Even journalists, can "cheat" - without editing the picture. Where you stand, what you include or exclude and so on, changes the picture and by that the story.
It's really simple. It's your image; do what you want to it. Just don't be deceptive about it. If you cloned in five birds where there was just one, that's cool. Just don't go telling people there were actually five birds, because that's not true. The ethics is not in whether or not you edit the photo; it's in whether or not you willfully deceive others.
Savant Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s that simple. If the four additional birds are what make it compositionally a great photograph, not informing your audience that you added them after the fact is a lie by omission, pure and simple.
Mads Peter Iversen agreed! If it improves the composition or matches and improves the mood/feeling you got in that location, you’ve the ‘creative license’ to do so! And i think we as viewers are better for it. Thanks for addressing such a frequently debated topic! I think it’s a lot simpler than people make it. Photographer is a form of art, and if you’re going to be picking apart an image and constantly being suspicious if someone is ‘manipulating’ an image, you’re not truly appreciating the complexities of photography as an art form.
I enjoy reportage-style street photography, but I generally remove brand names or logos if I can't frame or crop it out. But for editorial work, yes they generally require sooc. Makes it important to get your WB and gradation right and set up your jpegs how you like them to look in your camera.
My approach to my nature photography is to capture the nature as i experienced it. For me it's the best thing to hear, when people ask me "does it really looks so beautiful in real life?" and I can tell them yes it does. So it's kind of a drive for me to go out and try to get it right on location, because I want to show the people how beautiful our world is. But this does not exclude small changes like removing a branch or filling some gaps in the tress with leaves because those changes doesn't really affect the way we experience the photographed subject. Those changes are to help the viewer focus on the theme, the subject. If the viewer would decide to visit the location I shot the photo, those things I removed or added would not bother the experience in real life.
While I can see your point of view, I also don't have a problem with more major edits. I feel photography is held up to a double standard in the art world. People tend to view it as a more documentarian art form (which it is to an extent), but someone isn't going to tell Van Gogh that his vision for Starry Night is cheating. The same should be said for photography, if I have a vision in mind of what I want my photo to look like, it is within my rights as an artist to achieve that vision.
That's how I approach photography too. I always try to get everything right in camera, but it doesn’t bother me to use the clone tool to make some small changes (remove distractions). Obviously, it’s wrong to break branches, remove grasses, etc. from the landscape just to get a better image. So if I can’t get a better composition without those distractions, I will happily remove them latter in post processing. This is how I like my photography, but it doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate more manipulated images from other creators. Photography is an art form and you should do it the way it makes you happy.
@@earlbryce01 Then don't call it photography, call it digital art or something. Art is perfectly fine but not when it's trying to be passed off as a real picture.
@@krectus ah I wouldn't be so harsh on the term photography. Photography is what you make out of it. And if you use a camera to capture images, we'll I'd call it photography :) As Thomas said it's important not to lie to other people but as long as you are clear about what you are doing well why not named it the way you like it.
My issue with these discussions and art form is as an example, you shoot say Kirkjufellsfoss in Iceland on Monday you get amazing snowfall, on Tuesday a clear moonlit night that creates a different aura about the location, on Wednesday the ice in the waterfall has thawed and you get amazing waterflow, on Thursday KP6 northern lights, then on Friday you go to Grunarfordur's little supermarket/cafe and you start editing, you combine all 5 images, you stretch kirkjufell mountain so it looks more grand, you move the aurora so it flows better in the image, you captured a faint Milky Way and recall a great Milky Way shot from an image in New Zealand a few years earlier and you add that. Aesthetically the image now has everything, at all compositional levels, perfect. This is my issue, to me that isnt photography, thats digital art, I guess I am somewhat of a purist, having such a strong influence/experience from Photojournalism where image manipulation is a nono, that when I moved in to Landscape I did not agree with it, but each to their own, my only other issue is when people dont tell their audience that its a shot of say 10 different images, that its heavily manipulated, and then win photography awards for it, no thats wrong, it gives up and coming students the wrong impression.
Basically exactly where I stand. I will say that I genuinely believe Thomas and people like him are on the up and up as a whole. He could've just as easily snapped off the stray twig and then it was like it was never there. But that's a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't it. Oddly enough though I've seen Thomas admit to and demonstrate edits of a much more blatant and arguably more questionable nature than those he's presented in this video. All in all I think it's a very interesting argument to have and I find myself often discouraged by the ease at which people do manipulate images. Thank God I don't takes photographs for a living or it might drive me mad having to compete with people that so easily bend the rules. I was listening to a conversation on Matt Payne's podcast and I agree with the sentiment of the conversation; there is a certain insinuation of truth that comes with a photograph. The viewer assumes it to be real or at least possible. When it's not, as in the example you've described, I definitely take offense to that.
