For your image and what you did to it is fine by me but I don't know how to define what's OK what's not. If for example you removed the light post it would be not OK to me.
How much editing is justified?
-
- Thread starter koraks
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Sold Hasselblad 500 and 2000 series ground glass with waist level finder.
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Jobo CPA 2 with Lift
- Started by Aidan Sciortino
-
Sold Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton v1
- Started by gareth.ig
Forum statistics
You would never know that he removed it unless he told you though, just as the viewer wouldn't know if he manually added the light post to balance the image.
Out of curiosity, can I ask if your thread and poll were begun out of sheer interest in our views or might there be a larger objective which may or may not affect the rules that will apply on picture submissions on Photrio
Thanks
pentaxuser
We all have our personal preferences, but if the intention is art, there shouldn't be any rules.
This.
Short answer: If I see something that looks like it needs to be fixed, then I fix it, of course (whenever practical).
TL;DR
After I press the shutter, depending on which camera I am using, I will have either a color digital image or a black and white negative. With the negatives, I enjoy a hybrid workflow most of the time* so the negative gets digitized. Either way, I make any and all edits which the photo may need in Lightroom. Here, the word "need" describes any shortcomings that prevent the photo from being "finished" or "complete" according some kind of black-box algorithm that lives in the deep and dark convolutions of my mind.
Most often, my fixes can be described as either removing distractions or improving composition. For me, distractions may include an incorrect black point or white point. Colors which are "off" or not believable. Shadows or highlights that are too dark or too light. Obvious perspective issues like converging verticals or tilted horizons.
Improving composition may include cropping -- but I prefer cameras with fairly accurate viewfinders, so in most cases I get the framing approximately correct in the camera. (I shot slide film for decades.) But if I missed a distracting item at the edge of the frame, it gets cropped out. Occasionally, the 3:2 format (35mm film or APS-C digital), or the 1:1 square format (Rolleicord) is not the best frame for my subject, so I may crop to a different aspect frame. But most often, I try to get the best framing for that subject within the limitation of format imposed by the camera.
For me, composition also includes the way my eye moves from one element of the photo to another. Using Lightroom's selection and masking tools, I may emphasize or de-emphasize certain areas of the scene (dodge and burn) to help guide the eye towards the elements I want to be noticed. I try to keep this very subtle in most cases.
Writing it out like this makes it sound like I labor over each photo for a long time, but in reality, I don't think about it too much, and the fixing process usually takes only a couple of minutes or less. Of couse, there are always a few photos that cannot be fixed, and more than a few that do not have what it takes to make an interesting photo, and those do get trashed.
* The only time I have been able to make wet darkroom prints is while enrolled in a university photo class. When making prints, I have far less skill and patience for "fixing" an image. So if I can't get an acceptable print without too much trouble, I will abandon that negative and try to find one that is easier to print.
Last edited:
You would never know that he removed it unless he told you though, just as the viewer wouldn't know if he manually added the light post to balance the image.
I don't think the question is whether I can tell but he meant to ask how much editing is too much. To me removing or adding a subject like person , tree or even power line is too much.
Recently I have been experimenting into deleting something that bothers me e.g. some tree branches in the corner of a photo, a human subject that I don't want, etc.
As long as the result is realistic I don't really mind. In the end it feels like sculpting
As long as the result is realistic I don't really mind. In the end it feels like sculpting
Oh, definitely and very explicitly NOT the latter. Thanks for asking so I can clarify that. This is really out of personal interest in how people feel about it. Given that I have been thinking about this for years, really, I thought I might put the question out there and see how others have been navigating this territory. In my mind, this is one of these things that have many perspectives, with all of them having some good arguments to support them. And it's also not something I think a group of photographers or photography enthusiasts will ever reach consensus on. So that's also not the aim of this thread; I assume that we partly agree, partly disagree and that it's going to stay that way. Which is fine; exchanging views is still interesting for its own sake. So that's what this is about; nothing more.
