As a professional photographer, the issue of over-editing is a topic that holds significant importance in our work. In this case, the term over-editing refers to the excessive use of post-processing tools and techniques, often resulting in images that deviate from the natural and authentic representation of the subject. While we cannot deny that the process of editing is an essential aspect of photography, 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.
Loss of Authenticity
Over-editing images can often strip away the authenticity that gives a photo its unique charm. When we push adjustments too far, such as excessive tweaking of colors, contrast, or sharpening, we risk distorting the original scene. What started as a simple enhancement, when stacked one after another, may end up as a version of reality that no longer feels genuine. This artificial look—or as we can now better label it, an “AI look”—can distract viewers from forming an emotional connection with the image, as they might sense something unnatural about it.
Photos are often appreciated for their ability to tell a story, and when over-edited, that story becomes altered or even lost. The subtleties of light, texture, and atmosphere are the core elements that make a moment special, and they can be erased in the process of over-editing, leaving behind an image that feels soulless and deviates from the original narrative.
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should realize that over-editing can often blur the line between artistry and reality, diluting the authenticity that originally made the photograph meaningful. We should learn to embrace a more restrained editing approach that allows the true essence of the image to shine through, preserving its integrity and ensuring that the final product remains a faithful reflection of the scene.
Distortion of Reality
Personally, I believe photography is a powerful medium for capturing and preserving moments in time. But when editing is taken too far, the natural elements in an image might end up being manipulated to the point of looking unnatural. For example, skies are frequently altered to an unrealistically oversaturated blue, or greens in landscapes are made overly vibrant. This creates an image that no longer reflects what was originally seen by the photographer or what could naturally exist, resulting in a distorted representation of the environment, which can deceive viewers about the authenticity of the scene.
Over-editing can also create a false narrative, particularly in genres like photojournalism or documentary photography, where authenticity is crucial. Manipulating the lighting or adding and removing elements from an image can change the story of the image completely, leading to a misleading or inaccurate portrayal of events. The truth of the situation, setting, or person is compromised, leading to a potential distortion of how viewers interpret reality. As a detrimental effect, over-editing may also end up compromising the inherent nature of photography’s ability to preserve the memory of the captured moment.
Short-Lived Editing Trends
Over-editing often reflects short-term trends that come and go, rather than a lasting, personal style. One prominent example is the overly edited HDR (High Dynamic Range) trend that dominated the photography industry almost a decade ago. HDR, when used subtly, can bring out details in shadows and highlights, but when it was introduced, many photographers pushed this technique too far, resulting in unnatural, hyper-saturated images with exaggerated contrasts. These photos, while visually striking, lacked the authenticity and realism that often make a photo expire with time when the trend dies.
Similarly, the teal and orange look became wildly popular in recent years, particularly in cinematic editing and Instagram posts. While this color scheme can create a striking visual effect by playing off complementary colors, when overused, it may end up causing the images to look horrible and lose the individuality of the scene.
To avoid falling into the trap of trend-based editing, photographers should focus on developing a personal editing style that aligns with their shooting style and brings out the best in their images without straying too far from the natural look. A well-rounded approach is to enhance rather than manipulate, working with the tones, colors, and light that are already present to create a subtle, timeless effect. By mastering this balance, photographers can create images that not only feel genuine but also stand the test of time, regardless of fleeting editing trends.
Would you say to Andy Warhol "Marilyn Monroe does NOT look like that, she's oversaturated!" No, you wouldn't (at least I hope not). Some of us are not always interested in realism, unless it's a client gig. Otherwise when I'm shooting for the club competitions I'm not the LEAST BIT interested in "it looks real". I want "it looks like art", and to do that you have to experiment and go wild! Do you NEVER go wild?
if art is all you are after by all means go ahead, there is no boundaries in art
But there is bad taste, and the art critics are unforgiving.
there is indeed, but i will usually leave it up to the artist themselves to interpret it. There will always be things that we don't agree with and we shall let them be. Perhaps one day we would understand what is all the art about
Zhen, I agree. Personal I feel ignorance and arrogance account a lot of over processing of images. In some cases a little of both.
