# How much photo editing is too much?



## Trenton Romulox (Mar 15, 2007)

I see people that take their images and add surreal effects that could never be achieved without software, and I'm okay with that as long as the photographer is making everyone aware that the photo was heavily edited. 

But what about the photos that look real, but had a flower added to them, or had something that was there completely wiped out, and other such things, but the photographer doesn't tell anyone? Is that okay?

I personally have a huge issue with someone changing their photo without making people aware. I've only been at photography for a few months, and I've already ran across dozens of situations where I wish I could change something drastically in my photo, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I guess I just have a moral affliction with doing that. 

Anyways, what do you all think about it? Where do you stand? How much alteration is too much?


----------



## loser101 (Mar 15, 2007)

I don&#8217;t have a problem with editing too much. hell i do it lol. The way i see a photograph it self isn&#8217;t reality (i know ppl will argue with me) because you take life and stopping it, freezing it on a piece of paper or screen. If its not reality in the first place why not edit it? I think its okay to do anything as long as you think it makes the picture better....

Thats how i feel at least....

-oleg

p.s. as efergoh pointed out journalism is totally diffrent


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 15, 2007)

Personally, I think it all hinges on what kind of photo it is to begin with. Is it art or is it journalism. Yes, I think journalism can be art, but journalism, if it is responsible, is 100% unedited (or rather unaltered).

If it is purely a fine art print, I don't think that there are any limitations. I think art is in the eye of the artist and ultimatly in the eye of the beholder. I've seen B&W silver prints that one would think were photoshoped digital images. Manipulations have been done from the dawn of photography. If we draw the line and say no more manipulations, then we effectivly remove the "art" from the art. Photography will become nothing more than a way to record or show how something looks.

I think what makes a picture into a work of art is how it is created, be it in the darkroom or the desktop. I think that buyers, critics, and views will decide how far is too far buy voting with their pocketbooks.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Mar 15, 2007)

Great replies guys. I think that most everyone feels the same way about photojournalism as we all do, no altering. 

I don't know, maybe I'd do more editing if I was better at Photoshop . But I just have an issue with making big changes to photos or even small ones if you're adding or subtracting something. I guess that's just how my father brought me up, he always taught me to get what you get and take what you get. Before he gave me my first camera a few months ago, he sat me down and told me that if I used my computer (awesome Mac Pro  ) to edit my photos he'd never buy me another thing for my camera. I'm not sure that's fair of him, but it definitely made me think. I wish I was old enough to work and make my own money so I could experiment more with my work. But it's definitely helped me not become dependant on the fact that I could always "fix it later." It's helped me take better photos the first time.


----------



## loser101 (Mar 15, 2007)

I dont mean to offend but my question to you father would be is  it okay to make movies like Pan's Labyrinth, Star Wars etc. How about propping stuff like ppl do in still life stuff.  I mean thats not really  the same but its not all that diffrent either, you are changing reality....

-oleg


----------



## oldnavy170 (Mar 15, 2007)

I personally feel that editing a photo only makes a great photo into an awesome photo!!!!  It helps fine tune the whole photograph.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Mar 15, 2007)

loser101 said:


> I dont mean to offend but my question to you father would be is  it okay to make movies like Pan's Labyrinth, Star Wars etc. How about propping stuff like ppl do in still life stuff.  I mean thats not really  the same but its not all that diffrent either, you are changing reality....
> 
> -oleg



I think it's mostly that he wanted to get the point across that I should try and get a good shot without having to alter it later digitally. I think he was going overboard to prove a point...even if that point isn't valid. I'm not sure exactly what he was trying to prove, but I'm pretty sure he just said because he wants me to be sucessful without being dependant on after shot editing. He has no issue with Pan's Labyrinth or anything like that, he just wants me to be as good as I can be without a computer. I think.


----------



## loser101 (Mar 15, 2007)

I can sort of see what he means acaully, i just like to argue. Its alot harder to get a good picture with out editing. i think if u start out getting good pictures with out photoshop when you do start using photo shop your picture will be that much better.

-oleg


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Mar 15, 2007)

loser101 said:


> I can sort of see what he means acaully, i just like to argue. Its alot harder to get a good picture with out editing. i think if u start out getting good pictures with out photoshop when you do start using photo shop your picture will be that much better.
> 
> -oleg



Who doesn't like a good debate?