Peter Lik might get offended by your views! Incorporating a southern hemisphere view of the milky way in an Iceland image would be a rookie mistake ha, I wonder how many people get fooled
I largely agree. There is a MASSIVE difference between removing a twig from an image as per Tomas' vid (and that I am OK with), and the complex multi image composite that you are referring to. Beyond all arguments of right and wrong - to me one of the aspects I enjoy most from Landscape photography is the 'thrill of the hunt' - what am I going to find today, to react to, enjoy and create from. Take this away and make landscape photography simply an exercise in imagination - I think I would find this soo uninspiring. It certainly would not get me out of the house! I do think that if you are presenting a 'Landscape photograph' (as opposed to digital art) - then you, as the creator should be honest with the scene you have captured. Tidying up an image - removing litter, footprints, the odd stray branch does not break this honesty - and neither does gentle/subtle contrast/colour/saturation changes. But merging images from different days or locations most certainly does.
I struggled from the beginning with the idea of being a photographer and any edits creating this guilt derived from a presumption that edits were cheating. I finally attended an in-depth class with Joel Grimes who started his class by suggesting we needed to decide if we were a photographer or an artist. It was a liberating moment for me. About 2 years ago I discovered your channel and the frank, honest way you discuss creativity reinforced for me the freedom that comes from being an artist. I don’t work with composites much, but combining bracketed exposures or panos with a bit of adjustment & cleanup to present an image that makes people “feel” even a moment of peace, joy, awe or just a simple appreciation of nature or humanity is so rewarding. Thanks for your continuing dialogue around inspiration, creativity & composition.
Thomas, don't get me started! We are *creators* and *artists* - not mere recorders of a light array! From the moment we press the shutter we have distanced the image from reality by excluding the context outside the frame. Whether we crop in camera or post processing makes no difference to that fact. Why, after all, do we take photographs? Not to record, but to create an image we wish to gaze upon, and perhaps to share with others. We do so not to say "this is what there was", but to say "this is what I see" or, if I can get a bit metaphysical (I'm a philosopher by trade, so forgive me), this is who I am. Thomas, in your photos you show us who you are, and I for one admire you for it.
I was a bit on the higher side of post processing often overdoing my images and including elements in the images which did not belong there on location. But then, I came across your RU-vid channel and I realised that orginality is the best form of art. And I am so happy to still consider you my inspiration because you think removing a twig is cheating. That is so honest of you. I respect you for the way you are.
Like you I think cloning and removing distractions is just fine. I do feel that photography which is completely manipulated has to be shared with that information for complete transparency as it might cause people to travel to destinations under false pretences or buy something that isn’t a true reflection of a landscape. Great video, love the music at the start 👍🏻
So glad you have approached this topic! As you said, so much editting isn't worth mentioning, but it totally depends on the context. As a travel adventure photographer on Instagram I see so many 'influencers' replacing skies or editing out crowds to get post card moments, which is fine if you are a landscape or fine art photographer because as you rightly said, it is an art form you can create as you like. My problem is when people replace skies with impossible weather and give themselves beaches or cliff sides that would never be empty at that time of day and pass it off as real. Selling an experiences in a place that can never exist.
You know what: you can't cheat yourself to quality. As I see it that's all you're about: quality. I think it's amazing that you "reveal" your secrets and I don't think it diminishes your work one tiny bit.keep up the fantastic work both with the images and videos! You're a great inspiration to a lot of people 😀
Steve Miller I made the same point myself, and so don’t disagree. Nevertheless, the truth of that statement really hinges on what you mean by “editing.”
Editing images goes back way before Ansel Adams was even born. In 1860, images of Abraham Lincoln were edited by putting Lincoln's head onto John Calhoun's body...
I admit to manipulating my photos to remove distracting elements (as you discussed in the beginning of the video), but at the same time, I consider myself an artist, and if I have a vision and I know I can create that vision through photo manipulation, I'm going to give it a go. To tell the truth, I LOVED your abstract ice image and would definitely put it up on my wall. It's all in the eye of the beholder, Thomas. One form of photography that I am obsessed with is high speed water droplet photography. I edit/manipulate the hell out of those (color changes, cropping, clone stamp, etc.). Photography is an art and we are the artists.
I think you hit the nail on the head in a previous video Thomas. What you change and how you change it is fine in my opinion, I love it. I draw the line at added objects to the image that weren’t there previously. Also don’t like anything that make the image look unrealistic. Keep up the great work 👍
To each their own... If you are happy with the final result, that's all that matters. (Disregard that if you are a photojournalist!) On another note, Thomas, I really appreciate your transparency, honesty, and humility. Bravo, sir!
