In Defense of 'Over-Editing': 3 Reasons I Love It and Reject the Criticism

In Defense of 'Over-Editing': 3 Reasons I Love It and Reject the Criticism

I woke up with my morning coffee to these thoughts: “Overprocessing images can sometimes compromise the integrity of the image and do more harm than necessary. Here are several reasons why one should refrain from over-editing their images.” I thought to myself, “I need to caffeinate further before finishing this article” and took a big gulp of my coffee.

I asked my mega-talented colleague, Zhen Siang Yang, if he would mind me writing a rebuttal article, and of course, he graciously agreed to the writing banter. Now that I’m caffeinated, it’s game on: why I disagree with the criticism on “over editing.”

My work is highly retouched. When I say “highly,” I mean Burj Khalifa level. I’m neurotic. My images are so polished that people hire me for this very reason. “We love how clean your images are” is in most booking requests that I receive. Here are three reasons I think “over editing” is not actually a valid criticism and why it may even be a good tool in your own toolbox.

One of my sports images for a pre-workout brand.

1. Commercial Work Has the Expectation of Perfection

When was the last time you saw a Bud Light ad with a dented can or a luxury hotel ad with a weed peeking through the sidewalk? In Yang’s article, he writes, “As full-time professional commercial photographers, we are often guilty of the pursuit of perfection in images. We should realize that over-editing can often blur the line between artistry and reality, diluting the authenticity that originally made the photograph meaningful.”

A before and after of my commercial photography.

In my experience, commercial clients are not concerned with the authenticity or meaningfulness of an image. The expectation of the imagery is impeccability. From using glue for milk, glycerin for water, and frequency separation for the “glowing” effect of a skincare serum—flawlessness is generally the expectation for commercial photography, not authenticity.

I show some of how I create and edit my images on my Instagram. The process can sometime be quite labor-intensive. 

I recently finished a retouching job for Coors Light. I was hired to edit five images for their next campaign. The retouching directions were longer than my nephew’s Christmas list! The 13-page PowerPoint of retouching directions included filling thinning hair, swapping skies, brightening skin, compositing, and removing wrinkles and logos from clothing, among other directives. I can say from experience that most brands expect perfection, not authenticity, in commercial work.

2. Advanced Retouching Can Be a Tool Used for Image Balance

Sure, there are plenty of cases where photographers become sloppy with their compositions, knowing they can “fix it in post.” I don’t agree with this type of lazy photography. Having great editing skills should never be an excuse for poor photography. I’ve written an article about that topic here. Setting that scenario aside, post-processing skills can be a good tool when you want to alter your photograph to make it more balanced. My friend Anne (who you might recognize from Patagonia’s documentary Life Of Pie) recently came back from a shoot and shared this:

Typically, on a mountain bike shoot, I have the opportunity to ask for multiple takes, 5 to 10. On this one, Tim didn’t honestly know if he could make the distance, and therefore, we may have only one take. Because of that, I went in with the mentality to play things safe. I didn’t know exactly where he would be in the frame, so I shot vertically and relatively wide. Also, I shot with a narrower aperture than I would have normally so that I felt safe with my focal distance. With a busy background like that, I would want to shoot wide open to hide the distractions and allow the subject to stand out. The background looks busy and not as blurred out as I would have liked. It didn’t allow the subject to pop.

Image by Anne Keller.

In this case, the editing allowed her to get the scene she had wanted, without all the visual distractions she had to accommodate, having only one chance to capture the image.

3. “Authenticity” Doesn’t Trump Artistic Expression

If we are talking photojournalism, of course, authenticity is the paramount priority. Steve McCurry’s venerated career is a good example of this. Outside of the documentary realm, though, who wrote the rule that artists should hold “authenticity” as the paramount, untouchable priority of imagery?

In his acclaimed book Art and Fear, David Bayles penned:

Art has no boundaries, let your imagination run wild.

Why do so many artists feel the need to wag their finger at artists who make art differently than theirs? Do we need to walk through art history again? Each artist has their own values. For a documentary photographer, the primary value of their imagery may be to tell an unaltered story. For an AI artist, it may be to create the most fantastical image their mind can conjure. For a commercial photographer, it may be to deliver impeccable images that assist in sales. Wedding photographers may have emotion as a primary value, while landscape photographers’ may prioritize beauty. No one is wrong. Art is not wrong.

In Conclusion

I’m writing the conclusion of this article as I’m waiting to board a plane from Paris.

From my trip last week to Paris.

I had on my agenda to indulge in a full day at the Louvre. Many paintings, which line the walls as the most revered artworks in history, were once considered rejected by their peers as “wrong.” The argument that this is leading to has been made so ad nauseam that I would consider it an insult to our readers’ education to go through its history. Having said that, why are so many articles written as variations of “This way is wrong; if you don’t do it my way, you should change”?

Here's my perspective: edit, don’t edit. Over-edit, under-edit… hell, at this point, if you want to edit upside down and inside out… do that! If the image reflects what you want to create, make it. If someone doesn’t like it, tell them not to look at it. You’re an artist; you have the right to make whatever art you want, in whatever way you want. If someone makes their art in a different way, one or the other is not wrong.

This is my perspective, and for the foreseeable future, I plan to continue “over-editing” so well, it may just prompt you to take the product off the shelf and put it in your basket!

