Is Photo Editing CHEATING? 

Spoiler alert: photo editing is not cheating when I do it but is cheating when you do it.

Editing is not cheating, but it is dishonest to claim an image was photographed in one location when parts of it were shot somewhere else.

My Favorite: “You don't take a photograph, you make it.” ― Ansel Adams

I am not a professional, in fact I'm now getting into photography. I'm not even sure if I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter, but here is my take. I think that cropping and editing a photo is all fine until you edit beyond reality, in which case its no longer photography but rather digital art. For example replacing your sky with something artificial or super saturating the colors to something unrealistic and now your landscape looks like something out of a video game. That's not to say that your work is diminished in any way or is more or less in value. I just think that you shouldn't call something a picture (even if it started out as a picture) that has been heavily photoshopped and manipulated to a point that the subject no longer represents reality or even comes close.

Sadly, the most effective post processing method I have found for improving the vast majority of my photos is making use of the Delete button.

Photography, for the most part, is art. So, anything goes, there is no right or wrong way. It's whatever pleases the photgrapher's/artist's eye. Sure there are some instances where you want accuracy/reality, i.e. photojournalist, crime scene photography, etc., but unless you specifically need a realistic image, then anything goes, it's art.

Hmmm I edit all my pictures, I never realized I was in some kind of competition to be cheating lol. I think you as the photographer decide what you want to show in your picture, you're the artist. No one can tell what to do with your picture.

When I started photography about 4 years ago, I used to think editing was cheating, but the more I learned about human vision and how the brain processes images, I realized you sorta HAVE to edit to actually make your photos look realistic. Not good; REALISTIC. Meaning, an edited photo in many cases is a more realistic interpretation of what you saw than an unedited one. Took me a while to understand that. The reason for this is because the human brain is a very, VERY powerful post processing tool, and its likely that the image we saw was not how the image actually existed in real life. For example, say you see a lion at a zoo, and your particularly struck by the powerful features of its face and mane. Your eyes see more sharply and with higher contrast in the center of your vision cone, so if you were focused on the lion's face, you might NOT have noticed the intricate details of the rock it happened to be laying on. When you revisit your image in post, you might try softening the features in the rock, and focus on sharpening the features and contrast in the lion's face. This is not cheating, because this is a more accurate representation of the image as you saw it, and anyone that was with you might agree that the processed image more closely resembles what they remember than what the unedited, SOOC image looked like. Also, the cropping business is just silly. If I take a picture of a bird and want you to focus on the bird, I'm not going to leave the window, blinds, feeder, parked car, and old man mowing his lawn in the frame just because it was "more accurate".

Photography is a form of art so if someone wants to process the picture to enhance what you’re trying to project to me still art. Each artist have their own way to do it and some people would like it and some don’t. Just be happy with your creation and thank everyone that like it. Good podcast guys!!

I see photography as an Art - and editing is part of what helps you achieve your vision

Photoshopping or any other editing is a fine art in and of itself. Why is there not many photographers just selling un edited photos? Because hardly no one would buy it

love this episode so much i have watched it over 3 times... ! love the sample pictures shown to the banter along with them!

My opinion on this matter. If you shoot a scene with 5 different cameras you will have 5 different looking photos, in terms of colour reproduction, contrast, dynamic range, etc. But what they have in common is that they all capture a real moment in time. The camera captures the image with its sensor and with its calculator, the jpeg engine it makes a photo. So it has a basic setup for colour saturation , sharpness, contrast, dynamic range, etc. If you play with this levels, i don't consider cheating. You are just bypassing the basic algoritm and adjusting the levels to your taste. The image is still a real capture of that moment in time. But if you add new elements in the photo, you add 2 -3 people, 1 monkey and 1 umbrella and you claim that was a real image you captured. That is what i call cheating! If you say, hey look at what i have created , do you like my imagination. Then i will be okay with it.

I adhere to Kaiman Wong's (Kai of DigitalRev) general principle: "is the picture interesting?"