Thank you for this video. It used to aggravate me to no end that a photographer had "photo-shopped" their images. I was trying my best to get as close as possible to prefect my skills to getting close to matching theirs. Only to find out it had been doctored and wasn't the original photograph. It simply pissed me off. Here I was wondering what I was doing wrong. A more experienced photographer enlightens me this method started long before now with Ansel, as well as others before me. They had been perfecting their photos in the dark room. It was then I realized I needed to extend my imagination in post production as well as in the field. Now as you said you stretched the image I'm thinking, oh yeah something to keep in mind while I am editing. Cheating..... not any more. Creativity, ah hell ya!
Is it not, the art of photography, you are an artist, there are impressionist artist, and I think you will find, they interoperate a scene the way they would like to see it... I think that is exactly what you are doing Tom..... nothing wrong with that in my eyes.... Keep up the good work, you inspire thousands of us... That's why we support you.
Having these self-debates about the morality vs artistry of changing and editing pictures fuels great debates between others and helps others come to their own conclusions of how they want to work with their own images and make decisions on-site on how to take pictures and compositions in the first place. I'm an amateur and only just did a first lil' trip out to a country-side landscape location to try my hand at landscape photography, and i can say without a shadow of a doubt that hearing your previous videos on your inner thoughts of editing photos has helped a lot, personally im more of a keep-it-natural viewpoint, but i wouldn't say i'd never warp an image, i've got my boundaries if i wanted to post an image or share it with friends, but i do play around with pictures to extremes just to have fun with it and see what programmes and pictures are capable of creating. Thanks again for sharing these thoughts, i think they help everyone progress in their photography dao.
Photography is an ARTFORM and the artist can do whatever he or she (in this case you) can do whatever you hecking want to improve and portray your artwork. I look up to you and your work so much and i look forward to when my images are even half as amazing as yours ❤
They heavily alter and add the color in photographs in full wavelength astrophotography. If you have seen the recent image of Pluto (blue-brown-white coloured) it was all added later. Most of the published pictures from Hubble space telescope use false colour. And some of them regarded as standard scientific references. I agree with Tom here, artistic freedom should always be granted as long as it's not misleading. "Good" or "bad" representation is truly subjective. Not only this "freedom" ensures creativity, but often opens a gateway to another dimension of beauty.
Also, remember that the human eye is only one "representation" of reality! Insects and reptiles see the world in COMPLETELY different ways! In short, science and photography will never be completely separate. The human eye is actually a pretty weak ocular device, compared to a cat or an eagle, let alone the full spectrum of light. This is part of what makes things like astrophotography so impressive- the notion that these things can't even be seen "correctly" with the naked eye, and yet by using accurate yet "false" color, we can represent them in stunning beauty that is still actual science. Personally, I love to create images with as little post-production as possible. Because my goal as a landscape or astro-landscape photographer is not just to create art, but to actually document the things I see, and share that imagery with others.
Neil Hunter False color images and composites (as well as photo mosaics) in astronomy are always labeled as such. Not to mention that their value as the product of scientific research, as opposed to aesthetic objects, is not the same thing at all.
@@michaelhall2709the Jupiter pic went viral with no such mentions else I wouldn't have had to explain!! As for colouring in, that's not for scientific value, that's to make science palatable to the layman no?
Yes I edit my images as well. Nothing is wrong on it. Sometimes i frittered myself bringing the image to death. What the hell, its creativity. Thanks for this and the many inspiring videos you published so far.
My opinion, for what its worth, is that as landscape photographers we take shots and produce pieces of art that makes ourselves happy, if I have to manipulate a scene slightly to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible then I will do. Keep doing what you like with your artforms, it really doesn't matter in the great scheme of things. All the best Thomas, keep up the great content.
Nothing wrong with what you've done there Thomas -- you're the artist, the storyteller -- it's what you see with your eyes, and how you interpret it in your mind that you present to us in your images. I'm not a landscape photographer, tend to photograph animals - and if I photograph a Zebra in a Zoo, for example, then I'll take it out of it's compound and present it probably on a black background with some water reflection, or something to bind it to a ground (otherwise it looks like it's floating in mid air), and give the animal (the subject) the freedom of my artistic mind, without the distractions of the confines of it's circumstance. I don't see why landscape photography needs to be any different - do what your artist mind tells you to do.
If your shooting for a documentary or photo journalism then I think you need to keep images as they are and how they were shot. However as a landscape photographer you are an artist and you should be able to create your image as you see fit and use creativity, while being honest and not pulling the wool over peoples eyes. Those photographers who say they love images straight out of the camera and that you shouldn’t edit your shots generally just don’t have the patience to learn how to post process their images correctly and are envious of those who can. We are painters and the landscape is our canvas :-) great video Thomas enjoyed this one
Its perfectly fine to change things, its creating a piece of art. Our goal is beauty not accuracy. If I was taking pictures for a walking guide book, then yea maybe I would limit the tweaks to visibility.