Maybe if more photographers were to print what they post they’d have a better understanding of the photographic process and become more refine in what they post online. There’s a world of difference to saying post it and it’s a print. I was striving for optimizing quality digital prints for 15 or more years before I ever posted my first digital image online.
well they also need to know what to look for and be open to hear what others say about to "improve" their work. many times those who tasted some form of glory and achievement will be ignorant as producing the highest quality image doesn't really matter that much. At the end it is still a very personal thing and we can only do as much to advice a little here and there hopefully preserving the standard in long run on grand scheme of things
Zhen, sound great on paper and from what I’m gathering this may have been the community here at Fstoppers some time ago, and more of the community I was looking for when I became more active almost 1 year ago. :( sadly this is not the case that I have found :(
Far too many principles of photography have transformed for too many as hard steadfast laws or even “commandments” for a lot of the community. And In My Humble Opinion the attitude of I can fix it in post or even I’ll do it in post while ignoring the FUNdanMentals of basic photography. As an example how often do you see digital photographer use the viewfinder oppose to the LCD screen to shoot an image … I mean heck some cameras don’t even had a viewfinder anymore. In a recent Fs “original” article about steadying a handheld camera, one method was to wrap the camera strap around the forearm and looking through the viewfinder pressing the camera firmly to your face. This was earth-shattering on a revelation scale. But my point looking at a 3 inch screen a foot or further away no way you’ll see the finer details in the image let alone the edges of the image, rather the prevalence of the crop tool these days.
Sorry for being so cynical
i am also a huge believer of looking through the viewfinder, specifically optical viewfinder. I find myself being able to compose better that way. That being said, I still find casually shooting through the 3" screen quite flexible if I needed a fast result.
And sadly I have to agree with you on the overall standard degradation that we experience in photography where I partly believe contributed by convenience of technology. Those days we will even have to learn how to operate a camera to use one, but today, anyone can just use a camera and edit images with automated settings and preset or profile look editing.
I find the emphasis these days is no longer in technical execution but rather on the mood that an image delivers. As long as there is a certain look, that image passes by as being good enough. This I believe is also due to the lack of time each individual have to view an image as we are constantly being bombarded with images every second.
1 point to efficiency & -1 point to timeless in photographer vision and skillset.
I’m glad to have learned photography with a mechanical camera shooting film. The only thing requiring a battery was the built-in light meter so if the battery dies you can estimate your exposure and continue shooting. Only after years of experience and confidence can you any akin to instant gratification upon tripping the shutter release. It still could be a day or more before seeing your processed results.
Primarily as a Landscape and Nature photographer I would rather get the best possible image while I’m on location and spent less time at a computer.
“You can use an eraser on the drafting table or a sledgehammer on the construction site.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
If you want to create something which looks like art, why don't you pick up a paintbrush and do it well so as to not be confused with bad photography? A chimpanzee could push photo editing sliders in all directions and come up with something wild; however, that doesn't make it good. And, yes, I believe that there are guidelines by which photography can be considered good or bad. After all, the ability of the camera lens to capture fine detail is what distinguishes photography from all other art forms.
I think you may have opened a large subjective can of worms there.
IMHO Photography is art, it’s just a different medium. Music is art. Graphic design is art. Installation is art. Carpentry is art. Dance is art. Even food is art.
There was a time that painting strived for realism. Then impressionism, abstract and cubism came along and broke the rules. People literally went crazy when Stravinsky’s “rites of spring” was first performed because it broke the traditional rules of music and harmony.
Then you have Tracey Emin and her ilk. An unmade bed or a pile of bricks isn’t to my taste, but it’s still art. Even if a chimpanzee could do it.
Art isn’t about the process, or the medium you choose. There are no rules in art. It”s not a “look”. It’s the final result and how it makes people feel.
