A few weeks ago when I was editing all of the Fossil Rim photos my husband and I took on our trip there, I complained on Twitter that I was in photo editing hell. I got a response from a non-photographer friend asking me, “Why do you even need to edit the photos at all?”
This was like a punch in the gut. I felt instantly tense toward her even though she’s the sweetest person and I know she meant no harm by the comment. Why DO I need to edit my photos? A true photographer doesn’t need programs like Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. They present their art straight out of the camera (SOOC), using only tools present when the shutter clicks to capture their images.
A lot of people, even photographers themselves, believe this. They wage wars, calling out other photographers for lacking the talent to expose their shot just so inside the camera. They call themselves photographers and anyone who touches an editing program a “digital artist”.
“Straight Out of the Camera” is a Myth
I have the goal of getting my image correctly exposed inside the camera and I think any aspiring photographer would do well to have the same goal.
That being said, there is no such thing as an image coming off the camera without processing.
Film is developed and then enlarged onto photographic paper in a process much more difficult than taking the photo itself. Depending on how long you leave the film in the chemicals and how long you expose the film to photographic paper, you can get a wide variety of results.
If you send your film or digital files off to be printed, chances are they are taking some liberties to hand you back a “better” image. If that bothers you, make sure you do the color correction and sharpening yourself and find a printer with an “as-is” option for printing.
Digital photography makes things simpler, but even if you take a JPEG straight from your memory card and load it up on Flickr, some processing has already been done to it by the camera itself. The camera’s firmware decides how to apply the white balance, how to sharpen, where to reduce noise and it throws away a bunch of pixels it thinks isn’t needed to make the photograph look good.
A RAW photograph comes off the memory card with all that information still intact, but it cannot even be viewed until the data is processed by a program. The program loads the RAW file using defaults that the programmers decide usually produce a “straight out of the camera” result. It definitely isn’t straight out of the camera though. As with the JPEG pulled off the memory card, it’s just a close approximation of the mythical SOOC.
The point is that some small amount of processing is done on every single image we see every day. These photos did not come straight out of the camera this way. They were manipulated through chemicals, hardware and software until they look like the photograph before us.
Not a True Photographer?
Ansel Adams is undeniably one of, if not the very greatest photographer since the time of the camera’s invention. He lived and breathed photography. He pulled his kids over on the way home from vacation because he saw the perfect shot and made them help him set up the tripod. He probably carried with him every filter in existence at the time.
There is just no doubt this man knew photography. He knew his equipment and he understood the art and feeling a single photograph can represent.
He also spent the majority of his time in the darkroom experimenting on and perfecting his images. Changing the exposure, dodging and burning certain areas. He drew out intricate maps detailing the work he would perform on the image in the darkroom.
So who, exactly, isn’t a photographer if they edit their shots?
If we have to rule out Ansel Adams for spending so much time working on his photographs in editing, is there even such a thing as photography? Is it an art limited to people who never develop their film or load their photo files onto the computer?
What Do YOU Think?
I’d love to hear your thoughts about all this! Please feel free to comment with your opinion! Debates are always welcome on my site, just be grown up about it, okay?
- What are your thoughts on “purist” views of photography?
- Is it doing the photographic community any good to get so caught up on “SOOC”?
- Is Photoshop (or editing) cheating or a crutch for the unskilled photographer?
More Great Discussions
I am so tickled by the conversation in response to this article! If you want to take in some more viewpoints and great discussion regarding this issue, check out these links!
- The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image on B&H Insites. The Reddit comments on this article are also great!
- Is Photoshop Cheating? on the diviantART forums.
- Should true photographers use photoshop? on Yahoo Answers.
- Do you edit ALL your pictures? on Yahoo Answers.
- Is Photoshop Cheating? by Darcy on My 3 Boybarians
- What do you think about photographers that don’t edit their images? on Purestorm forums (a site for models and model photography)
- Is photo editing cheating? by Kirsty of Imperfect Pages.
If you find any more links around the net with good discussion on this topic, I’d love to know and link to it!
Twitter: @kg_photography
I know what you mean. This is such a hot topic and I love it. Every photographer is different and this is just one of our differences. If we did everything the same way, why would this be such a crazy, wonderful hobby?
I’m a light editor. I have one image that is straight out of the camera (sort of) – http://www.kimberlygauthier.com/flowers/how-to-improve-your-photography-practice-makes-perfect/5133/
All my images are sharpened upon saving and compressed into a JPEG. That’s not really SOOC.