There are loads of different genres in landscapes, and sometimes it feels good to mix and mash in post. Sometimes It’s documentary and sometimes it’s more abstract, sometimes it’s just a wish of the mind. As long as you’re upfront about it it doesn’t bother me. That’s what creativity is all about. Excellent video! Thanks mate 🦊👍
One month of Scottish content? YEAAAAH!! Looking so forward to this! I was there that week, too, (I was that fangirl at the Glencoe mountain center) and it might be frustrating to see your images compared to mine, but I'm nevertheless very much looking forward to your images. 😃
I agree Tom .. it’s so much creative process than sticking to one form .. its artists choice to choose what he wants to do with his art 🙂 I choose to go wild with the image as long as it looks like another art piece .. & there is nothing wrong in that .. 🙂🙂 another lovely video from you .. kudos ..!!!
Really digging that intro music Thomas 👌🏼 Perfect for a simple morning viewing. Personally, I see it as a creative licence when it comes to photography. It is your art and yours to do with what you like. BUT, and it’s a big but, you need to atleast disclose in some circumstances that it is altered. There are too many images getting around online (Instagram in particular) that are heavily altered or even composites of multiple images that just looks incredible and unbelievable. While it does take a lot of talent to do that, you’re also kicking some of the amateurs and enthusiasts by making them question their own skills, or talents. Leaving them saying “OMG why can’t I be that good” and unfortunately destroying the enjoyment for many of them. Once again, your art to do with what you like. Just make sure it isn’t becoming an impossible goal for someone else.
I’m right there with you. Saying a photographer can’t play with editing is like telling a painter they can’t paint cubism. My personal preference is to edit just enough to portray what it felt like when I saw it, but to each photographer their own.
This is something I have been trying to get better at. I was trained as a military photographer and we cant do a whole lot in the editing department. For the longest time I thought to do anything else was wrong. But, over the last year I have been slowly getting out of my shell with it. I even started color grading recently. Awesome video, awesome subject!
Tom, only saying this because I trust with the amount of effort you put in to production value that you will take onboard constructive criticism and not take it the wrong way, but there are ways to reduce some of the white noise when recording audio and I think it's one of the very few finer details you could do to polish your videos even more when in this setting. It's not something massively distracting, but it's something I am sure I'm not the only one to notice and I think especially when narrating videos in the future, cleaner audio will assist in better immersion in the visual journey you're leading us through. Anyway, love your work and I really hope you don't take it the wrong way. I am only mentioning it because you're so detail-oriented about everything else that you'd probably want to know! :) Cheers!
Photography and creativity both go together. You cannot have one without the other and they compliment each other. Just as long as your work makes you happy. For me I love your work and the time you put into it.
I figure that there's what reality was and then there's your memory. I try to make my photos what I remember and that's generally a bit, not much, better than reality. Still within the realm of what's possible just a bit closer to the ideal version of the scene.
I don't know a good reason a photograph has to look like the subject. Sometimes I imagine what I want, and go for it. Sometimes I decide after shooting what to do. Sometimes, I make more than one final image. Sometimes, I shoot to see what I can do with it later.
Nothing wrong with what you're doing Thomas, it's all part of the creative process. Three things I use, Content Aware + Dodging & Burning + Crop for print and that's it for me, done. Can't wait for the Scotland video.
Agree that as long as you are not misleading for gain then it sits well with me. In fact I will probably never see one of my images in large print but as I donate my reasonable image then removing distracting parts is ok and sometimes important as I may want someone to focus wholly on a certain aspect in its own glory. Great stuff Tom.
I love that flowing water image! It's very abstract and quite beautiful. If it isn't editorial, forensic, documentary, etc., then go for it. We are artists trying to impose our vision on the world. Some of us portray this with absolute accuracy of the vision while others change the scene to our idea. I shoot a lot of black and white infrared which could be considered manipulative by some; but to me it's just an alternative view. You are an artist and you should not apologize fo removing a frigging twig (or trash).
The beauty of art is that it can share an emotion, perspective or sense of the artist. Someone commented they wanted to capture nature the way they “experienced it”. But isn’t everyone’s experience different? One persons majestic clouds is another’s sad remembrance. I don’t see in black and white, yet no one would say that’s not photography. With my naked eyes, I don’t see star trails, or a 3 minute exposure of waves crashing on the shore, or a 1/1000 sec image of a bee in flight, or even a square crop composition of a meandering river, yet those are “photos”. What’s the difference between using the computer IN the camera to convey meaning vs the computer FED by the camera. Everyone creates on their own terms. I have no problem if someone decides their art is “journalistic”, but don’t tell someone else their image is not photography if they edit for an emotion or an experience as they felt it. I won’t mislead the viewer, but I’m not a webcam, I am an artist.
