Do most digital photographers edit their images?

[ozreth]

So I'm new to photography and am trying to become well versed in both film and digital. Sorry if this comes off as a bit naive. When reading about and looking at film photography, it seems that the aim is to get the best image you can with no editing. When looking into digital it seems that many people edit their images. Does this depend on what the images are being used for? What is the general consensus on this? Is it looked down upon if the images are not for commercial use? Does it depend on what sort of editing is being done?

I know there will be many views on this, but I'm looking for a pretty broad answer.

 

[bmattock]

So I'm new to photography and am trying to become well versed in both film and digital. Sorry if this comes off as a bit naive. When reading about and looking at film photography, it seems that the aim is to get the best image you can with no editing.

Well, I don't know if I can agree with that. It may well be the case for some people. But the entire history of photography, film as well as digital, has been a history of manipulation of every possible factor in order to get the desired image, whether that image is a highly realistic portrayal of the original scene or a fantastic surrealistic image bearing little resemblance to what the original scene looked like.

That manipulation included (at various times) the use of specific films, lenses, filters, exposures and exposure times, f-stops, and shutter speeds. Then you've got the darkroom tricks of dodging and burning, cropping, holding back, solarization, use of specific developers, papers for printing, enlarging lenses, etc, etc.

Sure there are some who are into 'straight photography' and who pursue the ideal image as an accurate reflection of what the scene looked like originally. This can be especially important in photojournalism, where manipulating images is not seen as artistic, but as lying.

When looking into digital it seems that many people edit their images. Does this depend on what the images are being used for? What is the general consensus on this? Is it looked down upon if the images are not for commercial use? Does it depend on what sort of editing is being done?

I know there will be many views on this, but I'm looking for a pretty broad answer.

I do not think there is a 'general consensus' on issues like this.

I tend to do very little editing of my images, film or digital. A big part of the reason I don't edit my photos much is because I am color-blind. So a lot of the type of editing one can do with Photoshop and similar applications, I cannot do with confidence; I'm more likely to ruin an image that way. I typically crop a bit if I feel it is required to make a more pleasing photo, adjust levels, and call it good.

That doesn't mean my way is the right way, the only way, the best way, or the consensus way. It's just how I do it. I have no objection to the way anyone else does it.

 

[Archlich]

The best photographer edits her images. Photography, since day one, lives with manipulation as one of its intrinsic attributes. You take a slice of time & space and distort it - the moment you confine the infinite reality within the tiny frame you are already altering it.

Digital really offers nothing new. It just makes things easier, more obvious, and so intense that you tend to ignore the actual subjects that are being manipulated.

 

[ABrosig]

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. I look at "editing" as the process of selecting individual images from the downloaded files, or from a page of negatives when shooting film. While "toning" an image for print (in a newspaper or magazine, for example) may be what Ozreth is thinking about, that doesn't mean photographers shouldn't strive for proper exposure and composition when shooting, regardless of whether we're shooting film or digital. That, and I'm not attacking here, is what I see as part of the challenge younger photographers face and photography "schools" perpetrate - a lack of grounding in the background of photography.

So many young photographers I talk to swear by the tenant of "shoot RAW and fix in post." Well, that only works so far. For 90 percent of my work, shooting for a newspaper, if I work to get the best exposure/composition/etc. in my digital files, I don't need to shoot in RAW. My JPG images reproduce as well (or better) than coworkers who always shoot raw.

And, to me, the processing goes much quicker, too. I can have a JPG image ready for print with cropping, minor toning, lightening, contrast adjustment, almost faster than it took me to write this sentence.

bmattock already mentioned the "manipulation" techniques from our darkroom days, so I won't repeat all that here. At the root, though, most of what we're doing today in photo processing software relates directly to what I was doing 20 years ago in the wet darkroom, and am still doing today.

 

[hepcat]

That's a loaded question! bmattock has a good point that photo-manipulation through both film processing AND printing has been done since the medium was invented. Ansel Adams was a master of manipulating the print process. Take a look at a contact print, and then one of the last versions of "Moonrise over Hernandez" for a really good illustration of that.

