To Edit or Not to Edit your Photography? (How far to take your post processing)

Music:
'Ascension' by Jordan Critz
'Somewhere' by Airplanes

In this video I share some thoughts on the history of editing (cropping, dodge and burn, retouching and object removal) in photography (using photographers like Elliott Erwitt, Dorothea Lange, Fan Ho, Ansel Adams and Arnold Newman as examples), hopefully breaking some of the stereotypes about the 'new digital evils' of programs like Photoshop, and helping you think about how you want to use editing as part of your own photography process.

Share this video on if you found it helpful.

#photoediting #adobephotoshop #editing

[snsa_kscc]

20mins of myth busting and common sense. This is gold. Sean, the best of the best for you.

[LiyoKikon]

"Sky replacement"... reminded me of the time Peter Mckinnon added an entire mountain in the desert lol!

[leslienelson]

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams

[katjesjess]

I remember how when I started photography a decade ago I got frustrated because I thought good photographers didn't edit their photos and I simply couldn't understand how their pictures were so flawless while I couldn't achieve that straight out of camera

[ScottWilliamsPhotography]

I have to edit heavily because my family are very ugly.

[trampledbygeese]

When I take photographs, I want to capture what my eyes see. But my camera can only capture what it sees.

I use editing to transform what the camera found in reality into the vision I saw there.


My preference is for light editing because my focus is to learn my camera - I want to learn how to get the best photo I can in-camera so I can have good ingredients to work with.


Thanks for another great video!

[SevaPetrov]

"Don't waste your time looking around for other people's work to denigrate."

Wise words to live by.

When I feel I'm getting to the point where critique turns into criticism, I find it helpful to ask myself that particular piece of art or creative process offends me beyond simple differences in taste? More often than not, this approach will uncover areas within my own process or knowledge that I would be unable to cogently defend or explain, assumptions I might have for reasons that are entirely my own. These, of course, are all actionable items I can focus on.

Focus on your own craft first and foremost, and try to take away lessons rather than scalps from others' work.

[JohDan]

I often find that people who say something like "It's not really art if you edit" is people who don't produce art or is in the infant state of their own journey, and therefore don't feel comfortable editing themself.

Just like me. I tell myself that I think that using other light than the sun is a bit cheaty. But in reality, I'm afraid to try shooting with a lamp and fail.

When I write I often come back and edit something I wrote a month ago.
When a painter paints he often goes back and redoes or "edit" the painting.
A musician edits the music, so it sounds the best, and sometimes they do an alternative version of a song, a kind of edit.
And lastly, a chef corrects the spices in the end so the dish taste just right.


It's all a form of an edit. It's all to enhance the experience. But yes. Be honest!

Great video Sean.

[gvp]

A photograph is NEVER an exact copy of reality. Photography is manipulation of light and time. The manipulation starts when you set your shutter speed to capture a certain amount of time. It continues when you adjust your aperture to let the desired amount of light in. These are captured on an emulsion or sensor, which are designed by others to represent the light that goes trough your lens in a certain way. In the digital age, when you shoot "straight out of camera" JPGs - your images further manipulated by the built in software. When you shoot "straight out of camera" you already get a heavily manipulated representation of "reality". You also let others decide how your photos look (camera or film manufacturer). As a photographer, I believe my photographs represent my perception of reality. I start shaping this perception when I dial in my exposure settings. I fine tune it in post-process. It's OK for someone to like the SOOC results. But to claim that one can take a photo that "doesn't change reality" is not understanding how photography works. Further more, to claim that you can't process your photo if you want to be a "good" photographer is just an absurd lie with no grip on reality. Thanks Sean for this insightful video.

[pekka.ruuska]

I own couple of digital cameras and couple of film cameras. I'm sorry if this socks someone's world but some editing has always been done even before the artist has hit the shutter button.
With film the pre-editing is done by the manufacturer. The chemicals on the film dictate how the scene is saved on the medium. I have not used a film that accurately replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it. There is always some kind of "Fuji-look" or "Kodachrome-feel" in the image that is captured on the film.
Same applies for digital cameras. Design and engineering teams at the manufacturer decide what is "Canon-look", "Olympus-colors" or "Sony-shadow". After that the camera saves the scene as it is programmed. I haven't used a digital camera that replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it.

[Ron_Boy]

My favorite story about post-processing of film images is Ansel Adams' own description of his most popular image -- Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico. He didn't like the sky in his original print -- it was too light and there wasn't enough contrast with the moon --so he re-did it and pushed the sky to completely black. Adams, who was trained in classical music, liked to compare photography to the performance of classical music; he would say, "The negative is like the score, and the print is like the performance." The real magic in Adams' photographs was done in his darkroom.


