Bad photographers edit photos? 

Ansel Adams created his photos in the darkroom. Photoshop is the modern darkroom. Unless you are a journalism photographer the objective is to make the best looking photo you can. My photos aren’t a representation of reality and I never claim they are. The average viewer who doesn’t know anything about photography doesn’t care how the photo was created. They either like the finished photo or they don’t.

This is a popular opinion. Taking shots straight out of camera is satisfying, but don't shit on those who decide to use their photography for art.

I tend to agree with Herzog. Ansel Adams once said, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." Updating it to digital, the RAW file is the score, and the edited image is the performance. Often it is not possible to get the image that you visualize, and the only way to get it is through editing. It is easier to get the perfect shot in landscape photography or in static environments when you can take the time to get it right than in some others, like street or sport photoghraphy where capturing the moment is more import than getting a perfect RAW file. Editing is also essential in portrait photography, where "imperfections" are edited out. The editing does not necessarily meanpbad or phony, except in photojournalism.

if you want to take the perfect shot; find your scene and maybe sit there for the rest of your life hoping that miracles do happen. No one cares that the world's greatest painters manipulated the scenes that they painted; people just see and admire the wonderful pictures in front of them, and it's the same with wonderful photographs.

For me, the editing and processing of an image is a part of the creative process of making an image. It’s like carving a spoon out of wood. You can sand, paint, and varnish to create something really interesting or just carve and use. BTW I just watched Happy People as well and love Herzog’s work. Thanks for the video and your insights into photography.

Maybe we should not take photography so seriously and simply enjoy the creative process. How we interpret that is personal to each individual. How much we want to accurately capture the scene we are photographing or our creative interpretation of the scene that evokes a feeling or emotion.

The whole idea that a jpeg straight out of canera is somehow "authentic" is just bizarre to me. To start, capturing a jpeg just moves the edit to the front rather then the end of the process. Your camera will edit the image based on the profile/emulation you choose, white balance you choose etc. Second, and I think this one is even more important, your sensor is not your eye. It captures different dynamic range, different color space (which is skewed by different algorythms camera makers use). If you use a polarizer or a filter or use a really fast or really slow shutter speed, the image you capture has only tangential relationship to reality. So, I really don't understand the hang-ups over most editing techniques (I can understand discussions about compositing and removing/adding major parts of the image).

I like this line of inquiry. I often find the editing to be just as much of the artistic experience as the image making to be. It’s an opportunity to polish and further refine the original creative expression. Like a tango. Creating a work representative of the artists vision. I think every creative has a boundary in which they prefer not to overstep, for fear of losing the authenticity of said creation. That line will always be defined differently for everyone. I think an artist statement that clearly articulates the intention of the work and boundaries one operates within is a really good objective place for someone to view the work from. At that point, it should be clear what the intentions of the artist are and the work can be appreciated without any misconceptions. A lot of the images on the natural landscapes website feel very heavy handed on the editing. Maybe they aren’t, but it’s not so easy to tell at first glance. And i think that might illustrate part of the conundrum here. What is authentic, and who decides what that represents in an image? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do think honest and open dialogue around an artists intentions with the work, is a worthwhile place to begin. Great videos as always. Cheers!

Photorealism in pursuit of visual truth via minimal editing of in-camera images and artistic license don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can wear both hats, Todd, depending on the desired output or requirement. Sometimes editing is a function of mundane constraints such as the target medium (paper, Adobe RGB vs sRGB). Others want to expand 'what is' to satisfy an inner aesthetic or 'magic' a la Herzog. I sense you're reminiscing about the days of film, where landscape photography was tantamount to hunting deer: 'one shot' (or far fewer) than digital options available today.

The bottom line is that one goal of a photographer could be to capture and image that duplicates exactly what was seen by the photographer's eyes. That goal challenges the photographer to use his skills and knowledge to use the settings on his camera and related tools (tripod, filters, shutter delays, etc.) to create an absolute reproduction of what was seen by the eye. That may be a desired goal at times and photojournalism would seem to be one field where those parameters may be desirable. But I believe that most photographers want to be creative and once that is the goal, it becomes impossible to determine what photo processing is perfect, incomplete or overdone. Photographs become a form of art in which the photographer creates a desired image and just as with other artistic mediums, the viewer has their experience with it and have their emotional and intellectual response to it. I enjoy being able to create an image either making adjustments in the camera or by post processing and image on a computer. Consider what a musician does when they perform a composition. A mature musician doesn't want to perform a piece exactly the same way as another performer. A musician wants to create their own unique performance of the composition. Or to put it on a larger scale, I believe that every person enjoys finding something to do in which they can be creative. That process of creativity enhances our existence and compensates for some of the mundane tasks that we have to do daily, and yearly, and for our entire existence! Thanks for bringing up a very interesting topic which is the aesthetics of photography!