Thanks Chelsea and Tony for bringing these types of videos. Way too many RU-vid photographers concentrate soley on equipment and/or technique and are really more about using photographic equipment than photography. I appreciate that you cover history, art theory, and philosophy of the art of photography and not just equipment. For this video the subject can't be settled because there isn't a consensus on what photography actually is. To people on one extreme photography means using photosensitive material to recreate as closely as possible an image that looks similar to how they perceived the same scene when they looked at it. On an opposite extreme it means utilizing light sensitive material as the basis or ingredients to create an image that matches a vision in their minds eye and any level of manipulation to that initial capture of light is still photography. There are many gradations of thought in between. To some people photography is a craft or a function of using a tool and to others it is using tools that helps them create a finished piece of art. One of problems with creating arbitrary boundaries with regard to what can be considered photography is that people are conflating cameras with photography as if using a camera means doing photography. Some may see them as the same but you don't need a camera to do photography. A camera is just a tool you can use that assists in doing photography. If someone thinks that capturing reality as closely as they perceive it by using a camera is what makes something photography you will probably never convince them otherwise. If that person believes photography is art (and its likely they don't) they probably have very little understanding or education of what art is. Tony talked about rules and disclosure of the process but art doesn't have rules. Contests have rules, organizations have rules, but to create the art itself there are no rules. Many people seem afraid to use the word art especially as it concerns photography because they think to call something art it has to meet some level mysterious level of transcendent quality. It's way more simple, if something that is created was created to primarily perform a function or accomplish a task, especially a physical one, without any or little care or thought put into its aesthetic qualities it's probably not art. If it was created to serve a function but the creator did put effort to also make it evoke an emotional or aesthetic response it it probably has some artistic merit. If it was created for aesthetic purposes or to elicit an aesthetic or emotional or intellectual reaponse regardless of any functional purpose it's art. It doesn't matter if people like it or think it's any good. Art isn't dependent on being good, or accepted or even understood because all those things are dependent on the perceptions of the viewer and are not qualities of the created piece. A big problem with photography as a singular concept is that people are really meaning "camera using" when they say photography. Because cameras can be used for so many purposes however it really doesn't work to attach the same "rules" to all of its possible uses. Photojournalism is primarily fulfilling a non aesthetic purpose to inform for example, so while a photograph created to tell a journalistic (news) story can have aesthetic qualities, they aren't it's primary purpose. With editorial photography such as the examples given in the video regarding the work in National Geographic, the artistic intent is much stronger. Editorial is not the same as photojournalism and National Geographic is not a news agency. It tells stories that are based in reality. I would never look at an image in an editorial based story magazine and expect the goal of the photographer, writer, or editor, was only inform. It's not a newspaper and they don't call themselves a news agency. All this really comes down to a lack of artistic education and understanding by people. Way more people use cameras as a recording device than use it as a tool to help them create something. Just look at the vocabulary many people use when talking about photography. They will say things like "great capture" rather that "great creation" or care more about the specific equipment that was used rather than asking about the story or thought process involved in the creation of the image. So, keep up the effort in informing, challenging, and encouraging people to learn more about photography and art and photography as art and why it's so much more than what camera, lens, and f-stop was used.

`Ansel Adams was doing "Photoshop" with so much of his photography--it's kind of mind blowing--photo editing is and always has been part of the process.

My wife only really likes "straight out of the cameras" with small edits. She does not generally like "art shots"; but I do, so, too bad!

My opinion on how much is too much depends entirely on context.

Very interesting food for thought. Thanks for another great video

If only there was a book for people who prefer to get the effect 'In Camera'...

All photographs contain some element of artifice. For instance, the human eye does not see a scene in complete focus; it focuses on one point and everything else is blurred (not to mention the eye actually sees lines as curved, like a fisheye lens does). The eyes dart rapidly from point to point, constantly refocusing, and the brain translates all those images into a composite that you interpret as clear all around. So, once you understand that an image straight out the camera has little to do with what your eyes see (even before editing), you can align the act of editing to what your brain constantly does to interpret a constant stream of changing images into an understandable visual experience. The more debatable point is "editing" versus manipulation. Where is the crossing point? That, to me, is very individual. I have removed a small plane from the sky of a landscape when I didn't see it when shooting. That's different from moving a pyramid for layout purposes like Nat Geo did. I remember that huge scandal. Or that bad Modi shot. I don't like that at all, unless there is some disclaimer. But that's me. On the other hand, painters have done creative reconstruction forever and it's just accepted. Should photography be held to a different standard? If so, what? And why?

Just watch this 2 year old video. Here’s my take on this very important subject. Post processing to me is part of photography. Cropping. Exposure. Colors and so on. You still work on a realistic photo you took. Now alteration is a different issue. If you add a sky, change the background completely, superpose photos or elements of photos that to me is not longer “photography” .... but it is creative art. I think that’s where the distinction needs to come into play. So long as you are not altering the photo by adding components or supervising multiple different shots you have a photo. Now the Lincoln thing was crazy. I had no idea.

