I've been using the 365 Project for about two weeks now and I've noticed a lot of really amazing photographs...and a lot of photo manipulations.
Strictly speaking, editing a photo involves minimalistic changes that still leave a composition that closely resembles the scene as we see it with our eyes.
Photojournalists are very limited in how much editing they can do to a photograph: minor white balance correcting, minor exposure correction, and cropping. That's it. Removing objects from a photography is strictly forbidden because then you are changing the content of the image, or in other words you are subjectively editorializing the photo. Changing the hue/saturation, over-sharpening, removing unwanted objects, changing eye color, all are out of bounds.
So, do you edit photos, or manipulate photos? What is your stand on editing photos vs. photo manipulations? Do you feel there is a difference? And, most importantly, when does a photograph stop being a photograph and become something different?
I tend to edit over manipulate . . . but I do manipulate a lot on occasion depending on the end result I want . . . There's a difference, but, in the end, it's all about the art and achieving the end result . . . I think if it starts out a photo then its still a photo, just not sooc! I shoot for me so I'm not bound by any restrictions with regard to "subjectively editorializing the photo!" I suppose the professionals here have to abide by stricter standards on occasion . . .
I'm a newbie and did a mini course in college a couple of years ago. I was told back then that I should get my image right first time and minimal editing should be used. I used to stress myself over this and thought all my images were rotten so started editing more and more.
Since coming on here though I have learned a lot of tricks which a book hasn't managed to make it into my tiny little brain and I'm gradually getting away from the editing. Ok I'm still doing it and did edit heavily today but I feel the image I had would have been really boring without it. My main aim is to edit exposure (which I've noticed I no longer am needing to do these days), sharpening which I'm just learning about - I always feel my images are blurry but I think I'm getting there with them. And now and again removing an object which I've only done on one photo I have used on here which is my black and white beach photo, there was a man on a bike in it which I deleted. I try and keep it to a minimum.
I used to take really dark pictures but lately using my histogram more my images are a lot brighter and I'm learning more about my iso and f numbers so that's helping.
I'm hoping to edit less and less as I do feel what you see should be what you get. To take a photo it must have been beautiful in the first place. There will be times though I'm sure it will always be needed.
I think it just depends what you're shooting and why....some people like photos because they're "real," and some people like photos that look surreal. It's all in the subjective nature of the viewer.
A lot of things I shoot, I already know what I am going to do to it in post-process because of the way it looks on my little 2 x 3 screen. Sometimes I add things that make the photos more artistic or give them a different mood, and sometimes I just lighten the exposure and up the contrast a bit.
I would never expect to see severe edits in a newspaper story - but look at magazine ads...it all just depends what the end goal is.
@clarissajohal It's not a moot point at all, and has nothing to do with this project. This was a general question is the wide world of photography. Fashion photography is loaded with hours upon hours of editing a single image, which is why I barely, just barely, consider those photographs at all anymore.
I do a bit of both. Some images get little more than a crop, white balance, and some sharpening, while others may include some extensive color work and maybe some effects. I don't think it really matters for the casual photographer doing it for themselves, but like you mention with journalists and the like where the goal is to capture a scene as it is and as it happens, then obviously a lot of stuff is out of bounds.
@jasonbarnette See I have always consider photojournalists BS... cropping and framing the photo have huge effects on the 'topic' of the photo... just because you remove something from the frame with a crop vs PS doesn't make it any more 'true'
@kirsty1975 I think you nailed it perfectly! I would work for hours on photos I took when I first got started, but then learned how to do it right the first time. Your example of the man on the bike on the beach...why not simply wait for him to move on along?
I think editing for exposure and sharpening is perfectly fine. If my photos are to be used in a newspaper or magazine I always perform just a smidge of sharpening since it will be viewed up close and personal. But otherwise, I try my best to get it right in the camera with the proper settings.
I've been wondering about this myself. I don't have or know how to use Photoshop, but I do use Picnik and like some of the effects it offers. I try not to use too much but my favorite is the Vignette effect (putting a colored halo around the photo). I've now realized that when I don't use it, I feel like the photo is lacking something. I feel like I've become somewhat addicted to it and have just resolved to break the habit =)
@jasonbarnette (and anyone else)... what are your thoughts on this. I think some of the effects make a photo more artistic but is that what I should or should not be trying to accomplish?