Thanks for putting this video together. I too have been concerned about authenticity of a photograph especially when I hear that there is no authenticity any longer. My personal approach is to watermark my images as either 'Photograph' or 'Digital Art from Photo' to let the viewer that, personally, I feel my editing has crossed the threshold between the two. I've struggled with if that threshold can be quantitatively defined and have come to conclusion that, in the absence of any competitive rules, it is a photographers own conscious that makes that determination. I feel that the discussion is important so that the concept of an authentic photo is not lost in the future.

What matters is the end result. PERIOD. If one doesn't get a "good" image straight out of camera but is more than capable of creating something great looking in post then isn't that what matters. Are sliders in Lightroom not like buttons on your camera. As long as I'm not clipping highlights or shadows that I can't get back, who cares where you are crafting the photo, with your camera or Lightroom!? Honestly does anyone but purist photographers care about that anyway???

The only truth I care about is the image I have in my mind when I press the shutter. That visualization may or may not comport with reality. The digital camera is a computer. You alter your images long before you go into the field simply by how you adjust the settings in your cameras menu. If you want purity get a film camera that doesn’t need a battery. I used one for thirty years. Now I use the latest technology because it removes the shackles. Once an image leaves the analog world you create the reality. Whether you use the computer in your camera or on a work station who am I to judge. Make the images that satisfy you and let the world be damned.

I guess that’s why some people use colour checker cards and initiate the option, camera matching profile within their choice of photo editing suite.

So Todd, I guess the question is, when you go out and capture an image of something, "Are you attempting to record an accurate facsimile of what the scene truly was on that particular day and time?" or "Are you trying to create an artistic image based upon your interpretation of what you saw, what the scene represented to you and how it struck your soul on that particular day and time?" In my opinion, neither one is wrong. However, I also think we need to be honest when sharing an image, to reveal what our intent was so that the viewer in turn may be better able to grasp what the photo represents. That said, I believe we also need to each ask ourselves, "How often does the photo we have finally printed or posted truly depict to the nth degree what the scene actually looked like that day?" You really touched on a rabbit hole here, Todd. I guess that's why I so enjoy your videos as they always make me think. And for what it's worth, I'll continue to edit my photos in the manner which best pleases me. If we don't enjoy what we're doing, we should sell off the equipment and find something else.

Experienced photographers know what they want from a shoot and understand there's some things that can't always be controlled or acclimated to, like natural lighting/weather changes, objects/obstructions, and people. Sure, you can scout, use Photopills and Google Maps to prepare for the perfect shot, but when the day/moment comes, things can change rapidly. Knowing that you can edit and adjust as needed allows one to focus on the look, feel, and overall composition of the shot rather than worry about getting a perfect shot "in camera." A good photographer takes the time to learn their settings for a space/scenario, know their gear inside and out (as well as its limitations), and should be able gauge what will create the final look they're going for (with or without editing). An example of this would be knowing the limits of an APS-C sensor in a low lit room. For the look and feel of the scene, flash is a no-go. Sure, you could crank the ISO and hope the lens IS covers you to drop the shutter down a few notches, but why bother risking clarity and gaining excessive noise? (unless that's the look you want) It's better to have it underexposed within editing range, pulling the shadows and upping the exposure until it's where you visioned it. Even if some noise is introduced, it won't be nearly as bad as trying to get an "in camera" final exposure and will definitely clean up better with a denoise tool. Some people have a naturally good eye for composition, others the technical skills, gear knowledge, and editing experience. Seldom do you find photographers investing the time and effort into improving all of the above, and until they do, they're just hindering the capabilities of their art. There are many paths to a final image.

