You crest the brow of a hill to behold a magnificent landscape, but as you’re framing it in your camera’s viewfinder, you realize that this stunning scene is intersected by ugly power lines. Is editing them out later in Photoshop an option you would consider, or one that feels somehow dishonest?
There are contexts in which editing or manipulating a photograph after the fact would certainly be considered wrong and possibly even fraudulent or illegal. Beyond certain specialized domains such as crime scene photography and photojournalism, however, this issue is rarely so cut and dried. Even in the more artistic areas of photography, though, image manipulation can sometimes get you into trouble. Photography competitions often operate under strict rules that prohibit any post-production manipulation of submitted entries, and some photographers have even found themselves on the sharp end of these rules—getting disqualified and forfeiting their prize, for example, for something as apparently innocent as editing the skin on an elephant’s ear.
In general, though, when we’re out shooting for ourselves or even shooting with a view to selling our images, we are not bound by any such set of defined rules about whether it’s okay to edit or manipulate our photographs in post-production. In most cases, this is a decision that must be made between the photographer, their artistic sensibility, and their conscience.
If we use the example of the kind of artistic landscape photography that is featured in the video presented here, you would have to ask yourself whether the person buying a landscape print has the expectation that it will faithfully reproduce every detail that was actually present in the depicted landscape at the moment the photograph was captured. If they are buying the print purely to enjoy the beauty of the scene, are they going to mind that you edited out some trash that somebody left in the foreground of the shot, in order to remove a feature that might visually distract from that beauty? What about editing out more permanent features of the landscape, such as power lines or buildings?
Thomas Heaton is an excellent landscape photographer who produces beautiful work. He is also a very thoughtful photographer who clearly cares deeply about his craft, and this comes across in all of his videos. In this latest video, Thomas struggles with the question of whether it is right or ethical to edit your landscape photographs in post-production, to remove features that you feel might detract from the beauty of the scene. As an added bonus, another excellent photographer - Fstopper’s own Darren Spoonley - is also featured in this video as he accompanies Thomas on his hike through some of Ireland’s breathtaking scenery in search of the perfect landscape shot.
I would like to know more of the backstory on these "Power-lines" when, why and who at least.
Generally I my opinion as far as landscape and natural photography goes if its manmade obstruction that cannot be shot around it's fair game for the cloning tool.
In architectural, and cityscape moving things such as people or cars, trash and trash cans not in desirable position are fair game.
Group photos its okay to replace a person or two's smile from another image as long as there's no smile swapping with someone else's.
Photography as an art or as an craft?
Well, then, what about parallax removal?
I think we should really stop asking those questions and just create. One of the biggest things that has kept me from entering competitions is the extent of artistic freedom one can lose.
It isn’t worth the chance of winning any prize at all.
People used to manipulate photos in the darkroom.
Just go out and create. Keep yourself from thinking this way as much as you can.
Ladies are allowed to wear makeup...
Have a nice weekend, friends!
Don't think!
I wanted to point out that there's always been an editing process, even in the days of film. Perhaps we've reached a point where we confuse traditional editing with AI-driven processing, losing sight of the distinction between the two.
Someone who books a vacation on the basis of photos showing pristine landscapes and arrives to find things littered and uglified is probably going to have some choice words for the photographer who misrepresented reality.
You decide and organize your vacation location based on a photograph? Yikes LOL
Rene,
The only reason I travel anywhere, ever, is for photography. It is all based on the photographs.
If one is a photographer, and photography is the most important thing in one's life - the very thing that one lives for - then of course vacation locations are chosen based on the photographic opportunities. In fact, the trips we take aren't so much "vacations" as they are "photography trips".
I will be traveling to Colorado in two weeks, and I will be there for 3 1/2 weeks. And the whole reason I will be going there is to photograph the Whitetail Deer and Mule Deer breeding season, a.k.a. "rut". Of course my destination was very carefully selected because of the quality of opportunities I expect to find there, inasmuch as the deer are concerned.
