How much editing is justified?

[Pieter12]

Personally, if an image looks edited, then it is too much. If an image looks like it could be improved by some editing, then it is too little. Everything else is fair play.

 

[albireo]

Whichever take you have on this, I'd be interested to understand why you feel this way. I.e. what norms, assumptions, preferences etc. are underlying your response?

Koraks, I have voted for 'ok if you think it helps'. I agree with everyone else who has an opinion along the lines of 'it's your hobby, you set the rules, you do as much or as little you like to achieve YOUR vision'.

With that important premise out of the way, and having clarified I am not entitled to judge or criticise anyone for editing to their heart's content, you got me thinking on how well does the above fit with my own taste in photography. How often do I fully embrace heavy edits and enjoy the results, and what exactly needs to happen to make me instantly dislike what I see and make me dismiss it as 'too heavily edited'?

Just trying to elaborate - I think the answer is, like most people, I have some sort of 'internalised threshold' that in my case leans heavily towards 'as little editing as possible, or as tasteful and invisible editing as possible'.

I guess that, like everyone, I have a very personal 'Photoshop/Darkroom editing radar' that sometimes flashes red and when it does, no matter how hard I try, I just cannot enjoy the photo. Sometimes the edits are so obvious, so poorly done, so excessive that all my brain can think of is 'I'm seeing the edits, not the document underneath' and in the worst cases 'lipstick on a pig'. When that radar beeps, I have the distinct feeling that the photographer was trying really hard to rescue a poor 'photographic' performance (intended as the sum of crucial decisions that lead one to press the shutter button, which is key to MY definition of what photography is) by patching something, anything together from the comfort of the sofa or of the darkroom. I guess I'm just not interested in that type of art.

Having said that, with your image above, my 'heavy edits are killing or masking the image!' radar didn't fire at all. I tried to look at it out of context: I tried to erase from my mind the memory of your raw 'before' picture, your text and even the purpose of your post and what I thought was: it's just a good image, I see nothing here that's obviously doctored: I like what I see.

What generally sets the 'heavy edits alert!' for me? I'd love to know what does it for other people, but for me it's a range of things like

• excessive, heavy handed saturation boost in a colour photo.
• excessive contrast in a black and white image. I just don't care about contrast as a 'drama generating' device. I like low contrast, shades of grey and dislike drama rubbed on my nose.
• excessive, heavy handed vignetting - 'the tunnel effect'. Too much distracting stuff in the periphery of the image, and not a lot that's really interesting going on in the centre, so let's slap a nice, mysterious set of dark corners to artificially 'lead' the viewer to what I failed to emphasise with a better choice of light during capture.
• dodging and burning that creates unnatural brightness on some key objects in the scene, that wasn't there in the first place. 'Look at these people's faces! Look at this beautiful flower vase in the dark'. Nope. I can see through this. I wish I didn't, but I do. The light was not there when you took the picture. Go back and take it again in more favourable light. I never pick up 'Gypsies' by Koudelka anymore. Many 'reportage photographers' do it. Fabio Ponzio - East of Nowhere. I can't pick that up anymore either. I can't stand those people sitting in the dark with unnaturally bright faces. Feels like a con.
• Selective colour: you all know what this is, it makes me puke
• Excessive, heavy handed 'unsharp masking': I scanned with a beer bottle but look at that crazy sharpness! Nope.

In summary, I like images that work with as little editing as possible, or images where I can't tell there was much editing done.

'The negative is the score...Etc etc the performance bla bla' => for me this is rubbish in 90% of the cases. The negative is 99% of what will make me like a photo, unless the edits are so subtle, so tasteful as to approach a close to unedited picture. The editing, if present, should be subtle enough to trick me - to elude me.

What is more difficult then? To get the image as right as possible during capture or to make the edits are tasteful and invisible as possible? I wonder if these are two unrelated, equally challenging and rewarding art fields!

 

[Pieter12]

I must say there is no way to answer that OP's question given the postcard size images posted to the site.

 

[koraks]

the word "justified" can also imply you might be asking how much editing is allowed by some sort of moral code or rules based system

I'm looking for personal feelings, preferences and indeed as they derive from or relate to whatever personal norms or rules people may have. I'm not very interested in the pragmatic side of things.

