor (Mar 30, 2013)

KmH said:


> 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.


And what would be this new techniques and processes ? Asking just out of curiosity.
Tha basic question of how much of editing digital images is too much has simple answer: whatever you feel like. There is no limit. After all making digital images is a very creative thing and even communists in Russia didn't put any limit on that. ( Well, at least after Stalin death.) Since French impressionism people accepted and embraced (finally) free, artistic spirit and artistic editing quickly reached finesse of cubism. So why not to go all the way having this new tools of old trades, they are here to be used, clean and easy (maybe). A few minutes or few hours of virtual simulation and voila, impressive image might be ready. I don't think we have to bother ourselves with accuracy of the images (people always like to look on the pictures better, than in reality). Even AA said he wanted to reflect nature as accurately as possible and he was the first offender of that credo. So, there is no way to say how much is too much, do it the way you like and just make sure picture reflects your feeling, your vision, your emotions.


----------

