One of the most debated topics in landscape photography is the role of editing. While some photographers firmly believe that an image should reflect the reality of the scene, others see post-processing as a critical creative tool that allows them to express their unique vision. The central question becomes: where do we draw the line between enhancement and deception?
The Role of Editing in Landscape Photography
Editing has always been an integral part of photography. Long before the digital age, photographers used darkroom techniques to adjust exposure, contrast, and color balance. Some of the greats created their best work by heavily dodging and burning their images to create what they had in their mind's eye. It's always been there and has always been a part of photography—and not just landscape photography, for that matter. Today, digital tools like Lightroom, Photoshop, and other software provide photographers with greater control and precision than ever before. However, these advanced capabilities come with an important responsibility: how far should you go to alter an image?
Adjustments like enhancing contrast, fine-tuning sharpness, and correcting white balance are generally accepted practices within the photography community. These edits help to bring out the best in a scene while still maintaining its authenticity. But when the edits become more drastic—replacing skies, adding elements that weren't present, or drastically shifting colors—the conversation begins to shift toward ethical concerns.
Where Should We Draw the Line?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Different photographers may approach editing differently, depending on their goals, personal style, and the nature of their work. However, there are some key points to consider when determining how far you should take your edits.
-
Are You Representing Reality? Heavy alterations can be misleading if you present your image as an authentic representation of a location. Viewers may be expecting to see a truthful depiction of the scene, and when edits are too extreme, it can undermine that trust. Transparency becomes vital when your work is marketed as a representation of reality.
-
Does It Serve the Story? Some photographers prefer to edit their images to match how they felt at the moment, rather than how the scene physically appeared. The goal may be to enhance the mood or evoke a particular emotion, rather than simply replicating what was seen. Editing to improve contrast, reduce haze, or make minor color adjustments can help tell a stronger story without straying too far from reality. The key is ensuring the edit serves the story you're trying to tell rather than distorting it.
-
Personal vs. Commercial Work: For personal work, photographers often have more freedom to experiment with edits. However, when selling prints or licensing images, it’s crucial to be transparent about the level of editing involved. Over-processing can lead to disappointed clients who expect to see a scene that doesn't exist in real life. Maintaining honesty and clarity about the edits made will help manage expectations and build credibility with your audience. Is the same true for product shots, where the client expects a clean image, so dust removal, blemish removal, and enhancements are part of the workflow?
-
Competition and Ethics: Many photography competitions have strict rules about editing. Drastic manipulations, like altering the scene to an unrecognizable extent, may result in disqualification and damage your credibility as a photographer. If you participate in competitions or exhibit your work publicly, it's essential to understand the rules around editing and ensure your approach is in line with them. Sharing a raw file is quickly becoming the best practice for many competitions. This removes the mystery and shows exactly how much editing was needed to bring the image to life.
If you remember back in 2016, a very high-profile camera brand held a worldwide competition, and there were thousands of entries from all corners of the Earth. The level of skill was high, and there seemed to be quite a stir around the contest itself as well as among the entrants, who wanted to win this prestigious contest. The problem, however, came when the winner was announced, and within hours the controversy escalated. The winning image wasn't a winning image at all; in fact, it was a vision of the photographer for what would be a winning image. They had added a key component to the image to make it stand out. It seemed at first glance that they had been very persistent and also very lucky to manage to get this shot perfectly timed, composed, and shot, but in reality, they were just very "clever" in how they created this digital artwork—not an image, but more of a vision.
Striking The Balance
There’s nothing inherently wrong with pushing creative boundaries in photography, as long as it’s done thoughtfully and honestly. If your goal is to create an artistic interpretation of a scene, rather than a documentary-style image, it's important to be transparent about the process. Many photographers disclose their editing techniques to maintain trust with their audience, offering insight into the artistic choices behind each shot. This openness helps build credibility and allows the viewer to appreciate the photograph as a work of art rather than a true-to-life representation.