I must say there is no way to answer that OP's question given the postcard size images posted to the site.

As I explicitly stated in the first post, the examples are just that, and ultimately irrelevant. If you need a bigger example, pick any you (dis)like and substitute it for my stamps, and answer the question on that basis instead.

 

[Kino]

I feel I should shoot for a negative (substitute your medium here) that will print straight-up, no burning or dodging, no cropping and one contrast grade to print.

What I get is quite often NOT that desired result, but that's OK as long as I can "correct" it toward my initial idea. This also, sometimes does not work.

Eh, I still survive to see another day (so far).

 

[Vaughn]

I disagree with the reasons about integrity and such. (And how would the op "frame it as (he) wants in the first place" if the camera has a taller frame than the desired end result?) But I prefer the geometry of the unedited image over the crop. I would, in fact, be tempted to crop something off the bottom!

I like it cropped to a square, but it becomes a much different image at that point. The woman visually bursts into a larger size.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Feelings ... here we go.

When I was younger, I would have considered all this editing "cheating". Little did I know of what Ansel Adams was doing. I still like his prints though, but find some overdramatic.

Now, I prefer to avoid most editing, as I am less formalistic in outlook, and am more interested in a story. This much editing takes too much work - I don't want to make one beautiful masterpiece so much as wish to communicate. I will edit (darkroom only) as I need to make a print work, but scintillating visual virtuosity no longer interests me.

Albireo (#27) hits some of the over editing points well. The overdone massive aluminum prints at an art fair, or some facebook goups, turn me off. Problem is, some consider "fine art photography" to be this and only this. I consider them decorative. Make sure they match the couch...

I still want my prints to be as formalistically good as I can within reasonable effort - not for philosophical, but practical, reasons.

The original example is a good one, as I would not have even thought it manipulated, or care. If it gets the message across, then so be it. If I would not do that much work, that is me.

 

[awty]

I don't care for others insecurities and lack of imagination.

My only wish is that I was better at two handed dodge and burning, something I need to work on.

 

[awty]

I might have asked beforehand, but fact of the matter is that I did it anyway, and at least some people seem to have liked it. I'm referring to this image I included in the Picture a Day thread a few days ago:

Some people have said some very kind things about this photo of mine, and I'm evidently grateful for those comments.

At the same time, I suspect that there are many people who may not take so kindly if they know how the image was made. No, it's not an AI render. But it's heavily doctored alright. No pixels were made up. But virtually all of them were thoroughly massaged (or maimed, if you will).

Here's the original capture as produced by the camera:
View attachment 406140

The following modifications were involved to get to the result shown earlier:

• Exposure compensation
• Highlight reconstruction; highlight compression
• Shadow expansion
• Graduated ND filter simulation
• Artificial vignetting
• Perspective correction (to make the light post vertical)
• Crop
• B&W conversion with simulated red filter
• Added 'local contrast' for emphasis on textures
• Added a border
• Unsharp mask
• I may have done an overall curve adjustment towards the end. I'm not sure.

What I resisted was local contrast adjustments using layers and burning & dodging those layers in GIMP. Which is to say that despite the considerable list of modifications, I feel I'm roughly halfway done, give or take a few virtual brush strokes. I'm very much aware that the considerable editing that went into this image pales in comparison with what many other photographers do. This is just an example I had handy and for which I could easily reconstruct the editing path.

I wonder how you guys feel about the extent of post-processing that's sometimes unleashed on an image. Emphasis on 'feel', because I'm looking for the emotional response to knowing what went into the image in order to make it look the way it ended up looking. I'm taking this image as an example, but I'm looking for generalizations - so it's not about this image in particular. It's just an illustration.

I'd also like to clarify up front that any perspective is justified. If you think this kind of editing is a sheer necessity to bring out the image as it's intended to be, that's fine. If you feel that this degree of doctoring on an image constitutes 'faking it instead of making it' and the end result will inevitably be an affront to good taste, that's also fine. I'm also very specifically not looking for a 'digital vs analog' debate. I think we all know (or should know) that literally everything I did to this image digitally, would have been possible in the wet darkroom just the same (but it would have taken me a week instead of half an hour).

