How much editing is acceptable?

[Nathaniel]

I am not one to enter competitions as a rule but I would like to know how much editing is acceptable in the final picture.
I note that quite a lot of the pictures posted on the forum are adjusted for "levels"(horzontals) and verticals and is this OK if you submit images for competitions and similar?

I try my best to get the pictures "right" in camera and the only editing I try to do is to lighten,sharpen, or crop an image in either Jpeg or RAW. Is this considered acceptable editing?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Nat

[Tigger]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

I'm the same as you Nat never been into comp's

I think it depends on the competition as I think some limit the amount of editing you can do - I'm pretty sure most would allow getting levels and verticals correct

[Fr1so]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

The most processing I do is sharpen, cropping, colours and the "levels"(horzontals and verticals).
My brother is doing no editing at all, and he has great photo's.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

Where to start...

Now I use lightroom I apply a preset when I import pictures. This sets a number of default values that I prefer - clarity, vibrance, saturation, camera neutral profile and sets highlight and shadow adjustments to -100 and +100 respectively. Then crop the image as appropriate and adjust the white and black levels.

I may do some more work here - spot healing, adding filters, using the adjustment brush and so on. Then noise adjustment if needed before any sharpening - both amount and masking - and that's pretty much it.

What I tend not to do any more is major objector removal, simply because I want to get the photo as right as possible in terms of content in the camera. If I were to enter a competition that required the RAW image to prove excessive manipulation hadn't taken place, I'd hate to be in that position.

Just an FYI, adjusting levels can have two meanings. I've not generally seen the term used to apply to getting the horizontal/vertical alignment correct. In PS and PSE terms, it's adjusting the light levels so that the histogram is spread as wide as possible. If I recall correctly, cmd+L on a Mac and probably ctrl-L on Windows.

[Nathaniel]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

To make myself clearer, I thought I should ask "what is the minimum acceptable amount of PP" one should aim at? At the moment IMHO I have the notion that those who take pics in RAW are more tend to be a bit more "careless", knowing that everything can be put RIGHT in PP.

[Tigger]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

the minimum amount of work is to produce an image your pleased with - if that just means adjusting WB ( I only shhot in Raw) then fine, but likewise should an image take 30 minutes of work to produce something I'm happy with I don't see a problem -

bottom line is the end result not the work you have to do to get there

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

As an example, this is a before and after of an image I posted recently in the Landscapes forum. The hardest part of the process was removing my wife's shadow from the bottom left corner of the shot.

BandA.jpg

[celtex]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

To make myself clearer, I thought I should ask "what is the minimum acceptable amount of PP" one should aim at? At the moment IMHO I have the notion that those who take pics in RAW are more tend to be a bit more "careless", knowing that everything can be put RIGHT in PP.

Just to offer a different opinion, I think you have completely misunderstood the reason for RAW, yes you can make a white balance decision post shot, or exposure (to a small degree) etc and this gives the freedom to not have to worry 'quite so much' in camera but, and it is an important but, it is not to allow carelessness or laziness (indeed it is arguable that shooting in jpeg - where the camera makes all the decisions for you on an average/best fit basis that could be seen as the lazy approach).

Instead, think of RAW as an undeveloped negative - in film terms (which is why the editing part of Lightroom is called the 'develop' module). It is to give the photographer the opportunity to make the best, or most appropriate for the given need, edits to give him/her creative control of the final image rather than relinquishing control to the computer algorithm in the camera. While striving to get the best result in camera is a good thing, you cannot judge an image on a tiny camera screen - however good and bright they may be, in anywhere near the same degree of detail as you can on a proper monitor.

Personally I think you can view making edits to a jpeg as post processing (cropping, adding effects if you like) but there are basic things that you do in RAW that should be considered 'developing' (to the photographer's taste/specific requirements) - it is a rather strained analogy but you would not turn up at a photo competition with a negative, you would have developed and printed the picture which would have involved the same type of creative and corrective decision making in the dark room as we now make in 'Lightroom' - we just have many more degrees of adjustment.

Over and above that the level of further 'post processing' required would to my mind depend on the nature and rules of a given competition, for example if it was for best journalistic shot - very little pp needed, but if it was for artistic expression then no limits - just my opinion. Ian

[Stan]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

[QUOTEAt the moment IMHO I have the notion that those who take pics in RAW are more tend to be a bit more "careless", knowing that everything can be put RIGHT in PP. ][/QUOTE]

with respect Nat, that is total and absolute rubbish !!!!! and the response by Celtex is bang on the mark

Your original question concerned editing for competitions. Well if you look at the rules for the big national and international exhibitions there are generally very few rules other than defining what they mean by "landscape" or "travel" etc. The exception is nature photography, where most use the FIAP, PSA and RPS Nature Definition which has been updated from 1st January 2015 which is as follows

Nature photography is restricted to the use of the photographic process to depict all branches of natural history, except anthropology and archeology, in such a fashion that a well-informed person will be able to identify the subject material and certify its honest presentation. The story telling value of a photograph must be weighed more than the pictorial quality while maintaining high technical quality. Human elements shall not be present, except where those human elements are integral parts of the nature story such as nature subjects, like barn owls or storks, adapted to an environment modified by humans, or where those human elements are in situations depicting natural forces, like hurricanes or tidal waves. Scientific bands, scientific tags or radio collars on wild animals are permissible. Photographs of human created hybrid plants, cultivated plants, feral animals, domestic animals, or mounted specimens are ineligible, as is any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the photographic statement. No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted. Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning. Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed. Stitched images are not permitted. All allowed adjustments must appear natural. Colour images can be converted to greyscale monochrome. Infrared images, either direct captures or derivations, are not allowed.

