Let’s explore the often-overlooked significance of editing in photography and how it transforms raw images into compelling visual stories. We will break down the two stages of editing and provide examples that highlight the creative process involved in crafting mood and atmosphere.
There is a phase every beginner photographer goes through. I went through it, and you likely are right now if you are in the early stages of your journey. We place immense weight on tangible variables: the exposure triangle, lens choices, camera body, tripods, and various filters. We look at a stunning image from a photographer we admire and ask, “What were your settings?” Or, “What aperture was this?” Yet, we rarely ask the question that matters the most: “How did you edit this?” I have yet to come across this question from a beginner student.
It is often only later that we realize something important: the camera is merely a data-gathering tool. The shutter click is not the end of the creative process. It is just the halfway point. Editing, or post-processing, is where data becomes a photograph. It is just as important as the settings you chose in the field.
The Two Stages of Editing
When we sit down to edit, we usually have specific goals. I like to break them down into two categories.
First comes the technical fix, which includes:
-
Quality control, such as lens profile corrections, reducing noise, and increasing sharpness.
-
Technical corrections, like adjusting exposure, recovering shadows, managing highlights, and cropping.
These are technical skills that can be learned by rote. Many photographers may stop here and not move on to the second phase, where the magic happens: the implementation of mood and atmosphere. This part includes:
-
Focusing on visual hierarchy and guiding the viewer’s eye by darkening unimportant areas and brightening the subject.
-
Treating each element of the scene individually for white balance, color, and contrast. This creates mood and atmosphere, meaning infusing the image with a specific feeling.
Creating mood is where the artistry lies. It is the difference between a snapshot and a story.
The Secret Ingredient: Patience
To achieve excellence in editing, you must be patient and resist the urge to share your photos immediately. If you can do that, you overcome a significant hurdle.
Let’s explore how we can turn a flat raw file into a story.
A Dog Walk in Venice
The image below is a raw file of a man and his dog. Straight out of the camera, it has a warm color palette. This is due to the street lighting and my White Balance setting of 5,550 Kelvin.
First Attempt: We can call the following image a “First Edit” trap that produced a nostalgic image. I achieved a common initial step: recovering shadows, controlling highlights, and applying a uniform warm yellow-sepia tone. This, however, led to too many competing elements, such as the distracting foreground walls, and failed to elevate the image beyond mere documentation. Furthermore, distracting overhead wires and infrastructure were not addressed, making this version less artistic than intended. The image lacked focus, causing the eyes to wander.
The "Cinematic Edit": My second attempt focused on creating a cinematic experience by embracing darkness. I made choices about what to hide and what to reveal.
Here are the steps I took:
-
Cleanup: Removed the wires and clutter to make it timeless.
-
Lighting: Crushed the blacks and darkened the walls on each side in the foreground. This created a tunnel effect, which forces the eye directly to the silhouettes of the man and his dog, and that is the first thing I wanted the viewer to see.
-
Color: Created color separation instead of a yellow wash. The overhead lights have a cooler temperature and a glow, and the shadows are deep and rich. The actual color of each element prevails.
Here is how a visual hierarchy was created for the viewer's eye in the final edit:
-
Look here first: The shining cobblestones leading to the silhouettes of the man and his dog.
-
Look here second: The alley in the background with the lights.
-
Don’t look here: The dark walls in the foreground.
To achieve the desired mood and atmosphere, the edit involved several key adjustments, as shown in the screenshot below. The white balance was significantly cooled to 2,598 Kelvin, and the image was given a subtle pink tint. Color grading was applied to both the shadows and highlights. Furthermore, the workflow created multiple masks to treat every element within the scene individually.
I prefer this final edit. It has more visual interest and better color separation.
A Man on a Venetian Bridge
Here is another example of a night scene. Similar editing techniques used for the man and his dog image were applied to edit this one as well.
I also used a bit of the Orton effect and treated the lamp and window light, giving them a glow. The mood created is not nostalgic, but cinematic. It offers a romantic, timeless view of the street. This allows the eye to appreciate the original colors.
Conclusion
You might disagree with my specific choices above because editing is personal and subjective. But the underlying principle matters: each image deserves time and thought in the editing process. To do that, understanding the tools in software like Adobe Lightroom and developing a vision before the edit are paramount. By spending more time in the edit, we can not only elevate the look and feel of our images to create an immersive experience for the viewer but also learn from the compositional and camera-setting mistakes we might have made during the photoshoot.
4 Comments
I agree with you completely! Editing helps understanding mistakes better and after spending quite some time in Photoworks removing that goddamn lantern that happened to be on your model's head, you learn to avoid any possibility of it happening next time. Been there, done that! They don't talk about getting it right in the camera for nothing.
I am very curious to hear others thoughts on how editing photos to this extent is still photography and not digital art. I have always been of the opinion that global edits (within reason) were still true to photography; but that selective, mask type edits caused the work to no longer be photography. I’m not trying to offend anyone, I’m very curious how others justify this as I hope it would help me overcome the mental block that stops me from even considering drawing a mask or painting light and shadows onto a scene that never existed.
See my comment below for an answer to your question.
Ansel Adams is widely respected as the preeminent landscape photographer of the 20th century. He spoke many times about how his photo manipulation made a statement of how he felt about a scene... more than just a literal rendering of it. Indeed, Adams was a darkroom editing master. He used camera filters, dodging and burning, and even an occasional negative retouching to communicate those feelings. Black skies were one example. Take a look at the story of how he edited his famous photo "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico." Even though he supposedly pre-visioned the final print when setting up his camera, I'm guessing that some of his darkroom editing was done spontaneously... possibly rethinking the picture's characteristics after some darkroom experimentation. Anyone steeped in darkroom work understands that the final image can end up differently than initially anticipated.
To your question, Jarrett, photo editing has been an integral part of photography for as long as photography has existed. It is certainly not a new concept since digital more or less replaced film. Photographers of the 1800s resorted to sky replacements because cameras typically underexposed red and overexposed blue, meaning skies were washed out. In present times, the dynamic range of camera sensors is not as great as the human eye, so images straight out of the camera often fail to accurately represent the landscape nearly as well as we actually see it. Lightening shadow detail and darkening highlight detail merely takes a first step toward aligning photos with reality. And those are not global editing changes. Overall color casts are common in film and digital photos, necessitating masks. In my photography, I often have to edit the rock canyons for more red and yellow (less blue) while preserving or increasing blue in the sky, in order to render the scene more naturally. Those can not be global edits.
To the extent that image editing pushes the envelope into surreal, that's for each person to decide for themselves. Certainly you raise a valid point that some photography might be better categorized as digital imaging. I just wanted you to see that a large amount of photo editing is sometimes necessary to arrive at the point of a natural image, and that editing has always been a fundamental component of photography.