How much retouching is fair game?

D

DR M

Messages
18
Edit My Images
Yes
Well... the title says it all. Where do you feel the boundary is for adjusting a photo without compromising the authenticity of the original?
 
very much depends on the subject and the intent of the photo. Less or no re-touching is acceptable for a news photo, and as much as a photo can take for something illustrating a fantasies story.

TBH its a debate as old as photography, manipulating photos isn't a new thing for digital and its a question without a right or wrong answer
 
boyfalldown said:
very much depends on the subject and the intent of the photo. Less or no re-touching is acceptable for a news photo, and as much as a photo can take for something illustrating a fantasies story.

TBH its a debate as old as photography, manipulating photos isn't a new thing for digital and its a question without a right or wrong answer
Click to expand...
:agree:
It's a spectrum, and I definitely have an opinion about it. But in capable hands, you can find excellent examples of work at all points along that spectrum.
 
Depends on context.
On my local Facebook group, lots of people post pictures from the area. One was posted last week that was clearly heavily edited and had had a false sun stuck in.. You could tell, as the false sun was below the real sun in the water and had sun rays coming out of it. This post got about 500 “likes”, whereas my “proper” photos with only minimal RAW editing often get less than 100.

Normal people who are not photographers like spectacle, even if it’s completely unrealistic and fake. I’d much rather see a well composed and well lit proper photo, even if it’s not quite as spectacular looking as a completely fake one.
 
As above. It depends on the context and your intent, which includes compliance with the rules of a competition etc.
 
What do you mean by 'retouching' though? Hideous HDR, spotting out sensor dust specks, lightening subjects' eyes a bit, or moving pyramids?

Or what about Daily Mail-esque type stuff?

HX15VJt.jpg
 
If you are a photojournalist or want to work to similar standards, hardly any - just minor brightness, contrast and colour correction, cropping that doesn't affect the integrity of the image, dust spotting etc.

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135 photojournalism/associated press ethics code.pdf
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards,_Photoshop_and_Captions

If you are entering a competition, what the rules say.

For social media, massive overprocessing and outrageous manipulation seem to be compulsory.

For your own amusement, whatever you like.
 
Retune said:
For your own amusement, whatever you like.
Click to expand...

I think that's the Daily Mail's attitude. Problem is, it's meant to be a 'newspaper'. And too many people are influenced by it.
 
Thats a difficult question to answer and has many different paths to take to give you an answer.
There are also many different reasons why you edit.

You need to narrow the question a bit.
 
DR M said:
Well... the title says it all. Where do you feel the boundary is for adjusting a photo without compromising the authenticity of the original?
Click to expand...

First, let's start with the "authenticity of the original". I suspect that you mean by that the original image recorded on film, but after you've manipulated the sharpness, contrast and tonal range from the original scene values by the developer and timings. Note, I always think in black and white terms, since I rarely use colour. So, already some departures here from the scene as it existed.

That isn't my starting point though. The "original" for me is what I want the finished print to look like. That means that local or global changes of brightness and contrast can be part of my original. Any spotting is obviously as required; and any retouching to remove things that shouldn't be there but couldn't be removed is expected. Think trees or branches at the edges of frames, possibly the odd rock here and there.

My struggle with my conscience comes when I see that a different and better image is possible that isn't the one that I was originally intending to make. In this case, I normally go with the better image, and learn from it.

I suppose my own answer then is that I always go with the final image, without worrying about whether it's a "departure from reality" as Ansel Adams described his photographs.
 
Photography has always been touted as an "objective record"; whereas it never has been. Back when I did newspaper work (almost entirely for local press) I was always aware that I was presenting a selection and that often included manipulating an event. Then again, that's what I did when I wrote lineage as well. Very few want to read 20,000 words about a local council meeting, so you select and precis to give the least boring but hopefully accurate idea of what occurred...

Twinning ceremony in Devon Minolta SR1s 1976_06_27.jpg
 
Last edited:
What I had in mind is situations like retouching pictures for posting on Flickr, 500px, Facebook, etc.
 