Images entered in Nature sections meeting the Nature Photography Definition above can have landscapes, geologic formations, weather phenomena, and extant organisms as the primary subject matter. This includes images taken with the subjects in controlled conditions, such as zoos, game farms, botanical gardens, aquariums and any enclosure where the subjects are totally dependent on man for food.

Authentic Wildlife: Authentic wildlife is defined as one or more organisms living free and unrestrained in a natural or adopted habitat. Therefore, landscapes, photographs of zoo or game farm animals, or any living subject taken under controlled conditions are not eligible for Wildlife competitions. Authentic wildlife is not limited to uncontrolled zoological subjects. Land and marine botanical subjects in the wild (including fungi and algae) are also eligible subjects, as are animal carcasses.

So what is not permitted is "any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the photographic statement. No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted "

but "Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning. Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed" are allowed - which I think is more flexible than in the past, particularly in regard to using HDR and stacking etc

Stan

[Nathaniel]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

WE can beg to differ Stan on the advantages of RAW images. It is a well known fact that RAW images lends itself to far more manipulations than Jpeg. This has been mentioned many times by members to me both in private and in person.That alone makes one to be more "careless" than with Jpeg images. If this was not true, why would you want to shoot in RAW? I myself use RAW/Jpeg when I am shooting an unrepeatable event in church for example? I know that the event is not a "dress rehearsal".

I do not enter national type competions but in the Daily Telegraph ones I have entered, I submitted Jpeg images and one of which secured 5th place out of 100's. That is good enough for me. I am posting this once again to remind.

img135 by nathaniel.ramanaden, on Flickr

[planetc]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

We have the tools to adjust our images so why not use them to the full. As long as nothing is done that is fraudulent there is no harm done. We will each have our own preference with how far we are prepared to go, so there is no right or wrong answer imo

[Tigger]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

It is a well known fact that RAW images lends itself to far more manipulations than Jpeg. This has been mentioned many times by members to me both in private and in person.That alone makes one to be more "careless" than with Jpeg images.

you make it sound like image manipulation is new Nat - I was dodging and burning in the dark room 30 years ago. Its all about the control you want - your happy shooting Jpeg and letting the camera process the image, others myself included prefer Raw so that we may have that extra control over the end result

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

WE can beg to differ Stan on the advantages of RAW images. It is a well known fact that RAW images lends itself to far more manipulations than Jpeg. This has been mentioned many times by members to me both in private and in person.That alone makes one to be more "careless" than with Jpeg images. If this was not true, why would you want to shoot in RAW? I myself use RAW/Jpeg when I am shooting an unrepeatable event in church for example? I know that the event is not a "dress rehearsal".

Nat, you've managed to completely miss the point of using RAW. What you get out of a camera as a jpeg has what Canon sees as being appropriate for sharpening, colour manipulation and noise reduction as a general set of optimisations. And these are applied to the whole image. With a RAW file you can be much more selective about processing and, for example, not bother with noise reduction if the image appropriate. And regardless of whether you shoot RAW or jpeg, the fact that the event is not a "dress rehearsal" is immaterial.

RAW does not mean the photographer can be more careless with their work, and I actually find this comment quite offensive. Personally I think you're missing a valuable tool of the trade by choosing not to use RAW but that's your choice.

I do not enter national type competions but in the Daily Telegraph ones I have entered, I submitted Jpeg images and one of which secured 5th place out of 100's. That is good enough for me. I am posting this once again to remind.

img135 by nathaniel.ramanaden, on Flickr

I think you'll find that no competition expects RAW files to be submitted, after all what would have been the point of sending a 35mm negative which is, in fact, what you're suggesting. Photography now is a two-phase process - take the original shot, process it to produce a pleasing result. As Ian has pointed out, this is no different to what is done with film where cropping, dodging and burning are all tools of the trade.

[Nathaniel]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

Perhaps I should have used the word "adjustments" rather than manipulations. All what I would like to know is "how much is acceptable" for a reasonable skilled photographer (certainly not me!), to adjust images. I am not refering to say wedding photography and similar where one has to go for the best possible result/s.

[David Morison]

Re: How much editing is acceptable?

The one fact I am always tring to get through to people (including show committees) is that photography is an art form and as such artistic licence can be applied. To what extent this licence is applied is a personal matter but for me if I am pleased with it then that is all that matters. I don't however enter any "proper" photo exhibitions but only in the photo section of a number of county and village shows. Having said that last year I won eleven of of the twelve available certificates in one local show and lots more than others in other local shows. I don't have the skills to add anything to an image effectively although I do sometimes clone out or erase offending objects. To me anything goes if you can do it, and if you wish to share then it's other's opinion that also counts. I do agree, however with Stan's statement on nature photography, especially as I regard this as a means of recording sightings rather than an art form.

David