Arguably, digital photos are just 1's and 0's, whether you've modified them or not. I believe that photography is art and it is whatever we make of it, whether with a camera & lens, or a stylus & tablet. Your point on photojournalism is correct, though.
That said, I will normally make note of substantial changes to my photos when I post them, whether it's an HDR, or some color change or whatnot.
Semi-related, what about 'forced perspective' photography?
This picture was only cropped and rotated, but the perspective of the shot can be 'misleading'
wow. that got me thinking.
well, firstly, thanks for bringing this up. i appreciate it. & secondly, i agree that manipulating a photo is verrry out of bounds. but, oh well, not all the time. it really depends on the "motive" of the project: "what purpose is the photo for?".
i work as a tech exec for thomson reuters & i see a lot of photojournalist pictures everyday. our walls are literally bathed with them. i think that if photojournalists should stray from posting & sharing "honest photos" then where is the integrity in there? but if we're talking about photo-hobbyists, i think it's a different story. i think this 2nd type of photographers have more liberty with "recreating" their photos.
@icywarm I don't see photojournalists as BS at all. The photo much be cropped somewhere. Although I agree a person can maliciously crop a photo to make it take on a different tone, what I am asking here is about someone using Photoshop to remove an element.
Take the photo below for example. A photographer snapped the photo you see on the right, but you can see how it appeared on the front cover of a magazine once they were done editing the photo. This is a severe manipulation that changed the entire impact of the photo. BTW, if you are a member of the National Press Photographers Association, this is grounds for removal.
@jasonbarnette The thing with my man on a bike is some photos are spur of the moment shots which you wouldn't be able to get again. In my photo the waves are crashing against a wall with my daughter running away from it. I wasn't actually there at the scene to take a photo but happened to have my camera and was passing by so my aim was to catch the water. Gemma happened to be in the picture then the bike came along. Out of all the pictures I took that day whilst walking along, that was the best and even though I could have kept him in it I felt it more intimate having my daughter there and no-one else. But I really do know what you mean though.
If I was a better photographer and learned more patience I'll get better but also kids are unpredictable too so I feel get the shot when you can and the little changes can be made later. http://365project.org/kirsty1975/365-2/2011-01-16 Here's the image. You can probably tell where the bike was, not great at cloning yet, lol.
@dvarey Well, for starters, I'm not really advocating editing or manipulations. I work as both a photojournalist and a landscape photographer, so I have been known to manipulate photos at times. The other day I posted a photo in which I had removed a lamp post.
It really all depends on your personal preference. There is no right or wrong when it comes to your own photos, so if you like the vignette effect keep going for it!
This is an interesting thread. I have to agree with you that, fashion photos, and models/celebrities are highly over edited to unrealistic versions of themselves. In my opinion, to the detriment of many girl's/women's self-esteem. I've watched some videos on youtube and it is amazing how they manipulate what shows up on a magazine cover. I think I'm a photographer when what comes out of the camera, sooc, makes me happy. Since I have started the project here I've started playing around more with Apeture, and Photoshop, changing curves, burning and dodging, as if I were in a dark room, and doing some other things to my photos just to play around with them. But I'm not putting them in a magazine, and I'm not a photojournalist. Also, seeing the different tutorials on how to manipulate photos made me realize that a lot of what comes straight out of the camera can be pushed to be a little better. Sometimes overly so, but to each his own.
With my own photos, I try to keep the editing to a bare minimum, if any at all. But, I can also appreciate a quality end product of something that someone put in the time and effort to manipulate. Different variations and levels of our "art".
As technology advances, with its ease and access, more manipulation is going to be the way of the future. We may very soon be able to build 3D holographic images from the comforts of our home, with a few digital images shot from our SLRs. I hope I am around for that fun!
And here is another point I had not thought to make: when National Geographic Magazine, USA Today, Nikon, or any of a number of hundreds of professionals host photography contests, one of the conditions is that a photo cannot be "heavily manipulated." Of course, they all have difference definitions of "heavily manipulated", but take this as an example.
