There is always this question of ethics amongst any type of work – be you a journalist, a banker, a lawyer, a doctor, a tele-marketer, or even a local janitor. From a photographer’s point of view, there is always this ethical question when it comes to post-processing the photos that has been meticulously framed – how much editing should be done before it is considered unethical/fake/cheating/misrepresented?
- Would the use of graduated filter in photoshop to make blue skies bluer considered unethical?
- Would the use of the clone/heal tool in photoshop to clone/heal out that unnecessary distraction/zits away considered unethical?
- Or even adjusting the brightness/contrast/exposure to make a certain shot “perfect”. Would that be considered unethical?
One may argue that a photographer is an artist - besides capturing/framing the moment, the photographer is also allowed to tamper his creation as he wishes.
Another may disagree with the statement above and claim that a photographer is a “scanner” – he/she should represent his subjects as accurately as possible, just like a scanner – any use of photo-editing software is considered unethical and the photographer should be prosecuted for the slight “misrepresentation” of the subject.
While the majority (I think) would probably be sitting somewhere in between the fence, post-processing of photos, to us, is quite acceptable, BUT, to a certain extent.
Now the question again is – how much is too much?
The following shot of the Red Bull lady in Murdoch Open Day 2008 was edited using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.0.
This, is the original shot (NEF converted to JPG).
So, would this be considered unethical/fake/cheating/misrepresented?
Tell me what you think in the comments section below. Cheers!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
…and then what about a photographer who uses a scanner as a camera, then retouches the image using Photoshop? Retouching in the service of clarity of visual comunication is as valid as editing a written nonfiction composition.
Its ok to me if the ‘contents’ are not removed or replaced. Touching up and giving it a little more ‘ommph’ is fine. At the end of the day, you captured THE moment and you are just making it better.
The question 1st pop up when everyone are claiming they can good take good photos. But most are post processed. These remarks irked many old school film photogs where they cannot chimp when their shots are taken. They learned thru experience on how to master the art of photography (I am not talking about composition here). Then all of a sudden, people with 6 months of exp with a digital camera ‘produces’ more vivid photos than them. Hence, the argument.
There is no right and there is no wrong. To me its up to the individual. I started with film 15 years ago. Even though I have a D3, I still enjoy shooting with film.
Get a used film SLR. The excitement in wanting to finish the roll and process your shots is just overwhelming.
BTW, your ‘photoshop’ of the shot is not too bad but your composition failed.
The blue canopy on the top right and a section of the vehicle on the left is very distracting. And why did you crop her face?
So, a good composition will make a good photograph. Then again, you can remove those items with post processing. Heh.
I know nuts bout Photoshop but it did seem like you did a great job. Looks so much nicer:) hehe
Pingback: fark.my
i used to be one of them people who are anal about whether photos should be post-processed or not, else it’ll constitute ‘cheating’ etc and all that bull. during those few periods, i was a ‘scanner’ in the purest sense.
but hell i don’t really care anymore. i’m happy to declare that 90% of my photos taken after i bought my DSLR are post-processed in some way (usually constituting touch-ups, lighting adjustment, contrast, etc) – and i believe that with his or her own camera, a photographer should be allowed to do whatever he/she damn pleases so long as the photos are just as the photographer likes them to be.
your post-processed photo in this entry looks so much better than the original.
I think if you can’t achieve the feel you were trying to convey when capturing the photo, it’s okay to use software. Photography’s what the photographer wants to convey anyway, right?
I tend towards the photographer is an artist and that includes post processing artistic technique. As you can see the enhanced picture is alot more interesting than the original. Who knows, the original shot could have been done with extra lighting and the model used more make-up & filters etc only to achieve the same result. Still.. you have to respect great photographers who do no or little post processing to produce great photos.
Thank you all for your input. I’m sorry I didn’t find the time to reply every single one of you guys
Terence, I didn’t crop the pic lah, just didn’t compose the shot properly :/
Thanks again all
You guys surely made my day.
@Jeff –
I have no problem with Raymond’s photo, a little editing is welcome and needed probably 90% of the time. What I HATE is when people feel the need to go nuts with and make the photo look completely fake. For example: [LINK HAS BEEN REMOVED UPON REQUEST] If the colors looked that good in real life we could all be photogs.
@Rich – lol Rich, thanks for the comment. I thought the shots there were pretty good, but some, if not most of the shots were overly edited. Still gotta give credit for the photoshop skills
Have a good day 
I don’t see a problem with photoshopping to the same extent that could be done in a dark room. I also think the modern extension of those techniques are acceptable (highlighting/shadow adjust, noise reduction, sharpen)–tools that can be used to alter the photograph to the extent that it allows the photographer to recreate how he remembered the scene when he took the photograph.
However, I would say that anything more than that depends on the type of photography that is being post-processed. For pictures presented as being photojournalistic, I would say that it is not only distasteful to edit extensively, but unethical. On the contrary, if something is presented as ‘art’ photography, then I don’t think the photographer is obligated to portray the world truthfully as no other type of artist would be demanded such . Still, although there is a grey area between ‘digital art’ and ‘photography’ I think (at least at this point in history) there is a distinction, even if that distinction is, “know it when it is, and know it when it’s not.”
I don’t see a problem with photoshopping to the same extent that could be done in a dark room. I also think the modern extension of those techniques are acceptable (highlighting/shadow adjust, noise reduction, sharpen)–tools that can be used to alter the photograph to the extent that it allows the photographer to recreate how he remembered the scene when he took the photograph.
However, I would say that anything more than that depends on the type of photography that is being post-processed. For pictures presented as being photojournalistic, I would say that it is not only distasteful to edit extensively, but unethical. On the contrary, if something is presented as ‘art’ photography, then I don’t think the photographer is obligated to portray the world truthfully as no other type of artist would be demanded such . Still, although there is a grey area between ‘digital art’ and ‘photography’ I think (at least at this point in history) there is a distinction, even if that distinction is, “know it when it is, and know it when it’s not.”