Good "rant"! I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on these topics. I really think that it is very easy to overthink this. From my point of view (The only one I can really, truthfully have.) I think it is important to always consider intention. What is it your are trying to accomplish with a photograph, with your photography, what are your first causes? I have been teaching art, mostly sculpture, drawing and art appreciation for most of my life. I am currently concentrating on landscape photography as my main means of communicating what I care about and what I feel is important to share with others. A few months ago I went to a nearby area that I often visit to make some photographs and I had an epiphany about what I wanted to devote my time and resources to, what I wanted to emphasize. In other words, what mattered. So, over the last few months, I have devoted myself to doing the best I can to make images that matter. I will never know if they do matter to others, that's the viewers determination. All I can do is keep working and to keep doing the best I can, inspired by my personal vision. I carry on with my own personal rant. 😃 Here's a recent article from the NY Times (paywall) that discusses some of the issues I find important much more eloquently than I have with my comment. David Brook's article in the New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/opinion/art-culture-politics.html Thanks Todd and have a good trip and happy photography!

As photographers we are at the mercy of the physics and the technology of our equipment. As many have already commented, Ansel Adams used the technology and manipulated it to match his vision. With digital, the engineers of our cameras limit us to their “vision” of what an image should look like. I’m really not interested in an engineers vision of what a file “straight” out of the camera should look like. Happy editing!

Too stark a comparison. Either we are true to the landscape and eschew post-processing or we go all in with every trick in the book? Hardly. Some use many methods on their images, layer up the changes and skew the colours and atmosphere to create drama - these are "bad" people, dishonest? Others shoot and produce the file as shot, maybe as a JPG and these are "honest"? Horsefeathers.

I hold similar motivations and conundrums. I like making most of the visual expression that I desire in-camera, not least as it's a creative challenge (it heightens my sense in the moment) and is a more satisfying (to me) way of working. Plus it's not my Mac + keyboard, at which I already spend too much time... I'm also quite relaxed about editing in post, if that's what it takes to get the result. Each to their own, and no judgement. Nice to hear your messy thinking and nuances.

Get a film camera and transparency film. Then you'll have to create entirely in-camera. The slide is a finished product with standardized processing. I've been doing it for 50 years, and there's nothing like the kick of realizing your vision in the form of a perfect slide. It presents challenges because of its tight restraints, but those improve your work. Very little leeway in exposure makes you very proficient at nailing exposure. No cropping means you have to find that composition that works best full-frame. And seeing a slide projected, or even on a light table, can't be matched.

High resolution digital cameras produce virtual images that can be tweaked in ways never imagined by us old film (esp 35 mm) photographers. The workflow of using Photoshop or the new AI software is so much different from dodging and burning in the darkroom (where, especially when processing color, I often wasted expensive sheets of Cibachrome trying to get what I can now get in a couple of minutes with digital processing and can print relatively faithfully by inkjet). I have printed books on letterpress, and written them with fountain pens, so it’s not as if I don’t appreciate this nuanced value of authenticity. But let’s admit that the increasingly powerful modes of editing RAW files allow us to produce subtle and often meaningful variations on the latent image that are determined by the imagination.

So true. It’s more important for the viewer of your photo to experience in every sense what you felt when you shot it. Often that’s not possible with a literal representation. Most people can do the latter, but not many can evoke the experience.

Hi Todd: Thanks for creating this thought provoking video. I love editing and it is not because I have left something in the field when I captured the image, but rather I think that it always to a further tool to create the emotional connection that I had when taking the image. Most times, the two dimensional aspects of the image need to be enriched to bring it closer to the three dimensional experience of the take of the image creation. I am also a strong advocate of the printing process as part of the overall photographic journey. Keep well . . . Keith

Ansel Adams would spend hours over multiple days editing one photo in his darkroom. Was he a “bad photographer”? The title of this video feels like click bait.

I really appreciate your philosophical videos on photography! 😃 As a large format shooter, I often struggle with why I use such a cumbersome camera. I think some of your points help me characterize and maybe even justify why I shoot film. It has definitely taught me patience in waiting for the best light to achieve the results I’m after; in camera. Thanks for all of your sage advice! 😎

Shoot film then you have no choice. When I was shooting you would come back from an assignment hand the unprocessed film to an art director and leave on to the next job. Images had to be good and useable period. Plus they could see all 36 frames of the roll. As one AD said we can get good photos anywhere I’m paying you for great don’t F up

I think a discussion needs to be had regarding where a photo becomes digital art and is no longer photography. Don't get me wrong. I have seen digital art that is amazing. The technique and knowledge that goes into digital art is fantastic. But, when does it stop being a photograph and start being digital art using a photograph as a canvas to create digital art?