And yeah, I respect what my dad was saying and I can definitely see how he meant it to be a positive influence rather than a negative restriction on my work.


----------



## snappin (Mar 16, 2007)

Just another take on the subject here. I'm very new so I may very well not know what I'm talking about.

One thing I have realized (and its become my personal motivation) is that using photoshop to make a good picture great is a LOT less work than using it to make a mediocre photo good.  Personally I would rather spend more time out taking pictures than at the computer fixing them.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 16, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> I see people that take their images and add surreal effects that could never be achieved without software, and I'm okay with that as long as the photographer is making everyone aware that the photo was heavily edited.



What makes you think that it cannot be done without software?

Jerry Uelsmann and Misha Gordon do heavy manipulation including adding elements from other negatives, and it's all done in the traditional darkroom, with the final product being a silver gelatin print.  

http://www.uelsmann.com/
http://www.bsimple.com/home.htm

If your intent is fine art, there is no limit in my mind.  What ever method takes you to the final result that you wish to achieve.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 16, 2007)

The most extrem thing I ever did was editing one tourist out of an image who was really ruining the scene ... But that is a rare occasion that I consider something like this. All my other editing is restricted to exposure corrections/levels, removing dustspecs, altering the cropping and sometimes brightening up parts of an image which are essential to the composition but I did not have a reflector with me to do it on the spot.

If an image should document a scene, then it should be unaltered regarding what is in the image, and contrast and levels should be adjusted within reason. If the sky was grey, and not blue, .. well ,then leave it grey!

In an image though it created as something which was not there without the photographer, then amlost everything is allowed ...

By the way, reflectors, or spraying water on flowers, or arringing objects to a still life, or removing that rubbish at the beach before you take the shot, that all for me falls into the same category of "scene maniplulation" as can be done with photoshop. It is ok if you create something, but it is not OK if you document something IMHO.


----------



## morydd (Mar 16, 2007)

I think (in photography and any other art form) the reality you define for your "work" must be consistant, but does not have to be consistant with the reality that is your life (which isn't going to be the same as the reality that is your viewer's life). If your reality is "This is what I observed at this moment and place." (ie photojournalism, archival) The reality you've defined forbids any substantial manipulation. Of course your timing, how you frame the shot, how you print/present the image and your own point of view will affect that image. But if the reality you're going for is "This is the image I wanted to share with the world." Only you can define what is, and is not, "acceptable" manipulation.
A friend of mine's father creates images that are so heavily manipulated that they look more like the impressionist paintings that my grandmother does than any of the photographs I take. But they're all great art to me. (Actually, most of my photos aren't, but I'm okay with that right now.)


----------



## shorty6049 (Mar 16, 2007)

so TR, isnt your dad telling you not to use a computer to do anything to your photos kind of the same thing as him telling you (if you had a film camera) that you werent allowed to do anything in the darkroom except turn the enlarger on for a couple seconds? We're having this conversation in another thread (at least i think we are, unless this replaced it or somethign) called "is that pic photoshopped?" but maybe you should have a conversation about how photoshop or whatever computer editing tool you use, is masically the equivalent of a darkroom in traditional photography. If you want good pictures, you can use whatever comes directly from your camera, but sometimes bumping up the brightness or contrast or messing with curves can be the difference between good and great. not ALWAYS, but sometimes- thats my two cents- *exits the building*


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Mar 16, 2007)

your dad says no editing?  how much photography experience does he have?  develping his own prints or taking it to the lab.

if he uses a lab, thats the reason he says no editing, and what you can do to get around it is have someone else edit your photos just like labs do.

I edit sometimes, but all what I would consider standard procedures.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 16, 2007)

any manipulation which has the desired effect is OK. Just from some point onwards the image is more defined by those manipulations, and so much by what you did when taking the image. If that is the case, then I'd not call it photography anymore, but maybe photographic design or art.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 17, 2007)

I am not a photojournalist, and make no claims that my photographs are an accurate reflection of reality, unless a client has specified such a need.  I work on the photo until it is to my liking whether in Photoshop or the traditional BW darkroom. 

I'd be happy to discuss what editing and manipulations I've done, but feel that I'm under no obligation to go out of my way to educate the viewer as to how I created the photo, unless asked.

