To Edit or Not to Edit in Photography?
Trying to be Creative #40
Hello you, how has the month been?
I’ve been seeing photos of the northern lights this past week and as a fan who lives in Nigeria (where it’s been raining heavily this week), these photos are the closest thing I’ve got to experience them. So if you’ve had the opportunity to take photos, thanks for doing that.
The northern lights are naturally impressive and I can’t help but wonder how much editing I’ll do if I ever got to photograph a scene. So, let us quickly talk about editing.
Editing is one of those never-ending debates in photography, similar to discussions on whether to shoot in JPEG or RAW, manual versus automatic, and other fun stuff like that. Even though it's mostly a matter of personal preference, I've noticed that photographers who do a lot of editing can often have their work unfairly judged by others who may not edit as much or at all. There's a slight bias I've noticed online when someone's work appears heavily edited.
Personal vs. Client work
Before I begin, I’d like to put this out there as a disclaimer: I'm mostly talking about personal work and not necessarily client work. If someone hires you for your photography, they've likely seen your portfolio and are aware of your style, whether you edit a lot or not. So, it doesn't really apply in this case but it’s still a factor because there are a lot of professional photographers who do some serious editing but still get affected by this bias.
My journey with editing
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with editing.
When I first got into photography, I spent a lot of time on YouTube channels like Phlearn and Piximperfect, and those 2 guys taught me how to use Photoshop early on. These days, for my personal work, I don't do much editing. Sometimes I'm happy to put a photo through an app like VSCO, apply a preset, and call it a day. I even recently downloaded an app called Tezza, but I haven't gotten to using it yet. In many cases, I often feel the photos look good enough without much editing and these days, I’m pretty happy with some of my photos SOOC (straight out of camera).
When it comes to client work, like portrait shoots or weddings, I do edit the photos because it's part of my workflow and how I want people to view my work. It’s a part of my process to deliver the end product I’ve been hired for. So, I can go really deep into editing when necessary.
However, edited work can sometimes be unfairly judged.
Does editing make you a better photographer?
I agree that editing doesn't make you a better photographer.
When I was learning to edit, I thought it would make my photos better. Over time, I realized that a good photo remains good with minimal or zero post-processing. If a photo is bad, no amount of editing will make it good. Yes, you can salvage a bad photo, but most times, what makes that photo bad cannot be fixed with editing.
You need to learn lighting, composition, and other basics to take good photos without relying on editing.
Is editing cheating?
Editing is often viewed as cheating, especially by those who prefer to keep things natural.
However, I believe the type of photography you do determines your editing approach. For documentary photography, heavy editing doesn't make sense as it alters the reality of the scene. In those cases, you need to be as true to what’s real as possible so your photos aren’t misleading. But in some other genres, extensive editing is essential to bring the artist's vision to life. From what I’ve seen, photography is just the first step in making those beautiful images.
So, editing isn't cheating, but it depends on the context. It's more or less an extra tool to bring your creative vision to life.
The unfair judgment of edited photos
Post-processing is not mandatory, but it is unfairly judged!
You can get good photos without touching anything in Lightroom or Photoshop, but photography is an art form. At the end of the day, it should be enjoyed, and people should be allowed to do what they want to bring their vision to life.
A fun exercise in editing
A few years ago, I was part of a WhatsApp group with my friends where we'd each share a photo every week, and everyone would edit it in their own style. It was a fun way to try different editing techniques and test things that we maybe, would not do on a normal day. We made use of different software and everybody’s result was different week to week. I miss those days!
So, should you edit your photos or not? Frankly, the answer is up to you and what’s best for your photography. There's no right or wrong. True, there's some negativity around heavily edited photos online, but it shouldn't be there.
What do you think about this?
I know this has been longer than my other letters, but thanks for reading till the end.
Also thanks to all the new subscribers and to all of you who keep recommending the pub.
Keep making photos and experimenting.
Keep trying to be creative.
See you May 30.
x
ash.
P.S. If you like this newsletter and want to support it, there are 2 ways you can do this. Just pick one (or two):
Send this newsletter to a friend with an invitation to subscribe right here: Trying to Be Creative.
Hit reply and say hello!
Nice write up Ash. I think it's one of those endless debates in photography (and AI is not helping in either). Dodging and burning has been around for some time, and that's editing too ;-)
It must have been in the '00s when I started editing (in Lightroom) my (raw) photos. I watched a fair bit of youtube video's about how to use the program, but this also meant that I tended to follow specific artistic styles to edit photos, instead of my own 'artistic vision'. I think if I re-edit some of my photos now, the result would be quite different (as in: less heavily edited, less saturated / less contrasty maybe).
One thing I learned is that, although I like to edit photo's, I don't like it as much as going out and actually 'do photography'. I just can't be bothered to spend hours on editing anymore. That said, I don't just slap on a preset / look and be done with it. I do like to use them as a starting point though.
One other thing that I don't do are things like sky replacements, composites, adding artificial fog or sunrays, making mountains in the background bigger than they are etc. Only some cloning/healing if there's something in the composition than bothers me that much :)
All fair comments. But at some stage a photograph is not a photograph but moves into the realm of digital art. When is it a photograph and when is it a digigraph is a very personal call, but it is a call. Definitions are up to the individual, but there is a difference. I am not saying it isn't art, just saying it isn't a photograph any longer..... it is something else.