Skip to main content

Where Do You Draw the Line on Image Alteration?

This article from Digital Photography School raises a great question: Where do you draw the line on image alteration? There are many gray areas that surround this debate, and it seems fairly subjective for each photographer. Some photographers go crazy with overdone HDR processing (something that personally makes me cringe, but that's a topic for another discussion). Some photographers enhance color saturation. Some photographers crop or clone out distracting details. Obviously, photojournalists are quite different from landscape photographers, and are held to a specific code of ethics that may not apply to the rest of us. A photojournalist who digitally manipulates a photo of a scene can create an entirely different view of an event they're covering. Some interesting examples and discussion are available here.
Cathedral of the Assumption - Louisville, KY (HDR version)

While I have occasionally done some overdone HDR for a specific purpose, it's rare that I do that. However, one edit that I do frequently do is cloning out power lines. I find them horribly distracting and in my opinion, they often ruin what would otherwise be a good photo. I've been known to spend hours editing them out of a photo (something a friend of mine teases me about frequently). In an odd sort of way, I find that kind of detailed editing strangely relaxing.

St. Therese Church (with power lines)
St. Therese Church (power lines removed during post-processing)

When I take a photo, I attempt to get as much correct in-camera as possible, rather than relying on post-processing to correct things afterwards. I believe this has made me a better photographer overall. It's taught me better composition, better use of light, how to look for distractions in a scene (light poles "growing" out of a subject's head as an example). It's taught me that what may be an ok photo, may be an awesome photo if I just take a step or two in a different direction and re-compose the shot. I certainly don't feel that there's any shame in post-processing - I just prefer to not rely on it 100% of the time.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to the debate. If highly-processed photos are what you're going for, great. Edit away and enjoy your end result. If you're a purist and choose to forego any post-processing, that's great too. Either way, if you achieve the end result you desire with your photos, that's the entire point. It's what makes art so interesting. Each artist (and each viewer) is different and has different likes and dislikes.

However, if a manipulated photo is used in a situation that strictly forbids any alterations (a photo contest or a news article, as a couple examples), and the photographer lies about any manipulation, then that's an entirely different matter.

How do you feel about it? I'd love to hear your comments.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Paying It Forward

We all live in a world where it's easy to hide behind the relative anonymity of a computer screen and keyboard which, unfortunately, brings out the worst in some people. After reading a troll-ish response to someone in an online photography forum recently, I have a few things to say.
I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty, that there is not one professional well-known photographer who at some point didn't start from the beginning. Yes, some people may be born with a more innate talent than others, but they still have to practice their craft. Practice. Fail. Practice. Fail. Practice, practice, practice. One day the technique is perfected, and you begin to see improvement. Work hard to be the best you can be. Whatever your craft or profession. In terms of photography, not one of us picks up a camera one day and becomes a world-famous photographer the next. We all have to start somewhere: asking questions, learning from other photographers, reading books, watching videos…

Hiking in Red River Gorge

As I mentioned in my previous post, Carrick and I (accompanied by our dog) rented a cabin in Red River Gorge for Carrick's birthday. We spent several hours hiking on both Friday and Saturday. We were told at the cabin rental office that dogs are not allowed on the trails in the Natural Bridge State Park, so we headed instead to RRG.

Our cabin was a short drive up U.S. Highway 715 to the trails. (Here's a map of the area.) Our first stop was the 1.5-mile Rock Bridge Arch trail, three miles down a well-maintained gravel road (National Forest Road 24). As we neared the arch, we passed a nice creek and waterfall running next to the trail. Of course I spent 10 or 15 minutes taking some photos. Thanks to my new waterproof hiking boots, I was able to walk partway out into the very shallow creek to get the photos I wanted. After completing this loop trail, we got back in the car to find our next destination. We had a great guidebook with us called "Hiking Kentucky's Red Rive…