The idea that photos equal reality has been perpetuated by ever more automatic cameras, and dropping film off at the lab for processing and printing.  Photogs who know how their cameras, lenses, gear, materials, and processing work understand that fairly extensive manipulations of reality occur all thoughout the process of creating a photo, starting with the decisions made before the photo is even taken.

Here's a quote from the early 20th century...



			
				Edward Steichen said:
			
		

> In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability.



If you'd like to know more about manipulation in the traditional BW darkroom just read Ansels Adam's books:  The Camera, The Negative, and The Print.


----------



## theApe (Mar 17, 2007)

I do think there is added value in a remarkable photograph that has been unmodified.  An added value due to the skill and patience of the photographer. 

On the other hand, if you were to come over to my house and flip through my photo album or look at the pictures on my wall, most of them are modified in some little way.  It saves a lot of pictures from the never-to-be-seen pile. 

Why?  Because I shoot with a point and shoot camera, I have the patience of a child with ADHD and I tend to try and take my pictures from the sidelines instead of getting into the mix of things.

Three final thoughts:
1.  If a "real" photographer snaps 35 rolls worth of pictures and takes the best three, is that skill or luck?
2.  If you feel guilty about modification, hide a secret, unmodified version of the picture in the frame and then, sometime in the future, it'll be discovered.  If nothing more, they'll appreciate how you took a good image and made it into a great one.
3. If I buy a framed photo from a photographer, I'd want it to be an unmodified reflection of the photographers skill.  That would be more important to me than the actual picture.


----------



## Edu_Lopes (Mar 17, 2007)

I don't have nothing against heavily manipulated photos, but some of them look like CG(computer graphics). If I want to see good PHOTOS, I expect NATURAL skin tones, textures, contrast... It's important to make the difference between a good photo and a good manipulation.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 18, 2007)

Here's an example of a fairly popular, valuable photograph that has been extensively manipulated beyond what the camera captured.  Does it detract from the photographer's skill that he couldn't create this in camera, but relied on other tools and processes?  Does it detract from the value? 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_moonrise_full.html


----------



## fmw (Mar 18, 2007)

Every digital image goes through a digital post process just like every analog image.  What is too much?  That is a matter of taste.  In my own opinion, if the image can't stand on its own as good photograph then whatever manipulation was applied, digital or analog, doesn't fix it.  It just adds manipulation.  As long as the photographer is enhancing the image and not trying to fix it, it is a good thing.

Take a look at last month's contest winner.  Remove the oversaturation and what do you get?  An ordinary photograph.  This is an example of a photographer trying to fix an image with manipulation.  It doesn't work for me but, obviously,  it worked for the group in general.  That means my tolerance for manipulation is well below average so take that into consideration with my remarks.


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Mar 18, 2007)

In terms of ethics, in photojournalism, editing, save for fixing exposures and color balances, is a no-no to me. Some of those images we saw that were later revealed to have been photoshopped were unethical to me. 

In terms of art, editing and manipulation have been around for a long time. When a painter was creating his piece, do you think he painted the scene exactly as is or did he choose to leave out or add in certain things. Wouldn't that be considered early editing and manipulation? I have nothing against editing. Sometimes color balances, contrast and whatnot need to be bumped to create a better image. No matter how hard we try, the camera's eye is not going to reproduce our eyes in terms of colors and light. Not 100%. However, images that are so edited, so post-processed, manipulated, etc to a point where they look fake or are obviously photoshopped are distasteful in my opinion. I saw a site once where there was so much editing done afterwards that not a single model looked like a real person. They all looked like porcelain dolls with over-exgaggerated round eyes, smooth skins and even tiny lips. That is almost perverted. I'd rather have my images look as natural and unedited as possible.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 18, 2007)

fmw said:


> Remove the oversaturation and what do you get?  An ordinary photograph.  This is an example of a photographer trying to fix an image with manipulation.



Remove the dramatic burning in of the sky, and bleaching of the tomb stones/crosses, and 'Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM' isn't much more than an ordinary travel snapshot of a desert village.  Adams even describes how he pulled over as he was driving, jumped out of the car, and made a quick guestimated exposure as the sun went below the horizon; it was effectively a point-n-shoot photo.  By printing it with manipulation it became Adam's most popular photograph, and prints are valued at $50,000+.  Not bad for a photo that had to be "fixed."