As one who shoots RAW, image "manipulation" or "editing" if you prefer is mandatory as RAW files aren't publish-ready.

Each camera's RAW files are different, and processed differently, so if you want to have a coherent portfolio of images that all look similar, post-processing is a necessity. Digital allows for more easily manipulated photos than does chemical darkroom printing, and many photographers (me included) take advantage of that as necessary. "Truth" in photography is only necessary if the image is being represented as a (legal term) "true and accurate representation of the scene as you saw it." If that's not your aim, (forensics and journalism for example) then anything goes. I'm not above removing electrical wires and poles, or the occasional distracting element from one of my digital images if it makes the image stronger. It makes my image into what I want my viewers to see, not necessarily what was really there.

You can argue that's somehow dishonest, but the flip side of that is whether or not it's dishonest just to find a different perspective and crop the distracting element out of the shot by not including it. It's a very fine line and one that likely will never be settled.

 

[coelacanth]

Well, unless you are shooting positive (slide) film, you are ALWAYS, to a degree, editing the image before the photograph is being presented. Negative film, either color or black and white, needs inverting and color/contrast correction. Of course there are "standards" that film manufacture would imply but there is really no such thing as "Straight Out Of Camera" in film world unless you are shooting slide film and processing per E-6 development spec.

I feel the digital photography is the same. RAW is like a negative film. There is a manufacturer standard RAW developer usually supplied with the camera, but really, you are developing your digital photo from RAW and making a presentable photo. In-Camera Jpeg is like shooting slide film and it can be SOOC, but when you are shooting RAW, you need editing of some kind as there is no such thing as SOOC visible end product = presentable photography, like how negatives are.

"it seems that the aim is to get the best image you can with no editing"

is partially true for both film and digital photography. It's better to get optimal exposure to begin with, and of course better focusing and framing would be ideal in general. On film, color temperature has to be close to ideal because you have quite a bit of limitation to post processing. That's why people bought tungsten films. For digital shooting RAW overcame WB issue, but nailing exposure to begin with is as critical as shooting positive film.

My $0.02.

 

[ozreth]

All good answers! Most are along the lines of what I expected. So when people are looking through one of the many posts of people displaying their images on here, how are you judging the persons overall skill if you don't know whether or not they manipulated their image, and to what extent?

 

[ferider]

Come on guys ...

Do most digital photographers edit their images?

No.

1 - Most digital photographers use cell phones
2 - Fewer digital photographers do use dedicated cameras, but shoot/publish/print unmanipulated jpg files. Which is why Walgreens, for instance, offers you to stick an SDCARD in their printer.
3 - Compared to the above majority of picture takers, the minority shoots raw and manipulates the output.

Now, I and other RFF members belong to 3), but we are not "most".

I personally try not to do anything else in digital, that couldn't have been done in the dark-room.

Roland.

 

[bmattock]

All good answers! Most are along the lines of what I expected. So when people are looking through one of the many posts of people displaying their images on here, how are you judging the persons overall skill if you don't know whether or not they manipulated their image, and to what extent?

I do not attempt to judge a person's skill. I like or do not like their photographs.

When I enjoy a nice steak, I do not ask if the chef used a certain brand of knives, or a fashionable line of spices, or if the steak came from a happy cow. All I care about are the results.

 

[daveleo]

All good answers! Most are along the lines of what I expected. So when people are looking through one of the many posts of people displaying their images on here, how are you judging the persons overall skill if you don't know whether or not they manipulated their image, and to what extent?

You don't "judge a person's overall skill". You just try to understand the images and like or dislike them or maybe don't even make up your mind right away.
Usually "judgement" tells more of the judge's mindset, social background, education and experience than it tells of the picture maker.

EDIT: I see that bmattock jumped me on that 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Come on guys ...



No.