Two years ago one of my friends from college entered a photo for a National Geographic photo contest. The contest was for the best travel landscape photo from a foreign country. The photo my friend entered was actually four different photos she took at three different time of day over the period of a week. She spend about two weeks merging the photos together to create a very interesting composite in which an Italian street was lit by sunlight but the sky was full of streaking stars. It's really difficult to describe, but I can't find her photo anywhere to share.
She received a message from National Geographic telling her the photo was too heavily manipulated and did not represent a realistic seen as could be seen by tourists traveling through Italy. Her photo was rejected.
What do you think of editing versus manipulations now?
I think you have to take context with your images, with my own images I tend to correct white balance, recrop and desaturate, thats my normal post processing. Very rare these days that I get a photo sooc. But thats the beauty/curse of digital photography.
@jasonbarnette I think in this case they were spot on, if a comp states minimal editing then should abide by the rules no matter how good it looks, but in another comp it may do well because it is pleasing to look at.
I run all my photos through levels and sharpening, and every once in awhile put them all black and white. Usually some minor cropping. And then of course resize for web viewing. About once every 6 months I'll have a photo where I'll remove something like a stray electrical line that made it's way in. That's about all... I hate HDR and heavy heavy editing, selective coloring, etc (which is why I'd make a crappy full time wedding photog, LOL... I don't do the gimmicks). Mind you, I come from a photojournalist background, so it's only natural I am "trained" in a way to avoid massive editing.
Now, when I shoot models... haha. I can take a pimply girl and make her skin flawless. But they're paying for that kind of treatment, no one wants to pay for studio shoots and get back photos of them looking bleh. Worse is removing entire crappy tattoos. OMG... so annoying. I had a shoot with one girl who had a tattoo on her lower stomach area, and the top of it "stuck" out of the top of her jeans, making it kind of look like, ahem... pubic hair... I had to get rid of just for my own sake of looking at the photo, definitely didn't look tasteful. The car magazine I worked for often asked to have all the models' tattoos photoshopped out actually. So definitely don't believe what you see when it comes to models... NO ONE HAS SKIN LIKE PLASTIC! haha
I dont think theres anything wrong with editing or manipulation. Thats the joy of digital! Personally I'll edit some - sharpening etc and others I'll heavily manipulate. It depends on the effect I'm after and the emotional response I feel, or am trying to provoke. I'm (very) new here..and I've seen some amaing shots...both manipulated and sooc. Each to their own I say! Generally, if I have manipulated heavily then I will state the process used..if I can remember how I got to the final image!. (...photojournalism is a different kettle of fish of course...)
Isn't that the point; a photojournalist has a responsibility to be as true to what he or she saw, whereas a photographer is creating art, so those rules are thrown out of the window?
Some photographers (I'm not talking about photojournalists here) seem to have the need to say "Here is my photo! I didn't even edit it!" I don't know why that is. A student would never turn in any essay saying, "Here teacher! I didn't spell check or revise either!."
In other visual arts, artists erase and repaint all the time. Is photography not an art? Why should photographers be expected to "get it right the first time." Why all this sternness? It certainly helps to get exposure and some other settings right, but often a great photo can be made not having done those things perfectly.
Photojournalism should use minimal editing in order to capture the raw edge and ensure an image is displaying, at best, the absolute truth of a current event.
HOWEVER, PHOTOGRAPHY is ART-I love that you can dazzle, saturate, and make your images stand out to the naked eye-that you can lead an audience beyond what is seen and allow a spark of spontaneous FUN into their minds-the ability to lead someone's imagination, rather than display the "correct" exposure, is a MUCH more awesome way to create art-and I believe that while of course some abuse such editing tools in photojournalism... to the rest of us that appreciate art, editing is a means to ENHANCING the EXPERIENCE of THE VIEWER =)
I used to feel really weird about editing my photos, like I was somehow cheating if I did so much as crop an image, but I'm definitely moving more in to the "photography as art" camp. I feel like what I'm doing for 365 is meant to be in the art realm. It's definitely a different mindset than photojournalism, where I do believe editing should be minimal. In the case of my own photos, I've only just started messing with some of what you can do with editing. Usually I just crop and change the brightness/contrast, but I've recently started playing with some of the more advanced tools.