Great convo btw very thought-provoking

What a great video and subject. You both nailed it with your personal experiences and real life examples from noted photographers both old and recent. As you pointed out, it is not a one shop simple answer. Thanks for the time and thought you put into this.

You see it with many Milky Way shots where people add the night sky to a foreground. I personally will edit my photos but won't do composite's, I think it's no longer photography when you do it. Basic editing is about as far I go.

I shoot a ton of sport and i crop the crap out of the pics either because the action was too far for the lens or crop someone out to make the picture BETTER... or remove an element that spoils an otherwise great shot ...

I remember back in the day when I was assistant photographer using hasselblad cameras for all the top quality work the images are always cropped as paper was seldom square. And a few years ago I was asked to shoot film (Fujichrome Astia) even though the art director used digital. He said it would scan to a larger file size for not only a book cover but posters to. The square format as used by famous photographers such as Patrick Litchfield and David Bailey and they were some of the best! While on the subject of transparencies we would often expose in camera a third of a stop under for better saturation. Awesome video as always Tony and Chelsea.

Always educated and informative to listen to you guys,great job keep it up.

Some 'photographers' should call themselves graphic artists. The actual original picture look 'ok' but because of their graphics skills they turn an ok picture into something awesome. That to me is not a photographer but a graphic artist.

For my photography, editing only becomes cheating if I'm trying to take a botched photo (like one where I didn't get the eye in focus) and I'm there in post trying to fix it. 99.9 percent of the time it ends up looking like I was just trying to polish a turd. I've since found that it takes a nice blend of getting it right in the camera, then taking your really great shots and applying little tweaks in post and making them amazing.

Thank you for one of the most interesting photographic discussions I have ever seen. I am a life long (50 plus years) amateur with one published non-attributed newspaper photo who was skeptical of both digital photography (at the beginning) and software editing in its infancy. I now embrace editing where it improves the subject matter for realistic photos. Like the picture of the boys with the ball I have recently edited people out of the background in record shots that cannot be repeated or when you need to capture the emotion of the moment but cannot avoid a distracting element. Recently, as part of a summer school course, I did a series of local churches and decided to edit out power lines etc. that could not be avoided while shooting. My rational for doing so was a) it did improve the subject matter and b) this is what we do naturally when looking at a scene - it is part of the reason that we (amateurs) sometimes don't notice the distracting elements until looking at the photos later. Sometimes I think it also appropriate to ask the question, would an artist drawing or painting this scene include such distracting elements. Editing has become an interesting challenge in itself, as was darkroom work for me back in the 1970's I am totally okay with the high art/fantasy stuff, although I actually dislike a lot of the results but i do balk at misrepresentation where factual accuracy is important. Thanks again!

I’ve learned so much from you guys! Keep it up!

I have no idea how to edit, have always had difficulties understanding it, and I can't afford Lightroom or whatever. I see these videos made by professionals and realize to have a good photo you need to fix it in post. Which means I have to get it perfect in the camera... Which also means I'm always just going to be an amateur.

For me editing is not cheating. Is wearing makeup cheating? It just enhances the picture

First, thank you, Chelsea and Tony, for all of your informative, inspiring and funny videos! I haven’t found one that I haven’t ended up feeling better for watching! I’m a musician, and a newbie photographer, so I see the correlations between literal-minded photographers and many classical musicians, who will take great pains to match every articulation of every note, to what they perceive the original composer intended... VS the jazz player who wants to play from the heart and the moment, ideally never playing the same song the same way twice. I was trained classically, but the jazz side drew me in. Photographically, I think I’m primarily a documenter, but seeing beauty in unusual perspectives and sharing that is where my heart is at. Post processing for the purpose of enhancing is great, in my mind. Astrophotography absolutely relies on lots of post processing. Stacking photos, noise reduction, chroma fixes, etc. That’s all necessary! However, post processing that ends up being a lie that people believe really bugs me. There is a photo that gets circulated around every so often of a setting sun between two palm trees, and above it, also between the trees is a full moon! There is a caption describing how the photographer took months waiting for just the right moment for this event to happen.... It’s a Full Moon! That means the moon has to be just rising on the East as the sun is going down in the West. That photoshopped picture offends the literal part of my mind!

Watching this years later, but really enjoyed it. Well researched and presented.

You are making editing decisions the minute you pick up the camera. Either your camera is doing it for you or you have your camera in manual mode. So if you don't like editing don't do photography.

Is manipulating DOF, bokeh, lens flare, or compression of the background using a particular lens considered cheating?