I think a lot of landscape photography involves manipulation, an altered reality. Changes to levels, shadows, hue are done to make a photograph look better which implies that the original photograph did not look good. Changes in perspective such as using a very wide angle lens do a similar thing. This is taking the photograph away from a photograph and into an art form. But it's not dishonest. A little bit of editing is OK, the camera never sees things the same way that our eyes see it. But this gets into a gray area- the more you make changes the farther away from reality you get. I've seen before and after landscape images where it was clear that the final image was completely deceptive. Ultimately it's up to the photographer to determine how much altering of reality he is comfortable with and it is up to the viewer to determine if they appreciate the image for its depiction of nature or for its final form as an abstract of nature. Personally I'm in the middle ground. I see landscape photos with colors and tones that I know are not real. I don't like what the photographer did to create something that didn't exist. On the other hand I do recognize that some amount of editing is acceptable. Other people will have a different idea of where they fall on that scale. I think it is possible to get landscape photos in some situations that don't require much editing but our current sensor technology makes that difficult. It may be that just like cellphones do some editing will always be required. I had a friend who entered a wildlife photography contest. He entered his out of camera photograph with a little editing, the competition was won by an image that he knew was created as a composite of multiple photographs. The winner won by his skill in editing, not his skill in capturing photographs of wildlife. I think this is an example of deception. Most of the comments here support all editing as being fair game. I don't agree but everyone can have their opinion. The viewer of the images can have their opinion too.

I am somewhat new to photography, and I am amazed at some of the recommendations from channels regarding editing. I have seem some landscape photography go so far as to edit parts of the foreground completely out of the picture in photoshop. I get that the commercial side incentivizes a "clean" looking image if you are selling prints, and images for backgrounds etc, but to me it is really weird. I mean if the picture requires removal of parts of reality, to me it is basically lying about what it looks like. I get if something is objectively abstract looking due to edits, to me that is fine. Then there are instances where it is clear this person is trying to pass it off as reality, and that to me is lame. I think I became jaded at this after seeing so many curated and oversaturated marketing photos of landscapes where the reality, while still beautiful, is no where near as captivating with color saturation as the photo. This is pretty much just the case for landscape/ nature photos for me. Other photography subfields it doesn't matter to me for some reason, not sure why.

If you’re creating the images for yourself b/c you love the entire process, none of what you’re talking abt matters. It only matters once you share your images w/others & if you care what they think: do you care if they’re being “deceived,” etc, & then the guilt follows. Since I don’t give a s what others think & am doing it for me, yeah, none of the points you make in the video are relevant to me.

Greta stuff Todd, I have taken images that I felt didn't need any editing . There seems to be this compelling sense that I need to edit an image for the sake of editing!

Interesting discussion. And to some extent, it depends on the type of photo you are shooting. Product illustrations, portraiture, even weddings are uses that modification is expected, because the final product has a significance beyond simply a photo. But there are photo oriented sites I sometimes visit where the final product is NOTHING like the original photograph. Now that certainly is art, but to me, it's not photography as I see it. I occasionally will modify images (turning spontaneous images of friends more portrait like etc,.) but that's very rare. The fun of photography, for me, is finally getting a shot that works however rare. How many times does a baseball player step up to the plate before hitting a home run? But it's THAT instant of connecting with the ball that counts, everything is just background. I have no desire to do photography as a job. It's what I do for fun.

The NLPA do allow quite extensive processing ..... but no additions or subtractions. In camera JPEGS are significantly processed ..... if you are going to just use OOC RAW images without the default LR alterations then you are going to have a portfolio of flat, low contrast images with incorrect colour balance.

I agree with Todd. Let me explain, I fully agree that digital protography requires editing, but I do think there is a difference between editing and modifying an image. When I see unrealistic colors, elements, etc I normally do not like that photo.

I think I will use something profound that you said as a key part of my newsletter next week: "injecting a creative viewpoint to reveal a truth the camera can not see" - Todd Dominey. Take emotion as an example does a camera capture your own emotional response to a scene? Or do you do that through the filtering editing and exaggeration of reality that is editing? - BTW I found this to be the best, most provocative video on editing that I have watched in a long time. Thank you.