Photography shouldn’t be subject to gatekeepers who believe realism is the only valid aesthetic and that others shouldn’t try anything different.
I totally agree with you. Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams and others argued tirelessly for having photography accepted as an art form. I don't deny that any creative endeavor, whether by camera, paintbrush, or musical instrument should be accepted as art.
My problem is that creating art isn't a license for poor photography skills, and that's what often happens using the excuse that photography is art. The same holds true for any other art form. A young child picking up a violin for the first time will probably make some hideous sounds. It's still technically music (and art) but it's bad music until they practice, practice and practice some more. It takes a lot of effort before you're given a recital at Carnegie Hall because there are standards and expectations of good music. Photography is no different.
Too much photography, as with art, falls within the category of "anything goes." I've made a horrible photo so I'll call it art and therefore get away with it. My viewers will think it's brilliant if I put it in an art gallery. However, good photography, regardless of realistic or impressionist, still depends on design, intent and composition. I have no scientific evidence for this comment, but it is my opinion that the further an image departs from the fundamentals of reality, the more likely it is to be interpreted as sloppy photography. It's not to say that every photo must be an exact literal rendering of the natural world, but that much of the artistic photography I see in galleries simply impresses me as lazy work. Galleries are big on themes and conceptual art, so ideas get planted in the minds of young photographers at the expense of making a solidly composed image. At some point the student of photography needs to get past using the title of art as an excuse for making bad pictures.
I think what we are all going after is concept vs photography. If one is going after concept then the photograph are not restricted to the boundaries of technicalities in photography as long as it delivers the right concept, mood and style and how it was marketed at the end. On the other hand if we are going after photography then a certain level of technical execution is needed
Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe works were silkscreen prints, not photographs. If it were not for an original photograph which accurately depicted her face, there would be no Warhol reproductions. So if you called his work a photograph, I would indeed say that she was ridiculously oversaturated. But that's the difference between art and photography.
Generally speaking, photography is rooted in reality. Reality need not be a four letter word. It doesn't have to be boring. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate because nobody would agree how to define it. Want to darken your sky or throw in a few clouds that weren't actually there? Fine... it doesn't change the fact that the photo depicts a real scene. A macro close-up of a flower might render it more as an abstract form, but it's still real. It's just a small slice of reality. To the point that the author makes (which I agree with)... over-editing a photo risks credibility, and I think most people expect something to appear believable if you call it a photograph. I prefer to keep my editing within limits for that reason.
well described
I do plenty of post-processing with my images. I don't condemn anyone for adding life to images straight out of the camera. But to your point, there's a line for me which editing can cross... sometimes unintentionally. Some times I don't recognize the issue until I've printed the photo, because images look so different on paper than on a monitor.
A prime example of this is shooting landscapes during twilight hours. Colors are typically more muted. The color of our sandstone rocks at that hour is more blue than the saturated reds and yellows after the sun rises in the morning, or before it sets in the evening. But that doesn't stop me from trying to put more saturation in the colors with post-processing. I'm essentially trying to create something it is not, which never looks right. Not every image must be so colorful, but that's a difficult discipline to learn.
in one of my older articles, i did briefly discuss on the challenges on portraying the truth with photography. And the act of photographing itself is already a bias. Personally to me, as long as we deliver the story we want to tell without going overboard with the edit, its totally fine. Following your example, the colour of the sandstone rocks at twilight is more blue than the saturated reds and yellows after the sun rises in the morning. but if our intent is to show the presence of the sandstone then its totally fine to correct the white balance to match what it actually is instead of photographing it with the blue ambient lighting.
Changing the white balance to warmer tones when rocks are in the shade doesn't look right. Photo edits often come off looking all wrong if not carefully performed with some basis in reality. Again, I'm not against photo post-processing. I just feel a need to not make the image look overtly contrived by doing so. I make that point below in response to a question asked by Peter Matthews, using a photo of his as an example where natural lighting and manipulated lighting contradict each other.