The biggest cheat is the person who first came out with the phrase “A photograph doesn’t lie” well you have just shown that it does and more to the point they always have, as you also pointed out. Image manipulation has been around almost as long as photography itself. Keep doing what your doing I love your images, even the stretchy ice! In fact I really like that image.
If you were a painter and you left something out of your image, or added something, or stretched it, or flipped it horizontally or vertically, no one would know or care or say anything if they found out. So what's the difference? It's your art; do what you want. Jack
The difference is that if you're a painter, viewers immediately understand that it's a painting, but if your image is given the label "photograph", viewers immediately assume that certain elements of truth/accuracy do exist, even though they also understand that photos do receive development before viewing. In short, yes it's all still art, of course it's art! But to say that painting and photography are that similar in their creativity and artistic value, misses the whole point of photography.
@@MatthewSaville Right. Can't call something a photograph if there's little left of the original image. It's digital art. Nothing wrong with good digital art, but better not pretend it's photography 😁
@@MiaogisTeas The thing is, many photographers intentionally do advanced composite work, (focal length blending, time blending, etc.) but they insist on categorizing their art as /a/ photograph. Emphasis on the singular. And calling anything /a/ photograph implies an element of factual truth about the major elements in the image, such as scale, juxtaposition, or timing. Nobody is debating whether or not it's art. To say so is a red herring fallacy. The question is simply, when does it stop being "a" photograph. To me the answer is simple, but to most, it's either complicated, or downright aggravating to even bring up.
Whatever it takes Thomas. Who cares what others think its all about getting personal satisfaction , My experience once you produce an image is not where was it taken and what settings produced the image presented but what are you using. If my pictures are used now I only ever release the basic settings of the image like shutter speed etc. I never say which camera, which lens and as far as everyone knows It has been through Lightroom whether it has or not. For me you have produced a wonderful image and that's all I want to know and I will admire you for the image.
Great vid Tom. I'm on the side of being good with dodging and burning, exposure blending, deleting rogue elements, tweaking contrast and saturation etc. I don't believe in adding things into shots that didn't exist in the original image. I've never thought about stretching images before. I certainly think it worked for your ice/path shot due to it's abstract nature. I do believe that a lot of artistry happens in post and if it can transform a good shot into a spectacular shot, I'm all for it. I try to avoid overdoing post work. Keep it looking natural. Pretty much what you do.
I do a fair bit of "cheating" in my equine photography. My audience tends to like more "realistic" photos but I just enjoy experimenting with photoshop sometimes. 😊 Great video, thanks Thomas!
I think this topic is delicate, fluent and conscience depending that it's all about taste and nothing more. It's just a matter of how honest with the implemented changes we are, which you mentioned in the very beginning. I wouldn't apply as heavy modifications as yours, well, maybe with exception of cloning-out some branches... but I do crop and apply (sometimes heavy) contrast correction (like dehaze tool). I don't like photos which are over-edited. I am following a polish photographer who makes amazing sceneries, except none of them are remotely real. They more more graphic simulation to me than actual photos. Unfortunately people tend to prefer such photo - I think this is because they cannot see such images in real life and, in general, such unfamiliar views are more interesting than something we are familiar with...
I've NEVER taken an image that didn't require a little sharpening and the odd tweak here and there and don't see a problem with it. Great video again Tom and being a Scots lass I cant wait for Wednesday to see where you were up here.
I like your cheated images. It is interesting to see the original and then watch the creative process behind it. In Photography of People it is a different story! Keep up the good work, Thomas!
I agree. As an art form I agree that it is up to the artist (photographer) to do whatever they like to the photo. Cheating for me is only if a photographer denies a modification (for whatever reason) which was done to the image.
I love that you think the few things you’re doing is “cheating”. I know your style is very light editing, but I’d love to see your images with more “pop”. You said in an episode that you want to learn to edit more, use luminosity masks... DO IT ! I’d love to see your progression !
Nice to see the topic brought up. I do quite intensive post processing, and made it as a part of my style. I think what is important is not how much manipulation has been done, but how. Most of time, I should already have a mind on how to post process the image when I'm photographing it, so all I do in LR/PS is to recreate the view I had in my mind. What I kind of don't like is to do post processing without a clear mind of how I want it to be.
A lot of headache around this topic could be avoided if photographers categorized their work like writers do their books. When I do infrared photography it usually ends up as 'science fiction/fantasy'. My normal editing workflow is 'historical fiction'--dodging and burning, color editing, cropping, removing distractions. Nobody ever wags their finger at an author of fiction accusing them of misleading people, right? Great topic Thomas! #CantWeAllJustGetAlong? ☮♥️📸
I think you hit the nail on the head - it's fine as long as you don't misrepresent what was done. I think the issue here is people who are not photographers look at the images and believe they're representative of reality, so I can understand the position of purists. It all comes down to intent and honesty in the end.
