Is editing photos considered unacceptable these days?

There's nothing wrong with wanting the photo as it comes out of the camera, but there's also absolutely nothing wrong with editing photos. I agree with that too, but always in moderation, and if you go as far as removing objects or people then that's where I draw the line.

kok.f@ziggo.nl wrote on Tuesday 11 April 2023 at 10:55  | reply

One does not necessarily have to be better than the other, although with RAW you cannot avoid at least some basic editing. And yes, a JPG straight out of the camera is also an edited photo. But every photo is a manipulation of reality. Your focal length, aperture, composition and crop all give the photo some context and as such it is only a fraction of reality. Although the tools for editing have become many times more accessible than in the darkroom days, photography is still a 'craft'. Perhaps that is also where there is a difference between just dragging some sliders in your software and crafting an image.

It will always remain a discussion. In the analogue era, by far most people took an exposed roll of film to the photo shop and the developing and printing was done by the processing lab. In fact, those people also knew nothing about the (chemical) processes involved and what influence you could exert on them yourself if you did something like that yourself in the darkroom. So the saying applies here: 'What is unknown is unloved'.
This can therefore be extended to digital photography, where the same group of people are best off photographing in JPG because then the camera does the work for you and if you don't like it, you only have to adjust the picture style.
The photographer who previously dove into the darkroom to finish a photo in the way he wanted it himself, will now photograph in RAW to develop it into a photo the way he wants it. A picture style then does not even matter anymore, because you will no longer find that in a RAW image that looks unfinished and flat. The camera has done nothing else with that image.
The group that therefore likes to develop it themselves, will not want to leave anything to chance and finish the image according to their own insight. There is a 'but' to it. Just like the analogue photographer who develops and prints himself, you do have to know what you are doing and know how to handle the 'development software'. Exactly as an analogue photographer also had to learn how to handle the means used in the darkroom.
Likewise in digital photography, the saying applies again now: What is unknown is unloved'.
By doing it yourself you can get more out of a photo than the 'processing lab in the camera'.
So I agree with er Nando and Mac

Perhaps by a “photo that comes out of the camera” the part of taking photographs before pressing the shutter button is also meant. In particular, looking and seeing. Determining the viewpoint and composition, waiting for the desired light, choosing the appropriate camera settings and lens. Then the photo is usually exactly right as it comes out of the camera. However, I call this “pre-editing”, or rather manipulations of the reality at which you want to point your lens. So “editing” an image before or after is inherent to photography. The “digital” box of pens and brushes with which to “write” with light has only become more extensive, easier, lighter, faster and cleaner. A blessing !

I have been photographing for 75 years this year (and I am almost 89). I spent many, many hours in the DARKROOM. And not only to print. I did a lot of EDITING, often it was a MUST. I was often accused at the time of doing violence to reality. When I then showed the original shot next to the edited copy, people often reacted positively after all. In other words, there is nothing wrong with editing. Manipulation is something else. That sometimes goes too far, think of portrait photos, where, for example, models are presented as slimmer or the skin is transported into a BABYFACE

When judging photos, a frequently heard remark is: "It is about the end result" Viewers do not find it interesting whether a lot or, on the contrary, little effort has been made. I myself am a fervent advocate of editing and apply it extensively. I can well understand that there are also photographers who like "pure" photography. By mentioning with their photos that it concerns unedited photography, viewers are given the opportunity to appreciate the work in the right way.

What really bothers me and what I really find 'not done' are photos that have been edited to such an extent that you can barely get the original out of them.....those are no longer photos but almost computer-controlled paintings ..... And unfortunately you are starting to see this phenomenon more and more...

Everyone should do what they feel comfortable with.
I photograph in RAW so editing is already a must in my eyes and I don't pretend to show the photo that comes out of the camera but to show the photo that I would have liked to see that way. But fortunately everyone can do what they themselves like,beautiful and enjoy.

In landscape photography, you cannot avoid doing at least a bit of post-processing. That's because the human also has a much greater dynamic range than a camera. In practice, that means, for example, that a sunset never comes out of your camera as beautifully as you see it yourself. So you will have to play with contrast and possibly "warmth". I understand that there are people who think you shouldn't go "too far" in that, but I think that the person who takes (and edits) the photo should decide that themselves.

editing raw shots in Lightroom:obviously ; and in Photoshop such as stacking is also ok; however cutting pieces out of three different shots to then create a new photo together is a bridge too far

I see a RAW image coming out of the camera as a wheelbarrow full of data that you have to work with. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Why not turn a flat RAW photo into a beautifully stylized image. I enjoy doing it and do it frequently.

As expected, various opinions. You encounter that everywhere. There are people very skilled at Photoshop and they really do make beautiful images. But of course I also find [that] beautiful. But what is the definition of natural. Because you can't avoid doing a bit of editing and that was already the case in the darkroom. Read photographing raw, or jpeg, both are edited. I see something to be said for both. It's a matter of taste. And that's a good thing, otherwise we'd only see one kind of image, everyone the same. Glad that tastes differ.

My experience is that this is a discussion between people who see photography as a craft and are often fully occupied with mastering that craft and others who have moved beyond that stage (or skip it) and only use a camera as a means of expressing their creativity. Like a furniture maker who makes a beautiful chair and an artist who makes something from the same wood that you can hardly sit on. In short, completely different expressions that in the case of photography we call the same thing. 45 years ago I learned the craft at the photography vocational school in The Hague. Now, technically speaking, I use underexposed, tilted and blurry photos to get the result I see in my imagination. Is that still photography? No idea but I do use an expensive system camera for it.