Oh Edward I'm surprised haven't you heard ... “There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs” ... guess who ? ;)
AA of course. But that quote raises the question... If there are good photographs, there must be bad photographs. If that's true, how do we articulate the difference?
Edward, as Susan Sontag said, "It is not altogether wrong to say that there is no such thing as a bad photograph - only less interesting, less relevant, less mysterious ones", from On Photography very thoughtful book, you will love and hate it and her before you finish the read ... if you finish it. But it gets the reader thinking.
There are only two books I can remember from the last twenty years or so that I was unable to finish reading, and Sontag's "On Photography" was one of them. And I read a lot. There's rarely a moment that I'm not in the middle of a book. Historical novels are my favorite, otherwise I enjoy a decent mix of fiction and non-fiction.
I realize that there's a diversity of opinion here, and that interesting, relevant, and mysterious are entirely subjective. If it's your newborn baby, the technically worst photo ever made will still be a great photo. Speaking solely from my perspective, the photographs which I've seen in art shows which have stopped me in my tracks are ones which I could think through the process of having made the image, and speak as to why the print has such an impact on me. It's more than simply saying I like or dislike something. It's a question of why I like it that's helped me improve my own work in photography. My thoughts turn to the structure of the photo, the design and interrelationship of elements, and its simplicity or complexity. In black and white which I'm partial to, I contemplate tonal values, and as a printer, I consider how the choice of paper and print size add to the experience of viewing the photo. The best images become etched in my mind forever... like a good book. There will never be universal agreement on what constitutes a good photo, book, song or any other work of art, but it's important for me to do that individually in order to improve my own craft. And that's all I can expect.
Photography is so much more to me than finding an interesting subject, clicking the shutter, and hoping that the scene resonates with the viewer. When everything in a print comes together, I can hold it in my hands for half an hour or more. Meditation is difficult for me because my mind is always busy; however, I can use a favorite print to calm my mind and avoid distracting thoughts. I'm pretty sure that's all the kind of stuff which Sontag would avoid in her book, but maybe I'll try it again. My feelings about photography have no doubt changed since the last time I picked up her book.
I do resonate with you Edward! Something about holding up your own work and staring into it is so calming. All the noises surrounding you suddenly just disappears! I am loving the diverse opinions and thoughts I am getting in this article. Love the viewpoints here and there! Thanks for sharing
I totally understand you're not being able to finish On Photography I had a difficult time finishing it myself. Possibly one of the most unfinished reads on the New York Times Best Selling booklist ;) Hadn’t it been a library book I very well may have set it down somewhere to allow it to conveniently got buried under some pile to be forgotten. Best as I recall I read it around the time I participated I my first photographic workshop in the late 70’s more than likely after the workshop.
We are aware art is in the eye of the beholder and is very subjective to the viewer. The only people who love a full body of an artist’s work is the artist themself, I don’t mean that to sound as arrogant as it sounds. Many artists have expressed their work as “their children” I can relate to this.
As to your busy mind and meditation, might I suggest walking not only is it one of the best psychical exercises but it is also when the brain works most efficiently especially as far a thinking and problem solving.
Thanks Paul. We have Sontag's book around here somewhere, but since our conversation started I haven't been able to find it. As you might guess, we've got books all over the place and my wife is out of town for a few days. It was actually hers when we met 30 years ago.
As to exercise, I've gotten slack about that. Grew up a sports nut until I wrecked my knee a few years ago. Skiing, golf, racquetball... stayed really active. Hiking is popular around here because of the huge amount of public land. I just can't get into it. Even walking around the neighborhood is only something I'll do occasionally when I'm bored. Whatever walking I do is with my camera in hand. I'm fortunate that I really don't have any problems to think about. My mind seems to invent them though. Like the fact that I just turned 70. They say age is just a number, but it's no longer a small number, or so says my birth certificate.