I have a editing system that I use that isn’t really complicated. But if something is distracting in the background, I’ll edit it out. If the white balance or light isn’t right, I’ll edit. You helped me save one photo by showing me the wonders of Recover. Thank you!
The only editing that bugs me is when someone edits people to the point where they’re unrecognizable. There was a discussion a few weeks back on my FB stream about this – a friend discovered software that helps you perfect someone’s image – that’s out of my comfort zone.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
I definitely think there’s something to be said for doing just light editing on a photograph. I want to perfect photography, not photo editing!
Is color adjustment really editing a photo? With RAW files I can’t really say it is, not at all. What about exposure adjustments? Again, RAW files are capable of a higher dynamic range and let you adjust the exposure by a full stop without losing any information.
Are these really EDITS in the way the general public perceives “photo editing”? I don’t think so. I think they perceive photo editing to be what you mentioned: completely changing the photograph from reality. This is actually image manipulation (which people exchange for “photo editing” all the time and it bugs me.)
However, if you watched the Ansel Adams video in this article, there’s one point where the son is explaining one of his most famous photographs and it turns out that in addition to adjusting the exposure quite a bit, he also removed a lot of the clouds from the scene. Decades later, are we really in any position to discard his work as photography because the extents he went through in editing?
Twitter: @kg_photography
I think that distinction should be made by everyone. Photo Manipulation isn’t Photo Editing.
Plus what about having fun? Isn’t that what we’re hear to do? And I want to produce the best picture I possibly can – I shouldn’t feel obligated to stand behind work that I’m not proud of.
This topic first came up for me with HDR. It’s just another style and it has it’s place. It may not be for everyone, but that doens’t invalidate it as an art form.
Ansel Adams amazes me. We have several prints in our home and I just sit and stare and wonder how he did with film, without a computer or a print lab.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Yes, I didn’t even touch on what I consider to be “artistic” editing such as applying textures, effects or greatly changing the exposure.
I think for those, it’s obvious when you look at them that they’re creatively edited so the distinction isn’t needed as much.
I just see so many people and photographers chiming that photo editing is cheating, but it seems absolutely absurd considering that every single photograph presented anywhere in the world is edited.
I think it’s interesting to see shots SOOC and edited, but I’m certainly not a “purist”. In the end, you’re still doing the work, whether it’s adjusting camera settings and taking the photo or editing in photoshop.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Thanks for your comment, Laura!
SOOCs are sometimes good for learning if you’re trying to get a specific message across about aperture, shutter speed or ISO. They’re also valuable next to extremely edited images to teach creative editing or restoration.
To write this entry I went and looked at about 15 YouTube videos of film developing and processing because I’ve never done it before. I can’t believe ANYONE who’s ever gone through that process would have the nerve to say that lightly editing a photo in Photoshop makes a mockery out of photographers.
In the end, it’s all art and trying to draw a distinction between a “true photograph” and “artwork” (outside of a journalistic setting) just seems pointless.
Twitter: @kg_photography
You are so right, Laura. The work that goes into taking the shot is still OUR work; coming from someone who took a year to start shooting in manual.
Twitter: @caseyyu
Ack, I can’t imagine not editing the pictures. I love shooting in black and white, and it’s that conversion process in PS that makes it pizzazz for me.
I think people should complain less about shooting and just shoot.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Love your comment Casey!
People definitely need to complain less and shoot more!
Twitter: @AshleyRSisk
i think what you’re describing is the difference between processing and editing. Either way, I enjoy them both and although I think we all strive for better SOOC shots, let’s be honest, they still have to be processed – especially if we’re shooting RAW (and I am). I know very few professional photographers that don’t do something in post-processing to make their photos pop.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
I agree, there’s really two terms: “editing” and “processing”. Unfortunately, photo editing software rarely refers to the “processing” of a photo – to it everything is an edit. This line of thinking is seeping out to the general public the less photos are processed in a literal darkroom.
Is it just processing if you’re correcting color and exposure or cropping? Does it turn into editing when you start dodging and burning specific points in the photo even though you can do that in a real darkroom?
Is a photo with mild adjustments “processed” while a photo that was taken with extremely bad settings then restored in Photoshop one that was “edited”? If so, how many stops can you change a photo before it goes from processing to editing? (Rhetorical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them.
I see photography snobs who view *all* processing and editing as a bad thing. I see them a lot on Flickr and stuffier photography sites. Some of them are quite serious about photography and make money off it. I think perhaps they never shot on film and developed their own photos though… I just don’t get what the snobbery is all about.
Twitter: @caseyyu
I think also the people who are all like “no Photoshopping!” and throwing images up and out from the camera are not considering that when you do this, you ARE processing and editing – or rather, letting your camera do it for you. Shooting in RAW lets you make the call.