You all are amazing thank you for all that you do...

I'm not a photographer just Marketing & PR Manager and the start-upper here in Italy, who's interested in telling the brand story throw an image, but it's really the very first time for me I'm watching a 45' video of two people just talking. Good job! Thank you, guys!

I had a family shoot last weekend. The shoot went great and all of the shots were awesome except one. The most imporstant one of course; the full family group image. The highlights were totally blown out on most of the faces. By the time I noticed most of the family was getting in their cars and leaving. Long story short....I spent 12 hours photoshopping in 12 different faces from other images. When I gave them the link to my shootproof account to see the images, they never noticed I photoshopped in most of the family. Just like any stapler, screwdriver, hammer, etc, those are tools used to get the job *done* . Imagine a house painter saying "im gonna paint your whole house by hand, using a spray gun is cheating" lol.

"Is a photographer obligated to tell the story of how they got their picture..'" Absolutely not. Never. But, for reasons of marketing a good story is useful - then, for reasons of integrity, the story you tell should be true.

thank you for remembering us who may be just listening, but listening carefully! great stuff!!

Awesome video, I agree with Chelsea, it all revolves around the intent of the picture. It's that simple. Ton and Chelsea I learn something every time I watch your videos. I use to do my own darkroom work and made the jump to digital because of editing capabilities. BTW, you destroyed me when you talked about Ansel Adams, I love the guys work, lol. One thing Tony metioned was trying to take pictures to meet pictures you've and being unaware that they where Photoshoped. That they weren't physically possible, that was a great point. I look at a lot of photograph and haven't thought of that. thanks again.

For me editing in digital format is akin to the developing film back in the day

Considering that RAW format is simply flat, you can't use the picture without post-processing. Whoever calls minimum processing required to have a usable picture - cheating, is NOT a photographer.

Love this video and the discussion around editing

I trained as a painter back in the 70s so I have a completely different perspective. I avoided the camera for years because I found it did not allow me to use the skills and visual tricks I’d learned from years of drawing and color study to create a more convincing illusion of reality. All picture making is illusion, so embrace it in whatever fashion you are capable of.

Adding and subtracting things in an image is where my line is drawn, dodging & Burning, lightness, Contrast, colour, sharpness is fine because everyone cannot afford the best super megapixel camera and lens. I do try and get as much as possible in camera, cropping and straightening is also fine, but nearly all my images need something touched up, it's not my fault (honest).

I think any processing is fair game. Do your best to get it camera and then do what you gotta do to get the result....but be honest about it. Don't be someone like "Peter Lik" claiming a shot is not as processed as it really is.

Great vid. Could you do another one just like this one only now you show famous pick before and after edit for the aestetic, artistic reasons. I think this gave me a lot of tips on what makes a better crop or removing things to make the composition better. I'm a total newbie but I want to see more like this to learn.

Photography style: photography can be used for many purposes. Personally I like to try to capture the feeling that is conveyed by the time-space environment in which I make my photo. Excellent video!!

The only thing about editing that bothers me is when someone puts a highly edited photo in a contest and passes it off as completely in camera and ends up winning because most people gave a true entry.

As a bird photographer I try to edit as little as possible. When shooting RAW you will always have to do post processing. Occasionally I have to remove something that is obscuring the subject. If it is what I saw through the lens and it doesn't take away the essence of the subject then it is not cheating. I have seen some bird photographers who completely change the background most of the time and I think it looks artificial and is definitely cheating because you are taking the bird out of its environment which is part of the story.

Just recently came across your videos. Wish I'd seen this in April. When I started out professionally as a photographer, I was a journalist documenting news events for which I also often wrote my story. Move forward 15 years, including two layoffs in 2010 and 2014 that effectively ended my career, I know photograph nature -- wildlife, birds, wildflowers and more. In journalism, we had strict rules about how far you could go with a photo -- usually, dodging and burning was OK. The photo was supposed to reflect reality. You could do more, in terms of post production, to create photo illustrations. As a nature photography hobbyist today, I tend toward the "real" look but often am not satisfied with my images straight out of the camera.. So I play with them, usually adjusting levels, contrast, and sometimes hue/saturation. I still want to reflect reality, but I also want the image to better reflect what I saw when I made the photo. As Chelsea pointed out, our eyes have greater dynamic range than our cameras. I also like to play in post production to create art with photos I have taken specifically for the purpose. Then, for me, at least, it's no-holds-barred image manipulation to create abstract art, which I would do more often if time allowed. Thank you, Tony and Chelsea, for your videos. I bought your book a couple of months ago because it intrigued me, and I've been a fan since. One of my daughters is getting into photography, and I intend to get her a copy of your book, too, along with a modestly priced point-and-shoot on which she can learn more photo skills than she can on her smartphone. Keep up the good work.