@moonpig I understand where you're getting at and as I say I'm new and only learning but I remember being told that I should get it right first time. I may be one who would mention on here about my photos coming straight out of the camera but it's taken me ages to manage that in the first place. PLUS before DSLRs you did have to get it right first time. The only editing you could do was brightness, sharpness and cropping in post processing with SLRs so it all came down to how good you were and the types of lenses you used. A lot of this I'm still clueless with but I aim to get myself to the point where I can say I'm good at this and don't need to edit. Where I can take a picture with my colours spot on and no cropping required. I also have an SLR and want to get good enough that I can pick that up and not worry about taking loads of shots to get a good one, after all film is expensive so practicing with my DSLR first.
Digital photography has opened up a whole new world. There is so much you can do with it and more people can practice and even with a p&s you can now take great photos. I love doing fancy edits too, If I feel my photo is absolutely rubbish I know I can get away with doing something completely whaky and looks like it's on purpose. I haven'y mastered the concept of all the editing and manipulation as yet but I would love to learn more on it. I want to be able to do both sooc and edits and when I feel I get it right I'm proud and want to show it off. My photos are mixed with both.
It's all a complete mix and everyone is different but like Jason was saying I don't agree on manipulation to change how an image should be for a magazine like Obama's photo was. It should be kept as an art form and that only.
I find the question of when a photograph stops being a photograph especially interesting. I work on my school's literary magazine staff, and we have published several "photos" in the past that were quite severely edited. It's difficult to know where to draw the line between photography and... graphic art? I guess it's up to the artist as to what they want to call it.
I guess its up to the individual and what they see in art, just like a painting, sometimes the painting suits a certain person, and sometimes it doesn't.
@kirsty1975@moonpig Okay, consider this. What is the definition of photography? I did a Google search and this is what I found.
- the act of taking and printing photographs
- the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces
- Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.
- record on photographic film or digital sensor
- a representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material
All these definitions of photography refer to the camera as the main tool. By posing this question I wanted to see if more people considered the camera their primary tool or Photoshop their primary tool. From the responses, I believe the trend is leaning more toward Photoshop.
People seem to be treating the camera more as the "rough draft" or the beginning canvas, with Photoshop and other image editing programs as the final stroke of brilliance. This, by any definition, is not photography. Photography is what you can create with a camera, not with Photoshop.
Photoshop was intended to be a way to correct minor flaws when you capture a photo in the camera. But now I see people taking a rough, raw photo and spending hours editing a single image until the final result looks nothing like the original photo.
A photo is art even if it is SOOC. And, yes, it is still art even if someone spends hours upon hours editing in Photoshop. But is still a photograph, or is it digital art, graphic art, a drawing, rendering, painting, Etch-A-Sketch?
This thread has been illuminating and educating.
I am a novice photographer at best, I have a point and shoot camera because it suits my needs. However until I can purchase a DSLR with lens and filters, processing and manipulating my pictures is sometimes the only way to get the same effects as a filter.
As I continue to move forward with this project, I hope to learn more about capturing THE shot I'm attempting to get by trial and error. Thus less need for my to alter my pics.
From reading this, I'm reminded to balance the number SOOC and processed I post here. In all fairness, seeing some of the photo's here have made me go find the trial software and give them a go! Fun playing!
@kirsty1975@jasonbarnette I think it's an excellent goal to take pictures as correctly as you can. Ultimately though, I think the photographer's point of pride should be the aesthetic quality of their image, not what they did or didn't do to it to get there. If a pure unadulterated process produces a superior image, then that should be evident in the image. There should be not need to say, "see, no hands." If it makes a person feel better that they did it without any editing, I guess that's okay. I won't argue with feeling better!
I do edits also but usually very minimal (auto tone and sometimes noise reduction) and most of the time I crop.
Then recently, I wanted to learn advanced editing . Particularly only those that can be achieved by using lens and filters.