DR M said:
What I had in mind is situations like retouching pictures for posting on Flickr, 500px, Facebook, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how??? :LOL: :banghead:
 
To me post processing is as much a part of photography as the camera. How much or what's acceptable is ( like anything) a matter of opinion.

For example, a lot of what I shoot is abandoned buildings, and in order to keep with the sense of age of a place I would have no issue removing a modern plug socket / light switch from a photo. Some people would object to this, others not so.

It really boils down to personal preference.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
To me post processing is as much a part of photography as the camera. How much or what's acceptable is ( like anything) a matter of opinion.

For example, a lot of what I shoot is abandoned buildings, and in order to keep with the sense of age of a place I would have no issue removing a modern plug socket / light switch from a photo. Some people would object to this, others not so.

It really boils down to personal preference.
Click to expand...
I do similar with old churches - remove small modern intrusions and also bat droppings.
 
DR M said:
What I had in mind is situations like retouching pictures for posting on Flickr, 500px, Facebook, etc.
Click to expand...


As much as you want then!
 
DR M said:
Well... the title says it all. Where do you feel the boundary is for adjusting a photo without compromising the authenticity of the original?
Click to expand...

This has always been an interesting question to me and have discovered (over the years) varied views on the subject. I think it has come more into focus (excuse the pun) with the introduction of digital photography. IMHO it's very much a case of the reason the photograph is being taken. Factual reporting Photos should not be post processed (e.g photo of foot wound) where as photos I take for my pleasure I'll alter to my hearts content. For me it's all part of the fun. I think the main thing is to be honest about how much post processing has been done. Again this is just IMHO.
 
It's down to intent.

If your intent is to do some crazy surreal composite stuff, that's fine.
If your intent is to correct the imperfections in the image to better realise your vision. That's fine too.
If you want to turn a blue coat orange. Yep. Fine.

However if you want to deceive, that's a different matter. Comp all you like, but try and convince people it was real when it wasn't, or win a competition that prohibits what you did... Or "look at this fabulous sunset" which is actually a sky replacement... People generally take a dim view of that because you aren't being honest.

In short - do what you like as Nod said. But if you try and deceive, beware!
 
Harlequin565 said:
It's down to intent.

If your intent is to do some crazy surreal composite stuff, that's fine.
If your intent is to correct the imperfections in the image to better realise your vision. That's fine too.
If you want to turn a blue coat orange. Yep. Fine.

However if you want to deceive, that's a different matter. Comp all you like, but try and convince people it was real when it wasn't, or win a competition that prohibits what you did... Or "look at this fabulous sunset" which is actually a sky replacement... People generally take a dim view of that because you aren't being honest.

In short - do what you like as Nod said. But if you try and deceive, beware!
Click to expand...

I think you summed it up very well . (y)
 
Harlequin565 said:
In short - do what you like as Nod said. But if you try and deceive, beware!
Click to expand...


My answer was slightly tongue in cheek but IMO, as long as the results are for "fun" as opposed to for journalistic or commercial reasons and the results don't defame any subjects included in any shots then my answer stands. How far you can take it on public platforms before defamation kicks in would be a different discussion.
 
DR M said:
Well... the title says it all. Where do you feel the boundary is for adjusting a photo without compromising the authenticity of the original?
Click to expand...

It depends on what is it you wanted the photograph for.

If it is going to be used as proof, like as evidence in a court, then totally no retouching at all. The photo must show everything looking as it is.

If it is going to be used in news media, like putting on Twitter, Instagram, sent to newspapers for printing, as less as possible.

If it is just for fun, art, graphic design, etc., as much as you need.
 