What you say resonates with me. In the end I come to the conclusion that I want my images to truthfully represent my impression of the place I visited. The camera does not always do a good job of capturing that. It might be a limitation of the camera or my lack of skill in using it. It might also be that I only captured one instant of a scene that I was observing for much longer or that my impression was influenced by my mood and my past experiances. And of course there is the fact that a photograph is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional scene. What ever the reason if the image I get does not truthfully represent my impression of the scene I see no problem in using the computer to bring the image closer to that truth.

OK, honesty and integrity are great, but this is silly especially in the space of the broad space of photography. Sure, SOOC is satisfying, but the art of photography is how you decide to present it. For what it's worth, like people have indicated in the comments section in this video, the darkroom is where the mastery of the negative happens. These days, it's all software anyway, whether you decide to flip up the contrast, increase ISO, choose to crop, choose to use your electronic level on camera vs. whether you decide to put it up after touching it up in Lightroom. Truth should be in the space of photojournalism, documentary and technical photography. If you're looking for artistry, editing doesn't mean that someone's work isn't valid. Honestly, I think you're overthinking it. The quest for the authentic self is just a quest for security in an insecure world. Just take photos of things that you like, and let other peoples do their own thing. Except for the HDR and artistic dick pic people on flickr. Y'all need to stop.

Fantastic Todd. I totally agree. With the arrival of AI the only way we can value photographic images is to go back to the basics: A photographer and their camera. Period. I love the comeback film is making too.

Why post process at all? Cameras tend to make pretty good choices constructing their in-camera jpegs. Now, that jpeg in the electronic viewfinder is quite acceptable. And just Imagine in a few years when every sensor pixel has an independently adjustable sensitivity and exposure. But, most photos will still be completely boring because of boring composition. Composition is the one thing that has to be set correctly in camera by a photographer . Someone who enjoys spending boiling hot and freezing cold days in the Colorado Plateau, photographing hoodoos that fail to be spaced at pleasing intervals and proportion, full of desaturated colors in the bright high-altitude desert sun with glare bouncing off the hard-pack ground, knows this. The difference between what I and the camera see. What I will remember is usually not a single frame, but some kind of composite of what is there. My eye has a very narrow range of focal lengths, but not my brain. My internal field of view is often narrower than what I can actually see. My camera lens choices, however, provide a much wider selection than either mind or eye. And, my mind's eye fails to capture the richness in the visual field, remembering an extra special feature and a relationship to others. It might be an object, it might be a pattern or a set of colors or dimension. But it isn't everything. Postprocessing. Whatever excited me about a composition, the correctly exposed and composed raw photo is a disappointment even though the camera caught everything. It also reveals too much. The thing that caught my attention, the thing that excited me, is diminished in the image,, hiding within in a Where's Waldo scene of complexity. My job is to find the thing, the relationships, enhance it, and then to artfully diminish everything else. Relighting by dodging and burning helps. Adding local contrast helps. All those artistic tricks that we have. Removing sticks and sensor spots, vignetting, all good. Everything used with the intent to do what is necessary to transform this camera image into into what my mind recalls. It's an honest game, or should be. My mind is excellent at unconsciously making things up, yet there is still a photographic record to inform me of my confabulations.

Unfortunately i share this opinion but it wont wash now. Getting right in camera, prob means a whole load of things to many people because they dont come from a film background where you had to get it right there and then. Digital darkroom and tech in cameras means as long as the image or series of images you made are sharp enough.. exposure doesnt really have to be on point for most part except for overexposure.... cameras now can underexpose a lot and you recover later, you can focus stack, you bracket... you can do all sorts of things to bring home images that you can then manipulate and get the results you want. Im not sure there is anything wrong with that because its the process now.. we cant hold on to a process that was for a different age. Photography doesnt mean the same to people now as it did. The process of image making in light of printing is now totally different, therefore you cant apply the same rules. I however will still apply the same rules because i want to, and I enjoy the challenge of it. If i do come across a landscape where i really do have to focus stack to get DOF I will... but i wont do anything else. I still enjoy measuring light, and knowing what a midtone looks like, and knowing how to use a light meter, and previsualising the image at the scene, and using filters to control Dynamic range. Modern photography is boring if you ask me..hence so many kids I know getting P&S cameras and polarioids... they've had enough of stale iphone snaps, hence people wanting cameras that have iso and exposure compensation wheels.... they want to experience photography where you have to put something of yourself into the image rather than pointing at something through an evf and looking at a histogram. TO add to this point... veliva 50 was used because it was so colour saturated.. and in certain light, would give strong colour casts... the same as provia100 that for example would exaggerate blue casts. Film was used to per the photographers style as well as how they want to capture the scene before them so they could express their feelings or the emotion that they felt, or exaggerating the light they were phototgraphing. ITs the same for lightroom... or photoshop... you put in what you couldnt see to express yourself or your photograph, This i think is different to the art of capture which i spoke of above in terms of how you capture an image.