I admire most photos that are great SOOC :) And from my experience, it's more gratifying when someone praises your photo when you didn't do any edits to it! (though in my case it rarely comes hahah)
I have always seen photography as the creation of image regardless of if the photograph is manipulated or edited, It is true that many people tinker in photoshop to create the result that they are looking for and yes often the image does not resemble the original but looking back through photo history the same can be said for many photos developed and manipulated in a darkroom, masking, mirroring, overlays , filters dodge and burn and numerous other manipulations and devices did not start with digital photography or photoshop. and many of the image processes in photoshop can be achieved with the right techniques from bog standard film. a photo is still a photo regardless of how it is altered the only difference is the way the photo is used. after all a movie is still a movie regardless of the effects and CGI used so what is really the difference between that and photography :D
I am trying to use just SOCC photos so I force myself to use better composition in my photos and so I can learn. I cropped once because I found it impossible to "crop" out a narrow edge of a building before the photos was taken (long story that I will not get into here). I upped the contrast one notch in the photo you will see tomorrow. Getting back to the topic: I wonder if digital photography is not changing the world of photography. Images are easily altered by the use of photoshop, which does take skill to use. Like Lee said, images can be impacted by the use of filters and reflectors and spot lights. Perhaps we can start tagging or describing our photos as SOCC or photoshopped or whatever. We could also briefly state what we did. I state if I cropped or changed the contrast when I upload the photo. this is a thought provoking question. Thank you Jason for bringing this up.
@daisy It is a standard practice for people to add a caption reading "Photo Manipulation" if they do anything more than the basics in Photoshop. Then, they will list what they did. If all you do is crop, correct exposure and white balance, and render in b&w there is no need.
I would never post a photo SOOC. I always do a little work on the photo and at the very least crop. That's why I prefer fixed lenses over zoom (a whole other discussion for another day) because it forces me to think more about cropping with the camera in my hand.
No offense to the OP, but I just find the debate so damn tedious. Sorry.
Edit: Clarification. I find it tedious because it invariably ends up consisting of one group of photographers telling another group of photographers that their work isn't real photography, and in return, that group telling the first group that they don't know how to edit or have never heard of Ansel Adams.
I'm with @icywarm on this - so often I run into PJ's who tell me that their work is pure and real, and in almost the same breath they tell me how they framed a shot to make it "so dynamic" or "poignant". I'm not saying PJ's are all full of BS - I'm not a PJ hater (I admire so many of them), but I do find the whole "showing things exactly as they are" catchphrase ridiculous. A PJ chooses their framing, their lens, their aperture, and not so long ago their film too, all to give a desired "look". But because they do it in-camera, they seem to regard it as "truth". It isn't truth, it's perspective.
I also find every "kind" of photographer has their own take on what is "editing" and what is "manipulation". Different horses for different courses! It's about your client, or audience (as the case may be). If they demand "as you saw it" images (newspapers), then of course you can't do any more than tweak and crop. If you do, and someone notices, it ruins the credibility of the entire publication! Not because it changes anything relevant (though it might), but because people will perceive it as a "lie" and therefore the whole thing as "lies". But try telling a bride that you couldn't remove that sunspot or other blotch on her skin and see what happens! They expect it, because they want the image of what they remember, and they do not want to remember that they had a breakout on their wedding day. Is it a manip? If it was a PJ shot, well, yes. As a wedding album cover? Not likely. Portrait editing is like makeup and eye-drops - they make people look better than they do when they've just woken up. It doesn't mean it is manipulation.
And you can't tell me successful landscape photogs hardly touch their photos. The ones I know, like Peter Eastway (yes, I've actually sat down with the guy and talked) will spend hours and hours adjusting curves, dodging and burning, adding hand-drawn vignettes, and even adding elements from other images they've taken (or removing elements) to get the final "landscape" print they want. I find it laughable when anyone says the final image isn't photographic - because these guys did the same things with film!
Isn't one of the listed definitions above "- the act of taking and printing photographs" ? I think the whole "printing" process may have been forgotten by some.
Just my two cents.
Edit: I really didn't mean this to come across as harsh as it may have. Whenever I've said "you" I mean it generically - it's not targetted at any individual.
At the end of the day it's everyone's personal taste. When I did the class a couple of years ago I thought it would have been dslrs we'd use but it wasn't so it was really scary going out there, not having a clue how to use an slr. Then being told to frame it, compose it etc properly. It was only a taster course and I'm doing it again in March.
When we went onto DSLR we used photoshop for editing, then told to do minimum editing. The main reason for this was quality loss really and if you edit or manipulate heavily you wouldn't be able to blow it up to a good size etc so this is why I aim to get SOOCs.