Hi Tony and Chelsea. I think this is one of the best videos I have seen in a very long time in terms of what is "real". Thank you so much for sharing. I feel every image needs a bit of editing and I feel that if the photographer is honest about it and sees the image in his/her minds eye, then go for it. Honesty is the key! Fake is how do they sleep at night???

Photo editing nearly ruined my friend's life. He sent is (now) wife an edited photo of himself and it looked nothing like him in person. As a result, he was forced to become a bodybuilder to look like the pic.

Of course not, and anybody who says different is a blockhead. That is not to say, however, that a photographer shouldn't do as much in-camera editing as possible...that should be an ongoing part of your process.

I think that you can do whatever you want with your photographs, as long as your honest about your editing when people ask about it.

Great programme. Very interesting. For me, anything and everything' goes in photography.

Photography being an art, i dont believe in a certain line that you can never cross. however, if you are selling your picture, if it is heavily composed, you should tell costumers. People shouldn't pay a really high price for a composite thinking it's really what was in front of the lens.

CREATIVITY HAVE NO LIMITS .

Hello Chelsea and Tony! Thank you for tackling this difficult topic. In my journey of learning photography, I occasionally embrace some established principles such as Rule of Thirds. I do edit in LR to highlight portions of photos in order to enhance the story - enhance per my own taste. If I tried to enhance the story to fit the eye of all photographers everywhere; I would still be working on my first story. I limit my editing to preserve the truth of my photos. I follow my heart and instincts. I am guided by my heart and as I mentioned - some established principles. I will listen to critics if constructive. I believe I was taught good values by my parents; so I do have a built-in guidance mechanism which helps keep me from the brink of ‘cheating’. ‘Cheating’ as you both intimated has different thresholds in each type or category of photography. Regarding composites, I have not yet found a reason to do composites other than simple text overlays for editorial purposes. Thanks for all you do and all the knowledge you impart. - Jim

Very interesting stuff in this video. Real good topic to discuss as I too think that editing is bad . I knew my gear was not good enough for night photography. So when I tried to post process the histogram I found it much pleasing. The picture was there but not the light to pop it out. I still don't feel it good as I know I adjusted the light.

Who cares what other people think? Do what makes you happy.

"You don't take a photograph, you make it" and "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs". I am an artist, I will do what it takes.

Great podcast guys!

Fantastic dialogue Tony and Chelsea. I think you just opened up my mind a bit.

As a landscape photographer editing is 70% of my process, I believe it's all about the results.

Lying is bad. But that's just a life lesson: not something specific to photography.

I use Snapseed for photo editing

I personally did'nt agree with either of you now and then but my time was well spent .I enjoyed immensely . Thanks. T&C.

I wonder if the old days did they say developing film was cheating?

Depends. A photo is often not even close in representing the scene we saw with our eyes. Ways of improving or matching the dynamic range of the eye should actually be something more people care about and strive for if they want an accurate representation of what they saw. The camera is just the tool to get you started. People who are SOOC-nazis because "everything else is unnatural" are idiots. SOOC is sometimes more unnatural than shitty tone mapped HDR.

great show, one of your best

Art is always evolving. With technology being what it is we can do more. Im still learning the whole photoshop and Lightroom. This is a cool way to put it. Thanls for taking the time to show us. I will say there are time when editing becomes way to much.

I can just picture the scene: Someone watching over Vincent van Gogh's shoulder as he paints "Starry Night". "Hey! That's not an actual representation of the scene! And hold on just a dog-gone second: You're not using horse hair brushes? You call yourself a painter?" This whole discusion is crazy. If you like it, do it! If it speaks to you, create it! Who gives a crap what anyone else thinks.

I think photo editing is only cheating when I don't know how to do the edits. The edits I do know is ok. As I learn more, the less I cheat! :-)

I never thought about the type of photographer I am until this video. I use photography to document my world. It’s a creative process of my interpretation of what I see and feel in a place. But I’m not a creative photographer in the sense of adding / removing / making composites. But i love trying to make the photo I take reflect the mood I feel. So I might make a photo sharper, Black and white, more poppy, blur out sections. And I definitely crop. For the past five years I’ve just used a smartphone for my photography and Instagram to edit but now I’m going to buy a point and shoot camera with bigger zoom and manual options (I don’t like traveling with DSLR). But knowing why I take photographs and why I edit them the way I do will improve my photography.

