Where do you draw the line with editing?

[Clovishound]

This has come up, mostly as a tangential issue, often enough that I thought a separate discussion on it might be a good thing. Everyone has an opinion on where to draw the line, although some may not have given it that much thought.

With the rise of AI generated images, and software tools that can do amazing things to our images, there comes a time when we may need to put some rails up. Some think that we should use only images "straight from the camera" with no editing whatsoever. Others may think that anything to get the image they want is OK. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

A lot may depend on what the intended use of the image is. My camera club has a big contest every year that most of us look forward to. The rules for editing are rather strict. This is not uncommon for lots of contests these days. Breaking the rules while entering a contest would be a big no no for me. Just making an image to please yourself, or to post online, as long as you aren't representing it as something it isn't, is another matter.

Some things may be a matter of taste. A lot of folks in our club like, and make images with textures. I can appreciate the aesthetics of them, but, for the most part, they are not my cup of tea. These images are permissible in our yearly contest, but only in the artistic category, and only if all elements are the photographer's photos.

Personally, I have guidelines rather than hard rules for most things. Obviously, I take a hard line on appropriating other's work, or misrepresenting an image. I have no issue using removal tools to get rid of small distracting elements, like a small twig or some trash in an image. I only remove larger items on rare occasions. I will make a composite image when absolutely necessary, but avoid using this as an everyday tool.

Here is an example of one of my composites. I shot a photo of a pileated woodpecker in flight last year. I decided I wanted to turn this into a humorous image, and so I took a shot of a contrail in the sky and combined the two. I have no issues showing, or posting this image, but it is just for fun, and I make no claims that I was able to get this image in one fortuitous shot.

I have done several sky replacements, when having irrecoverable issues with the sky as shot. I have pretty much gotten away from this, as I just don't feel good about it. I certainly wouldn't put anyone down for using this tool, as long as they are comfortable doing it, and don't misrepresent the image.

I could go on, but I will throw this out as a conversation starter. What are your thoughts? What boundaries, hard or soft, have you set for yourself?

 

[Clovishound]

Before this thread goes any further, let say that this is not intended to criticize anyone's editing choices, but rather to spark thought on what we do and how we do it. Let's keep thing civil and respectful, and perhaps learn from each other's choices and opinions.

 

[tonye]

Great subject to open up. Expect lots of differing views on this.
Some people think of post processes as part of the shot and others like myself keep it to a minimum if any. Personally i do very little, may be crop or resize with a little exposure reset, thats about it for me and my style of photography. I take mainly long exposure minimalist shots and have plenty of time to set things up like filters and framing of the shot. On the odd occasion I might have to remove a spot or two especially if blowing up for printing but that's about it for me. Looking forward to many other thoughts on the subject.

 

[Peter7100]

For me, whatever editing is done, I still like the finished result to look real. There are images online nowadays that just look ridiculous IMO.
Of course there is no harm in having fun and in theory if you had waited long enough your composite image could have been a brilliant real one

 

[nikonbill]

First - great thought for discussion in this modern world.

For me I like testing boundaries, being an electrics hobbyist as long as I've been a Photography hobbyist. I like the digital world we live in, but I believe in keeping the original data in my images. When something turns to replacing things I am not opposed at all, however I like when the presenter notes there have been changes made its all fair at that point in my opinion.

I do miss film when these discussions come up, acknowledging many of the great film photographers used darkroom techniques in their final possesses. I had a fully manual Pentax KX camera, the only thing in it was a light meter and a manual focus aid a circle with the split line (I really miss that today). My main lens was a Pentax 50mm 1.4 (amazing lens) lens. I used this arrangement from 1979 to 2012. You took photos and sent them off and got back negative's with your prints or slides. You played with some filters and thought of how to take photos. Simple

Now today - we all have a darkroom (digitally) the most simple of witch is inside of our cameras. However many think of our internal processors like an old film lab. In reality these internal camera computers now "can" use AI generated effects through picture controls and other shooting adjustments to arrive at the final photo downloaded from the camera. In my opinion nothing we record today can be completely removed from all "manipulation".

Most use a computer program as their darkroom, so many options with AI generation we have the ability now to tell a program to do things for us. For me I am currently liking programs without AI assistance, this forces me to understand how processes work takes a bit more of me but as I am now retired it keeps my mind more active. I like getting as close as I can to more expensive automated software with as little money as possible. This just gives me extra enjoyment knowing I created something.

