Natural Or Touched Up Debate

Read Ansel Adams. Touch-up is fixing what God didn't get right. It is what made Ansel Adams famous (NOT what came out of his camera).

Touched up? You bet!

I recommend that you do not use camera settings to modify your images. Shoot RAW if you can, since it will record your pictures as the camera actually sees them. Then you can tinker with them in your photo editing software. You'll have many more options, even if all you're doing is correcting the original capture.

all images should be cleaned up. what we see and your camera sees are different. adjusting colors, straightening, cropping, etc, are all needed. a good photo will always be touched up. just like a good cake is always frosted.


---Mike Savad

Ditto what everyone else said.

That said there is a faction of photographers who practice "pure" photography, that is out of camera with no edits of any kind.

IMO, there is no such thing as "pure photography".

Some editing and cleanup is almost always needed.

I agree with Murray regarding shooting in RAW, and with Mike regarding almost all images requiring at least a bit of touchup -- whether it is straightening them, touching up a few dust spots in the sky, or cropping to maximize composition. Also, unlike shooting in a prepackaged camera setting, in which case your camera is automatically making color and/or contrast adjustments, shooting in RAW doesn't do any of that, so typically at least some minimal contrast and saturation adjustments, or often-times, white balance adjustments, may be required: even if it is just to get the image to the 'natural' colors and lighting that you recalled seeing.

Beyond that -- it's going to be up to the photographer and artist. Some have a preference for enhancing a LOT, in a variety of ways. Others, not so much. That'll boil down to your own philosophy.

Have fun!

Out of the thousands of images I have shot digitally, I bet there have been two that I did not "touch up" but still shared in some way. Except that to size them up for the web, I did sharpen, so actually I did touch them up.

First, I read a quote the other day that said, paraphrased, the smartest part of the camera is a few inches behind the eye piece, meaning the photographer. There's a few ways to interpret that. One way is that the photographer should know the camera simply cannot get everything right. And if you shoot JPEG, the camera is doing the touch ups; you're still not getting what the camera actually saw. Also, digital cameras cannot get everything right most of the time. Every shot I take needs a little extra color, some brightness/contrast work and I usually want to lighten up the dark spots with a little shadows/highlights. (Never mind that I almost always have to rotate my shot 5. to 1.0% one way or the other.

So this should not be a debate. Don't just think that your work as a photographer is done when you press the shutter. At best, it's half done. And there is no shame in post processing.

If you are aiming for the wall decor market, then of course you touch up to your hearts content.

Quick question for the pros - is it best to set Canon's picture style to Faithful or Neutral?

for canon - if your talking an slr - RAW and at that i set the white to flash to warm it a bit. helps when i use a polarizer, works against when the inside like is incandescent and everything comes out like a pumpkin. i don't use any styles.

---Mike Savad

Are you creating art or making Xerox copies?

Miguel, just my humble opinion here, but I'm afraid there is little virtue in presenting a shot exactly as you see it. What is the point of that? I can already bend down and watch a ladybug on a leaf. When you take pictures, you may notice with your keen eye the beautiful sheen on the ladybug's wing or raindrops on a flower (for example), but the distracting "stuff" around it has to go. No two ways about it. From your portfolio, it looks like you're on your way! Don't fear editing. There are several free programs out there if you don't have Photoshop.

there is no dishonor if you edit. add salt to your meat, spice to your pasta, ice to your drink. they compliment each other. it's also very hard to develop a certain style if you don't edit things. i'm guessing some of your most favorite images were probably edited, every ad you saw, and most things on this site.

---Mike Savad

"I want to capture the world and I see it which is to say without enhancements or touch ups."

The problem with that is, the camera doesn't capture it the way you see it, it merely records the scene you focused on. Most, if not all of the photographers on this site have developed a "style" that is unique to each one and that comes with editing.

Don't be afraid of editing images. It won't change what you see, it will change how the rest of the world sees things.

Honor? Dishonor? My, what would half the actors and actresses look like if there was not a make-up person? For that matter, what does Jennifer Lopez's voice really sound like?

If the idea is to sell a photo as a piece of art, you have to make up your mind whether or not you want to sell reality (something most of us would love to escape after a long day) or the ideal that people wish they could be living in. Yep... "Living the dream".

Then you also need to make up your mind if you want to constantly be dealing with the world of the purist...

P.S. Impressed with your work Miguel.

Whether you shoot jpg and let the camera do the editing for you, or RAW and you do the editing, you're still editing. I see at least one of your images on the first page that could use some lightening up, as it looks fairly dull/underexposed across the entire image. Not editing just so you can say don't edit can be pretty prohibitive. Doesn't mean you need to photoshop things within an inch of its life, but take the time to create an image that will stand out, look clean and fit your style.

You never know until you try. I would suggest learning HDR. Make sure your monitor is calibrated properly first. You have so many wonderful pictures and I cant wait to see what you decide to do with them.

Think of it this way: with makeup, you can either enhance your natural features or reshape them completely. While both have their merits, you could argue that subtly enhancing the beauty that's already there will yield a more "honest/realistic" approach.

It sounds like a light-handed editing style would be the most in line with your goal, and I wouldn't sweat needing to do it—there's nothing wrong with working an image to its full potential!

The camera is a machine that can not duplicate exactly what the eye sees although sometimes better but most of the time you need to edit in my opinion.

Glen said: Honor? Dishonor? My, what would half the actors and actresses look like if there was not a make-up person? For that matter, what does Jennifer Lopez's voice really sound like?

Exactly. What would "Dark Side of the Moon" have been without the magic of Alan Parsons' engineering?!