Hi Mr H. Thanks for another great vlog. BTW was just watching James Popsys's latest vid and he talked of taking as many images as possible on a shoot in order to secure a very few good ones. He said many landscape photographers he knew did likewise. He did, however, add that a few just took the occasional image but they could do that because they were very experienced and very good. I thought of you and I would be surprised if he was not meaning you. Anyway... I am a mixed photographer, not a landscape specialist. I can see that locational integrity is important to landscapers, thus perhaps limiting alterations. The same but much more so would apply to reportage and portraiture ("warts and all"?). However, from my POV, I think all else is "game". I do not care what the input photograph was; all I care about is the final image. My photography is, at least, an attempt at art and the "art" on display will be that final image, not the original photograph(s). I try to do my best to make an interesting / pleasing / thoughtful / whatever final image - the originating photograph is but a mere tool, as are camera and lens. Well, that's my halfpenny, as you asked us. Thanks again.
Couldn't agree more with you on this one Thomas. Editing can greatly enhance an image...but over editing can definitely ruin an image as well. I think most of us can attest to that.
I'm with you 100% Thomas, nothing wrong with using all the modern post processing tools to manipulate an image. If I couldn't edit in post, I think I would be a poor photographer because I get so much wrong in camera all the time.
Cheating is such a strong word for removing distractions. In real life, your mind constantly ignores stuff to help you focus on what's important. A photo cuts out a whole lot of information that affected you on location, and suddenly the things you didn't even see, seem to grab your focus in the image. If it breaks the image,clone it out. Stacks, blends, and panos are only helping us to get better quality images out of our equipment. Nothing wrong with that. I draw the line at composites. Even if I stack a hundred photos, they are all shot using one camera, and one focal length, at one location!
Tom, 100% I think its ok to edit or manipulate your photos! The way I feel about my editing style is this: I want others to see my image and like it without even knowing they're doing so, so that they like it so effortlessly that they dont have to wonder or ask if they like it, they just do like it with ease.
A very interesting subject, one I've been contending with recently. I started to use Lightroom recently and even as a beginner, it's surprising what you can achieve. It's also clear how easy it is to go too far and find the image just looking "wrong". I've reset images a few times as I try things and feel they no longer look natural. At a very basic level, exposure itself is changing the perception of what can be seen and surely it can be said a lens is even adjusting the view/perception of a scene so HDR, tweaking exposure or tone through post processing are ok, as long as the image looks natural.
Absolutely fine! When I started taking photos long long time ago I used to enter competitions and I "lost" most of it to photos with massive manipulation by cloning parts of two or three photos in one, not just exposures and minor "snow corners" like you did. I used to get angry not because the manipulation, but because we were all competing in one single category "landscape photography" wneh I thought back then those highly manipulated pictures should be in graphic design or something like that. Anyway, time changed, everyone does it, many deny it, I do it just like you do and I think it is fine!
Hey Thomas, enjoyed the video. I agree with you that the picture you edited is not dishonest. It is an abstract composition so your changes worked really well. Also the cool blue color in the ice cave looks great.
Your work is quite beautiful, Thomas, and you present it with great humility. To me, "cheating" is not in the editing, but in the presentation. If you create "impossible" images, and present them as being untouched, then that's not just cheating... It's a lie. But everything else you've mentioned is an artistic/aesthetic decision that I would never have a problem with doing myself. Anyone who ever worked with film did things to make the image better, and digital is simply an extension of that. And importantly... There is no "reality" setting on any camera or lens. Each one, in it's default settings, will produce different colors, contrast, etc.. So even an "untouched" image has already had some built-in electronic adjustments made. Personally, I enjoy the world of photography, and appreciate what each artist does to make their images unique. Looking forward to your upcoming Scotland video!
Good on you Thomas for your honesty . I myself edit my photos they way I like them I have painted pics for years and doing it with photos in a photo editing suite was a natural progression. I remember posting a photo of a local waterfall in Facebook and a friend asked me where it was so he could walk there and photograph it. I told him where it was but I also said you won’t see what I’ve photographed. When you take a photo make it what you want it to look like.
Nicely done Thomas! I agree about the creative license and it’s of course ok to remove any distractions in post that you were unable to do in location in order to make the photo more aesthetically pleasing. The only time I would call it cheating, it would be if for example you were participating in a competition where the rules were strictly not to manipulate the images in such way and you did, giving you an unfair advantage against the others participating on it, or if you were a journalist and by removing something from the image, it would help you promote a lie. When it comes to creativity and art, I believe that there’s no limit to the editing.