Looking at my photos on here though, so far I've only managed 2 and there are certain photos which do look bland and boring if manipulation isn't done so I've done that too. Since the course I have had it in my head that if I need to edit then my photos are rubbish and I've been told numerous times that it's allowed to edit. I get so confused. Is it ok or not? lol.
This discussion has opened up a new perspective for me. Ok I still aim to be able to get my photos to SOOC level but I know it isn't always possible and if you know that a little bit of editing can make a subject more beautiful then go for it.
I just want to be good at photography and felt rubbish at it but feel that since doing this I'm getting better. Still got a lot to learn though. I just hope my images whether SOOC or manipulated make others happy as they do me. I'm learning to be myself with this and it's so hard when there are so many different takes on it. I do label my photos as sooc though when it's true as I'm proud I managed to do so.
well, I'm not a professional photo editor, but I do portraits, and I'd love to do portrait retouching by using Portrait+ to beautify their faces and bodies, but the most important thing I keep in mind is to be natural and not over edit.If you're using photoshop, there's also a plug-in to do portrait photoshop easier.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Since coming on here though I have learned a lot of tricks which a book hasn't managed to make it into my tiny little brain and I'm gradually getting away from the editing. Ok I'm still doing it and did edit heavily today but I feel the image I had would have been really boring without it. My main aim is to edit exposure (which I've noticed I no longer am needing to do these days), sharpening which I'm just learning about - I always feel my images are blurry but I think I'm getting there with them. And now and again removing an object which I've only done on one photo I have used on here which is my black and white beach photo, there was a man on a bike in it which I deleted. I try and keep it to a minimum.
I used to take really dark pictures but lately using my histogram more my images are a lot brighter and I'm learning more about my iso and f numbers so that's helping.
I'm hoping to edit less and less as I do feel what you see should be what you get. To take a photo it must have been beautiful in the first place. There will be times though I'm sure it will always be needed.
A lot of things I shoot, I already know what I am going to do to it in post-process because of the way it looks on my little 2 x 3 screen. Sometimes I add things that make the photos more artistic or give them a different mood, and sometimes I just lighten the exposure and up the contrast a bit.
I would never expect to see severe edits in a newspaper story - but look at magazine ads...it all just depends what the end goal is.
I think editing for exposure and sharpening is perfectly fine. If my photos are to be used in a newspaper or magazine I always perform just a smidge of sharpening since it will be viewed up close and personal. But otherwise, I try my best to get it right in the camera with the proper settings.
@jasonbarnette (and anyone else)... what are your thoughts on this. I think some of the effects make a photo more artistic but is that what I should or should not be trying to accomplish?
That said, I will normally make note of substantial changes to my photos when I post them, whether it's an HDR, or some color change or whatnot.
Semi-related, what about 'forced perspective' photography?
This picture was only cropped and rotated, but the perspective of the shot can be 'misleading'
well, firstly, thanks for bringing this up. i appreciate it. & secondly, i agree that manipulating a photo is verrry out of bounds. but, oh well, not all the time. it really depends on the "motive" of the project: "what purpose is the photo for?".
i work as a tech exec for thomson reuters & i see a lot of photojournalist pictures everyday. our walls are literally bathed with them. i think that if photojournalists should stray from posting & sharing "honest photos" then where is the integrity in there? but if we're talking about photo-hobbyists, i think it's a different story. i think this 2nd type of photographers have more liberty with "recreating" their photos.
Take the photo below for example. A photographer snapped the photo you see on the right, but you can see how it appeared on the front cover of a magazine once they were done editing the photo. This is a severe manipulation that changed the entire impact of the photo. BTW, if you are a member of the National Press Photographers Association, this is grounds for removal.
If I was a better photographer and learned more patience I'll get better but also kids are unpredictable too so I feel get the shot when you can and the little changes can be made later.
http://365project.org/kirsty1975/365-2/2011-01-16 Here's the image. You can probably tell where the bike was, not great at cloning yet, lol.
It really all depends on your personal preference. There is no right or wrong when it comes to your own photos, so if you like the vignette effect keep going for it!
As technology advances, with its ease and access, more manipulation is going to be the way of the future. We may very soon be able to build 3D holographic images from the comforts of our home, with a few digital images shot from our SLRs. I hope I am around for that fun!