Whichever take you have on this, I'd be interested to understand why you feel this way. I.e. what norms, assumptions, preferences etc. are underlying your response?

PS: parts of the answers to the poll are of course in jest. If you pick the first or last option, surely nobody will seriously believe you're stating people are incompetent or should be summarily executed.

But have you "doctored" enough.
My immediate thought when I first saw this picture was how much better it could be with a little more working of the light. Your creating a picture, you have the basic composition now you can move it to the next level.

 

[awty]

Hardly surprising that this has become argumentative/a clash of opinions. *sigh*

Debates are good, should be more of it.

 

[ChrisArslain]

It depends on how the final output is used, and then, the real issue comes down to veracity. For journalistic work even adding vignette and burning shadows is considered unethical at this point, because it changes the mood of the event. For fine art or commercial - it really doesn't matter to the end user. But an overly processed image does begin to create an uncanny valley effect that will ruin the image. Like the robots said in Westword (HBO) "if you can't tell, does it matter?"

 

[Vaughn]

I don't care for others insecurities and lack of imagination.

My only wish is that I was better at two handed dodge and burning, something I need to work on.

I quite enjoyed my days of printing 16x20 (silver gelatin) from 4x5 negatives. I tended to print with a base exposure that was a little light with very little, usually none, dodging (usually around 25 seconds). Then burn with two pieces of cardboard, one with a quarter-sized hole. I'd burn in increments of the base exposure and it might take 5 to 15 minutes of burning -- bringing out certain forms, leading the eye around, etc.

This image from 1986 received a lot of burning -- sculpting the forms. Pretty nice as a straight image but looks good edited to "shout out the subject', which is the light...and the nude, I suppose. In this one I did actually dodged the branches of the group of four young alders.

 

[brbo]

I never even crop my images (in 90% I print and scan with film border included). This is obviously not because I’m lazy (if I was lazy I wouldn’t print or scan at all).

If I can’t even properly compose a scene “in-camera”, I want this to be quite obvious in a print or scan. As for the other editing, I’m incapable of doing them in a wet print and I choose not to do them in scans.

So, I’m doing the “...an abomination and you should be hanged, drawn and quartered for even suggesting it”, but I agree with and voted for “...required to bring out the hidden diamond; not doing it demonstrates inexcusable incompetence”. I don’t know whether this means that there are further problems with my position on photography or the poll options have more dimensions to them…

 

[awty]

I quite enjoyed my days of printing 16x20 (silver gelatin) from 4x5 negatives. I tended to print with a base exposure that was a little light with very little, usually none, dodging (usually around 25 seconds). Then burn with two pieces of cardboard, one with a quarter-sized hole. I'd burn in increments of the base exposure and it might take 5 to 15 minutes of burning -- bringing out certain forms, leading the eye around, etc.

This image from 1986 received a lot of burning -- sculpting the forms. Pretty nice as a straight image but looks good edited to "shout out the subject', which is the light...and the nude, I suppose. In this one I did actually dodged the branches of the group of four young alders.

Nice picture.
I try to avoid formula as much as possible, it's an easy crotch to fall into, so I mix things up as much as I can, often work a picture several different ways, throw a lot of stuff out. Stuff I put on social media is different to what I would put on a wall, wall stuff can be a bit more subtle.
Skills can extend further than just good camera work and skills need to be constantly worked on and improved. Hate to get to the point where I think I'm an expert.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some pictures just deserve to be put in the circular file.

 

[MattKing]

Some pictures just deserve to be put in the circular file.

You mean these

 

[mshchem]

I voted for the first choice even though when it comes to digital, my editing skills are quite poor.

 

[koraks]

Hardly surprising that this has become argumentative/a clash of opinions. *sigh*

Oh, I disagree; I think for the most part the responses are considerate and thoughtful; good job! Sure, there's a couple of geezers making some noise with their below-the-belt jabs, but hey...we all recognize them for what they are.