If the only reason we travel is to do photography, then of course we are basing our destination on "a photograph". More correctly, a body of photographs that can be made, not just a single image ..... although I may be taking a week-long trip to Wisconsin in December, and that venture would actually be more about creating a single photograph than amassing a body of work. But either way, yeah, travel is all based on the photography.
looks like you missed the point
To me, your point was that the way you feel about someone making travel plans based solely on the photography opportunities is "YIKES". I interpret "yikes" as being a bad thing. So I thought your point was that it makes you cringe to think of basing one's travel only on the photographs one may get.
So, if that was your point, then I did not miss it. But if that was not your point, then what was?
I think Rene's point was that it would be unwise to totally trust the authenticity of pictures in a travel brochure in order to select; say, a hotel, or destination. In other words... don't believe everything you see in a picture. I don't think he was saying that traveling for the purpose of taking photographs or planning your trips based on photographic opportunities, as you do, is silly. That would be quite extraordinary, as many of us travel for the primary purpose of photography, and choose our destinations accordingly.
You don't read real goodly, does ya?
Of course, anyone can use digital image processing to creatively edit a camera image to their heart's content. However, the result is not a photo but a digital work of art. The creator is an image retoucher and not a photographer, but often in personal union. Therefore, these digital works of art should not be “sold” as photos by photographer xy - it's as simple as that.
The term I've encountered to distinguish a person who captures images with a camera from a person who creates images through alteration of captured images with other tools is "photo illustrator".
Oh, sure, because photography legends just magically captured perfection in every shot, no editing needed, ever! Right. If you honestly think there’s no editing involved in photography, whether film or digital, then, wow, are you in for a surprise. And no, I’m not talking about photojournalism here. But claiming "the creator is an image retoucher, not a photographer", now that’s a real gem. Possibly the most ridiculous thing I’ve read today. Bravo!
Sarcasm ≠ reasoning
Cloning things out doesn't bother me at all.
What REALLY bothers me is when people edit landscape photos and make the scene look unrealistic by adding contrast and playing with levels and ...... basically they make it look like surreal artwork, instead of a real-life slice of nature. That pisses me off. And yet we see such images receiving accolades right here on this very site, often being awarded Photo of the Day honors. I don't get it.
I mean if they were up front and transparent and gave full disclosure of the changes they made, then okay. But often these way-over-edited landscape "photos" are just presented with no mention of all the processing that was done to them to completely change the look and mood and feel of the scene, and that is just wrong.
Tom, well said, I have often thought upon receiving a two star rating “Needs Work” (with no written explanation). If they are strictly referring post processing manipulation(s). I know they are not referring my work in the field getting an image as best to my visualization in camera. Not only visually but physical and mental endurance while photographing a close-up of a wildflower or a landscape while being assaulted by hordes of biting insects, etc.
As to full disclosure I totally agree (except as to locations). Being up front transparency with “changes” to landscapes or any other “realistic” photograph. I feel many of these members are one in the same with those who lowball rate others work and can’t comment as to why. Although we have to realize some of these “over edited” images is just a part of the learning process. We have all been there to some degree. And as a community we should all be active in sharing our abilities, knowledge and experience with others. I know that in its own is no easy task these days. Its a double edge sword, risking offending someone to clashing with a narcissist and their masterpiece.
The rating criteria of a number two image "needs work" should probably be replaced by: "I like it better than a one but not as much as a three." Most people can't articulate why they like or dislike a picture. That would require too much thought. But different people can dislike the same picture for different reasons, so I wouldn't read too much into the scores.
That said, I suspect it's safe to assume that if a score is lower than we'd expect... say a two instead of a three or four, that the image may not convey the same sense of drama, impact, feeling, emotion or meaning that it had for the photographer. In this photo of the Arizona desert, you were the one who experienced the desolation, felt the wind, or saw the vast desert all around you. The viewer only has a small slice of that scene from which to relate to your experience. Your picture is undoubtedly technically solid, but if it doesn't hold the attention of the viewer or cause them to explore it, then it'll also undoubtedly get a lower score. And only you can decide if there might be a better way to have rendered the subject.
