lexstgo Loc: Houston, TX

When I was growing up (35mm SLR camera were the rave), you would take a picture and "pray" that the shot was great (or better yet said, you would think to yourself, was my settings good enough to capture the image how I wanted to). If you were savvy in the darkroom, you could do some dodging and burning to the picture to make the photo more appreciable but the image remains true to the original. Now, we have digital and photo editors (PS, PSE, GIMP, etc). We can edit our pictures to correct some flaws that was overlooked by the photographer when taking the picture. With the advent of content aware fill and more tools like that, how much is too much? When does the post processing "enhances" the photos to the point that it is different from the original? What are acceptable post processing techniques? When does it become unethical? Mainly I asked because of a shot submitted to a photo contest by a friend of mine. It was beautiful. When the judges came to give her an honorable mention, they said if she would have photoshopped the picture, it would have won first place in the category. My friend doesn't believe in manipulating the picture with the exception of adding or removing saturation.

Another example is the photographer Marc Feldman. Worked with Getty for many years, fired because of a manipulated photo during a Golf Tournament. For more information of this situation, see the interview at this link: http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/marc-feldman-checks-in-about-a.html

I am torn about post processing and photo manipulation. What are your thoughts?

forbescat

When I take a picture, my intent is to have the final product as pleasing to the eye as possible. So, yes, I use software to enhance. I may even remove parts of the picture that are distracting and I certainly use a noise removal program. That's all part of the digital age and I don't think ethics enters into it. Many contests limit the amount of work that can be done on images - sometimes requiring the original along with the finished product.

What is unethical and possibly illegal is to change a picture in an attempt to be dishonest or hurtful and then to publish it knowing that you are changing facts. Most of us will never work for a newspaper or a magazine or for a website. But lots of us post on sites like Facebook. Tremendous damage can be done by a few strokes of the keyboard. That applies to pictures as well as words.

I have seen some wonderful images of animals doing human activities: dogs playing cards, cats fishing with a fishing pole, etc. Now we all know those are manipulated but in the very best way. They usually are very humorous and show great creativity and skill.

Paw Paw Bill Loc: d

If the object is to only show skill in composition and shooting the photo then don't edit.

If, however, your intent is to produce an excellant photograph, thus showing skill in composition, shooting, AND editing, then edit away. The final product will be better.

You may pride yourself in waiting two days for the light to be right for a specific shot. But, if that light never gets to the point you desire, your only resort is to shoot it and then LightRoom it.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Unethical when it comes to photojournism or a documentary image, other than that it doesn't make any difference.

My back ground includes over 60 years with traditional forms of photography , which includes learning how to use every "trick"in the book to manipulate the print.

Manipulation of film , negatives and prints have been around since the invention of the camera. You can't believe what we did with Polariods let alone before printing and after.

WHen I first began to use digital I was one of those who thought, never would i do pp, but then one day it dawned on me , what is the difference between darkroom manipulation or software manipulation.

There are somethings i won't do in pp; i.e. skinny someone down, place someone in a different location with others when they weren't there, (that kind of thing). Remove a power line, in a heart beat.

With that said, i try to make art not record events for history, big difference and intent.

For myself, I also want to get it right in camera so sitting at the computer is one of creativity and fun , not correcting a mistake that should have been seen before firing the shutter.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

We just went over all this with almost 250 responses on "do real photographers edit?" I recomend you read that post. It was from friday a week ago.
Rach

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

Sorry Rachel, this topic gets beat to death on every photographic forum. I watched a live online talk show put on by top photographers and the bottom line was they agreed that those who complain the most about post processing don't have a clue how to use editing software. If properly used you can't tell it was "Photoshopped".

As far as the "keeping it natural" group I ask you this. If you're out taking a beautiful scenic landscape would you pick up a beer can in front of the scene? If you answer "yes" you'll altered reality. You've edited the shot.

BBNC

I was always taught to do whatever it takes to get the desired shot "in camera." I feel this still holds true today, and this month's Histogram discussion shows how to use a tool which was not available to film photographers.

But, as a professional photographer friend, who has gone completely away from film says, "one reason I went to digital was that I can cheat!" He still advocates getting the shot in camera, but realizes that today's photo editing software is very useful for correcting small hiccups, and having fun with images too.

Nothing wrong with editing, provided one does not try to pass off the highly edited product as an original image. I have found that even relatively small lighting and contrast adjustments can have a negative effect on the image, so I use these tools carefully. Oh, be sure to edit only copies, saving originals in a backup file.

Bruce

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

The ONLY time the original shot is demanded is in photo journalism. Do you realize the immortal Ansel Adams carried glass photo plates with previously photographed skies to sandwich with a new shot with a cloudless sky? Get real, get Photoshop and learn to use it.

BBNC

Bob, I agree, but my point was not to let Photoshop
become a crutch for mediocre or poor camera setup and handling. The photographs Ansel Adams took, with or without help from additional plates or his masterful darkroom techniques, were still as technically correct as his equipment allowed. We should strive for that.

forbescat

Well, I guess all of us who missed the previous discussion of this topic have been put in our place. In the future, if you aren't interested in what may be a repeat for you, just skip it. You don't have to comment on every thread. Jeez...

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

I agree, the better the original the less work is needed in post processing. Fundamentals should always come first. It takes just as much talent to properly use editing software as it does to shoot a good photo in the camera.

lexstgo Loc: Houston, TX

Bob, I understand what you are saying, but the example you present is a little too "extreme". If you are taking a scenic landscape, there shouldn't be any beer can. That is litter and is not part of nature. So in reality what you do is picking up litter to prevent the area become a dumping ground with trash. Now, if you say that there are tree limbs and you remove them then you would be right. Beer can = trash = not natural = does not belong to the "nature" landscape scene (unless you are taking pictures of a landfill/dump/trash collection location).

Now for me (I do know how to use photoshop), it's the ethical dilemma as I have seen photographers "punished" for doing so and for not doing so.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

Quote: "I do know how to use photoshop" What a surprise! On a recent online discussion By Scott Kelby's "The Grid". He made that very same point, that those that complain about post processing the most "do know how to use photoshop". Don't kid yourself, you're manipulating the end photo with every choice you make, lens, aperture, polarizing filter, color balance & ISO just to name a few. Get off the milk crate until you know more about what you're talking about.

Landschaft Mahler Loc: Nebraska

Are you after art or documentation? Art means you do whatever is needed, to get the image you want, to tell the story or feeling you are attempting to present. Documentation is showing what is, exactly the way it is. Everything else is philosophy and open to individual interpretation and as such debatable into infinity.

jw32003 Loc: Oklahoma

I somewhat disagree with not adding a person to a photo. If you are taking a group shop of a ymca soccer team (or other team group) and one is missing, I see no reason not to take that child's image and add it to the group. You should consider this during the initial pose.
I'm not not talking about contests here or attempting to be devious. Just think it's nice to be able to have every team member in the group shot.