Editing is a powerful tool that can elevate an image, but with great power comes great responsibility. (Thank you, Stan Lee.) Whether you prefer to keep your images close to reality or embrace more drastic post-processing techniques, the key is to do so with intention. Know the purpose of your edits and consider the impact they’ll have on your audience’s perception.
In Summary
Where do you stand on the line between enhancement and deception in landscape photography? Do you strive to keep your images as true to reality as possible, or do you embrace the creative freedom that editing offers? The world of editing in photography is vast, and there are countless approaches to how far you should go. It’s important to reflect on what feels right for your work and maintain transparency with your audience. After all, the purpose of editing is not just to enhance, but to tell a more compelling story through your images. They are your images, after all, and you can do whatever you want with them.
Let’s continue this conversation—share your thoughts in the comments below!
"Thoughtfully and honestly" are the key words here. I may replace the bleak sky using some Photoworks magic to make the picture more interesting here and there, but I try sticking to the original look as much as possible. Making the photo look like it ALMOST could have looked is one thing, turning it into something the scene never was and couldn't be is completely different.
I really like that distinction—editing to make the image look like it almost could have looked feels like a fair middle ground. It’s about enhancing, not fabricating. When you do swap out a sky, what usually guides your choice—mood, light direction, or just what feels right visually in the moment?
Changing a dull sky in a commercial photo of some company building is fine.
Changing circumstances in landscape photography drasticly isn't (imho). Because landsape photography (again: imo) is all about capturing the moment (or waiting for, looking for, sweating for coming back for..). The big mistake is to blame the moment (while looking for that "perfect" photo). Use what you have got to make something authentic and maybe unexpected! That's the whole game.
That’s a solid take—landscape photography does often come down to patience, persistence, and embracing whatever the moment gives you. I really like your point about not blaming the moment. Do you think that mindset changes how you scout or plan your shoots, knowing you’ll work with whatever conditions show up rather than aiming for something idealized or is it the plan B?
Landscape is most of the time a part of my travel photography. I do try to plan very careful. First of all with the travel time. Then locations I feel something special for I try to sleep nearby to have a chance late and one early the next day. And yes we all have ideas how it "must" look like in advance. But once on that spot is where pre-visualizing ends! In the end it's about creating something creatilvly satisfactory with still being a good representation of (telling) the circumstances.
In New Zealand I was aiming for a photo of a lighthouse with a volcano in the background. I came back 2 times but the volcano wasn't visible and the weather was pretty bad. Then I decided to put up a tripod in my car and use a long shutter speed to show the wild wind moving the trees in front of the lighthouse. Totally different photo from what i thought wanted, but twice as happy. The "what to do with this puzzle" was solved, I could move on to the next spot. :) That's the essence for me.
Ohh I hear you 100% on that! We need to make the most of the conditions we have when we are on location shooting, the best laid plans will always be at the mercy of the weather! It’s was has formed my own mission statement as such, “bad conditions do not exist, there’s always a shot” that lighthouse and Volcano idea sounds awesome! I’m happy that you managed to change tactic and still get a shot.
Editing rules/ethics should be rigidly maintained for any form of documentary photography.
Photographers producing images, Landscape or "other", for any other type of pictorial viewing, have the same creative freedom rights of painters, illustrator's etc.
If a Painter and a Photographer were side by side "creating" a Landscape picture, and the Painter chose to leave out an unsightly bush, should it be unethical if the Photographer cloned the bush out in post?
Then I think it depends on how the photographer's thinks on what's the essence of landscape photography.
I think you’ve made a really solid point. Once it’s not documentary, I do feel photographers should have the same creative freedom as any visual artist. That example with the painter and the bush makes it clear—no one questions a painter’s choice to exclude something, but a photographer doing the same in post often raises eyebrows. For me, the challenge is that photography still carries an expectation of realism by default. Do you find that’s where the confusion or debate usually starts?
“Not everyone trusts paintings but people believe photographs” - Ansel Adams
https://fstoppers.com/photo/701311
Right, but Ansel was pre-Photoshop, and way-pre IA.
