"No Editing Allowed"

[MarylandBill]

Read this.

I liked this blog post you linked too. I think its got lots worth thinking about, though I think to a certain extent that when we get to the level of Cage's head on a cupcake in front of the Horsehead Nebula that we are talking less about photography and more about graphic art (i.e., its not editing one photo, its creating something entirely new from at least three existing photos none of which was probably taken by the creator of the final work).

--
Bill

 

[MarylandBill]

This is a great thread, and as someone who is relatively new to photography as a serious pursuit (as opposed to just taking snap shots) well worth reading. I do have one quibble though. With respect to everyone here, I don't believe that anything done before the shutter release is pressed can be considered editing. At least how the word is normally used, editing is taking a raw product and turning it into a finished product. I am open to the idea that developing can be considered part of the editing process... but I would tend think it really begins with uploading, scanning or printing the image; thats the the point in time when the photographer has a raw image to work with and through all the things that can be done in the darkroom (or the computer) transforms it into the work that s/he wants.

I also think that this discussion shows one of the strengths of photography; you can approach it like Henri Cartier-Bresson where you want to show what comes out of the camera as much as possible or Ansel Adams where you treat the negative as raw material to be shaped. I don't think either approach is wrong just as it is not wrong to want to shoot a fully mechanical/manual film camera or a fully automatic digital camera.

Just my thoughts.

--
Bill

 

[edge100]

This is a great thread, and as someone who is relatively new to photography as a serious pursuit (as opposed to just taking snap shots) well worth reading. I do have one quibble though. With respect to everyone here, I don't believe that anything done before the shutter release is pressed can be considered editing. At least how the word is normally used, editing is taking a raw product and turning it into a finished product. I am open to the idea that developing can be considered part of the editing process... but I would tend think it really begins with uploading, scanning or printing the image; thats the the point in time when the photographer has a raw image to work with and through all the things that can be done in the darkroom (or the computer) transforms it into the work that s/he wants.

I also think that this discussion shows one of the strengths of photography; you can approach it like Henri Cartier-Bresson where you want to show what comes out of the camera as much as possible or Ansel Adams where you treat the negative as raw material to be shaped. I don't think either approach is wrong just as it is not wrong to want to shoot a fully mechanical/manual film camera or a fully automatic digital camera.

Just my thoughts.

--
Bill

A perfectly logical and sensible argument here.

There's no right or wrong; there just "is". You set the camera in a particular direction, in a particular light, use a particular lens at a particular f/stop, particular on a particular emulsion or sensor, process in a particular developer or Raw capture software, and finally output to a particular paper. No matter where you draw the line of where photography ends and editing begins, the end goal is the same: produce the final image.

My point is simply that those who wish to to "no editing" should remind themselves that there are conscious decisions to be made at every step of the process, all of which influence the final output. Given this, stating that photography stops once the image is captures seems totally arbitrary.

 

[oftheherd]

I have many negatives that I have shot over the last few decades. At the time I rejected them, but kept them in a binder. More recently, I have explored those binders full of pictures, and found many gems hidden in there. Had I thrown them away, they would be gone.

Very true! Also, if you want to combine two negatives, you have a larger treasure trove to choose from.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

Maybe HCB didn't crop so often because he had someone else do the printing. As long as you're doing it, you're still the artist creating art.

 

[Fabio Ruffet]

Don't throw away negatives unless they are total losers. I've printed some I took 45 years ago and more. I didn't like them, but now I do. You just never know.

45 years ago? You look like you are 20 in your avatar picture..! What anti ageing cream do you use?