How much editing is justified?

[gary mulder]

 

[slackercrurster]

Unless you are a news photog...there are no post processing police around. Do as you like, bub.

​

I shot it when I was 19 or 20 with a beat up Hasselblad SWC I bought from an Art Center College student for $400 or $500….I can’t remember. The window light was the only light source. Back in the 70’s you could pick up a well used SWC for next to nothing.

On the left is an Agfa Brovira vintage 1970’s silver gelatin print. On the right is a Hahnemühle Baryta inkjet print right. It is a good example of what 2-1/2 hours of Lightroom can do for a photograph.

The time consuming work with post processing is making the work prints. What looks good on the monitor is not what always comes out on the printer. Lots of fine tuning involved. This version of The Sunlit Slipper is #16. Some of my print versions end up in the 30’s or more.

The Sunlit Slipper – Los Angeles 1973

Hasselblad SWC + 2-1/2 hours of Lightroom​

 

[albireo]

There is no 'post processing police' of course. There has never been, there will never be. This has been made clear by OP at least 57 times over the course of the thread.

So calm down, editing fans/darkroom dodgers+burners. Nobody is threatening your hobby/job. You are not cheating. Carry on doing what you enjoy doing.

However - there are personal preferences. Both for your own work, and for other people's work.

And my understanding was that this thread was a place where to share them, and perhaps to attempt to explore why we prefer it that way.

In passing - and all IMO - the old, imperfect wet lab print of the prostitute, with the dazzling window light and the barely-hinted-at body features in the dark, is FOR MY TASTE (which does not matter the slightest to anyone else!) a much better photograph than the later PS+HDR interpretation.

 

[koraks]

And my understanding was that this thread was a place where to share them, and perhaps to attempt to explore why we prefer it that way.

Absolutely, I merely want to understand what makes you guys tick. Just curiosity. Not looking for justification etc.

I do appreciate @slackercrurster's post as just that - a characterization of how he does it, and what it can do for his images. Thanks! I've seen that example before and I think it's very to the point here; thanks for sharing.

 

[Vaughn]

...
In passing - and all IMO - the old, imperfect wet lab print of the prostitute, with the dazzling window light and the barely-hinted-at body features in the dark, is FOR MY TASTE (which do not matter the slightest to anyone else!) a much better photograph than the later PS+HDR interpretation.

The digitally-edited end result is beautiful. Perhaps you feel it should not be, considering the subject. It is an interesting question. For me, the image becomes pictorial. The original light was not the subject, I believe, so the photographer enjoys the freedom to depart from the normal and the expected, and create their own atmospheric feel with the light.

As a lover of natural light, the digital example creates some tension for me -- a mis-match of subject and presentation. I see this as a positive effect.

 

[albireo]

The digitally-edited end result is beautiful.

Now that I look at it on a big screen and not my phone, the face is heavily brightened in the old print. I can see now It's treated much better in the modern version. The arresting gaze of the woman makes the image for me, so I'm going to change my mind and agree with you in that the new image works better.

 

[Vaughn]

Now that I look at it on a big screen and not my phone, the face is heavily brightened in the old print. I can see now It's treated much better in the modern version. The arresting gaze of the woman makes the image for me, so I'm going to change my mind and agree with your in that the new image works better.

Because the end result is beautiful, does not mean I like it over the other...or that I think one works better than the other. They work differently and are different worthwhile-to-look-at beasties from the same source. I like the rawness of the vision of the 20 year-old.

PS...I think slackerc is underestimating time spent editing -- it looks like he was having way much fun to keep good track of time!

 

[Craig]

Back to the original question, I think the amount of editing that is justified is "the right amount".

Obviously this will depend on the application, but even for something like technical/documentary/forensic photography a photograph was taken for a specific purpose and the final version needs to have visible whatever was the reason the photo was taken. There have been plenty of cases in police/forensic photography where something was enhanced (like contrast) to bring out details that were otherwise not visible.

Art photography is a different matter, "the right amount" of editing is whatever brings the final product to whatever the artist wants to portray.

 

[koraks]

Art photography is a different matter,

Alright, and speaking of that matter - how much is enough, and is there such a thing as too much? Where do you personally draw the line in your work, and why? Do you encounter captures that you could technically speaking "salvage", but doing so doesn't quite feel right?