Two years ago one of my friends from college entered a photo for a National Geographic photo contest. The contest was for the best travel landscape photo from a foreign country. The photo my friend entered was actually four different photos she took at three different time of day over the period of a week. She spend about two weeks merging the photos together to create a very interesting composite in which an Italian street was lit by sunlight but the sky was full of streaking stars. It's really difficult to describe, but I can't find her photo anywhere to share.
She received a message from National Geographic telling her the photo was too heavily manipulated and did not represent a realistic seen as could be seen by tourists traveling through Italy. Her photo was rejected.
What do you think of editing versus manipulations now?
@jasonbarnette I think in this case they were spot on, if a comp states minimal editing then should abide by the rules no matter how good it looks, but in another comp it may do well because it is pleasing to look at.
Now, when I shoot models... haha. I can take a pimply girl and make her skin flawless. But they're paying for that kind of treatment, no one wants to pay for studio shoots and get back photos of them looking bleh. Worse is removing entire crappy tattoos. OMG... so annoying. I had a shoot with one girl who had a tattoo on her lower stomach area, and the top of it "stuck" out of the top of her jeans, making it kind of look like, ahem... pubic hair... I had to get rid of just for my own sake of looking at the photo, definitely didn't look tasteful. The car magazine I worked for often asked to have all the models' tattoos photoshopped out actually. So definitely don't believe what you see when it comes to models... NO ONE HAS SKIN LIKE PLASTIC! haha
Some photographers (I'm not talking about photojournalists here) seem to have the need to say "Here is my photo! I didn't even edit it!" I don't know why that is. A student would never turn in any essay saying, "Here teacher! I didn't spell check or revise either!."
In other visual arts, artists erase and repaint all the time. Is photography not an art? Why should photographers be expected to "get it right the first time." Why all this sternness? It certainly helps to get exposure and some other settings right, but often a great photo can be made not having done those things perfectly.
HOWEVER, PHOTOGRAPHY is ART-I love that you can dazzle, saturate, and make your images stand out to the naked eye-that you can lead an audience beyond what is seen and allow a spark of spontaneous FUN into their minds-the ability to lead someone's imagination, rather than display the "correct" exposure, is a MUCH more awesome way to create art-and I believe that while of course some abuse such editing tools in photojournalism... to the rest of us that appreciate art, editing is a means to ENHANCING the EXPERIENCE of THE VIEWER =)
This is just what I think ;)
Digital photography has opened up a whole new world. There is so much you can do with it and more people can practice and even with a p&s you can now take great photos. I love doing fancy edits too, If I feel my photo is absolutely rubbish I know I can get away with doing something completely whaky and looks like it's on purpose. I haven'y mastered the concept of all the editing and manipulation as yet but I would love to learn more on it. I want to be able to do both sooc and edits and when I feel I get it right I'm proud and want to show it off. My photos are mixed with both.
It's all a complete mix and everyone is different but like Jason was saying I don't agree on manipulation to change how an image should be for a magazine like Obama's photo was. It should be kept as an art form and that only.
- the act of taking and printing photographs
- the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces
- Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.
- record on photographic film or digital sensor
- a representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material
All these definitions of photography refer to the camera as the main tool. By posing this question I wanted to see if more people considered the camera their primary tool or Photoshop their primary tool. From the responses, I believe the trend is leaning more toward Photoshop.
People seem to be treating the camera more as the "rough draft" or the beginning canvas, with Photoshop and other image editing programs as the final stroke of brilliance. This, by any definition, is not photography. Photography is what you can create with a camera, not with Photoshop.
Photoshop was intended to be a way to correct minor flaws when you capture a photo in the camera. But now I see people taking a rough, raw photo and spending hours editing a single image until the final result looks nothing like the original photo.
A photo is art even if it is SOOC. And, yes, it is still art even if someone spends hours upon hours editing in Photoshop. But is still a photograph, or is it digital art, graphic art, a drawing, rendering, painting, Etch-A-Sketch?
I am a novice photographer at best, I have a point and shoot camera because it suits my needs. However until I can purchase a DSLR with lens and filters, processing and manipulating my pictures is sometimes the only way to get the same effects as a filter.