Thanks for the reply
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
Why not edit, doing what you did?! After all, no one seems to be carping about Ansel Adams prints, which were known to be inclusive of considerable darkroom antics, by him or later by darkroom technicians based upon his markups of prints or his own notes. This is proven, in this video (at about 6 min.) interviewing his son.
This is further illustrated in the variants over the years of Adams' Moon Over Hernandez photo, illustrated in this article https://www.timagesgallery.com/blog-2/did-ansel-adams-photoshop-his-images
This is further illustrated in the variants over the years of Adams' Moon Over Hernandez photo, illustrated in this article https://www.timagesgallery.com/blog-2/did-ansel-adams-photoshop-his-images
Last edited:
You need to practise shadow puppets. Rabbits and birds and dinosaurs.
I have 4 children, that's a previous skill I need to revisit.
My favourite thing is finger painting with potassium ferrocyanide.
Surely this is a non answerable question. It is up to the individual how much or how little they want to do is down to that person. Whether what has been done is agreed by all, or some, or non at all. Or if it is totally outrageous or as bland as can be it is up to that person.
I think it's a very answerable question because (1) the person I'm asking is you and (2) it's not about a specific image. So please go ahead and tell me how much editing you generally prefer.
Thanks so far for the responses; and definitely keep them coming if you have any more to share - it's appreciated. I've barely responded to the actual thoughts expressed so far. In part I just need some time to structure things (not done yet), and in part I wanted to see what comes up without trying to steer the exchange in a specific direction (although that of course is never entirely possible).
To clarify a few things:
How much someone edits their photos is evidently their own prerogative.My question isn't about validation of my own choices, or anyone else's. I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK.
I think we also agree that sometimes there are limitations imposed by external parties, for instance in journalistic or documentary photography. My question is limited in scope to work that is free from such limitations.
Evidently, we're not all of the same opinion on how much editing is desirable on an image. That's exactly what I'm asking: your personal preference/view/opinion. Yes, the maker of the work decides (although there's such a thing as a derivative work, but let's set that aside for now). So in answering the question, imagine it's about your own work. I provided one example of mine only as an illustration. I understand if you can't or won't answer the question for that particular photo. In fact, while I appreciate supportive responses to my edits, my question is really about what you would do to your own photos.
And of course, some photos just aren't worth working on. My question is limited to those photos that we personally feel have sufficient potential to put some time & effort in to make them presentable. Selection is a very interesting topic in its own right, but not one I intended to put up for discussion in this thread.
To take away any suspicions about ulterior motives: I'm asking this on personal title. This is not 'moderator koraks' verifying if you're sticking to the 'company line'. Neither is this about policies or rules being prepared; nothing of the sort is being discussed and certainly not intended with this thread. Moreover, at a personal level (which is what this is only about), I'm not going to think any less of you regardless of what you say. We may disagree, but respect your position whatever it may be.
Some ramblings about how I feel about it:
I don't ask the question just out of nowhere. It's been with me for a while, and I notice that I'm not entirely consistent in my own thinking. That's not a problem for me; it just signals that something interesting (IMO) may be going on.
On the one hand, I'm of the persuasion that an image is best capture right on the spot with as little further processing necessary to bring out what the image means to convey. Take shooting slides intended for projection - you press the button and that's the end result right there. I like that idea. It feels pure, honest, straightforward. It also seems kind of efficient; you focus on the image while making it and after pushing the button, nothing much needs to be done anymore. But ultimately it's more about integrity than about laziness.
On the other hand, I disagree with all that and I honestly believe that whatever it takes, is justified in constructing the image. You want to hand the keys to your raw converter to AI to get the end result you're looking for, as brought up in a recent thread by @Sean? Great - by all means do it! Personally, I've not yet gone that far, but I have a general idea of what's possible in terms of pixel massaging and you bet I've tried just about everything I've been able to think of.