1 - Most digital photographers use cell phones
2 - Fewer digital photographers do use dedicated cameras, but shoot/publish/print unmanipulated jpg files. Which is why Walgreens, for instance, offers you to stick an SDCARD in their printer.
3 - Compared to the above majority of picture takers, the minority shoots raw and manipulates the output.

Now, I and other RFF members belong to 3), but we are not "most".

I personally try not to do anything else in digital, that couldn't have been done in the dark-room.

Roland.

Well, yeah. But then if you're going there, you might as well note that most of the cell-phone photographers seem to get a charge out of using software like Instagram, which does indeed allow heavy manipulation of the photos.

 

[tomtofa]

Putting together what bmattock and ferider have said, it seems that the truth may be counterintuitive: film photographers may, throughout history, have been more manipulative to their files than digital photographers. Although most film shooters, in the days of mainstream film use, were like most digital shooters - they sent their film to Kodak or the store to be developed. Darkroom and Lightroom users have probably always been in the minority.

As to judging skill, I guess that's a pretty subjective thing. Personally I like to see good post processing when looking at an image; too little or too much bothers me (in different ways).

ETA: Just saw bmattock's comment about instagram. True, another version of digital manipulation apart from Lightroom/raw processing. Can't really think of a film version of that...

 

[jsrockit]

I edit every image I think could be usable for some purpose. I enjoy post processing though.

 

[jsrockit]

So many young photographers I talk to swear by the tenant of "shoot RAW and fix in post." Well, that only works so far. For 90 percent of my work, shooting for a newspaper, if I work to get the best exposure/composition/etc. in my digital files, I don't need to shoot in RAW. My JPG images reproduce as well (or better) than coworkers who always shoot raw.

Some of us have the luxury of time on our sides. Sometimes I work too quickly to get the best possible image, exposure wise, in camera. There is no wrong way to do this stuff. All that matters is the results.

 

[ozreth]

I edit every image I think could be usable for some purpose. I enjoy post processing though.

Does this ever eliminate the need to shoot the best photo possible?

 

[Dwig]

All good answers! Most are along the lines of what I expected. So when people are looking through one of the many posts of people displaying their images on here, how are you judging the persons overall skill if you don't know whether or not they manipulated their image, and to what extent?

Their "darkroom" skills (whether film or digital) are part of the final "judgment" of a photographers art and ability. I photographer that can't do their own final adjustment and printing is not a complete fully skilled photographer. If you can't do the "darkroom" adjustments you might be a good camera operator but aren't a great photographer.

BTW, the earlier reference to Ansel Adams that suggested comparing one of his contact prints to one of his later enlargements is a bit off. AA manipulated local areas (dodging/burning in) of his contact prints just as he did his enlargements. You should trackdown a copy of his basic photo series (originally 5 volumes and reduced to 3 in later printings) for a clean accurate description of his best techniques. Then get a copy of his Polariod photography book that is really a 6th volume in the set. This later volume has many parallels to digital imaging.

 

[Darthfeeble]

For me: The image is the reason to shoot, how one achieves this image is irrelevant. Have you studied Ansel Adams or any other of the classic shooters? Were he alive today he would be a master at photoshop.

 

[jsrockit]

Does this ever eliminate the need to shoot the best photo possible?

When I'm out photographing, I'm worrying about content and framing (and not blowing exposure). When I'm editing, I'm worrying about getting rid of the garbage in which the content and framing don't work for me. Then, when post processing, I'm trying to maximize what I want the remaining photos to look like (which differs for each photo).

 

[daveleo]

Does this ever eliminate the need to shoot the best photo possible?

Sometimes you can't decide what is the "best" to do to a photo until you look at it (on a screen or on paper) and spend some time with it to decide where it wants to go or where you want to take it.
At the moment, I can think only that you must get the exposure correct and nail the composition / structure (at least over a portion of the frame) at the time you push the shutter button.

EDIT: Jees, I got beat out again !! I must learn to type faster 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Really? 😱

Dear Fred,

Yeah, well, now you and I know what we've been doing wrong all these years.

Cheers,

R.