We were well past the issue of 'truth' in photography, a very long time ago. Many years ago, I asked Don McCullin what he felt about truth and objectivity in relation to digital manipulation; his response was that manipulation and distortion of fact has always happened in photography, and beyond that even, images can be used out of context, and all a photojournalist can do, is try to be as objective as possible, and hope the real story gets told. In light of that conversation, I'd suggest that in spite of manipulation becoming 'easier', it's also easier to show a photo in it's original context, to challenge how it has been used wherever, as in that Daily Mail shot above. Now, we all know that the DM 'Shopped the other kids out of the image (the original image actually illustrated the story better, highlighting that it is almost certainly racist considerations that meant the Black kids were excluded from the front cover). So in some ways, it's perhaps easier to hold truth to power, now.
 
I have to join the voices that say „depends“. For myself, I just do whatever I feel helps the picture show what I wanted to show. Often limited by me being too lazy to put on a lot of effort.

As someone said above, truth is a philosophical question anyway. Even cropping can significantly change the perception. If I pull up shadows, because I remember a scene to be more dynamic (because I was seeing it with my eyes...) would actually bring a photo closer to truth then.
 
You could argue photos aren't realistic to start with because for example a shot at 200mm isn't what your eyes see, a 'correct' exposure might not be what your eyes see or brain remembers, or if a polariser is used that isn't what you're seeing unless you wear sunglasses etc. There's so many variables at the point of shooting that even if you try to be 'realistic' it's probably not going to be, if you're strict about what human eyes see. So as a photo isn't completely realistic to start with I see no issue with doing what you like so long as the context is right. Obviously reportage photography should be as close to reality as possible but where does the line get drawn - see telephoto shots to exaggerate crowded beaches during lockdown, some of these places aren't crowded at all but the equipment used makes it look like that.

Personally for landscapes I don't do composites or what you'd call major editing because I don't like being sat on a computer all night, but I do like to emphasise the mood I captured, so that might be dodging and burning, making skies more dramatic, emphasising light on the land, b&w conversions etc. If you're doing photography for you all that matters is if you like them or if you're selling them your customers do. What you don't want to do is make major changes like remove objects like pylons and not disclose it
 
Major Eazy said:
If it is going to be used as proof, like as evidence in a court, then totally no retouching at all. The photo must show everything looking as it is.
Click to expand...
It's more than that. The picture as taken mustn't present a false impression. There was a case of ABH I read about several years ago where the prosecution produced a picture as evidence of the positions of the accused and the victim in a room. Mainly on that evidence the accused was convicted.

The conviction was reversed on appeal when the defence showed that the picture had been taken through a wide angle lens. This had bolstered the prosecution argument that the accused had thrown the weapon rather than hitting the victim with it. The appeal court held that the conviction was unsafe because the accused's claim of self defence was far more credible when the actual distance between the two people was properly understood.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It's more than that. The picture as taken mustn't present a false impression. There was a case of ABH I read about several years ago where the prosecution produced a picture as evidence of the positions of the accused and the victim in a room. Mainly on that evidence the accused was convicted.

The conviction was reversed on appeal when the defence showed that the picture had been taken through a wide angle lens. This had bolstered the prosecution argument that the accused had thrown the weapon rather than hitting the victim with it. The appeal court held that the conviction was unsafe because the accused's claim of self defence was far more credible when the actual distance between the two people was properly understood.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that using the wrong lens could give a false impression.

But the OP wants to know how much retouching is a fair game, I'm pointing out that if the photo is going to be used as evidence, then totally no retouching at all.
 
Major Eazy said:
then totally no retouching at all.
Click to expand...
Of course, that goes almost without saying. There would also be the chain of custody question from the initial exposure to the presentation in court. As you say, this is all secondary to the original question.
 
Assuming just a hobbyist then as much as the photographer wants, after all the photo is for them an nobody else. I personally don’t try to do much as I want it to look natural/realistic, but that’s just my preference.
 
As much as necessary but as little as possible for me.
 
Nod said:
As much as necessary but as little as possible for me.
Click to expand...

That's my approach - I really do landscapes only and believe in the art of composition - not the art of cloning. You can easily compose out stuff you don't want - rather than point and shoot and worry about it later.

Editing is now really limited to curves/levels and colour channel saturation along with sharpening to bring to life what I shot - but always be true to what you said. The real colours come from the light not from the sliders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top