If you think about it we are essentially editing from the time we leave the house till the time we hand the print (or click post). We choose one scene over another, compose a shot and change perspective to get it just right, chose a focal length, etc. If were printing then we are choosing a paper (or other substrate), a mat and frame, and how we chose to light it to get the best presentation. To think that if we are editing on the computer is not being true to the image is ludicrous.
It’s crazy Tom! Almost every image your think is “ehhhh” I would buy, especially if it was in your calendar. Nearly all of the images you take and are like “that’s a keeper” I’m thinking to myself are not even close to your best work, and don’t necessarily even have a great story behind them.
This makes me feel much better about a recent project I did that I found creatively stimulating, but the final image is obviously & extensively edited. Its not my typical style at all, but when I showed my wife she said it was awesome. So I ran with it and posted it on Instagram where it now sits with more likes than any other photo I've done. Slightly frustrating, but I came to realize that it doesn't have to be realistic and look unedited for people to enjoy it. Cheers!
I agree with you on the 'cheating' as long as you don't lie about it! I remove distractions from my images too, probably not as often as you are but still. I'm moving to Scotland soon, so really looking forward to your videos!
I used to be a purist and wouldn't even color correct any of my photos. I think it was a good learning step. However, now I've learned some editing and can make my images so much better. Using both techniques are important, and learning to do as much as possible in the camera always makes editing the image simpler.
Hello Thomas! What you call cheating in your video I would say it's standard for an ambitioned or professional landscape photographer! And it's anyhow better to remove that with cheating in software than to remove or cut of trees, flowers at location because they do not fit into the composition.Go on like this. Your videos are allways inspiring me.
I love that ice pic, im all about textures and such because i tried self teaching myself blender, which if you haven't heard of it,is an open source 3d rendering suite. I watched a lot of RU-vid tutorials via a channel called the blender guru, he tended to focus on the material science and photo realism etc. so i guess i developed an appreciation for materials and how they react with light. As far as photo editing goes tldr :light & colour - cant go wrong, clone tool generally - sure, why not, clone tool & spot fixes on portraits - mostly grand, making a photo realistic homer simpson - Your [photoshop artists] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should
Fine by me Thomas. This is art. You're an artist and you'll use the tools that you have available to you to produce the best image possible. It's nothing new and has been going on way before digital photography was even thought of. So it's NOT cheating. IMHO;-) Looking forward to seeing the Scottish content.
Whenever I see a composition that speaks to me -- it is just that - it speaks to me. Almost by definition that means there is an emotional reaction to the scene -- something "unseen" that I intend to re-create with my photograph. I want that same emotional response with the output of my editing and if that means if is not a carbon-copy of the original --- so be it.
As a newspaper photographer I just crop and do minor tweaks to contrast highlights shadows etc clone out dust marks nothing else I use these same tweaks in my personal landscape sports street weddings work etc for me really the less time at the computer equates to more time shooting great debate Thomas 👍🏼
I really like your take on changing images.. It is one thing to take out a branch that is distracting from the image. I do think one crosses the line when one takes a stock image of Mount Fuji and superimpose it onto a shot of the rockies and says....hey look where I have been..... well done Thomas.. Good video
Jim Tipton. If you couldn't live with yourself that is the best reason for not going to those lengths. I've recently seen a lovely landscape with single very distant duck floating near the edge of a misty lake. The duck was digitally added and it just lifts the photograph to another level. I would never have known if the the guy hadn't mentioned it.
I with Jim, mostly. I could not add, say, a moose in an otherwise 'mooseless' pond. However, I do understand that photography has evolved over the years, and we're all discovering our own limits. Few people are aware that Ansel Adams altered his prints and even deleted the "LP" from the famous image taken at Lone Pines. For me, my limits are influenced by the community that I share my photos with. For example, if all I really cared about was how other photographers reacted to my work, then I might do things differently compared to sharing them only with family and friends who know little about photography. Which is to say, I think audience matters in all of this. So for me, given my audience now, it would feel like an implied deception if I had added the moose and did not disclose it. Additionally, (and hypothetically) if by adding said undisclosed moose, the image became an 'award-winner' mostly on account of the moose, then I'm back to Jim's flock of geese comment above. But again, this is only a personal thing, and I'm willing to evolve on this. When photography is seen as an art form, the saying "you are not just taking a picture, but creating an image" takes on new meaning. James Popsey's work is a great example of this. So maybe we add to this discussion the whole notion of audience and audience perception. Just a thought. (As far as Tom's editing decisions shown on the video, I do that stuff all the time and feel no need to disclose it. Just to make clear, I'm not a purist in these matters.)
Branches and twigs get "chopped off" all the time in my pics. I figure if I could, I'd really chop them off(and I have actually done that). Outlaw trails from ATV's disappear.