As I continue to move forward with this project, I hope to learn more about capturing THE shot I'm attempting to get by trial and error. Thus less need for my to alter my pics.
From reading this, I'm reminded to balance the number SOOC and processed I post here. In all fairness, seeing some of the photo's here have made me go find the trial software and give them a go! Fun playing!
I do edits also but usually very minimal (auto tone and sometimes noise reduction) and most of the time I crop.
Then recently, I wanted to learn advanced editing . Particularly only those that can be achieved by using lens and filters.
I admire most photos that are great SOOC :) And from my experience, it's more gratifying when someone praises your photo when you didn't do any edits to it! (though in my case it rarely comes hahah)
I would never post a photo SOOC. I always do a little work on the photo and at the very least crop. That's why I prefer fixed lenses over zoom (a whole other discussion for another day) because it forces me to think more about cropping with the camera in my hand.
No offense to the OP, but I just find the debate so damn tedious. Sorry.
Edit: Clarification. I find it tedious because it invariably ends up consisting of one group of photographers telling another group of photographers that their work isn't real photography, and in return, that group telling the first group that they don't know how to edit or have never heard of Ansel Adams.
I'm with @icywarm on this - so often I run into PJ's who tell me that their work is pure and real, and in almost the same breath they tell me how they framed a shot to make it "so dynamic" or "poignant". I'm not saying PJ's are all full of BS - I'm not a PJ hater (I admire so many of them), but I do find the whole "showing things exactly as they are" catchphrase ridiculous. A PJ chooses their framing, their lens, their aperture, and not so long ago their film too, all to give a desired "look". But because they do it in-camera, they seem to regard it as "truth". It isn't truth, it's perspective.
I also find every "kind" of photographer has their own take on what is "editing" and what is "manipulation". Different horses for different courses! It's about your client, or audience (as the case may be). If they demand "as you saw it" images (newspapers), then of course you can't do any more than tweak and crop. If you do, and someone notices, it ruins the credibility of the entire publication! Not because it changes anything relevant (though it might), but because people will perceive it as a "lie" and therefore the whole thing as "lies". But try telling a bride that you couldn't remove that sunspot or other blotch on her skin and see what happens! They expect it, because they want the image of what they remember, and they do not want to remember that they had a breakout on their wedding day. Is it a manip? If it was a PJ shot, well, yes. As a wedding album cover? Not likely. Portrait editing is like makeup and eye-drops - they make people look better than they do when they've just woken up. It doesn't mean it is manipulation.
And you can't tell me successful landscape photogs hardly touch their photos. The ones I know, like Peter Eastway (yes, I've actually sat down with the guy and talked) will spend hours and hours adjusting curves, dodging and burning, adding hand-drawn vignettes, and even adding elements from other images they've taken (or removing elements) to get the final "landscape" print they want. I find it laughable when anyone says the final image isn't photographic - because these guys did the same things with film!
Isn't one of the listed definitions above "- the act of taking and printing photographs" ? I think the whole "printing" process may have been forgotten by some.
Just my two cents.
Edit: I really didn't mean this to come across as harsh as it may have. Whenever I've said "you" I mean it generically - it's not targetted at any individual.
When we went onto DSLR we used photoshop for editing, then told to do minimum editing. The main reason for this was quality loss really and if you edit or manipulate heavily you wouldn't be able to blow it up to a good size etc so this is why I aim to get SOOCs.
Looking at my photos on here though, so far I've only managed 2 and there are certain photos which do look bland and boring if manipulation isn't done so I've done that too. Since the course I have had it in my head that if I need to edit then my photos are rubbish and I've been told numerous times that it's allowed to edit. I get so confused. Is it ok or not? lol.
This discussion has opened up a new perspective for me. Ok I still aim to be able to get my photos to SOOC level but I know it isn't always possible and if you know that a little bit of editing can make a subject more beautiful then go for it.
I just want to be good at photography and felt rubbish at it but feel that since doing this I'm getting better. Still got a lot to learn though. I just hope my images whether SOOC or manipulated make others happy as they do me. I'm learning to be myself with this and it's so hard when there are so many different takes on it. I do label my photos as sooc though when it's true as I'm proud I managed to do so.