As others have said, manipulation of the base photograph image has been going on for well over a century. The likes of Ansel Adams and the f64 club produced negatives which were capable of being pushed and pulled to produce whatever the photographer had pre-visualised. Nothing wrong with any of that, IMO. Then there were creative image makers such as Angus McBean and Man Ray who went even further to produce surreal interpretations of their photographs which, although based on film, wouldn't have been possible without their inventiveness using the materials to hand. Nowadays there is a myriad of software suites available which are anything from a digital darkroom equivalent to even produce AI generated and generative fill 'art' which may be photorealistic but is in no way photography (as no light photons have hit a light sensitive surface.) Thankfully, software is now available (on the latest Leica M11) which can detect if an image has been tampered with in any way. This is obviously critical for photojournalism, reportage and forensic / evidential photography. I'm hoping that this feature becomes a standard inclusion in all digital cameras as it will also help to validate entries into photographic competitions. How many times have we seen winners and commended photographers shamed by breaking the rules? Integrity starts and finishes with the photographer. Photographers should take photos, process them as they wish but, at the very least, be honest about what's been done to them. No-one likes cheats and charlatans.

As others have touched on, this discussion in many ways is related to the idea of "pre-visualization". For me, if I'm in the zone, I look through the viewfinder and have an idea of what the final image should look like. What comes out of the camera will hopefully get me most of the way there, but whatever's left is where editing comes in. I think if the photographer has no idea of what they want to achieve, and instead uses editing to bring something hidden out of the image that's a bad thing. As long as your pre-visualization is grounded in reality, you can still call yourself a photographer.

What an enlightening video. I to have the odd guilt feeling about making changes I am an Archaeologist or was in my prime. I live in Brittany where we have hundreds of stone monuments, i take many photographs but feel they need a strong atmosphere to give age and feeling at one time I kept them as my camera saw them but trying to find the conditions right in the field was difficult, with a little help from software i can enjoy them in the way I mentally see them.

Nothing will ever be "real" just the fact that an image is "processed" by a sensor or a film that has some specific characteristics makes the image not real. Documentary films are "not real" they always narrate the story through the cinematographers eyes, and the film is always edited even if no colouring is done the film must be edited so the narrative is been changed by the editing. Editing is just part of the narrative you just have to be sure that everything you are doing to the image is actually helping the image be the best version of what you are trying to tell with the image and not just something to make the image "different".

Another great video and more food for thought. I view the camera like a data collection machine. I don’t expect it to be smart enough to see a scene the way I see it - I don’t think AI has come that far yet. For me, the “perfect image” from the camera is one that captures, accurately, the most relevant data like contrast, sharpness, composition and bokeh., and not necessarily the last two. If enough data is there, I can use Lightroom, Photoshop, or any number of editors to modify it to convey what I saw and felt. I perceive the data that comes from the camera critically important, but it’s only data for me to massage. If I run across an image that seems too perfect to edit, it makes me nervous, and I think, “What am I not seeing?” I don’t think my edited pictures are any less “genuine,” than the raw data captured with an artificial sensing device. BTW, add (append) two 1s together you get 11, which is a binary representation for decimal 3.

I thing what makes the end product more precious is not how near or far it is from reality, rather how profound and to which extent and depth does it provide an exciting, artistic, yet honest revelatin of the truth.

If you shoot RAW you're going to edit! If you don't shoot RAW in general you'll get fewer good images.

Good video. I have found that lens selection makes a huge difference. A low element lens in the day time normally produces micro contrast, more 3D pop and color saturation with the cost of color fringing and softer focus on the edges. Now I find a higher element more corrective modern lens works a lot better in low light or night time captures. They just handle the light better. If I start out with the right lenses. I find that I have to do a lot less editing on my photos. Thank you and I appreciate your thoughts.

I don't know, but have you ever heard of Ansel Adams? I'm pretty sure you did. I guess he would have never made it in that nature photography contest, he manipulated his prints heavily in the darkroom. He was one of the greatest.