So there's these two forces pulling me in opposite directions, and as a result, I meander. Over the past few years I've done mostly pretty straight shooting: The negative gets printed, maybe with a little burning here and there, but not a whole lot of actual manipulation. As I said, there's an aspect of integrity, or directness to it. Lately, I've been shooting more digital again, mostly because I was bumping into technical limitations of what I felt I could do with film, and of course digital capture is just an open invitation to more extensive editing. So that's what I've been doing a little more of, and I really like what it does, image-wise.
If I look at my own photos, I think they're technically better if I work on them. And yet, I feel like I also loose something in terms of directness; it feels like I'm kind of breaking (or at least kinking) the chain that links the original scene to the final image. Is that a problem? I don't know. I like it if it doesn't happen, but does it really hurt if it does?
That's where my question came from. There are these two opposing forces, and I was under the impression that we are all subject to them. Perhaps some are more conscious of it than others. More interesting than the compromise we strike at any given moment (this can be fluid/alternating), I think is the underlying set of assumptions, norms and values that support these two extremes. And I have a feeling (it's not much more than a hunch) that those values may be quite important in informing our choices. I think they're quite fundamental also in the makeup of the set of preferences here on Photrio, with its considerable bias towards the more artisanal ways of practicing the art. So that's what I was trying to pry at - those fundamental convictions and ambitions that drive us.
To clarify a few things:
How much someone edits their photos is evidently their own prerogative.My question isn't about validation of my own choices, or anyone else's. I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK.
I think we also agree that sometimes there are limitations imposed by external parties, for instance in journalistic or documentary photography. My question is limited in scope to work that is free from such limitations.
Evidently, we're not all of the same opinion on how much editing is desirable on an image. That's exactly what I'm asking: your personal preference/view/opinion. Yes, the maker of the work decides (although there's such a thing as a derivative work, but let's set that aside for now). So in answering the question, imagine it's about your own work. I provided one example of mine only as an illustration. I understand if you can't or won't answer the question for that particular photo. In fact, while I appreciate supportive responses to my edits, my question is really about what you would do to your own photos.
And of course, some photos just aren't worth working on. My question is limited to those photos that we personally feel have sufficient potential to put some time & effort in to make them presentable. Selection is a very interesting topic in its own right, but not one I intended to put up for discussion in this thread.
To take away any suspicions about ulterior motives: I'm asking this on personal title. This is not 'moderator koraks' verifying if you're sticking to the 'company line'. Neither is this about policies or rules being prepared; nothing of the sort is being discussed and certainly not intended with this thread. Moreover, at a personal level (which is what this is only about), I'm not going to think any less of you regardless of what you say. We may disagree, but respect your position whatever it may be.
Some ramblings about how I feel about it:
I don't ask the question just out of nowhere. It's been with me for a while, and I notice that I'm not entirely consistent in my own thinking. That's not a problem for me; it just signals that something interesting (IMO) may be going on.
On the one hand, I'm of the persuasion that an image is best capture right on the spot with as little further processing necessary to bring out what the image means to convey. Take shooting slides intended for projection - you press the button and that's the end result right there. I like that idea. It feels pure, honest, straightforward. It also seems kind of efficient; you focus on the image while making it and after pushing the button, nothing much needs to be done anymore. But ultimately it's more about integrity than about laziness.
On the other hand, I disagree with all that and I honestly believe that whatever it takes, is justified in constructing the image. You want to hand the keys to your raw converter to AI to get the end result you're looking for, as brought up in a recent thread by @Sean? Great - by all means do it! Personally, I've not yet gone that far, but I have a general idea of what's possible in terms of pixel massaging and you bet I've tried just about everything I've been able to think of.
So there's these two forces pulling me in opposite directions, and as a result, I meander. Over the past few years I've done mostly pretty straight shooting: The negative gets printed, maybe with a little burning here and there, but not a whole lot of actual manipulation. As I said, there's an aspect of integrity, or directness to it. Lately, I've been shooting more digital again, mostly because I was bumping into technical limitations of what I felt I could do with film, and of course digital capture is just an open invitation to more extensive editing. So that's what I've been doing a little more of, and I really like what it does, image-wise.