Maybe your wife brought On Photography on her trip ? ! Or donated it to the loco ( ;0 ) camera club. ;)
One of my favorite lyrics/songs “Thinking is the best way to travel”
As to my comment about walking and exercise I gather you missed my point about it’s benefit for the mind. Not that I’m adverse to the psychical benefits, it’s a win-win, body and soul.
Sorry, Zhen this is about to go way off topic however briefly I hope. One of the biggest stereotype of the world is about various traditional cultures use of the wheel as measure of cultural “intelligence”. As to “The People” before European contact these people were not only walkers, They not only knew of the wheel, the wheel was life. Far too sacred to use or sacrifice to a menial tool of labor like a cart/wagon. Instead they opted to use a travois. When you travel over the ground/earth with a wheeled vehicle the wheels compress the ground/earth hindering if not killing it. With a travois as you travel you till the ground/earth letting it continue to grow and flourish from the moment you pass.
Albert Einstein said “Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.”
Walk more, it could be (pardon the pun) the first step to being more meditative … Om … Peace!
No worries Paul, I am happy to see the conversation develop into different aspects of life. I myself do constantly do a 2 hours walk weekly around town using camera and documenting life as an excuse. Deep down, I just wanted an escape from work and "meditate".
Zhen, your work/occupation is as a creative … no? If so I would think mediation would be advantageous to your workflow!
It does, ideas are born especially when you are not working. Love all the little walks and explorations
Edward, just if you're interested:
https://www.lab404.com/3741/readings/sontag.pdf
Later Have a Good One
Thanks for sharing Paul
Warhol was a fraud. Nothing but a talentless dolt who convinced enough dupes necessary for fame and fortune.
A shot that looks "just how your eyes see it" is what the judges call "a record shot", a record of what was there. Not art. Photography is best when it's art, not photojournalism, which is fine work if you can get it, but it's only sometimes art. I deliver 3,000 shots per basketball season, maybe 5 are art.
Photography is many things. Yes it is art, and it is photojournalism which can at times be art as you mention. However, it is much more than just those two things. It can documentary, and that in itself can be very broad. It can be scientific. It can be instructive and educational.
I don't agree with you that it is best when it's art. The best photo I have ever taken was of my father about a month prior to his death. It isn't art, it wasn't photojournalism. It was a quick snap of several that captured for me, the man I knew before Alzheimer's stole him from us. I mentioned this in an article I wrote back in 2018 for Fstoppers titled "Your photos need more life and less photoshop" that is sort of inline with this article.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/your-photos-need-more-life-and-less-phot...
Photography is many things to many people, that's why it is one of the best things in the world.
i do agree with you Douglas, the inherent value in photography can sometimes be very personal which is probably why we spend so much time shooting. For businesses it can be commercial purpose, for people like us, we just want to record memorable moments here and there so we can cherish them when they are gone
Carlos, I never held much credence in what I heard about “Clubs” and “their rules” personally I feel these so called “judges” mute personal growth, expression and imagination. But what do I know I’ve spent most of my life miles away from even a grocery store, post office let along a camera club, learning and developing my vision and style doing what I do and where it is/was best done, rather than hobnobbing with the photographic forerunners of social media pounding chest and back slapping. and/or _______.
Stop by and view my work and I would yours but you have me at a disadvantage since I see your profile consists of 0 images, 11+ comments oh! my what's this 0 photo rated.
I think Jared Polin would comment here: "why are you posting on Fstoppers"??
The problem with over-editing is that the editor is creating visual fiction.
in one of my older articles, I did briefly discuss the challenges for photographers to portray the truth with photography. and so is there challenges for the editor. I guess mastering the skillset to grab the balance well between editing and portraying the truth is going to be a challenge.
Are you sure? Is the entire point of photography to be an exact record of what the eye sees?
I looked up Ansel Adams on DuckDuckGo and they gave me this:
Ansel Adams edited his photos primarily through darkroom techniques, employing methods such as "burning" and "dodging" to manipulate exposure and enhance certain areas of an image. For instance, he used these techniques extensively in his famous photograph "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," where he darkened the sky and adjusted the brightness of the moon to achieve the desired emotional effect.