If you shoot RAW, the image is generally not what the eye sees. Processing is necessary to create the reality of the moment the shutter button was pressed.

What is your favorite landscape lens

People want to talk about learning to get it right in camera? Go shoot some slide film and get back to me. 😎

I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND IM ASSUMING YOUR REFFING TO THIS TOWARD "LANDSCAPE" ? WITH LANDSCAPE, I WOULD SAY, YOU CANT REALLY GO WRONG. (I DONT MEAN THAT LITERALLY) . OF COURSE, WITH YOUR SETTINGS SET UP AND ALL, CAN TAKE AN EFFECT. BUT NATURE IS NATURAL IN ITS OWN BEAUTY. IT'S A "TAKE IT AS IT IS" . WHICH, OF COURSE IS HOW IT SHOULD BE TOWARDS OTHER TYPES OF PHOTOGRAPHY. BUT CONSIDERING HOW SOCIETY IS AND PEOPLE WANTING TO LOOK THEIR BEST. THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE EDITING. IF PPL APPRECIATED WITH OUT WORRYING ABOUT BEING JUDGED OR WANTING TO LOOK THEIR BEST THEN ITS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE TO EDIT. LIGHTING HELPS OF COURSE, BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CAN BE EDITED, THAT ARENT POSSIBLE WITH A CAMERA ALONE. AND ITS THOSE TYPES OF PHOTOS I DO, DO EDITING IN THE MOST. BUT LANDSCAPE SHOTS, MIGHT ONLY BE A TAD OF SATURATION AND CONTRAST, DEPENDING ON THE LOOK IM GOING FOR. BUT NOT MUCH IS EDITED. BECAUSE NATURE, YOU PRETTY MUCH CANT GO WRONG (NOT BY MUCH, IF ANYTHING).

Wonderful, wonderful video. I can't say I agree with many of the perspectives, or the language used to articulate them and the ideas presented. But it is a real thought provoker. Todd, just in case you didn't hear me I paused the video over a dozen times to argue back at my computer screen. Fantastic stuff.

I think the content and ideas expressed in your video were important, thoughtful and illuminating. I regret that it was your click-bait title that got me to watch it though. I subscribe to your channel so I would have watched the video regardless, but to me it cheapened the experience. You don't need to, or shouldn't feel the need to do that.

Most of the techniques that people use in editing program today were used in the days of film. They're simply more sophisticated today (the method of achieving those results). Film/digital sensors have certain limitations that our eyes are able to overcome. Hence, we use certain development techniques to bring the final image closer to what was in our mind's eye. It's the end result that matters. Though, you can't polish a turd...as they say. If your image lacks visual interest, if it's trite, if the lighting is dull, etc...you won't make a masterpiece out of it in post.

Thank you so much for this insightful discussion, Todd. I see an aversion to ‘editing’ in lots of areas. It’s so fascinating. I would totally agree that it comes from a place of valuing Truth and authenticity, but it’s very often inconsistent. For example (and this is just observations not my opinions) as a musician I find it very interesting how much anger some people have towards autotune, and yet they don’t have any issue at all with, for example, layering harmonies. Why is one edit acceptable and the other shameful? Is it because one is considered cheating and the other is not? Or in another area. If someone has had reconstructive plastic surgery after an accident we are rightly full of praise for the surgeon, but many feel very different about, say, a celebrity getting plastic surgery for aesthetic reasons. I think your sense of guilt about photography editing taps into the same conflict. I don’t fully understand it but it’s definitely a fascinating topic and one that is eternally relevant for anyone who is trying to make a living in the artistic world. Thanks again, Matt

Best stick to Polaroid then!

How do you feel about Fujifilm film simulations? is that something that crosses the line?

The way I see it, if Hollywood embraces editing and color grading, which it does, then so do I. I personally find editing and color grading (particularly for video) to enhance my ownership of a scene, to make it more uniquely mine. Apparently, by the end of the video, you came to a similar conclusion!

Highly thoughtful and honest insight. Much appreciated inspiration for my own photography.