If I look at my own photos, I think they're technically better if I work on them. And yet, I feel like I also loose something in terms of directness; it feels like I'm kind of breaking (or at least kinking) the chain that links the original scene to the final image. Is that a problem? I don't know. I like it if it doesn't happen, but does it really hurt if it does?
That's where my question came from. There are these two opposing forces, and I was under the impression that we are all subject to them. Perhaps some are more conscious of it than others. More interesting than the compromise we strike at any given moment (this can be fluid/alternating), I think is the underlying set of assumptions, norms and values that support these two extremes. And I have a feeling (it's not much more than a hunch) that those values may be quite important in informing our choices. I think they're quite fundamental also in the makeup of the set of preferences here on Photrio, with its considerable bias towards the more artisanal ways of practicing the art. So that's what I was trying to pry at - those fundamental convictions and ambitions that drive us.
Thanks for sharing your extensive thoughts. It is really a matter we all think of and somehow I believe we all wish we could intervene to a photo as little as we can.
But when you say "breaking the chain" isn't that already happening when we choose a camera, a format, a lens, a frame with the viewfinder, a film?
We already "alter" the reality with very definite choices that will change the cropped reality, the depth of field, the exposure, etc.
So in a way the editing already begins way before we finally see the result...
For me, editing is an ongoing process even before photography gets involved as I look through my eyes at the world and, occasionally, my brain thinks a scene might make a good memory. Why?; I haven’t a clue. Everything after that is just mechanics and chemistry in an attempt to replicate and remember that scene/feeling/emotion. Each instance is unique and “rules” are meaningless. Except “whatever it takes to achieve personal satisfaction and happiness.”
Last edited:
I think this is a fantastic thread Koraks - and what you're looking for was completely clear right from the beginning.
Nikos - at least for me, and for my own photography, the goal is not to produce a 'gold standard' reference photographic document with perfect, certified almost, correspondence to the 'reality' I had in front of me shortly before pressing the shutter.
The goal is to produce an artifact, a document perhaps, that satisfies my need to recollect the scene as it appears to me through the filter of memory.
So I don't care about the risk of turning a potentially 'absolutely faithful' document into a 'not faithful at all' document via photo editing, or, as you say, a 'not entirely faithful' document by making an aperture or focal length choice. And yet - I prefer to do as little post-processing as possible, because it just so happens for me that a
a) well framed/well composed
b) well exposed
c) well developed
d) well scanned
image of the scene I took a picture of, USUALLY (though of course not always) offers me already a satisfactory recollection of the scene as I remember it or want to remember it - one that extensive photo editing -as performed by me- is usually unable to improve upon.
What I'm trying to say I guess is this recollection of a particular scene I'm seeking to obtain, might happen if I nail the bit of the workflow that happens before the image hits the screen, but it almost never happens when I seek to obtain it by resorting to extensive layers of vignetting, sepia toning, hard contrasts, removing or adding bits, etc.
Maybe this means I'm shit at postprocessing. Maybe it means my memory of things is plain and boring, and it's not vignetted, contrasty and sepia toned? Does it suggest I'm not imaginative? I don't know. Possibly! I do love art, paintings, the German expressionists, the French Impressionists, the Italian Macchiaioli etc - but I see photography as having a different purpose for me.
In fact, I agree to the very core with what @loccdor wrote in his post earlier ('it still looks like something that you could see with your eyes.' YES!!) - except - the bit about the 'big ugly modern boat' that he edited away from his beautiful Greek/Santorini image. For me it is fine if a scene includes the modern cars, the telephone poles, the mopeds that happened to be there when I saw that scene: these mostly don't bother me at all - I saw them - I don't want to remember a purified version of the scene I saw - why should they bother me?
Anyhow - this is only to give an idea of the range of reasons that are out there for why we photograph.
Nikos - at least for me, and for my own photography, the goal is not to produce a 'gold standard' reference photographic document with perfect, certified almost, correspondence to the 'reality' I had in front of me shortly before pressing the shutter.
The goal is to produce an artifact, a document perhaps, that satisfies my need to recollect the scene as it appears to me through the filter of memory.