Any questions?
which is why its a challenge to portray the truth. Anyway, dodging and burning is a technique commonly used since the film days to enhance the tonality in an image and not relighting it.
Black and white, in and of itself, is never an exact record of what we see, obviously... because we see in color. But I have never felt that Adams with his darkroom tonal adjustments created fictional images, or technically bad images. Of course his Moonrise prints reflect something different than lighting which actually existed at the moment of capture. His images were edited in the darkroom, but not "over" edited, in my opinion. The point I'm trying to make is that many over-edited photographs seem to simply look like bad photography... something you could never accuse Adams of. His images demonstrated thought, purpose and intent. Most images, in my opinion, that are over-edited are made with the intent of trying to salvage a photo that wasn't very good in the first place, or using artistic effects to compensate for a weak composition.
So, Bast Hotep and one online search makes you an expert on Ansel Adams 50-60 years experience ?
The reference you use it Adams’ printing history range from early version of light and bright to later rendition to as your reference makes.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/24/56/24/22209814/6/ratio4x3_1920.jpg
I suggest dig into Ansel Adams a bit deeper who knows you might like what your find out! I suggest his first of three book series “The Camera”.
"So, Bast Hotep and one online search makes you an expert on Ansel Adams 50-60 years experience ?"
No, Paul Kister and I was clearly not attempting to be "an expert on Ansel Adams". My point was that the most basic research ("one online search") into probably the most famous photographer in history would show that even he did not hesitate to change the exact record of what his eye saw.
All photography is art, since all photography involves selecting a subject, lens focal length and aperture setting, shutter speed, exposure, and myriad choices in developing/post-processing/cropping/editing.
There's no such thing as "over-processing", but there is such a thing as personal taste. Clearly nobody seems bothered in this thread by Ansel Adams dodging and burning for HIS style and personal taste, but I'm sure there were photographic purists back in his day who were.
Back in the late 90's digital was much closer to film processing and printing. Pushing things were not a trend yet but also, colors were often off as most photographers didn't print their own enlargements in the film days and had difficulties adjusting to the digital lab. I learned about color accuracy while printing cibachrome which was a different approach to conventional rgb paper print process and not a friendly one. When I transitioned to digital I also learned the full cmyk process as well as drum scanning. That put me in a total color accuracy world to a level I didn't even knew existed. Then people started publishing digital captures that were nice but off color wise. I had trouble understanding why people didn't care about accuracy. I just don't think they did it in purpose and then it went from inaccurate to deliberate everything, HDR to color grading madness. I don't mind some of it and I will practice it from time to time for my personal stuff but I still think that natural is best. I see pictures from 50's 60's and 70's on the net and the most impressive to me are the ones where someone put some effort at correcting colors so they look contemporary as opposed to how labs would deliver at the time when even the best labs had technical limitations.
well said
This site is essentially about imagery ..No examples of images you consider to be over edited?
Since you asked... The image from your portfolio "Canary Wharf London Cityscape" is a perfect example of over-editing. Buildings lit from the front with sun setting in the back. Pretty hard to do without Luminar or some sky replacement technique. You've got plenty of great images on your website (glad that this one is apparently not on it) so it raises the question of why mess with cheesy sky replacements, especially bad ones. Why doctor an image so much that it destroys the credibility of your entire portfolio? Make an obviously fake image once and from then on, people are suspicious everything you create is fake. Or even worse, you get the reputation that your work is totally AI generated and you've never even been to London.
Ed. I asked a question , not for a Critique,but since were here..
That particular image is a bit of fun to be honest although an well known America firm of arcitechs are currently using on their website, oh a so is another well known Graphic Designer. I think I got 2K for that..Suffice to say my reputation is still in tact. Just taken a look at some of your landscapes and they are in, my opinion only of course ,a little like something out of a 1960s Disneyland. You might want to practice what you preach. Have a great day Ed.
A bit snarky seeing as you did walk straight into that. :-)