This is how the world has changed, I respect the heck out of the photographers who don't want to see photos changed. However to remove one's self from it all you would have to remove yourself from digital photography completely in my humble opinion.

With film you could still give the better labs "instructions" in processing or do the processing yourself. These facts many forget puts us right back into this debate.

I think we are all "creators" some just use more tools than others how can this be bad?

To me a really fine photo is more about composition and the story it tells and if it draws you in. I wish I were more talented in telling a story when taking a photo I work hard at it but its not natural to me.

Great idea @Clovishound I hope I've made some sense in my thoughts, as you said it well a "start"

 

[nikonbill]

For me, whatever editing is done, I still like the finished result to look real. There are images online nowadays that just look ridiculous IMO.
Of course there is no harm in having fun and in theory if you had waited long enough your composite image could have been a brilliant real one

This reminds me of the Gettysburg address - a lot of good thought with a few words

 

[Clovishound]

For me, whatever editing is done, I still like the finished result to look real. There are images online nowadays that just look ridiculous IMO.
Of course there is no harm in having fun and in theory if you had waited long enough your composite image could have been a brilliant real one

And some of these images could not be done in the field, even with extraordinary luck. Here is one of my first composites. I was at a small lake photographing birds, there was a nice moon in the sky that morning. I heard a flock of geese approaching. I thought I might have a shot at getting a flock of geese with a large moon behind them. I prefocused on moon and waited. The flock came through and lined up decently with the moon in the background. I fired away, tracking the geese. Unfortunately, the camera kept focus lock on the moon, and the geese were very blurry. I got one shot as they passed beyond the moon where the lock shifted to the geese. I reluctantly made a composite of the moon before the geese got into the frame, and the in focus geese shot. Unfortunately, I had to remove one of the geese from the flock because of a branch in the way (in for a penny, in for a pound). The ironic thing is that I probably couldn't have gotten both the moon and the geese in focus in the same image, but it was more accurate to what I saw than a shot where the camera would have actually focused on the birds the whole time, although the placement in this was undoubtedly more perfect than I could have gotten in camera.

 

[BF Hammer]

Let's call it a fuzzy smear instead of a hard, high-contrast line drawn for me.

My preference is for more natural images. Some photos need more processing help, others barely need an exposure adjust. Is manipulating objects in a scene during composition fair game? I think so as long as no damage is done. Cloning out elements? I tend to not do that as I don't have have that much skill for it. But I am willing to clone out dust spots that distract. Replace a sky? Then it might be a digital art project instead of photography. A person's intent has much to do with it all.

Let's not dismiss the role of training generative AI tools in the first place. Adobe is using all of your images that are edited with their software (and remember it is all their's, no matter how much you pay to rent it) for training the AI filters. Generative AI produced could be borrowing from your own work. So my preference would be to have EXIF data that automatically adds info indicating the image is AI generated, inspired by [photographer name].

Manipulating images have been an ethical debate for over a century, even on film. Airbrushing blemishes, or outright faking the Loch Ness Monster with a fuzzy toy submarine.

I have done some images that are in the fake category, but I always point out that I created the image instead of just presenting a photo. From 2024, I created this eclipse photo by overlaying an old photo of the full moon over the moon's shadow. No I did not capture earthshine that easily.

But contrast that almost natural image to a rather famous "fake" image by Peter Lik:

Clearly that is fake as can be. Actual photos Peter took then combined into single images, but that is not even close to natural. Beautiful artwork though.

I won't call anybody out specifically, but there is one regular contributor here that saturates and sharpens all photos to the point of not being realistic. I think is is just a photoshop filter this person bought, but very overused for my personal taste. Like that one person in an office that uses too much cologne. Not that I would say that should not be done, it just is in that fuzzy smeared line area.

 

[tonye]

In the good old days, way in my past with my trusty old FUjICA ST 605N fully manual ( how i miss it ) i did some very grainy iso 800 black and white work and nearly always printed on grade 5 very course/harsh paper, the atmosphere in those shots was unreal. Sometimes just leave the noise to do its own thing, worth trying with those high ISOs, you will be surprised with the results.

 

[nikonbill]

Sometimes just leave the noise to do its own thing, worth trying with those high ISOs, you will be surprised with the results.

This is a good point, not always does noise distract, hence the "add noise" tool - I will carefully say I think the modern photographer chases perfect sharpness and perfection everywhere within images a little aggressively.