So I don't care about the risk of turning a potentially 'absolutely faithful' document into a 'not faithful at all' document via photo editing, or, as you say, a 'not entirely faithful' document by making an aperture or focal length choice. And yet - I prefer to do as little post-processing as possible, because it just so happens for me that a
a) well framed/well composed
b) well exposed
c) well developed
d) well scanned
image of the scene I took a picture of, USUALLY (though of course not always) offers me already a satisfactory recollection of the scene as I remember it or want to remember it - one that extensive photo editing -as performed by me- is usually unable to improve upon.
What I'm trying to say I guess is this recollection of a particular scene I'm seeking to obtain, might happen if I nail the bit of the workflow that happens before the image hits the screen, but it almost never happens when I seek to obtain it by resorting to extensive layers of vignetting, sepia toning, hard contrasts, removing or adding bits, etc.
Maybe this means I'm shit at postprocessing. Maybe it means my memory of things is plain and boring, and it's not vignetted, contrasty and sepia toned? Does it suggest I'm not imaginative? I don't know. Possibly! I do love art, paintings, the German expressionists, the French Impressionists, the Italian Macchiaioli etc - but I see photography as having a different purpose for me.
In fact, I agree to the very core with what @loccdor wrote in his post earlier ('it still looks like something that you could see with your eyes.' YES!!) - except - the bit about the 'big ugly modern boat' that he edited away from his beautiful Greek/Santorini image. For me it is fine if a scene includes the modern cars, the telephone poles, the mopeds that happened to be there when I saw that scene: these mostly don't bother me at all - I saw them - I don't want to remember a purified version of the scene I saw - why should they bother me?
Anyhow - this is only to give an idea of the range of reasons that are out there for why we photograph.
Last edited:
Well, that's what I'd expect, and I certainly sense that tendency - and at the same time I ask myself, "is that really as it should be?" Looking at the art world, there are plenty of examples of 'editing to the extreme'. Even in seemingly straight photography. Rhein II? Not so straight, after all. Ansel Adams has been mentioned several times and sure enough, he did whatever he felt was necessary, regardless of how much manipulation was involved. So this ideal we (some of us, some of the time, to an extent) seem to want to live up to - it's probably as constructed as some of the images we might dismiss on its basis.
Arguably, yes. So perhaps we start out with an assumption that the chain needs to be broken in some way if we want to get started in the first place. While on that basis I think there's merit to your argument, at the same time it also illustrates how quickly our thoughts can spiral into tautological meaninglessness. When I mention the 'chain', I mean the links in the process that lead from an original scene and end up with the image as presented/consumed. If we take the position that the chain is broken as soon as we start building it...well, what meaning is left, at all?
The only alternative would be to build the scene as we'd like to see it, and then drag the viewer towards it. I suppose that's in a way what landscape artists and some sculptors are doing. But does that make them the only ones in a position to present an 'unbroken chain'? It doesn't feel like it to me. If I look at a carbon transfer print made from an in-camera negative, I have that sense (as delusional as it may be on theoretical grounds) of an unbroken chain. There's a series of (almost) tangible, physical steps from the captured reality to the final image.
In all this, I still assume that you (we) are right in that basic tent of as little intervention as possible being a preferable starting point. Which I really doubt. I mean...painters, sculptors...
There just remains an inherent tension in photography between the 'original reality' of the captured scene (or light) and the 'new reality' of the resulting photograph. Photography (and by extension, videography) lends itself to bringing those two realities as close to each other as humanly possible at this stage. At the same time, it also lends itself particularly well as an expressive medium. Which brings me to..:
The bit I'd like to highlight is that first bit, about the 'recollection'. That refers IMO to one of those very fundamental motivations we have for creating images. Recollection might be such a motive, but it's not the only possibility. Even if it's recollection - recollection of what? The scene as we literally saw it? Or the place as we experienced it? We're getting close to Minor White's 'equivalence' now - perhaps the scene is just a proxy for the experience and the photo an indirect way of conveying an unspeakable feeling to a viewer. A different way of 'recollecting' than a typical family album, which is after all also very much about recollecting. If it's about, let's say, 'emotional recollection', I guess it all of a sudden becomes more plausible that interventions like toning and vignetting are fair game. They may not be if we want to literally recollect the visual nature of the situation as it manifested itself, as objectively as possible. Different motivations, different choices. Those who said that "it depends on what you're after" are of course right. Although perhaps there's a difference between "what we're after" and "what we set out to do". The former is looking at things from the backside, the latter starts at the front.