Yes, he was pre-Photoshop but altering photographs beyond the techniques Ansel Adams use were available in the darkroom work way before PS and AI, but I'm not sure about "...way-pre IA." IOWA? ;)
From a viewers perspective:
At an Art show or Gallery event where either or both paintings and photographs are on display for the purpose of Decorative art sales, viewers /expectant buyers seek out, and are drawn to images that have the most appeal to them, visually, and emotionally, with little to no regard as to how they were created.
Very valid point! Have you visited a Peter Lik Gallery? Some of the images there are a construct but have an appeal to many and some command insane prices too! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Interesting article, and you say some of the things I have thought. I was able to add interesting skies to an image with a bald sky in my darkroom for years, and often did. But there was never a time that I brought forward something that could never be, an ocean scene under a structure in Capitol Reef, for instance. Thinking of a photographer like Jerry Uelsmann, for instance, who made a career of combining objects and scenes in the darkroom to make a bit of surrealism. And he never represented his work as being anything more than a combining of several elements. Would anyone be surprised to learn that the great A. Adams had a file of moons that he could add when it was needed? I checked with one of his assistants, that I know and it turns out he did.
In my work I absolutely have no indigestion about adding a sky to a scene, but it never becomes something that could not be. In my landscape photography I want to present an idealized version, never a documentarian approach. So I think it goes to the intent of the artist. The work is always presented in an honest manner, not as what was but as what might be. And I don't do anything in Photoshop or Light Room that could not be done in my conventional darkroom, which I still operate; BTW.
Thank you very much Nathan, absolutely it should always be the choice of the photographer what the end results is and as you rightly mention A.Adams, it’s been a practice for years. I think you hit on the main point precisely, it should be honest. This is where I feel the best gains can come from! We have all had many images no doubt that had an artifact that just didn’t fit in during the edit, and while some might say cloning/removing this is not pure, I believe it’s entirely up to us to decide. With that being said, if I had to disclose the amount of dust spots, water splashes or smudges I’ve removed then my image descriptions would be consumed with this narrative :-) Thank you very much for your insightful comment and thoughts.
Dust spotting... ugh, how much do I hate that chore?
No photograph is reality.
I think when we all start we over edit and occasionally we drift back there but when you start printing your work and putting it on walls you really do start to see where you're editing needs work. You probably will not see it sitting on a smart phone on the train. People will still like your images and comment how amazing it is if you over edit and like I said we've all been there but as you learn you start to do less with your editing but there's always some room for some abstract art as well. I don't have a hard and fast rule about how much she might move a certain slider for me it's all about intuition and feel and looking at it after editing photos. I plug my HDMI cord into my 65 inch OLED TV so I look at my photos on a really big OLED TV which is essentially a monitor. I can then see what that would look like as a framed canvas or framed work. If I need to refine it I can actually do it from working off my TV and yes I'm happy to put my hand up that sometimes even today I might push a file too far, but then I reflect on it and I probably will go back and edit it again and that's okay. We are human.
I've weighed in during a similar discussion before: It's an impossible question to answer if you treat "landscape photography" as one unitary thing. That label covers different pursuits, and each should have its own standards.
Is your purpose journalistic? For example, an image to accompany a travel review in a publication. In that case IMHO there's very little room for editing that goes beyond clarity. Fix your highlights and shadows, crop in a way that's pleasing but not misleading, and get out.
Is your purpose purely artistic? As in, you're trying to create a poster or print to sell for aesthetic value. In that case, go nuts: A painter with brushes can make a scene anything he or she wants, and so can you, as long as you remain honest about what you're doing.
Are you somewhere in the middle? (This is me.) Not getting paid for either truth or art, but savoring the technical and aesthetic challenge of using this piece of equipment to capture the scene before you in a way you and others will enjoy looking at later? In that instance I see more room for pushing some colors, dodging/burning/vignetting, maybe some focus or exposure stacking. But I stop short of moving objects or replacing skies.