I enjoyed this thought provoking discussion.

Taking a photo and making an unaltered image is documentation, altering that image makes it art. You only have to decide what kind of photographer you are, whether your photography is taking a snapshot of an event or whether you want to create something.

To the “Straight out of the camera” wagon.... There is a lot of editing that happens by the selection of the lens, the exposure, the brand of the sensor and in the ‘old days’ film cameras, the type of film made a huuuge difference. That’s why we had different types of film! And that is JUST in the camera. Pleeeaase.

WOW seriously your voices are so nice to listen to

That's exactly what I was looking out for! Some sensible talk on a sensible topic.

No, photo editing is as old as photography, even the pros used to scratch their negatives with pins, and fill with HB pencils.

For me photography is presenting what is actually there, in the most naturally appealing way, so there is no doubt that the photo is more or less how it looked. When people change the skies on a picture from grey to a crazy sunset it might be beautiful and an art, but for me it is not photography. Thanks for your great channel Best regards Simon

Another brilliant video! Editing has been around since the very beginning of photography. It is a kind of art by itself. It‘s like painting with light, chemistry, and physics. Icould write a book about it. If people only would know about the past and the craft of those famous photographers!

An oil painter before I became a photographer, i am more than happy to manipulate a photograph with an editing app and thus taking the image beyond what it was; enhancing it in accord with a personal vision of beauty.

32:30 Ha! Peter Lik. I was waiting for that one. Now *THAT* is cheating. That Lik image of that ridiculous moon *in front of clouds* is in the same category as the Chinese guys with the 1/3 lifesize 100-year-old lady. Fake as hell. Peter Lik is an artist, that's for sure. But he's not a photographer in my book. He takes a photograph as base material and then creates art from it. And it would help if he just would be honest about it and not try to deny that he copied and pasted stuff.

Being a CG artist I feel, the moment a photo is touched up, it loses credibility as a "photograph". U might as well turn into a digital matte artist and take credit as a photoshop artist.

I love the way you guys talk about history , this is why I buy the books and I watch the show , thank you

Brilliant background/historical expose and information guys...

Editing is cheating. Everyone knows that writers never go back and fix what they wrote the first time said no one ever.

Whoever says that editing is cheating probably doesn’t know what a RAW file is

What a wonderful, nerdy photography discussion! I may be a photo nerd. I guess I may "err" on the realism side - I want most photos to be something one would be capable of seeing in the real world, but that can include editing as necessary, as illustrated in the Ansel Adam's photos. I take a lot of landscape shots on hikes in the North Cascades. The photos are to take me back to that place and to share it with others. I don't want it to be something I did not experience. If a picture looks like a Thomas Kinkaid painting, I'm bored.

Thank you!

Hahaha I'm calling it now, Trump's next official pics will have Obama's (or Pence's) body

I enjoyed this video, as I have your many others. With regard to editing, I'm a real estate photographer. However, before I concentrated on my photography business, I was a real estate broker and appraiser since 1971. I started learning how to take quality photographs after opening my real estate firm in early 1978 and started shooting with a Canon AE-1. As a result of my real estate sales and analytical background (which has included several decades in the area of litigation-related practice), I've always believed it was the duty of a real estate photographer to accurately represent the truth about the real estate, whether it's a building or raw land. Keep in mind, that I'm NOT against editing real estate photographs in order to make a shot sharper, or to increase the saturation, or even to replace a gray sky since none of those edits distort the subject of the photo. However, when looking at many real estate photographs today that are shot by so-called "professional" photographers, a large majority of those photos are so greatly edited as to result in the creation of a work of art that looks very little like the real estate, and actually ends up misrepresenting the real estate being photographed. While real estate agents tend to love these "artsy" shots, what they fail to realize is that they are actually misrepresenting the property they represent. In fact, buyers have told me they've been terribly disappointed when they actually visited such a property because it didn't look very much like the photograph they saw. I was wondering if you've ever taken notice of this issue. And, if you have, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

great episode! thank you!!!

I have never done any post processing in my 45 years of photography as don't own Photoshop or Lightroom and am old school since buying a film SLR 1975 and a pro film SLR in 1981. I bought my first DSLR/Mirrorless a Sony A7 mark 1 October 2019 and only use in-camera effects and zero post changes my 45 years of photography. Perhaps after watching this video I may change my mind.