----------



## fmw (Mar 18, 2007)

I said tried to fix, not fix.  I have no problem with post processing.  But when it is too obvious and the image has little merit without it, it doesn't do it for me.  Adams Moonrise was a good photo without the manipulation.  We are arguing two different things.


----------



## abraxas (Mar 19, 2007)

Da_dd_y- other D*ad*dy! *DoN"T FiGHt!*...


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 19, 2007)

let your father know that professional photographers have been add/removing things to help get the perfect shot since photography began, thats all that happens in studio/portrait photography, in journalism of course none of that happens. But when you say he wants you to be sucessful thats totally relative, sucessful at what? If you intend to make money shooting products be prepared to edit everything, if your doing fine art be prepared to edit everything, if your doing landscape photography, be prepared to edit everything. etc etc..... 

Only if your 100% journalistic shooter you can lay off the editing. 

It boils down to the mindset, small changes to get the best shot possible is great, but to 100% rely on post production to get a good shot will never work, this is what you have to discover for yourself on your journey not just take his word, itll mean more to you if you discover it for yourself through trial and error....


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 20, 2007)

Trenton,  you didn't mention if your father said you shouldn't use PhotoShop ever or if he had a time limit in mind.  Could it be that he wanted you to first become a good photographer as a foundation before  moving to the editing aspect of the business?  I'll not add to the many and varied opinions expressed here on photo editing.  I will say that editing a photo can bring you happiness but getting a photo just right in camera will bring you Joy!  Good light to you!  mike


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 20, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> Anyways, what do you all think about it? Where do you stand? How much alteration is too much?



The only rule is not to copy anyone else's work. Beyond that, there is no limit to what can be done. The results may or may not be acceptable to others, but the image is no more or less yours than if there were no alteration.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 20, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> ...I guess that's just how my father brought me up, he always taught me to get what you get and take what you get.



And that's the difference between those who "take pictures" and those who "make pictures."

As photographers, we "make" pictures.  Now, my wife...  she "takes" pictures.  That's what snapshots are...  when someone "takes" a record of a life experience.  Those images are important too... often more important than the images I make.

Pete


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 20, 2007)

Christie Photo said:


> And that's the difference between those who "take pictures" and those who "make pictures."
> 
> As photographers, we "make" pictures.  Now, my wife...  she "takes" pictures.  That's what snapshots are...  when someone "takes" a record of a life experience.  Those images are important too... often more important than the images I make.
> 
> Pete



Exactly. It's almost the same as having a plain, clear window, versus having a stained glass window. You don't need a stained glass window, but they take a lot of time and effort, and they're beautiful.


----------



## hazzayoungn (Mar 21, 2007)

i think the debate boils down to interpretation vs intention. is a picture taken with a fisheye lens, holga, lomo, diana, pinhole, etc. any better or worse than a picture taken with a "normal" setup? maybe, maybe not. however, the pictures look much different than those taken with more traditional cameras

in your opinions, is this picture "too much?" or, is it only good because it has "enough." i think it accurately portrays the counterculture at the time

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/hazzayoungn/300px-Beatles29ra.jpg


----------



## montresor (Mar 22, 2007)

Crop, push or pull, burn-in. Whether in the darkroom or computer. Th-th-that's all, folks.

This reminds me of the war between the Pictorialists and the Documentarians of the 1920s and '30s, with Stieglitz, Weston, Steichen, et al arrayed on the side of Pretty Art, and Evans, Abbott, Strand, et al on the side of relatively unfussed-with images, usually of the harsher side of life. Count me among the latter!


----------



## Thor06 (Mar 27, 2007)

Hey guys, I just have a couple questions about post processing image editing. Does doing so destroy the integrity of the photo or is it completely fine to edit the daylights out of it, or is it somewhere in between. I have never really edited my photos much until a couple that I took in Georgia came back not exactly as I wanted, they were definately much prettier in person. A buddy suggested to edit them a bit so I did. I had never played with contrast or color levels or anything so I experimented a bit in the following pictures. I love how they turned out, but is how I got them ok?