If there is a single rule of thumb, it may be: Don't do anything that your intended audience, receiving your image for its intended purpose, would consider to be a lie.
My sentiments exactly. This is one of the more balanced takes I’ve seen—it makes a lot of sense to break it down by intent. I’m in a similar space to you most of the time, not working strictly in a journalistic or fine art context, but still aiming to represent the scene in a way that feels honest to what I experienced. I’ll push contrast, colour, exposure—those sorts of things—but I’m the same in that I draw the line at moving objects or replacing skies. That last point you made really stuck with me: not doing anything your audience would see as a lie. Do you think photographers are good at judging that line for themselves, or is it too easy to justify edits once we’re deep in the process? Thanks for your comment
Photographers should be free to do whatever they want with their images. But own up to it. Tell people what you've created. Especially if you're selling it. I'm not suggesting that every little tweak should be documented. But there's a line and we all know it.
I’m with you on that—do what you like with your images, just be upfront about it, especially if it’s for sale or being presented as something real. I don’t think every small adjustment needs a disclaimer either, but like you said, there’s a line—and most of us know when we’ve crossed it. Do you think that line shifts depending on the audience, or is it more about personal standards?
I think the line is the line, if you know what I mean. What matters is what you plan to do with your photograph(s). If you're just doing things for fun then it might not matter that your editing crossed the line. But I believe that many people still consider photography to be a representation of the truth. And if you've created something beyond the truth with AI or your own editing skills you should be forthcoming about it.
A scene in landscape photography should be enhanced through image editing, meaning its effect should be emphasized through the editing process. This may require more or less post-processing, for example, replacing a sky if appropriate. Ultimately, it's the photographer's artistic freedom. The true art is to edit the image in such a way that the viewer "wows" the photo and doesn't even notice the editing.
I get where you’re coming from—the aim to create impact without the edit being obvious is something a lot of us strive for. I’ve no issue with enhancing a scene to bring out what was already there or to match how it felt in the moment. Replacing a sky is where people’s. opinions really start to split though. Im interested to know you thoughts on this, do you think there’s a point where artistic freedom starts to undermine the trust a viewer might have in the image? Hence the popular phrase that seems to be cyclical “that’s photoshopped” Or does that only matter if the image is being presented as real? Thanks for your comment, I’m enjoying the discussions
The other point to remember and we do forget this photography is still art. The tool is the camera. It is the paintbrushes so to speak that we use in editing so it's a combination of both. Some people are very artistic and like to push the boundaries of art now some of us will think that that's butchering an image and that's okay to have that view but philosophically I kind of sit in the middle. I think you either have to be one way or the other. You have to be totally artistic and just go crazy on them or you have to be kind of very limited in your editing to bring through that natural style. If you sit in the middle it just doesn't look right.
It’s a decision that’s up to the individual. It matters not a jot what other people think the only opinion that truly matters is your own, unless you are working for a client and have a specific brief.
A picture is a picture and unless it’s a documentary image for a specific use then once more anything goes. Being tied to realism did not hold back artists like Turner neither should it prevent photographers from pushing the boat out and experimenting. If the image is for ‘you’ then there should be no limits. If others wish to impose limits on their own work that’s up to them.
it matters. If you are trying to build a portfolio and trying to come up with a style that works for all consumers individually you can sell to one client but if you're wanting to sell to more than just one client or sell to a broader audience you're going to need to come up with a style that people like it's not a simple case of going oh well I like it so it's good to go it's not like that at all. That is far too simplistic in its thinking.
Why do people like you who think in one narrow way imagine what you think should apply to everyone?
If people thought like you then the impressionist movement and abstract art would never have happened.
There's nothing wrong with being creative or artistic but there's a difference between that and butchering an image that it looks so ugly that no one wants to look at it. That's what I'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with abstract and movement. If you look at my images I do the same but I'm not talking about that type of stuff I'm talking about butchering oversaturated fake skies AI crap all through images. That's what I'm talking about.