How much editing is justified?

[Don_ih]

That's true, but the way you described it makes the difference between a professional commercial photographer and a professional art photographer pretty insignificant. In both instances, if you fail to produce work that pleases the people who pay for it, you won't get paid. It's very rare to find someone who makes a living from uncommissioned art photography alone.

Most amateur photographers - as in almost all of them - will never sell a print.

 

[nikos79]

That's true, but the way you described it makes the difference between a professional commercial photographer and a professional art photographer pretty insignificant.

What is a "professional" art photographer? The one who is paid/commissioned to do gallery work and can support a living from that? Or the one who found other ways of income through photojournalism or selling his works (see HCB or Atget) while keeping his creative freedom?

For me the word "professional" is easy to define: you deliver a service to a client, meet requirements, and get paid.

But in art?
In my mind I am very skeptical when these two words come under the same sentence almost an oxymoron.

 

[Don_ih]

Someone who makes a living selling prints that are considered artworks.

Not a photojournalist.

 

[nikos79]

OK then, but just to point out that this model really only became widespread in the 1970s, when photography entered the gallery system. Before then, even the so called "greats" or "classical" (Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Brassaï, Ronis, Kertész) weren’t living by selling prints.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm not sure what your point is. It's still very rare that someone can get by selling art prints and not doing any commissioned work.

Anyway, none of this is very relevant to the topic. I just wanted to point out that professional photographers have to make money from their photography. Hobbyists or amateurs typically do not. So "professional photographer" has at least that much significance as a label.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Anyway, none of this is very relevant to the topic. I just wanted to point out that professional photographers have to make money from their photography. Hobbyists or amateurs typically do not. So "professional photographer" has at least that much significance as a label.

That was the distinction I was trying to make: If you depend on photography to pay your bills, then when you ask yourself, "How much editing is justified?" -- one of the factors that goes into that thought process is, "How much editing do my potential buyers want?" (And, also maybe, "How much time can I afford to spend on each one?")

 

[nikos79]

I'm not sure what your point is. It's still very rare that someone can get by selling art prints and not doing any commissioned work.

Anyway, none of this is very relevant to the topic. I just wanted to point out that professional photographers have to make money from their photography. Hobbyists or amateurs typically do not. So "professional photographer" has at least that much significance as a label.

yes to that we agree

 

[nikos79]

That was the distinction I was trying to make: If you depend on photography to pay your bills, then when you ask yourself, "How much editing is justified?" -- one of the factors that goes into that thought process is, "How much editing do my potential buyers want?" (And, also maybe, "How much time can I afford to spend on each one?")

great point

 

[Don_ih]

In the world of graphic design, photos are raw materials to be chopped up, reorganized, blended together, made into soup - whatever you want to do. They are totally subservient to the end product.

 

[wiltw]

'Necessary' editing = that which is necessary to achieve the 'desired end result'

What is 'desired' is the variable, changing for a specific purpose.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, from my perspective, "professional" actually only applies to someone who meets certain pre-defined standards administered by a regulatory body that has the power to admit or exclude practitioners from their certification system, and is involved in various activities designed to protect and enhance its membership's contributions to the craft.
I've always been uncomfortable with that label when applied to people whose vocation is photography.
But the use of "'professional' photographer" is widespread, so I live with it.
In a roundabout way, that leads me back to my concern with this thread.
Professionally regulated bodies have regulatory structures that help define and determine what actions are "justified". Outside of certain specialties like reportage, which has very good reasons to impose rules, "justified" doesn't sit well.
"Advisable" or "What one is comfortable with" seems more appropriate.
"Justified" seems better as a song:

 

[nikos79]

Has anyone ever thought what a "professional" poet means?

 

[koraks]

Has anyone ever thought what a "professional" poet means?

I started thinking about it once, but I got very hungry very quickly, so I gave up and went to have lunch.

 

[gary mulder]

My definition of a professional is that if the tax collector has the opinion that you have to pay income tax for what you get for the result of your hobby then you probably are a professional. I personally don’t like to be a professional.

 

[Vaughn]

That's true, but the way you described it makes the difference between a professional commercial photographer and a professional art photographer pretty insignificant. In both instances, if you fail to produce work that pleases the people who pay for it, you won't get paid. It's very rare to find someone who makes a living from uncommissioned art photography alone.

Most amateur photographers - as in almost all of them - will never sell a print.

The differences between the goals of a professional commercial art photographer, a professional (fine) art photographer, and an amateur art photographers are very significant. But they all approach photography as artists, since (IMO) people who practice the art of photography are artists.

Hobbiests seem to be those who are more interested in the craft of photography, with personal goals of improving their craft.