As for digital shots "straight out of camera"... What most folks don't realize is that every digital photo has been processed, in camera, using an algorithm developed by the manufacturer's engineers. If you've every heard someone argue that some cameras produce better colors than others, that's why. Photos of the same scene taken with different cameras look different because they're been processed differently, in camera. And high-end digital cameras allow the user to adjust the in-camera settings used to process the images. For example, you can change the contrast setting in-camera, so what comes "straight out of camera" -- in a jpeg, say -- can vary.


The truth is, people who criticize digital photography for not being "realistic" like film photography, don't really understand either one.

[david.godlewski]

"To edit or not to edit is a choice, and *it's not a moral one.*"


This statement really resonates with me. Quite often in my life I have encountered people who give moral weight to things when it only serves to alienate others. Accept people have their own ways of doing things, especially when it comes to something as subjective as art. Great video!

[josephcole]

It’s an art form people just experience the image and enjoy or move on.

[nolanwest]

Thanks Sean. I'm just a hobbyist but Cropping, dodging, and burner were techniques I learned in high-school back in the film days. I never learned how to remove objects so always felt bad about using the clone stamp to remove a distraction of something I didn't notice, but knowing it was done before in film makes me more at ease. Always enjoy your content.

[CostaMesaPhotography]

I am continually impressed with your thoughtful, informative, and instructive communications.

[jakeduggan]

I photograph for my self as a hobbyist. I crop and colour grade. I love the film aesthetic and I think that I get pretty close to it. I remember editing a photo of my dog to look like it was shot with a disposable camera. I added a horrible light leak and some dust/scratches. The majority of people loved the image as it reminded them of their old family photos and for some it reminded them of their old family pets. As it got shared around, the photo snobs had to leave their negative opinions. Funnily enough they told me it was a horrible photo from a disposable camera which made me happy as it was obviously a digital photo. I was criticised for the bad composition which was intentional as I wanted it to feel like a shot by Dad or mum photograph. I explained it to them but they just didn't get it. All I can say is trolls gotta troll and I have a block button.

[mattdayphoto]

Love this, Sean. Always the best when it comes to dissecting these kind of questions we all ask ourselves. 👏🏻
Also, that Elliott Erwitt Photo is my favorite example when people preach about cropping. I think he would just laugh if people ever questioned his work because of cropping.

[TrevaDaddy]

Sean's photography is so much different than my own. But there is no one more authentic, whose videos I enjoy more and whose YouTube likes to dislikes is so high. Kudos.

[GaWajn]

Over the span of these last few months, I have come to appreciate the style and content of your videos. They are quite enjoyable ... well executed ... thought provoking ... and in my opinion, a breath of fresh air in this world of photography related youtubery. Thank you!

[trevor]

This touches on a debate I have seen ad nauseam on some websites. Thank you Sean for putting some common-sense perspective on it. I have spent some time researching the history of photography and can completely concur that cropping, editing and retouching have been around as long as it was technically possible to do so. So too has the debate if a photography is a work or art, a mechanical contrivance and if it is "the truth" - another great subject for a video, if I may be so bold.



When I hear people say that a photo is not truthful I respond with the question "What is truth?". There are so many differences between what we perceive and what the camera captures that truth is a very dubious term to use. Just to name a few for still photographs:
* We correct distortion & colour shift, the camera does not
* Our eyes adapt to tonal differences, the camera less so
* Our eyes scan continuously, a camera does not
* The camera has no emotional attachments, we do
* We see what we expect to see and ignore things we take for granted, the camera does not

* Our brains isolate, the camera does not
* We see in 3D, the camera captures in 2D – we need to create the illusion of depth with

composition or by using dual cameras


How we isolate
* We have evolved as part of our survival and social demands to be selective in what we observe:
* The brightest element - particularly useful for finding food

* The strongest, most saturated, and warmest colours
* Our brains have a bias towards green (hence the Bayer Array setup)

* Sharp or well-defined or well-contrasted areas
* Texture – hard light vs. soft light and back light
* Contrasting movement and stillness
* The largest element
* Leading Curves and perspective lines – frame placement
* People (esp. children, faces, eyes) or animals
* Patterns attract us

* We read text!


So when one questions if what a photograph produces is "truth" or "accurate" we have to ask exactly in what context that is meant.