I feel like I am just now getting somewhat consistent results as I search for my best workflow. I have always "edited" sense going digital, the first few years quite lightly. The past several years I'm much more into getting it down, shooting almost 100% RAW and editing every shot. I very frequently look at what the camera would do (see what its jpg would look like) to real myself in as its easy to get "unrealistic".

I suspect most of us try different things in the editing journey. To me there is not a perfect way for "everyone" its all about finding the best way for ourselves. I'll re-edit images often, I'll look at a finished image (posted or stored) and say to myself I can do better than that. I think this is just the learning process.

I think we all have our own style in taking photos and editing photos, that's the final product for us as creators. Chasing what pleases the most peoples eye is the chase we are all in. I enjoy seeing what non-photographers think of photos I make, this always tells me when I'm on the right road artistically. Photographers opinions tell me when I'm on the right road technically.

 

[tonye]

The past several years I'm much more into getting it down, shooting almost 100% RAW and editing every shot. I very frequently look at what the camera would do (see what its jpg would look like) to real myself in as its easy to get "unrealistic".

I shoot both 100% of the time, yes it can slow things down but with my style i have plenty of time between shots and yes it's nice to compare the results with SOOC jpeg that used the camera's settings.

 

[nikonbill]

I shoot both 100% of the time, yes it can slow things down

I simply look at the Nikon RAW file with NX Studio your camera settings (even if you changed any) are embedded in the RAW data the viewed file is what your camera would have generated.

I've recently found a great program for looking at RAW files called Xnview MP it has a browser and can also open singles as well. What I like best is I can pick several photos in the browser and open them in my editor (Affinity), in addition if I open a single I can right click the image and send it to an editor as well. Its free for personal use (but not commercial) and I may soon send a donation as I think its a keeper.

 

[Clovishound]

Here is another one that exemplifies the conundrum we often face when making decisions about how far to go to get the shot the way we want it. This is an image I shot this weekend at Swan Lake. I love the detail in the female mallard and especially like the reflection of the trees on the water.

I do find the male duck in the background rather distracting. I wish now that I had spent more time in this area and waited for the ducks to return and get some more shots of them with this beautiful lighting and reflections. I decided to try removing the male duck to see what it might look like with a simpler composition. Here is the result.

I really like this one much better. I am a somewhat reluctant to use it for anything since it relied so heavily on AI replacement for the removed section of the image. I really don't have much issue with removing a small piece of trash, or small branch or blade of grass from an image, but this is a major reworking of the original image. I guess one thing that weighs on my mind concerning this is that I cannot enter it in most contests, because of the editing that as done to it. Perhaps not a major consideration. I doubt this would rank that high in the year's images, but it does color my feelings about it.

What say you?

 

[Burt]

In my humble opinion, and as per title of the thread, in most pictures online these days, I can only appreciate the quality of the software, and the photographer imagination, but other than that, they look all the same... Unnatural over saturated colours, is probably my biggest issue..
As you state in your post, at the end of the day, it only matters to get the shot the way you want it, not the way it is.. At that point the "look and feel real" have already gone..

Like painting, there is no right or wrong, there is only what we can appreciate and understand... If you are happy with the results, what other people think, is simply irrelevant.. The only thing left now, is for you to decide if to follow the skills of the software, or the skills of the photographer..

Again, in my opinion, they cannot coexist, as it seems that the software skills have taken over these days...

 

[nikonbill]

What say you?

I agree with @Burt , I think he wrote it as clear as it can be said

I was just watching antiques road show last night and an original set of 16 Ansel Adams prints that sold for 100 dollars is currently valued at 60,000 dollars. The relevance being he was one of the original masters of dark room "techniques".

I also visited a photography exhibit recently in Gettysburg PA containing civil war era examples. A local expert was able to prove and show how some of the bodies in some of the most iconic after battle photos were "dragged" into place to make a more interesting image. With this being the start of photography as we know it, I say we have had manipulation in some form from the start.

We are all worrying too much I think

 

[nikonpup]

I WONDER WHAT THE COMMENTS WOULD BE LIKE IF THERE
WAS AN INTERNET BACK IN THE DAY OF THE OLD MASTER PAINTERS?

 

[Burt]

I WONDER WHAT THE COMMENTS WOULD BE LIKE IF THERE
WAS AN INTERNET BACK IN THE DAY OF THE OLD MASTER PAINTERS?

What??