Edward, maybe more appropriate the the stars should be replace by another icon maybe a coin perhaps the penny.
Thanks for your thoughts, words, opinions, but either I failed miserably at making my point or you focused on only one element of this feature rather than taking advantage of all it’s elements, Gordon’s introduction to the featured video and the thoughtful posted comments. The image I included was one of several I could have used to illustrate not just a single star rating but multiple star rating equaling a needs work rating and not one comment explaining why! I hear what you are saying but don’t buy it. If what you are saying is true these members should not be rating other’s work let alone posting photographs of their own. I can think of several more viable explanations as to why they might not leave a comment. But with these low ball rating many do so under the shield of anonymity.
Good to hear from you I appreciate you thought and effort but the image alone was not the point I was making so if you would please review the entire content available here and get back to me other some other comment. So for now, let’s all push for the stars replacement with the ¢ symbol thanks for your 2¢ … ;)
”I have already settled it for myself, so flattery and criticism go down the same drain and I am quite free.” - Georgia O’keeffe
I realize that your Arizona desert photo was not the primary point of your comments. But I'm using it to make my point, which is that different people will judge your photo using different criteria, not all of which have to do with editing style. I pointed out reasons that folks might have scored it a two instead of a three. I agree with you that it would be preferable to have an explanation when someone thinks our photo needs work. But that's not gonna happen. People are not naturally good or inclined to articulate an opinion. It's simply easier to cast a numerical vote, and, to my original point, easier to do so by simply saying that a two is better than a one, but not as good as a three. I can imagine the first thought given to a snapshot is that it's "boring." Maybe the stars are just a scale of how people rate the level of boring. Doesn't much matter how you label the score or vote, or define the criteria for the vote... nothing will change the fact that the vote will garner much less thought and analysis than you or I would like.
Edward, you are presuming way too much about me and my photography. My portfolio is available 24/7 my suggestion is before you continue with outlandish have a look at not only my images, but the images I have rated and comments I’ve made. Your writing is a formulated as a debate teams playbook. Oh, I forgot about lists and groups.
And yes you do think too much which isn’t necessarily bad until you loss the process and wind up just doing laps like on the Indy 500. Earlier I was a bit concerned about you blood sugar levels. If that’s a possibility do yourself and others a favor check it on a chile you know Hendrix style or whatever finds your space.
Later, have a good one
There seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere.
By the way, as an example... I used to publish a local calendar with my pictures for businesses to imprint with their name and logo for promotional advertising. One day, a good customer called me into her office and asked if I could come up with some better pictures. Better pictures, I asked? What do you mean? These are the best of my best images. Yes, she said, but don't I have anything with sunny skies? Everything is so sad and gloomy in my pictures, she told me. It was a lesson that not everybody likes the same dramatic weather or moody images that I do. Undoubtedly she would have given a two-star vote for many of my images that I felt deserved four stars. Yes it's nice to hear an explanation, but the reason someone can like or dislike our photo can be as simple as subject matter (or the weather).
I recall another instance when I was organizing our camera club competitions. I always asked the judges to write a brief critique for each picture which they graciously provided. I remember one picture of a baby... not very well composed, lighting was pretty bad, etc. But one of the judges (a professional photographer) gave it a rather surprisingly high score. His comment was: "How can you not like a baby picture?" You see, people judge photographs for the strangest of reasons.
"Cloning things out doesn't bother me at all. What REALLY bothers me is when people edit landscape photos and make the scene look unrealistic"
To play Devil's Advocate:
So, what you prefer is something that LOOKS real but isn't.
Jacques Cornekk wrote (to me):
"So, what you prefer is something that LOOKS real but isn't."
Yes, exactly!
At least that is what I prefer when it comes to landscape images. I want a photograph to look like real life, not like a painting or like computerized artwork. But I don't really care if it is real or not. For me it's about the aesthetic qualities, not about being genuine. Show me something that COULD BE real, and I'm happy.