Completely agree with you Thomas. I want the finished image to look great and occasionally that may mean adding or subtracting to the image I actually shot. I have no issues deleting distractions and on occasions have even added something to an image, ie, on a lovely deserted beach, adding a dog walker (I also shot on the same beach on the same day but who was in a different/wrong place). The ends justifies the means provided as you say, you don't deceive.
I can totally understand your point of view. But the point with the more extreme peaking and colour changing for me is: unexperienced and even some experienced photographers cannot tell the difference and they might get frustrated because they think they never shoot something similar at a similar spot, like in terms of color. So i think once you are transparent with it its totally fine. But especially on insta there is a lot of cheating without transparency.
Look forward to your Scotland stuff squire. Tbh pretty certain anyone who gets it right in camera every time is adding : subtracting so much at the scene that it’s just the same. Else their photography probably isn’t that exciting. I could be wrong but... I like your work Thomas. Doesn’t detract at all knowing how you go about it.
It’d be great to see a video of how you created that HDR shot in the Ice cave, Thomas. I understand you don’t use HDR very often, so watching your process for that shot really would be an interesting subject to me, since I’m fond of HDR and its potential in diferentes styles of photography. Great video, Thomas. Cheers ...
I think what elevates photography into an art form is the ability to take an image and present it in an aesthetically pleasing way that matches the artist's vision. There are many tools available to a photographer that help with this pursuit. Sometimes composition is the main tool used. Other times it may be the use of filters or exposure/focus blending. Photoshop is still another tool we can use. All the tools and skills we learn as photographers can be used to skew an image from reality. In fact, my guess is most images aren't a true representation of the reality they were captured from. Photographs can have more dynamic range than most people can process or an image can be shot at a focal length drastically different from what the human eye can see. I think what separates truly gifted photographers from the average Joe taking a photo, is the ability to see those possible images and then bring that vision to fruition. To me ethics in photography come into play whenever I look at photojournalism. Photojournalist have to be very careful on how they use photographic tools when they present an image. It is very easy to influence an audience based on how a image is presented. Thomas, I really enjoy your videos and think you are a great photographer!
I sometimes combine multiple photos into “dreamscapes” when I’m feeling uninspired, a great practice in perspective and matching lighting. Also makes you appreciate when everything comes together naturally! Love Art
To me there are two things here: 1) A photographer capture 2) An image artist creates images Photography is about capturing moments, places, things. Then you also can be the image artist that post process captured images. You can of course be both things at the same time. But for me a photograph is the captured scene. As soon as you start to add or remove objects to a photograph it becomes an image.
I'd agree with you Thomas on the image and making the change. It's still what was physically there, just a change in perspective on it. Think it works great. I've done similar things with images with distractions or things not looking quite "on". Thanks for your video and photos.
go ahead! I agree with you Heaton, do what works. Photoshop is just a tool to use in your artwork. As long as you are the one doing the work, you can't go wrong.
I loved your icicles picture and I find it super interesting to see a before and after! I'd love to see more of that as it us very enlightening to see what you can get out of a picture when you process it!
Great debate to have. For me, newish to photography, it’s about the joy of finding and capturing the images I see. It’s about the composition. I don’t yet have a yearning for sitting and twiddling an image beyond a bit of cropping and rotating but completely get that almost every image I see on any blog I watch will have be post produced in one way or another. Jamie Windsor did a similar, well articulated video on the same subject if you want to check that out. It’s an art as you so rightly say so you pay your money and take your choice.
The very act of framing up a composition is a manipulation of the scene we are photographing. So to the folks who say NEVER crop, never modify, never clean-up your images in post I say STFU (with a smile :D ). But there are levels of deception in what we do to our images and while certain images can take a lot of manipulation without ever feeling like it's cheating, some images imply a sense of reality (or documentation) that makes manipulation more of an issue if undisclosed - ahem, northern lights over the Matterhorn ; ) I think my personal line is any image in which the change is a core component of the final composition and an average reasonable observer might not know that any work had been done. BTWm love the stretched rocks and ice!
Whatever works for the person, like other people have said. Most of the time I go for editing to try and make it actually look like what I saw (e.g. colour enhancements) or making something pop like animal eyes. Sometimes I edit past what I like because that’s what I think works for that image. As long as you’re happy with it, basically!
As an artist, its your right to present your image any way you wish. The accentuating of the stone at the bottom making it more a heart shape topped it off nicely.
Like you I have no problem if a photographer (and they are all artists) interprets a scene in a particular way and that involves some "manipulation". Its their work and whatever they say goes. I'm not sure that I have much of an eye for abstracts but when it comes to Landscapes I like them to appear as close to the original scene as possible. Thanks Del.
I say it's all kosher. I edit to make the image look as cool as it did in my mind. Pop that saturation. Clone out distractions. HDR. Add blurring to force your eye to one point. Edit away so the viewer gets stoked and wants to go explore on their own.