There is no such hing as "natural" or not touched up. It's whether you do it or let your camera do it for you. The latter happens when you shoot jpeg and use different scene modes (if your camera has them). Even when you shoot in Program mode the camera will still apply certain adjustments - it will convert what sensor sees to jpeg without your participation.

Probably the closest thing to "straight out of the camera" that I can think of is shooting slide film and projecting the slides on screen. Even then you have to choose developing conditions.

I tell every individual that comes through my entry level D-SLR workshops....... "The camera body is a cold piece of electronic machinery. It does NOT feel what you feel, it cannot SEE what it is you mind see's." Record you images as RAW files. Correct the tones, light, shadows in Lightroom.

Think of this scenario: Anytime you listen to music or your favorite musical artist (Music is fine art) they did not make the recording in one single session, first take. It's worked, re-worked, recorded and then re-recorded. Your original RAW file is the concept. Sometimes a pretty darn good one, but it needs tweeks to make it what you envisioned.

I edit - I crop for composition (or to get rid of stuff), I adjust the level, rarely mess with the color, sometimes the brightness and contrast - that's about it. I shoot in jpeg - for me RAW is a waste of space as I am not really into 'editing' or 'developing' photographs. When I start doing that - they wind up becoming one of my digital abstracts. For those that are all about shooting raw and editing - you are quite welcome to it. I think my next camera may be a true point and shoot - if it will give me good size in mp's and a clean, sharp image. I was sort of thinking on the line of a Nikon coolpix.

I don't consider my self a photographer but I know that the photographs I like the best have been altered, cleaned etc. in one way or the other. The purist idea is great and when it happens that's great too...but as far as I can tell it seldom does...so why would you hesitate to make something better? Save the original and edit a copy I would say and see which you prefer. IMO I think you should strive for the best image possible however that happens.

What the camera captures is fairly arbitrary in terms of luminosity and color. White balance itself is actually a lot more subjective then one would think. So you have to adjust those. If not you are leaving it up to chance. No two sensors or camera settings are going to capture the same way so the idea of it being natural is not right. Even exposure settings limit you. Even one tenth of a stop makes s difference. So I shoot Raw and I adjust shadows and highlights sometimes doing dozens of small adjustments. Even my editorial work has selective adjustments to highlights and shadows as one could do in a darkroom. Noise is not natural and I get rid of it and I also like to be in complete control of the sharpening. That said I like my art to be as photodocumentary as possible. I may add saturation to please my eyes but always with a light hand because even color saturation is subjective.

What I don't usually do is clone out or add in subject matter.I value very much the authenticity of my work. That's how I like to do my art and I like to maintain credibility by keeping things real. That's what I do. I would never change the color of a flower or add a bird where there was none. I might remove a gum wrapper or even a person if it was distracting enough as that is something ramdom. I wouldn't do it for my straight editorial work but for my scenics and landscapes i will if it is minor. I don't use artistic dvices like textured backgrounds. Thats not what i am known for and I am very happy with what I do and who I am. Call me a xerox machine if you want. I see things in a way others don't and I like to share them with some credibility.

I want to add that one of the highlights of my photo career was the slide shows I did. There is very little adjusting that can be done to a slide. You can change the development time if you like but nothing selective. So what you see is what you get. I got a lot of recognition and money for my slides. But my prints were done by a master who I considered a partner. I got into photoshop in 2007 and digital photography shortly after, although I did not start using a digital camera for art prints tll much later.

Making up a set of "rules" or constraints is common in any form of art. Sometimes it comes from the buyer - could be National Geographic, a newspaper or a customer who wants you to use pastel colors. Or an art school assignment such as "use only this, this and this". Other times it comes from the age of the artist or the artists who influenced them (mentors, idols, instructors). Forces that say "this is the right way".

But to say certain art is "authentic", "real" or "credible" seems highly subjective.

The photographer subtracts from reality from the framing of the photograph, to the angle, lens selection, shutter speed, depth of field, cropping, editing, culling and so on. The result is not "real" its the artist vision of the thing.

Susan Sontag described the inability of a photograph to capture enough information about its subject to be considered a representation of reality. She states, “the camera’s rendering of reality must always hide more than it discloses…only what which narrates can make us understand”

Well Edward I guess you never did much nature illustration or photojournalism where "credibility" is all you have. Everything has its place.

Yes as I noted. Certain areas have rules such as National Geographic. But this doesn't make it more authentic or real than any other artist vision. Take it personal if you want or try to have a discussion.

A newspaper photograph is only as "credible" as the human behind the camera. The photographer brings all of their experiences, influences, beliefs, values etc into the frame. The photograph does not show the whole story, only a small piece of what was captured in faction of a second. What the photographer excludes tells as much as what they include.

The answers you've already gotten are from people with far more knowledge and experience than I have, but I'll put in my 2 cents.
I agree with everyone else that there will be some editing -- the type and how much is in your hands. But I don't think it's necessary to choose one or the other. Or even to choose light "corrections" over heavier post processing that really changes the image a lot. To me, when you decide to photograph something you have an image in your mind already. There is something that you see that is important to you or elicits an emotion. When you look at the photograph later, you may actually see that same thing, but often it doesn't quite elicit the same emotion you first felt. As they said, the camera doesn't see what you see. So in some cases, the actual "natural" image may be what you were going for and what you first saw. Maybe you just need to edit a little, to clean it up as they've said. Then you might say, it's what I first saw and you're done. But other times, you might find that pushing it a little more, changing it more actually lets the audience see your original vision better. Either way can be an honest work of art. But straight from the camera is rarely an honest work of art.