Also I always strive to get it right in camera, so I can do less on the PS end. But thats’ because I’m lazy, not because I’m an arteest like that.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
I heart you Casey. Someone needs to make buttons out of the things you say.
I have mixed feelings about “editing” and processing” and those feelings are constantly changing. I used to try and limit my digital editing to mimic what could reasonably be done in the darkroom – this basically consisted of cropping, straightening, dodging, burning, and cross-processing actions. But then I thought … screw that. What is the point of limiting the tools that are available to me to best achieve the vision I set forth in my head? So while most of my images are processed in a relatively simple way (as I outline previously), I have definitely used layers and textures and merged shots and all kinds of things to achieve different results. Of course I try to get things as close to perfect in camera, but art is art regardless of the process.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Thanks for leaving your thoughts, Lissa! I’m glad so many photographers I respect are weighing in!
I look at some of my older photos… even a year ago… and I see heavy editing that I just don’t like all that much now. Not that I don’t think those types of photos have a place in the realm of photography, but I am leaning more and more toward getting the exposure right in-camera and doing only a “clean-edit” or light processing.
Using textures is super fun though. Sometimes I will get in a mood to use them.
I have definitely gone back to some of my older photos and re-edited them in different ways. I have found that having a color calibrated monitor has really made me re-think some of my editing choices, particularly on darker photos. I think in many of my older photos I had a tendency to push the shadows too much. But that is also the beauty of digital! As long as you keep your SOOC photograph, you can always go back for a reinterpretation.
In the 52 Weeks group that I have been participating in, they are doing SOOC as a theme next week. I think I will be taking out my Holga and I’m going to scan the negatives of a couple of rolls of film I take that week for my entry. That’s about a SOOC as I believe in!!
Twitter: @kg_photography
Lissa – I’ve done the same thing. As I learn more tips and tricks, I always go back to see. I have some great shots that just needed a little something and back then I didn’t know how to do it.
I love what everyone is saying about processing and editing. They are two different things and both have their place.
Twitter: @softasylum
My question is, where do you draw the line with photo editing and photo manipulations?
Is it “cheating” to remove a blemish? How about removing a very distracting tree/object/bokehperson from a background?
I don’t see anything wrong with editing photos at all. I feel that part of your “editing” or presentation of photography to clients (if you shoot for clients) is a way of creatively expressing your artistic abilities. People hire photographers based on they like the photographers work. You wouldn’t had a bride a disk of SOOC shots with no adjustments. No one (or the average photographer) can pull off all perfect in-camera shots all the time.
With that said, I do believe in trying to achieve correct exposures in-camera when I can. I challenge myself to “get things right” when I can, but mostly because it cuts down the time it takes me to edit a session and send my client their images.
I hope this makes sense, I’m very tired tonight ;P
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
I don’t think any amount of manipulation is “cheating” unless presenting the photograph for journalistic purposes. Obviously if you’re covering a story you don’t want to Photoshop out events or “distractions” because the credibility of your work will come into play (plus it’s unethical).
Aside from that, I think it’s a personal issue. I cloned my SIL’s foot out of this shot and I felt a little weird about it, but the photo is SO much better without her foot in it and it wasn’t adding anything to the shot.
My goal is correct in-camera exposure as well, but my SOOCs took a step back when I switched to manual and I’m still not great at nailing my exposure (as can be seen in the example at the top of this article.)
And boy – I’ve SEEN some wedding photographers hand over ALL their SOOC shots. They didn’t edit them at all and the couple is left so sort through 35 pictures of her putting on lipstick and whatnot.
There’s more to editing than changing the photo, there’s also the act of being selective and getting rid of the junk.
Twitter: @softasylum
See, I don’t really feel guilty at all by cloning out something that is distracting and draws the eye away from my intended subject. ‘Shopping in clouds to a background is where it goes into manipulation territory for me (personally).
I think what it comes down to is what the person/photographer is comfortable with. I’ve become much more aware of my surroundings when shooting, no matter where it is. A lot of the time before, I wouldn’t notice distracting things in the background and then I would have to go back later and remove it out. In some cases it was nearly impossible, which has led me to take a step back and be more observent.
In some cases I can see how Photoshop and other photo editing programs have enabled people to be “lazy” (and I use that word loosely) about how they shoot. If you can fix it in PS, then why would you pay attention, you know?