One point for me is the creeping reliance on technologies that de-skill the photographer - 'point and shoot', along with 'spray and pray' will result in miraculous results... given the appropriate lines of computer code supplied by a Corporation. Personally, I like to look at an image and see my work and skill - however limited the latter may be - as this provides satisfaction, perhaps even some pride and, most importantly, the drive to improve me-photographer. I want to know why the end result is as it is - something beyond my understanding when a mediocre image has been transformed by a computer. Put otherwise, farming out my frames to anonymous computer programmers in order to find satisfaction is not my idea of 'My Creativity and Work'. Re another strand of your conversation: fidelity. Maybe there are two avenues (at least) here. I try with a lot of my photography to bring out the strange and the unfamiliar in the otherwise commonplace; to show what is generally 'overlookable'. The natural world abounds in this sort of potential - the isolation of somehow strange realities. The products of human imagination are, in comparison, a vanishingly small subset within the natural world of which we are a part. I feel that a useful role that the photographer may choose to adopt is to work to reveal the astonishing actual-factuals of the 'Real World', without recourse to the artificial spectacularization that is often relied upon... but such requires more work, a commitment to a particular ethos, and a keener eye. Finally, nothing wrong with AI-created images and effects - lets enjoy them as a creative venture in there own right - but call them what they are and don't conflate them with the effects of photons of light from the natural Universe alighting on a recording medium - Photography. AI is lines of code within a black box and for which 'seeing the light' is meaningless. Cheers from Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Wow, what a fantastic video you have made this week!. Thank you for that

By the way those comparing Ansel Adams' dodging and burning in the darkroom to digital processing are being disingenuous. Without a great negative no matter what Adams did would not make a great photograph. Those using massive digital processing are in fact using tools developed by geeks. So where is the real creativity here? I especially abhor style filters. I have far more respect for processers who start from scratch. Frankly there is a new divide in photography between those who see it as an "art" and those who love the craft.

What you are talking about is shooting motion pictures on film.

Well done Todd. Very important subject.

Ha Ha, this is a battle I have with myself always! I think as I learned photography, from my first camera (a Zenith TTL) reading books from the 70's, etc. It was generally taught that you should be 'pure' with the image from the camera, only some on-lens filters and a bit of darkroom editing were acceptable - even with camera clubs, it would be reinforced. As time and technology moved on, it would be seen as cheating if you applied too much, even basic digital editing! Now it seems much more acceptable and encouraged. Maybe people new to photography, and learning today, don't have this inner battle? After considering it for some years, I concluded that it depends on many things, like what are you creating the image for, is it for yourself? a commercial enterprise? are you documenting the realistic or inventing the fantastic - it's about the 'image', that is the end product after all - does it really matter what editing is done, as long as it produces the 'image', the one you envisaged when you started the creative journey to make it! did it answer the brief, did the client like it, did someone buy it? It's exciting times with the digital tools available aiding us in producing amazing images. I pump up the saturation right up on my picture of the sunset and my friends say wow that picture is amazing! I suppose it also depends on your audience :)

So does that mean you mostly use jpeg when shooting?

Funny I was just thinking about this exact topic today

Hmmm, nothing about digital photography is "natural". Our cameras don't have the dynamic range of our eyes, our cameras filter out certain wavelengths of light, and we put a "frame" around a field of view that in no way mimics the field of view of our eyes. Even the decisions around what time of day to shoot in or what weather to shoot in or the angle of our compositions or the length of the exposure or the amount of motion blur are creative choices that are no different than applying an adjustment layer in Photoshop. The very act of translating "the real world" into a digital image means that "natural" will always be anything but. You just have to decide which form of "unnatural" you prefer.

Desaturating the color of some blinds is an artistic choice. Removing unavoidable but annoyingly distracting power lines going up an otherwise beautiful mountain is a legit enhancement. Missing a yellow trash bin bottom left of a picture is the type of mistake that should be avoided in camera. Sky-replacement, adding clouds and storms, painting rainbows, eagles and grizzly bears is an absolute No-Go for me (not speaking for anyone else)

Herzog isn't strictally a documentary filmmaker. He's made plenty of fictional works. Fitzcarraldo, e.g.

I am so over seeing editing photos everywhere. I can’t wait til better cameras with better dynamic range come out in an affordable price range so I can shoot jpeg and never raw again. I noticed after I started shooting raw I stopped capturing many real moments of my children. It has always been too much about the edit because the dynamic range sucks and the raw files on my canon require so much work even when I get the settings right. I just want natural looking pics. ❤

I definitely agree 👍

You are as talented when putting words together for thoughts and teaching as you are as a photographer. Nice job. I enjoy your station.

Hear hear!

Cameras don’t do what human visual systems do. Think that through, clickbait guy.