 

[BrianShaw]

Im not an art photographer but know one quite well. Photography as well as other media. For her the “right amount” is whatever it takes to balance pleasing her artistic eye and the increasing the likelihood of making an art object that will sell. There’s little emotional handwringing in her approach.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Alright, and speaking of that matter - how much is enough, and is there such a thing as too much? Where do you personally draw the line in your work, and why? Do you encounter captures that you could technically speaking "salvage", but doing so doesn't quite feel right?

For my personal work I scan large format colour and bw film in at a very high resolution and manipulate in PS as I see fit. Since I solarize both types of films during the development stage, I am left with an unique colour palette to start with, I have no issue then taking these files and working them to meet my required look,sometimes completely changing the hue and contrast, as well more digital adjustments . I take this same approach when using the enlarger and print solarizing the already solarized film and adding toning techniques as well as hand painting on my prints. So Koraks for me there is no such thing as too much.
Working with separation negatives , cmy and as well shadow and highlight negs allows for further reach if I want to make an unique print.

 

[Craig]

Do you encounter captures that you could technically speaking "salvage", but doing so doesn't quite feel right?

Sure, if I have an underexposed negative and the blacks are weak I won't bother going any further if the print isn't up to my quality standards.

I think I draw the line where excessive manipulation doesn't look natural.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I start with Velvia 50 because I like its higher saturation. However, after I scan, I adjust the colors to what I feel is right. I don't try to match the original slide. My theory is that the Japanese engineer who designed Velvia's palette is long gone, and I'm allowed to do the colors as I see fit. Beyond that, I don't overcolorize, don't clone in or delete stuff except by cropping. Contrast and other adjustments are normal. Most of my shots are landscapes, and I like them to seem natural, as if you were there with me when I shot them. If someone thinks I Photoshopped them, then I went too far.

 

[st1]

I don't feel there are any limits to post processing. Using your original photo as an example, this to me looks very conservative compared to some images, and the changes you made seem geared more towards making it a more pleasing composition to your eye than towards creating a distinctly and deliberately striking effect that some might describe as distracting or unnecessary.

but even those kinds of more extreme post techniques I think have their place, and it doesn't matter whether the intent was there from the start, or because you captured a perfect moment with technical imperfections, and still want to make something of that image.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Im not an art photographer but know one quite well. Photography as well as other media. For her the “right amount” is whatever it takes to balance pleasing her artistic eye and the increasing the likelihood of making an art object that will sell. There’s little emotional handwringing in her approach.

Interesting point.

I don't really know how "art photography" is defined, but I imagine there might be (at least) three different kinds:
- Professional art photography, where the photographer makes their living from the sale of photographs
- Academic art photography, where the photographer's primary job is teaching art photography, but is also expected to create and show their work
- Hobby* Amateur art photography, where the photographer practices self expression through photography, but does not derive any significant income from their art

When art photographers of the first two classes are contemplating how much post processing to do, they must also consider how much post processing their intended customers and viewing audience will accept. Only the hobby amateur artist is free to totally indulge in whatever manipulations they desire without regard for how someone else will judge the result.

* I dislike my use of the word "hobby" here. It is somewhat dismissive and judgmental. Can someone think of a better word to describe someone who may practice art at a high level, but who does not depend on their results for income? Maybe "personal" or "private"?
Edited: thanks, @Don_ih and @GregY

 

[Don_ih]

Can someone think of a better word to describe someone who may practice art at a high level, but who does not depend on their results for income?

Amateur.

 

[GregY]

Interesting point.

I don't really know how "art photography" is defined, but I imagine there might be (at least) three different kinds:
- Professional art photography, where the photographer makes their living from the sale of photographs
- Academic art photography, where the photographer's primary job is teaching art photography, but is also expected to create and show their work
- Hobby art* photography, where the photographer practices self expression through photography, but does not derive any significant income from their art

When art photographers of the first two classes are contemplating how much post processing to do, they must also consider how much post processing their intended customers and viewing audience will accept. Only the hobby artist is free to totally indulge in whatever manipulations they desire without regard for how someone else will judge the result.

* I dislike my use of the word "hobby" here. It is somewhat dismissive and judgmental. Can someone think of a better word to describe someone who may practice art at a high level, but who does not depend on their results for income? Maybe "personal" or "private"?

"amateur"...... in the french definition

 

[Jacob Iverson]

As many have stated I believe it is all a matter of taste and the intended result. Whether there is a sudden layer within the inherent qualities – composition, values, sharpness – which bares no further possibility of penetration or revision, I believe depends on how you define a photograph in the first place.

Personally, my work with digital, and their respective RAW files, often leads to experimentation solely within the editing software (LrC). I like to use the software and its tools as a housing to test just how much deterioration of the file it can handle.