What ultimately matters ? Do you like the photo ? Do you think it is good or bad and why ?
How the result was obtained is nitpicking.
I'd rather have a beautiful photo even if it is edited than an ugly one that is unedited !

My photos are almost always unedited. I take them based on the possibilities offered by the camera settings. I can straighten a horizon, after that it stops for me. A great deal, far too much information comes at me when editing, which I cannot store in my head.

@Jan Kleinjan

This is exactly what I already wrote about, where it always goes wrong.

you don't edit a photo based on what you saw. You edit it based on what your memory tells you that you saw. And that doesn't only involve vision, but also emotion, feeling etc.
If you're happy, in love etc, colors in your memory look a lot more saturated than when you would have seen the same image when you're sad. So that has an influence on the outcome of your editing.
(and your state of mind also plays a role when you edit it)

Just to respond to the rather provocative headline above the article: more photos are being edited nowadays than ever before! So the answer to the question is 'no', editing is done a great deal.
With the arrival of all kinds of smart software and apps on smartphones, the editing possibilities have become endless and within everyone's reach, and things were quite different in the past with a darkroom.

People edit photos like crazy, even if they don't have a 'dedicated camera', but simply use their smartphone photos. And more people are also taking photos than ever before, there are undoubtedly plenty of statistics about that to be found.
Photo editing can also go further and further, with AI programs you can simply change an entire background and you can also completely rebuild a photo.

But as is usually the case with everything, counter-movements tend to emerge as well. For some, this is because the sometimes very unnatural-looking photos start to grate, and it may also be that some photos start to look too 'uncanny'. Think, for example, of portrait photos with plastic-like skin and unnaturally brightened eyes. Or landscapes that no longer have anything to do with what they actually looked like. That's perfectly fine otherwise, everyone can decide that for themselves, but viewers are sometimes led astray and may then feel a bit 'cheated'.

And let's not forget that editing also requires a certain skill, not every edit is necessarily an 'improvement'. With some people, it seems as if editing has become a goal in itself, while they sometimes still have absolutely no understanding of the light/exposure/basic technique of photography.

It is therefore not all that strange that a (small) movement is emerging in the other direction, which would prefer to see very natural-looking photos. For this group, 'edited' has acquired the additional meaning of 'fake'. Or they simply don't like editing, which is of course also possible!

But not editing has certainly not become 'mainstream' in photography, because photography is still heading in the other direction: towards more and more editing. And with the influence of social media, I don't see that tide turning anytime soon.

For myself, I believe that a well-made photo can sometimes be made much more expressive with some post-processing. But an image that is mediocre at its core cannot be turned into a top photo with post-processing either!

Funny, I found the photo that was included in the email alerting me to this article more beautiful unedited (by the photographer, possibly not by the camera's software). (The photo from this article: https://www.photofacts.nl/fotografie/rubriek/landschapsfotografie/is-jouw-landschapsfoto-registrerend-of-leg-je-er-gevoel-in.asp).
That is a matter of taste. Otherwise, I completely agree with the opinions expressed above: the unedited photo no longer exists, certainly not in the digital age.

Stef wrote on Tuesday 11 April 2023 at 19:52  | reply

No, editing photos is not necessarily a no-go, but it depends on how the edits are carried out and for what purpose.

In the photography industry, editing photos is a common practice and can help improve the visual appeal of the images and increase the quality of the end result. Professional photographers and graphic designers use editing programs such as Photoshop to retouch images, make color adjustments, remove backgrounds and make other adjustments to make the image look better and more visually appealing.

However, it becomes a problem when the edits are used to manipulate reality or to create unrealistic images. This can lead to unrealistic body images, influencing reality, or making changes to the image to make it look better or more attractive, which does not correspond to reality. This can lead to deception and can be harmful to those who identify with this.

Therefore, it is important to edit responsibly and ethically and to ensure that the edits do not manipulate the purpose of the image or make it misleading. It is also important to be transparent about the edits that have been made and not distort reality to create a certain image. This is Chatgpt's opinion, but it does correspond with my opinion

Photography is a means, for example just as a pen is intended for writing (or drawing) and a brush for painting, of what the maker wants to make. If a bit of imagination or other means are needed to achieve that, then so be it. After all, you make things for yourself, and only then for someone else.

For me, a photo has to be 95 % right when it comes out of the camera, it's about photographing on location. I do as little post-processing as possible, only what is absolutely necessary. I don't disapprove of heavy post-processing, that's a personal choice. It's great that it's possible and in case of emergency I will certainly make use of it.

A certain degree of editing always happens, either the camera does it for you or you do it yourself.
What you are photographing determines how far you can go in that. For reporting or documentary photography it is 'not done' to remove or add elements because you are trying to capture the 'truth', but as an art form I think you can go very far.
I myself am also working on compositing now, for some people that is not photography but I think that as long as the main part of it consists of your own photos it may indeed be called photography, even if parts from elsewhere or even AI have been incorporated.
What I really don't think is acceptable is to keep insisting that it hasn't been edited when everything shows that, for example, the sky has been replaced; don't lie!

I’m in favor of editing.
You can then make something beautiful the way you want it to look.
If someone doesn’t want that, that’s fine too.

What you write Nando, has also been playing through my head for some time.
Having started in the darkroom myself back in the 60s, it is obvious to me: editing is part of it.
That you shouldn't use edited photos as a news source is a point though,ndie should be "srtaight".
Without editing Ansel Adams would have been forgotten long ago, and not a single bruidlofts-shoot would hold up. If you take a snapshot as a memory, okay, if you want something for the wall, it can't be done without it.