Ok, here is the original of the first pic I touched up:
1)




And here is the doctored version.
2)




Another I edited, original:
3)




Finally, the doctored version of the above.
4)




So I am really open to any and all comments on these primarily on "photography ethics" but also on comp, color, etc. Also I want to add that I dont really want people editing my photos, but if you think you can help it a lot PM me about it. Thanks guys.

EDIT: Sorry if this is in the wrong spot mods, I wasnt entirely sure where it belonged so I just went where I thought it fit best.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 27, 2007)

As for the ethics of it...that's a personal issue.  Some people don't like it, some do and some don't care.  I think it's perfectly fine, unless some is trying to misrepresent something or someone.  

Photography is an art, there is no right or wrong.  If you, the photographer, thinks it should look a certain way...then make it look that way.

I edit almost every shot that I keep.  I shoot in RAW format with the idea that it will require some editing before it's ready.  Think of it like developing film and/or working in a dark room.


----------



## gmarquez (Mar 27, 2007)

My opinion is that you have to determine the "end user" for your photos.  Are they for you, for your enjoyment, for photos that will hang on your wall?  If so, do as much or as little post-processing as you like and feel right about.

Alternatively, are your pictures going to be used in a court of law?  If so, then it's probably best to not mess with them much at all.

Most other cases are somewhere in between.

One small note, at least when using a digital camera - even though you may take a photo and vow never to alter it, the mere act of taking the photo will involve some processing, either in-camera, or in-computer, or both.  Even going from camera->usb card->photo printing will involve changes, translations, and alterations to the data to some extent, even if you never knowingly make changes yourself.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 27, 2007)

My opinion is that if your edit is representative of how you "see" the image at the taking stage then its fine, but, the best images are achieved with subtle editing/enhancing and overcooked images look just that.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 27, 2007)

Thor, this discussion has been started in the Photographic Discussions before on the very same topic, so I feel it is ok to merge the two into one and you have all those answers to read now biggrin: :greenpbl: ) that have been given before you started the new discussion with your example pics. Heehee.


----------



## Thor06 (Mar 27, 2007)

Thanks for the replys and merging LaFoto. I love asking questions here because they are always answered in a super timely manner and theres no "anti-noob" sentiment. Anyway, thanks a bunch guys, I appreciate it! I'll try to keep the editing tasteful and as subtle as possible.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 27, 2007)

Flash Harry said:


> My opinion is that if your edit is representative of how you "see" the image at the taking stage then its fine, but, the best images are achieved with subtle editing/enhancing and overcooked images look just that.


 
I totally disagree. To me a photograph is inherently not the truth, because we take them at angles, or use lighting tricks to "fool" the eye.

So I take that a step further! I purposefully edit most of my photos to look fanastical (not fantastic, Im not conceited), and fake.

Examples:


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 27, 2007)

Well, if you want your images to be fantasy then that is how you visualise them on capture but I dont reckon my wedding parties would appreciate being endowed with vampire teeth/solarized/posterized etc, they do however wish to be spot and blemish free.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 27, 2007)

Flash Harry said:


> Well, if you want your images to be fantasy then that is how you visualise them on capture but I dont reckon my wedding parties would appreciate being endowed with vampire teeth/solarized/posterized etc, they do however wish to be spot and blemish free.



Well that's another situation altogether. I don't add vampire fangs without request... most of the time.

See I can do stuff somewhat realistic:


----------



## gmarquez (Mar 27, 2007)

RMThompson's last photo posted is actually a good example of how we "process" photos to make them look nice.  Notice that his/her last picture is in black and white.  That doesn't fully reflect the reality of the shoot.  However, shooting (or post processing to) black and white isn't considered "messing with the photo".  It's called "artistic license".

In the area of color there is a similar debate between the subtle color group and the intense color group.  The intense color group tends to shoot on slide films such as Fuji Velvia, which gives the resulting pictures "pumped up" colors.  However, those that prefer the more subtle or pastel films sometimes deride Velvia as "CartoonChrome" or "DisneyChrome", because they feel that the intense colors are just a gimick.  In "the real world", I myself see some pretty intense colors, yet some people prefer the look of subdued colors on film, because to them, it looks less "gimicky".

Again, it all comes down to the purpose and end-use of the pictures.  If they are for your enjoyment, do what you want with them.  If you are trying to impress your friends and outsiders (blech!), do what they think is appropriate.


----------