I enjoy considering the results an experimentation of what "truth" is in digital photographic representation, especially right at the first source of it all, before compression... artifacting... etc.

 

[nikos79]

Amateur.

As it means in French (the one who loves it)

 

[runswithsizzers]

@Don_ih and @GregY and @nikos79 -- I agree, the true meaning of the word "amateur" accurately describes the kind of artist I was thinking of. Sadly, as it is commonly used, "amateur" often suffers from some of the same negative conotations as "hobby" -- that is, something inferior or second-rate (when compared to "professional"). Of course, the truth is, the amateur can often produce a much higher level of work than the professional, because unlike the professional who must make a profit, the amateur is free from constraints of cost in time and materials.

Still, "amateur" is a better word than "hobby" so I edited my post. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[jeffreyg]

@Don_ih and @GregY and @nikos79 -- I agree, the true meaning of the word "amateur" accurately describes the kind of artist I was thinking of. Sadly, as it is commonly used, "amateur" often suffers from some of the same negative conotations as "hobby" -- that is, something inferior or second-rate (when compared to "professional"). Of course, the truth is, the amateur can often produce a much higher level of work than the professional, because unlike the professional who must make a profit, the amateur is free from constraints of cost in time and materials.

Still, "amateur" is a better word than "hobby" so I edited my post. Thanks for the suggestion.

r
How about a new term “LOPA” ( lover of photographic art) Covers all bases

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting point.

I don't really know how "art photography" is defined, but I imagine there might be (at least) three different kinds:
- Professional art photography, where the photographer makes their living from the sale of photographs
- Academic art photography, where the photographer's primary job is teaching art photography, but is also expected to create and show their work
- Hobby* Amateur art photography, where the photographer practices self expression through photography, but does not derive any significant income from their art
...

* I dislike my use of the word "hobby" here. It is somewhat dismissive and judgmental. ...

I am a mix of all three, so am somewhat confused what to consider myself. Am I a Pro artist, an Academic artist, or an Amateur artist? I usually just call myself an artist, and let others apply whatever labels they want to in front of it.

I have gallery representation, sell photographs, and give photographic workshops (one a year). ) It pays my photographic expenses. Always had a day job for covering everything else (job sometimes related to photography). My first 35 years of photography was in an academic environment (student-volunteer-paid tech). And the 'amateur' part fits like a glove...a nice loose one.

But I like the idea of 'Amateur" rather than "hobbiest' when it comes to practicing the art of photography. And hobbiest seems a good fit for those who practice photography as a passion but do not want the trappings of being an artist. Actually, not a whole lot of difference between the two except (very generally) one leans more towards content quality (self-expression) and the other more on technical quality.

 

[BrianShaw]

The labels are just that… labels. Descriptive but not very meaningful sometimes. Many photographers (and other types of artists) seem to transitioned through the various categories, and are sometimes simultaneously in different categories.

 

[Don_ih]

There is a definite difference between a professional photographer and any other kind - so that's not just a label. A professional photographer has to do photography in order to eat. Selling your photos does not make you a professional photographer. Doing the photography your clients need you to do makes you a professional - no matter how good or bad you are at at.

 

[Vaughn]

There is a definite difference between a professional photographer and any other kind - so that's not just a label. A professional photographer has to do photography in order to eat. Selling your photos does not make you a professional photographer. Doing the photography your clients need you to do makes you a professional - no matter how good or bad you are at at.

But that could be a category of its own...the commercial photographer.

To be an artist represented by a gallery or or multiple galleries places a lot of pressure on the artist to be professional in all aspects, not unlike a commercial artist. There is a commitment made by the artist to the buyers of one's photographs, and also to the gallery that sells it. These relationships are not all the same, of course, but both have a responsibility to produce the best they can. The commercial photographer must artfully produce quality product. The professional artist must keep producing an ever-improving quality of Art. And the qualities of both get wrapped around each other...both need to build their reputations as responsible productive artists.

To bring it around; knowing and being able to use the tools available, including knowing when not to use a tool, is what artists do. I always use every movement of my view cameras on every piece of film I expose...but I use most of them set at the zero mark. I use the tools of burning and dodging on every print I make, to whatever extent I think it takes to create the print that speaks of what I felt in that light. It just happens that the amount of both is usually zero with the way I work now, but for my first 15 years of photography it was the opposite...I built the image by burning and bringing out the light I experienced...quite fun. Both ways get me to where I want to go, with discoveries along the way.