While I think that the majority of responses has been thoughtful, I'd like to acknowledge in particular (but no particular order, and also without discrediting the others) those of @loccdor, @Vaughn, @albireo, @fgorga and @Brendan Quirk. Those are the kind of thoughts I was looking for - and note they're not necessarily in agreement with each other. That's fine! Again, this is not to say I found the other posts less valuable; the ones I mentioned just stood out.

 

[Don_ih]

My only wish is that I was better at two handed dodge and burning, something I need to work on.

You need to practise shadow puppets. Rabbits and birds and dinosaurs.

 

[koraks]

You need to practise shadow puppets. Rabbits and birds and dinosaurs.

I can manage a very presentable goose, as long as everyone's OK with it that it's flapping about kind of pathetically, apparently suffers from a few very severe genetic defects and it has no head.

As soon as my burning & dodging requires two hands at the same time, I throw in the towel and move on to the next negative. I'm just not much of a dancer; never will be, either.

 

[nikos79]

I am a perfectionist, so I tend to apply a lot of "minor" editing tweaks until I am happy with the final outcome.
What you did is absolutely valid and perhaps necessary.
Myself I would probably have done all that you did too!
Just some remarks based on my experience/tastes/personal opinion:

1. The original image is already very good. So you have the "raw" material ready to apply your personal final touch.

2. Working with an image you already like to make it even better is a joy. Working with an image you don't really like just to save it, might be a challenge but not so interesting.

3. I usually leave the edits as they are for a day or two. Then I look back again and if something is too much I see it immediately and I correct it. The reason is that our "eye" tends to get used to heavy editing as you proceed with it while looking at them the next day with a fresh eye will reveal if you overdid it.

4. If you know why you chose that photo and what made you choose it, then the editing can help to bring out even more the elements that drew you to this photo and filter out some that you didn't find relevant.

5. As long as the photo doesn't completely lose the connection to the reality, e.g. that you don't put a scyscraper in the middle of the field, every editing is valid.

6. Sometimes a perfect almost professional editing to a not so interesting photo might be unfitting.

7. The editing e.g. the style should not overwhelm the photo itself (that might sound a bit cryptic cannot explain it very well what I mean).

That said thanks for bringing up such an interesting subject!

 

[runswithsizzers]

I'm looking for personal feelings, preferences and indeed as they derive from or relate to whatever personal norms or rules people may have.

My feeling is, "It's my photo, and I can do whatever I damn well please with it, and if anyone doesn't like it, then that is their problem, not mine."

 

[nikos79]

What generally sets the 'heavy edits alert!' for me? I'd love to know what does it for other people, but for me it's a range of things like

For me the alert flashes, when the edits do not match the photo and its content.

I read through your "red flags" points. Generally speaking some of them can be red flags for me too, especially when used excessively.
But ... even a photo with that red flags can still work.
When you do excessive editing you are taking a risk. It might end up looking comical and weird or it might fit the image and lift it up.
Take for example heavy contrasts. For Bill Brandt worked beautifully. For some other photos it becomes merely a tool to create impression.

 

[koraks]

My feeling is, "It's my photo, and I can do whatever I damn well please with it, and if anyone doesn't like it, then that is their problem, not mine."

Certainly; I think a few have expressed this point or something very similar. It's in the same corner as "how much editing is required/permissible depends on the purpose." Very true, but not so much what I was looking for.
If you come home with a shot that in hindsight you feel benefits from aligned verticals, but alas, it's not in the RAW/negative, do you fix it, or do you consider it a case for @Alan Edward Klein's cylindrical eternal archive?

@nikos79 thanks for your insightful response as well; I particularly want to highlight what you said about living with the edits a few days. For an image that for some reason warrants a long time investment, I think that's a great idea. It's not my way of working, though. Maybe one day I'll be able to muster the patience and commitment to incorporate something like that in my workflow.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You mean these

View attachment 406177

I threw out three of those brand new in their original boxes 11 years ago when I moved to NJ, and my Ektagraphic random selector projector broke. I scanned all my slides and never looked back. But the circular file I was referring to when you have a bad photo that really shouldn't be edited is the garbage can. Some pictures should just be left alone. You can't get blood from a turnip.