I’ve seen some amazing work that was obviously photoshopped, but when it comes down to it, the photographer pulled off an amazing shot to begin with. I don’t think enhancing a photo to pop colors/contrast/etc is the same as totally manipulating an image to be something it isn’t what you would see for yourself, with your own eyes. Does that make sense?
Anyway, I like that you brought this up, it’s really interesting
Twitter: @softasylum
Ugh excuse the typos!
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
I’m in agreement with you. It takes too much work to Photoshop out distractions. For example, way back in the day I cloned people and wires out of this shot on Stone Mountain. It’s not even that good of a photo and it took way too long to edit!
Most of the time, I can tell when someone’s heavily edited a photo. I personally do tend to think of those more as “fine art” or digital art than photography, but I’m not going to argue with someone over it.
I enjoy shooting and publishing WAY more than editing so like you and most of the other photographers who’ve responded, I strive to get things right in the camera so I can spend as little time as possible getting the shots ready to be published.
Thank you SO much for adding to this discussion, Angel! As mentioned above, I’m really tickled so many photographers I admire chimed in here.
Just curious, I’m not sure we’ve discussed it before, do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?
Twitter: @softasylum
Yeah, I would much rather spend less time “fine tuning” things and more time learning new techniques. The way I used to edit took forever and it was cheesy, which I readily admit now, but everyone has to learn somehow!
I shoot in RAW only. It can be a PITA some times because my camera is 21mp and I tear through cards way too quickly, not too mention the cost of storing all of my files. Which is another thing I have learned, get the shot and exposure I want in 1-3 frames, not 15!
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Ah. Good to know you shoot in RAW. Personally, I don’t get why anyone who isn’t a perfect photographer wouldn’t do that.
Storage space is pretty cheap. You can get a 2 Terrabyte external hard drive
for about $100.
I get rid of all my crap shots because they just take up too much space. Most of my editing time is spent deciding which shots to delete and which to keep. Though I don’t publish all the photos I keep. I also delete shots in-camera a lot of the time if I can tell they’re crap.
I definitely need to work more on taking LESS shots and getting it right quicker to save both time and my camera’s life. It’s so super old and we can’t afford another dSLR right now so I’m terrified of it dying.
Twitter: @caseyyu
I am much more likely to take the effort to clone out errant distractions – like power lines or random feet (usually MINE since I shoot with wide angle lenses and I’m all up in my kids’ business!) – for either client shots or something I am going to blow up way big. To me, stuff like that can be the difference between a snapshot and a portrait. I sell and hang portraits. I have a scrapbook for snapshots (well, digital one, if FB albums count
).
My idea of an amazing shot is one that is composed perfectly in camera, with minimal cropping needed, if any, exposure is a smidge overexposed (I like bright skin), and all I have to do in PS is adjust temperature (I AWB) and save as JPG. Bellissimo!
Twitter: @sk8geek
I feel the argument that there is “no such thing as SOOC” is rather pedantic. Yes the camera does some processing, but unless one was to construct a camera from the sensor up then it can’t be avoided. I think one has to trust the manufacturers to build products that capture images in a predictable manner. For example, in daylight if I set the white balance I expect white whites.
If photographers choose to further alter images outside of the camera then that’s their choice. Certainly, in some professions the initial image capture is only ever the start of a long chain of manipulation.
I love Ansel Adam’s work, but I’ve never been sure if there was a point to his Zone system.
One of my favourite photographers is Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Well, I kind of agree with your first sentence, however as fewer and fewer photographers emerge who’ve never developed and printed their own work (I never have) the more there’s a stuffy unrealistic expectation that Photoshop is for the untalented photographer.
Sure, people overuse it – that doesn’t mean it’s a bad approxomation to a literal darkroom. A camera has always only been ONE of the tools a photographer uses to capture their image.
I find this topic really interesting and wrote a post on the same idea myself a few weeks ago http://www.imperfectpages.com/2011/03/25/is-photo-editing-cheating/ – although I approached it from a more philosophical point of view, partly because I had no idea about the technical processing that goes on with ‘unedited’ photos.
Personally I think being a good photographer is mainly about capturing and composing a great image; cropping a shot and tweaking the colours isn’t going to help your photographs unless you have the talent and skill to produce something appealing. I don’t think it’s a ‘cheat’, I think it’s all part of producing an artwork.
Interestingy, I didn’t get any commenters who thought that editing was wrong, or cheating.
Twitter: @PhotoLynda
Thanks so much for chiming in Kirsty! I’m going to add your link to my list above!
Unfortunately those who try to turn mediocre or bad shots into good ones in Photoshop (can’t happen) make it look bad for the rest of us who use it as a darkroom tool and do our best to get a good or great shot in the camera.