Michelle VanTine's picture

Michelle creates scroll-stopping images for amazing brands and amazing people. She works with businesses, public figures, sports & products. Titled “Top Sports Photographers in Miami” in 2019 (#5) and 2020 (#4), she was the only female on the list both years. Follow the fun on IG @michellevantinephotography @sportsphotographermiami

Log in or register to post comments
24 Comments

Yeah in that commercial space you've gotta go for that pop. You've gotta draw someone's attention because with advertising type Photography and commercial work the people viewing it are only going to view it for probably maybe 10 or 15 seconds at best so you've got to capture their attention if you think about it on a billboard say and you're driving past in your car you're only gonna see it for 5 to 10 seconds. If it doesn't pop you're not going to look at it so this is why this type of editing is partially done. It's the wow factor to grab you because that will sell their product. It's more about the advertising than it is about the photograph in my view.

Thank you for your excellent comment. You expressed perfectly that the value of many commercial images are aimed at getting attention.

Although when you carefully set up a 4 light shoot, ochestrate sych speed, flash duration and shutter speed to stop movment just right, choose between lenses to eliminate warping or create intetional "hero" warping, take mulitple frames for image stacking, light based on how reflective your surface is, use extension tubes, optical snoots, light meters and more ... it does feel very much like an advanced form of photography.

I totally understand. I don't shoot commercial photography, but I do shoot portraits with lights and understand the time setting up. And we should be valuing the industry definitely

Thanks Nev Clarke

Great article, why shouldn’t photographers be allowed to over edit, when painters can do what ever they like. I like the paintings of Carel Willink and Dali a lot, they don’t represent reality. I want a photo to represent what impression the given situation made on me. So dodge and burn, colour grade , sharpen and blur my landscape shots. I don’t replace skies or add objects, but as long as your honest about it, be my guest.

Im not really sure, but like you, i love the diversity found in art and each artist's perspective

All good points ! And, I am quite guilty myself of extensive "Artistic License". To all the critics, if you are shooting in JPEG the images are already being edited by the camera software.

Well i release you from the guilt! You do you, let them shoot JPEG (🫠🫠☠️🫠🫠) and lets all stop telling other people how to do their art.

Intent is everything. Editing to the intention of the image isn't over editing it is producing a desired creative result. Whether that result is successful or not is a completely different matter. I wouldn't consider the images presented to be "over-edited". It's when all we see in the image is the editing and we are pulled away from the image itself, thats a problem. In my humble opinion. Basically all aspects of the image production are fair game to achieve an intended result.

The photos look great. Would this be like Real Intelligence, RI? 😃

Haha 5 points for clever play on words!

Great photo's. It's a pity that sometimes nuance is missing in the discussion about this subject.
For me there's hardly a limit to the amount of editing in my commercial work (whatever is needed to get the best and most efficient result; montage of several images, retouche with AI etc).

That said, for the love of photography itself (and that's mostly the unpaid work) I much, much more enjoy having been on that location myself and having used my experience and skills there and then, instead of creating a world behind my computer. No matter how many people celebrate me with well edited and believable studio portret with a AI background, for me it's not half the fulfilment as having done it in real with all it's challenges including the location spotting, weather, light etc. The way I look back on those shoots is different.

And then the most important part; the specific kind of work. For instance; for me the essence of landscape photography is making something out of the circumstances and having experienced what I'm photographing and visa versa. Of course I do edit, but only to emphasize what I experienced. Creating the most stunning sunset that wasn't there has no value for me (travel photography is something different than a campaign). If it doesn't work you maybe one should looked for a different approach, subject or moment! The totally different circumstances I hoped for often result in surprising images I never thought of at forehand and they tell the real story of those circumstances. There is value in that (forcing me to play and discover like it's a puzzle).
Same thing (same pride maybe) for something as sports photography; don't fake the moment. In defense of photography.

In some genres of photography, it's the splash that the product needs to get attention needed to sell. In my world of documentary photography, credibility is the selling point. In fact, it's an essential aspect. It's credibility that moves the product (real estate).

Absolutely. Each of the different subjects have their main priorities . Well said.

Absolutely! I would be a TERRIBLE documentary photographer.

It also explains why I have a five-page document that guides realtors and home-sellers on how to prepare their homes for the sale. Details, details, details!!! (Another glass of Malbec, dear?)

I will NOT shoot real estate. That is SO particular! I would need a whole bottle of Malbec for that assignment! Willy Williams I'll leave those to you.

Leo dj some very well made points. I liked your note on the intention behind the photography. Comparing a landcape photographer shooting for art and a commercial photographer shooting for marketing will approach the same sunset with different values.

100%- whatever you want, it's your own purposes for each of your own images. Kinda weird to have to state the obvious these days.

I'm not sure I agree with 'Red on red on red'... If my choice the background would have been a more contrasting color. Nevertheless, the photo is still good. With the bike-picture, instead of removing the seaweed, wouldn't cropping off the bottom serve it better? Or did you need the photo to be tall for some purpose. I do highly process my photos.
I personally shoot-RAW, and edit in TIFF: Then I think what's important is always compare different stages of the photo, to make sure you have not ruined what you had. I notice sometimes, that I'll be 4-removal stages in... and compare to the original.... and sometimes decide the whole thing is a toss-away, because either whatever is distracting must be removed, and I'm just making it worse not better. I keep saying I'm going to make my own video about what I call transplanting to get AI-gen work better in my favor, when initial removal software fails for some reason. But then you realize you are spending gobs of time on one photo, which I have done. Sometimes I'm willing to go the extra mile.

Your comment: "If someone doesn’t like it, tell them not to look at it." hits the nail head on...as long as you like what you have then do it!

Right! Happy holidays Don L thanks for commenting

Once everything in the world is made of shiny plastic,we wont need to do any of this.

As I see it, the most important thing is consistency. It doesn’t matter how much or how little post-processing is in your images. What matters is that they align with your style and clearly express it. Having your unique style is the key.