"The Lord of the Rings"; "The Wizard of Oz"; "Harry Potter".... fantasy stories have captivated the minds and hearts of young and old people alike for generations. With literature, the line between fantasy and reality can get blurred. I think we each have to decide for ourselves which is which. Painting, theatre, cinema, and photography are no different. Call it whatever you want, but there's a place for artistic license in all art forms. The impressionist painters deviated from tradition in choosing to capture the atmosphere of a moment rather than creating a realistic representation of a scene. It's only natural that some photographers will try to emulate that style using a camera rather than a paint brush. Of course, the great debate over what constitutes genuine photography has continued for well over a hundred years. I really don't think it's worth trying to solve, nor do I think every image has to come with a label.
Excellent comments and points being made in this discussion. I don't think this question has a one-size-fits-all kind of answer. I think it really depends on the context in which the photograph is being used, or for which it was intended.
To Jacques' point, if the photograph is part of a promotion for a travel destination, it is dishonest to make the place look more beautiful than it is in real life by editing out ugly features. Imagine seeing a beautiful expanse of unspoiled, tropical beach in a travel brochure and finding out that in real life it is always littered with plastic bottles and trash! By the same token, if somebody just wants a print of a beautiful tropical beach to hang on their wall and enjoy, I don't see Photoshopping out any trash to be a problem.
When shooting street photography at night, I will often deepen the shadows to conceal objects in the frame that distract from the story - this might be something as simple as a few trash cans, or even some additional people in the background. I'm not specifically editing them out, but I am definitely manipulating the image to conceal them. This is just to make the point that removing objects from the frame does not necessarily mean actually editing them out with a tool in Lightroom or Photoshop.
Selective dodging and burning of an image can totally change its mood and the emphasis on different features in the frame, and this kind of image manipulation has been a part of photography since long before the advent of all of the digital tools that we have today.
Gordon, Many of us may be familiar with one of Ansel Adams more popular images “Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine, California”. The thing many don’t know about this image is in the dark foreground hill on the left side, lurk the large letters “LP” (Lone Pine). (https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/ansel-adams-american-west-photographs...)
Up till today I had heard and seen Ansel had burned in the area and spot corrected prints to conceal this LP on the hillside. I have seen prints where it is detectable with close inspection. Today I came across an “online” reference that he actually spotted over the LP on his negative (?) … I have also heard someone comment in one instance he waited 8 hours for clouds to appear in a scene he photograph … can’t believe everything online. Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, Lone Pine has been controversial since this technique became known long before digital and photoshop. Why not the practice of dodging and burning as far as image enhancement but altering of reality.
To be clear, most destination images used in media are not commissioned but selected from existing images made for other uses. So, part of the responsibility for misleading the public lies with the publisher, but some of it still rests with the photographer who has chosen to present something as real that isn't.
It would be nice to value honesty and integrity in our society above all else, but it no longer appears to be that way. People see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. Indifferent to the truth. The relative honesty of minor photo edits seem like such a trivial issue in comparison, although maybe changing a culture begins with the little things.
I shoot a lot of close-up views of nature, and have no problem with cloning out a weed or small ugly patch of dirt. When faced with undesirable elements such as those in the frame, my first choice is to change the perspective so as to eliminate them from the picture. Or not shoot the picture at all. But sometimes the best composition that I really want necessitates including a distracting element that I plan on removing in Photoshop.
However, something like a power line in a broader landscape photo is neither worth the effort to remove (using the clone tool which is arguably ancient technology), nor would I want to misrepresent a photo that might end up in a calendar or brochure. I live near a popular state park with pretty lakes and trees... and some annoying power lines which ruin a lot of potential photographs. So I simply don't shoot those pictures.
I do not have any real issue when a photographer removes a distracting object of an otherwise very good image. That said, I do have a real problem in today's AI driven world if a photographer adds in an object or modifies the image to a degree it is no longer similar to what was originally shot. If it's done for artistic reasons then the photographer/editor should state so when published.