But it is not a case of being one or the other, but a blending of needs and desires. The hobbiest bumps up against the seduction of art, the artist refines craft to move the art forward.

I place less importance on sales as a guide for success than I do getting work out to be seen. But even then, there are artists who do not need to show their work...private artists.

 

[Don_ih]

The reality, of course, is a continuum, but we're talking about broad generalizations, here. That's what a label is. There are always particular characteristics that that would work to exclude the application of a label.

@MattKing a professional photographer can take your passport photo.

 

[Vaughn]

The reality, of course, is a continuum, but we're talking about broad generalizations, here. That's what a label is. There are always particular characteristics that that would work to exclude the application of a label.

@MattKing a professional photographer can take your passport photo.

Right on! There's a good reason AA always included in his commercial work contracts provisions to make his own images (copyright ownership, etc) while on assignments.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

A.D.Coleman defined professional something along the lines of someone who prepared his work for the public in order to communicate. Those who worked "for themselves only", although maybe highly skilled and artistic, were amateur, not professional. For him amateur was not a slur, rather the amateur has more freedom, for the need to communicate requires more consideration.

Those who did the above, but did not succeed in reaching the public, could perhaps be described as unsuccessful professionals.

 

[Don_ih]

That's swell, but not as meaningful as the idea that a professional needs to make money from photography. And artists can be seen as preparing their work for the public in order to communicate - even if they don't make any money from their art (as most artists do not make any money at all). And most professionals simply perform a task and get paid and don't especially care about the public.

Why don't we drop the term and use "working photographer" instead?

@BrianShaw -- I regret saying any label was meaningful.

 

[BrianShaw]

No problem, Don. That tangental aside was/is actually quite interesting.

 

[awty]

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​

Lovely picture, excellent work.

 

[nikos79]

A.D.Coleman defined professional something along the lines of someone who prepared his work for the public in order to communicate. Those who worked "for themselves only", although maybe highly skilled and artistic, were amateur, not professional. For him amateur was not a slur, rather the amateur has more freedom, for the need to communicate requires more consideration.

Those who did the above, but did not succeed in reaching the public, could perhaps be described as unsuccessful professionals.

I doubt if there is any artist that works for themselves only. All artists want/need to communicate.
Sometimes all it is is that their photographs/art is a message in a bottle, waiting for someone to find it.
"Reaching" the public as carefully adjusting your work in order to sell, yes that is professional. Whether they are true artists I might doubt.

Unsuccessful professionals as you put it may very well be good artists. I don't say "successful" artists because there is no way to measure "success" in art. An artist is never happy he keeps on trying for more, more questions, more self doubt. That is what it moves them. See Giacometti that after 50 years said I am struggling to understand sculpture. Also Tarkovsky that in the end said I still don't understand cinema well. Are they "unsuccessful" artists? No, in my mind these two words constitute an oxymoron

 

[koraks]

I doubt if there is any artist that works for themselves only. All artists want/need to communicate.

The question is whether they expect or need to be heard, though. I don't doubt that there are plenty of artists who speak simply because they feel compelled to speak - without ever expecting or requiring a response, or even an indication that someone has been listening.

The way I see an artist is as someone who feels compelled to create, regardless.

Btw, neither the question about what is or isn't an artist, nor the one whether someone can be considered 'professional', has much bearing on the question I asked in #1. They're sort of interesting diversions in their own right. As to the issue of professionalism and the implications for the degree of editing, that was already addressed in one of the first posts on page 1. I don't think there's much more to be said about it, and I clarified back then that I was addressing the situation in which an external force does not impose a limitation on one's process.

 

[nikos79]

The question is whether they expect or need to be heard, though. I don't doubt that there are plenty of artists who speak simply because they feel compelled to speak - without ever expecting or requiring a response, or even an indication that someone has been listening.

The way I see an artist is as someone who feels compelled to create, regardless.

Btw, neither the question about what is or isn't an artist, nor the one whether someone can be considered 'professional', has much bearing on the question I asked in #1. They're sort of interesting diversions in their own right. As to the issue of professionalism and the implications for the degree of editing, that was already addressed in one of the first posts on page 1. I don't think there's much more to be said about it, and I clarified back then that I was addressing the situation in which an external force does not impose a limitation on one's process.

Yes as usually the conversation diverged significantly. I very much agree to your definition of the artist btw.
Back to the editing, I want to state something that I hope might not sound provocative:

"If a photo is very good I think it will stand out no matter the editing (unless it is obviously too dark, overexposed or sth)"
Of course it can be improved (and should be improved imo) with a careful editing (as in your picture).

But honestly I didn't need the editing in the first place to understand that it was a good picture