Indeed, @albireo, 'why we photograph'. It's precisely that, and it's exactly why I find the question about editing interesting. Not so much about the competence we may or may not have in wielding the tools (we have thousands of threads on that part, and I love that bit, too) - but the reasons we get out of bed in the morning in the first place.
One more thing, that arises through association, thinking about the bit about 'emotional recollection'. I wrote that bit with the implicit assumption that we might want to express the feelings as we had them at some point and do the necessary work to sublimate those in the form of an image. There's of course a more dynamic possibility - that we shape our emotions in the process of crafting the image. Editing not so much to sublimate, but to synthesize the feeling of the image. Photography and especially post-processing as a way of ex-post sensemaking, or perhaps even a way to deal with things. There's a photographer who mentioned that to me some time ago. Paraphrasing her, she said "I photograph to untangle knots I cannot work out otherwise. I hit upon a rough spot and the only thing that helps me through it is to photograph; I work things out that way." I thought that was very interesting indeed; I had never looked at it that way, but I suppose it's recognizable to many if you extend it to the kind of therapeutic, contemplative photography many of us practice.
^ This, but...
Oftentimes, in our pursuit of personal satisfaction and happiness we create rules for ourselves. Or maybe instead of "rules" I should say a framework, or a set of boundaries we choose to work within. An art professor at a local university painted only cardboard boxes for several years. Then one day he announced in class, he was suddenly interested in painting fat people.
We need some kind of structure, otherwise, we become overwhelmed -- paralyzed by lack of direction in a world of unlimited options. When the art professor wakes up in the morning, he does not have to expend time and energy trying to answer the question, "What am I going to paint today?"
Sometimes we adopt the rules of others, like things we were taught in school, or something a much-admired photographer said or did, or a vague feeling of this-is-the-way-it-ought-to-be-done absorbed by osmosis from the world we live in. Other times, we just make up some nonsensical shit that comes out of nowhere like, "I want to paint boxes." Or fat people.
The beauty of these self-imposed rules is that they can be swapped out from time-to-time. When cardboard boxes aren't doing it for you anymore, then try something else.
Maybe consider two sets of rules, one for film and one for digital? Try sticking with the limited processing rule for your film work, but allow yourself more extensive editing choices when shooting digital?
Of course, if you digitize your negatives, I think at least a little bit of post-processing is necessary to correct any issues introduced by the scanning and inversion process. But you could swear a solemn oath to preserve the "integrity" of your film work as much as possible, while also allowing yourself more extensive editing to your digital work? Try it out both ways and see what feels right?
It might be useful to note that I'm not trying to solve a problem (if only because I don't experience one). I'm thankful for the solution offered, but what I'm really looking for is how others feel about this in relation to their own work.
Are you sure?
... it sounds to me like someone who is trying to work through something -- maybe not quite an existential crisis, but some kind of problem? Of course, I could easily be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Last edited:
Something else that I need to note is that I also like editing.
Some other photographers I know don't like it at all, they just view it as a boring necessity they need to do.
On the other hand, because I like doing it, I might occasionally risk overdoing it.
Or trying too much to make a boring photo stand out by using some flashy editing.
These are the "dangers" in my own view that I am personally aware of and trying to avoid.
Some other photographers I know don't like it at all, they just view it as a boring necessity they need to do.
On the other hand, because I like doing it, I might occasionally risk overdoing it.
Or trying too much to make a boring photo stand out by using some flashy editing.
These are the "dangers" in my own view that I am personally aware of and trying to avoid.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |