How much editing is too much?

[@ReimannPembroke]

I think the fact that this discussion has become so prominent really shows how much of an artistic medium photography is! The fact that you can take photography in so many different and unique directions really allows you to experiment and push the art forward.

[@andreasmotzkus6181]

Excellent, Teo! For me, editing process starts with selecting a focal length (other than 50), selecting an aperture, selecting a shutter speed, a film brand, an ISO, over- or underexposing, etc. In my opinion there is technically no way at all, to take an unedited photo. What Samanthas art work set its apart from most other photographers work, is that she uses the editing tools creativly and not only for the purpose of correcting flaws of the photo. To my personal taste I do not like to "blow up" weak photos with AI - effects. But at some photos of mine, I see a strong composition "inside" the photo during editing... for example by reducing the colours only to two or three, by creating a yellow sea or whatever. Definitely turning the photo to something that you could not see during the shooting. Creativity does not stop after pressing the shutter button. Everything from shooting, editing, printing, framing, presenting, even destruction of ones photos, can be (and to my opinion should be) creative.

[@amanwastaken]

photography is the expression of the photographer's mind's eye and his technical skills to be able to replicate that in a physical reality. that's just how i would define it though.

[@teocrawford]

I see, I see also makes sense - thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@giovamorales]

I really appreciate this type of video that makes me see photography beyond what social media would have you believe it to be. Also, your visuals are mesmerizing! 💥

[@aviandekeizer9208]

What a beautiful video! As an experimental visual artist who works with a lot of film, there are so many experimental photographic processes that break this discussion wide open. Cyanotypes are the original 'photography' and way of making blueprint copies in architecture that use specific chemistry, expose in uv light, and develop in water. Photograms are taking photographic material like paper or film and putting objects on top before exposing it to make shapes and silhouette. This and so many more are ways of cameraless photography, which can be completely abstract but still are photography. I agree that we should stop trying to define photography in strict ways and we definitely shouldn't look down upon those pushing barriers in art.

[@bklydesign]

My take on this : photography is art if it makes you feel something or makes you wonder/ask yourself questions. It's doesn't matter if editing is used if the goal is achieved. Editing is an art as is photography (in the sense taking the picture). There is also the debate about shooting auto vs shooting manual, are you more worthy by shooting manual? I think not but that's a question for an other time... But back to the subject, i think too much editing does not count as photography, in the sens of using pictures to make on other piece of art (photo collage / 3d artists using photos as textures...) so there is a distinction. However the line is very hard to draw. Maybe if you import something else than the picture in the process of editing, then it's not just simply a photograph? Anyway thank you for making us ask ourselves those questions!

[@jean-lucbarmaverain8519]

Brilliant essay Teo ! Very interesting and thoughtful ! In my opinion the photographic act must in one way or the other have a link or a connection with a part of reality. It's a a sampling of a piece of reality through the framing. The field that we have chosen to frame and, the most important, the one that we exclude... Thats represents the photographic act are what photography implies. Just my 2 cents... ;-) Warm greetings from Switzerland ! Jean-Luc

[@jarvissmith7161]

This is a masterful presentation of why I appreciate your existence. Your videos are not only entertaining, and visually/audibly appeasing, but also so necessary. Nicely done fam!!

[@ezrarichardson279]

I don’t feel like there’s any reason to think photography and editing should be mutually exclusive. I feel like maybe one way to think about is: “does the photo represent what the photographer originally intended when they took it?”. That way, no matter how much editing was done, the artists original intention was still maintained. Doesn’t editing make it more “artistic” though? Because, as you said from that quote: “if it’s merely a copy/presentation of reality is it really art? Doesn’t that also mean editing away from reality also mean it’s more artistic? But I also think, wether the photo is edited or not, it should be considered art. And photography, as long as the base was a photo I guess. Thanks for the video. I would like to know your opinion on this.

[@ezrarichardson279]

It’s always more complicated then it seems lol.

[@JHurrenPhotography]

The intention of the artist I think is important. Some painters work from photographs, and really I'd understand their photos as tools of painting rather than photography, because that was their intention when taking them. For me, I like to return to the original feeling I had when shooting the image. But I wouldn't judge a photographer for taking a new direction when sitting down in the editing suite. We form our own classifications.

[@ezrarichardson279]

@@JHurrenPhotography True. I think, even though original intention does matter, it’s still definitely art if you decide to alter it later. There are always exceptions to every classification of art you could possibly come up with. Often during the editing process of a movie things are altered away from the original script often to make the project better or sometimes to change the plot altogether, that’s definitely something that cannot just be dismissed as “not art” lol

[@ChrisMustermann]

I would say, photography is photography as long as it has a documentation-character. It always shows something like it is … and editing follows. But as long as the core of the photograph (the reality at the moment the picture was taken) still exists, it is photography at this very core. When you replace the sky, it is composing, when you only change colors, dodge and burn, but not add or delete something to or from the image, which (never) existed, it remains photography. Photography for me is a picture of reality and the editing-process is just another creative factor. When I edit a picture heavily, I still edit a real picture - a documenting one. EDIT: Sorry, at the end you said something similar like this 😂

[@teocrawford]

Haha no worries, still good to read your thoughts on this. But yes, as you figured, I have a similar stance :)

[@bklydesign]

What about pictures completely blurred by motion blur due to low shutter speeds. It's just blur, you cannot see anything, it is not documenting but they can still convey an emotion

[@samuelsummers5342]

came a cross a point earlier today. "Art is having something to say" - i like this idea of trying to prove something through your own medium.

[@klemenslinvers8559]

Just wanted to mention an experience I had a few years ago. I went out with two painters and all of us saw the same landscape in front of us. Now, when both painters had finished their work I was blown away since both painted the same landscape completely different. Is taking a photo and then editing it by giving it a personal touch not the same process as seen with these two painters. Why can't we accept that taking a photo and editing it is art in itself. There are no boundaries anymore between photography and art. Both require imagination and that is what the world keeps going.

[@bruce-le-smith]

You have a really great channel and perspective on art Teo, thank you

[@stranger_04]

I freak out when I see your notification 🔔

[@teocrawford]

Aww thanks! :D

[@tedrigoni4690]

I appreciate this discussion and have struggled with this same issue for years. Recently, for me, if the base images are derived from (based upon) something that exists, it's photography. If I significantly edit, overlay, transcribe, composite, remove, etc. in post, then the definition is blurred and becomes more closely what to me is digital art. My personal boundaries vary, and this is not an exact 'science'.

[@thissidetowardscreen4553]

the camera, whether it be digital or analogue, the computer or the darkroom are the tools, the person making the choices is the artist. Find joy in the process and continue to pursue excellence in the art you create!

[@teocrawford]

Ohh very good point you make on clearly differentiating the tools and the artist behind the tools. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@jwashington]

Thought provoking. Picasso spoke of photography as freeing him from the prison of realism into abstraction. I think the technology is disruptive and we have yet to fully define the new art forms or the evaluation criteria. That's what makes it exciting.

[@teocrawford]

Ohh yes, that is indeed part of the excitement :D

[@darkomilosavljevic697]

I do tend to alter the scenes and moments I capture, in order to evoke a feeling or to emphasize subject or action. On the topic of to edit or not to edit, it is the same argument as does gear matter or not. I think that, if it is for artistic purposes, editing is more than welcome, because purpose of art is to express yourself and to encourage others to think about what they see. You can have ten people standing on the shore of a lake, but question is, will they all experience it in the exact same way?

[@teocrawford]

Nice way to put it with the lake. I agree - thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

[@bklydesign]

"anyone could have made that, but you didn't, and i did" is the best quote to close any debate with dumb people on this subject quickly, thank you for it! Also thanks for the video, very interesting

[@jaronriedl320]

thanks for your thoughts. For me, a lot of things count as photography if they were originally made with a camera. I personally enjoy film photography because it is so "true". As a young person, you often have to ask yourself the question of whether something that you see depicted on the Internet is real. I like to miss this distrust in analogue photos, but of course I'm still touched by works like those of Samantha Cavet

[@apb_london]

Your videos are thought provoking and I’ll often spend many hours pondering different perspectives after seeing them. I have just returned from being remote without internet with my camera and during that time had much time to think and consider your previous discussion points in other KZbin videos to find this posting! Keep it up. There will never be an agreement as to what photography is that will be acceptable by all if the definition is complex or multi dimensional. Labels and definitions are by their nature both inclusive (in this case, I’m a photographer) and exclusive (you are not!) and as such elitist. We should keep it simple, it was made with light? After your original video on Samantha I used Lightroom and Photoshop to imitate her style and decided that whilst her photographs are incredible ‘works of art’ they are not my ‘style’. That got me thinking: in art are we only interested in aesthetics and beauty? Obviously not…? I’m attracted to Samantha’s photographs, but am looking for more or something different. You have several great KZbin renditions on style which I was considering whilst remote and they have led me to question my photography style… and to ask is style as important as your questions / videos would suggest? I think this is another rabbit hole. I suggest that a work of art can be aesthetically pleasing due to the style, but the ‘message’ may be more important? Style needs to be the slave of the message, not the other way around? As a result of these discussions, I know that I’m a photographer as I use light to draw! I manipulate the light as I wish, I use film and digital, convert analogue (I hate that term!) into digital and digital into analogue both in the darkroom and by digital printing. I print digital negatives from my iPhone. I have my style; but, my aim is to have a final piece of work that is meaningful and conveys a message, a story, something tangible rather than aesthetically pleasing… it may be a RAW image if that serves the message the best. Let’s concentrate on the message we wish to convey and use the style and techniques to do that and worry less about definition? You have done it again, another great video.

[@RobbyJHope]

Teo, your videos are a work of art.

[@johncleaver9498]

The pond scene with water lilies (?) provides an interesting example for a film comparison. If I wanted to produce something similar on film, I would start by using a polarising filter - not to suppress reflections and reveal underwater objects but with the opposite setting to enhance the reflections. And I might use a fairly dense neutral-density filter to suppress ripples. Then some contrast adjustment would be needed in printing. That undoubtedly is ‘photography’, of a very traditional type. All these tactics are legitimate for artistic photography - editing becomes a problem only when content is corrupted in images such as newspaper-report images that must be strictly factual.

[@michaeloliver1688]

Cartier Bresson said once that photograph is akin to a sketch., I found this concept liberating. The final result is a proposition about the the recorded image/material.

[@naturebydavidm]

wow, each video is better than the last! :)

[@papismurfie]

I think the metric for where the line is drawn for how much editing is too much is set by the criteria for what a photo aims to achieve. Simply put, photography is just a method of image production, just like painting; and like painting you can have realistic reproduction as the motive; portraits are one example that transcends time and is captured both by the brush and the lens. I would say that there are really only two broad camps: realism (objectivity); and impressionism (subjectivity). Realism is designed to accurately capture and portray a moment such that it can be relived, re-enjoyed or frozen in time. Impressionism is where the art is found, and the artist imbues their own impression over a scene or subject that imparts emotive narrative. With that in mind, I think the idea of over-editing is only really relevant in the realism case, where editing can result in straying too far from what was originally observed, with the intent that the audience would be able to experience a scene otherwise inaccessible (for example the portrait of a deceased monarch, or the view from a mountain summit). In this case, too much editing runs the risk of defeating the purpose of the endeavour as you begin to lose the reality that was intended to be captured. With impressionism however, editing only serves to be another part of the creative journey, where subjective expression is the main goal of the artist, painstakingly crafting a story to be told through a single limited frame where the extremities of modifications only aid the artist's intent. Whether something stands in the realm of photography or not then becomes a problem of conflation. Are we talking about photography as a means to an end or as an ideology? I would lean on the side of it being a means, a process through which we can produce images. The motive for the application of such a process lies solely in the hands of you, the photographer. If you are trying to accurately capture a moment but then proceed to fictionalise that reality, then you've done a bad job at realism. If you are trying invoke emotion, and fantastical wonder but then use no editing and end up with a dull result, then you've done a bad job at impressionism. p.s. I'll go on to extend your point on there being no unedited photos out there and why real objectivity does not exist. Every element in your image capture process changes the way the result looks. A different lens can give warmer feelings or sharper reproductions, a different film stock will expose to light differently. Do we say that there is one lens or sensor/film that is the 'most objective'? If not then our choices for image capture themselves contribute to the editing process, only before the photo is taken.

[@dwaynepiper3261]

Generally, I consider global vs local adjustments to be the point where it becomes a type of art based on or beginning with a photograph. Photography is just a component of an artistic expression that creates something that was before only in someone's imagination. It just has not been given a name such as drawing, painting, sculpture, or music.

[@basti5427]

The editing is gorgeous.. Don't wanna know how much time this took. Also super informative, always tend to forget that there isn't a real unedited version of a photo..

[@tsvetomilsemkov2527]

Superb video ;) Totally agree with you!

[@teocrawford]

Thank you! :)

[@hippyo1]

Photography to me is a moment captured from time, When you start replacing elements then it becomes an image. Either can be an art and there is more than enough room for both.

[@alexdenton6586]

Since I don't care about what others do, I never understood this kind of delirium of having to judge all the time, judging what others do, what does it matter in the end? In my opinion it comes from the fact that by judging people like that it serves as an excuse for these people not to become good in their field because instead of spending all that time to improve themselves they prefer to spend it judging other people because it's much easier than mastering something.

[@marsdenarmusic]

If your definition of photography is the faithful capture in a photographic medium of a scene in front of a lens, then a lot of stuff done with photographs isn't photography. To me it makes more sense to think of different types of photography, of which faithful capture is the most basic. We can begin with how a single image is manipulated through posing, framing, composing, adusting focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, correcting, grading, cropping, realigning, and so on. If we're combining images, I suppose the issue is who took them. If I use other people's images to create a book cover, what I'm doing isn't photography, but what the photographers did certainly is. If I combine photographs that I've taken, or add elements from other people's photography to a photograph I've taken, to me that's still photography: it's making and working with photographs. What I'm doing is photography if I took the picture. It's not photography if I didn't. It's doing something with photography, not producing photography. A viewer might consider the product photography, but I think most folks would see the elements as photography and the whole as a photographic mashup. In other words, the materials are photographs, products of photography, but the combination is the product of a different activity. So if I shoot a bunch of images and combine them to make a new image, that's photography. But if I borrow a bunch of images and combine them, that's not photography. It's another type of image-making involving photographs.

[@neilcousineau4956]

This is a very interesting topic and conversation that will probably last another 100 years. As an over 60 photographer I’m a bit of a purist when it comes to art & photograph. I like Samatha’s work, and I follow a few other photographers who use the camera and other artistic effects (manual & digital) to present their photo-art. I’m ok with this type of photography because it provokes a feeling that was not developed by AI or a software click. Simple sky replacement, removing people from a scene in a busy city, or placing hot air balloons over a dreamy sunset sky that was not photographed by the person presenting the photo, is my option is not art but digital manipulation. A master of some random software to present “fake news” doesn’t make you a photo-artist. How many sky replacement photos have won awards? Hopefully none. I like and agree with your views. Good show, thanks.

[@summersoulmate]

Having different films, colored or bnw or purple or red or infrared, etc. is the same thing as editing. since it used different chemicals that changed what was actually photographed or seen.

[@juancampos1164]

Very simple, define photography (or photograph - the capture of an image via through a lens, +/-), multiple photographs leads to motion picture videos. You can edit the main image of a photograph (as long as it remains whole) and it is still photograph. If for any reason you create or destroy anything within the photograph, then that portion is not a photograph. It becomes a different practice, depending if you paint it, burn it, cut it, or Lightroom it, and so on. Art is subjective, anything can be art depending on your followers and how crazy or faithful they are. Next; film, or digital, or glass, or remote sensing; its all a photograph, either printed or displayed digitally, no difference exist. Raw, JPG, TIFFs, (or whatever other format), it is still a photography. The question is how much you want to cheat yourself on how you captured it. Remember, no bulldozers were used to build the Pyramids in Giza. - Nice video (regardless on how many edits you made)

[@darilietas]

Great video, it's a good topic! I myself enjoyed experimenting with editing my digital photos during my high school years. It was very interesting to 'push' the photography from depicting reality closely to moving into a more imaginative area. I thought of it as a creative process, those were my explorations in photography. In my twenties, what I'd wish to call 'fast photography' started to rise. With everyone editing photos on almost any occasion, that's when I probably started to appreciate more realistic, even documentary photography. Right now the content creation with its nonstop "who can create the next unique, yet quickly doable aesthetic thing" is in full swing. There are one-tap filters being available in most of these platforms. Since I prefer realistic depictions, I try to not overdo it with the post-processing of my digital images. If I do 'step over the line' and make the image with prettier colours that are actually not as they're in real life, I kind of feel guilty. Probably because of people treating what they see as reality, including a lot of the edited content on social media. It's something I don't want to promote, nor take part in, so that's why there's this boundary I try to maintain. Is there a point to do it? Does it limit my creativity? It's possible, I've wondered about that. :) I like your idea about not thinking about the definition and borders of the term photography! That really made me think about what would happen to my photography if I were to remove my own constraints.

[@bartosznorek5691]

Anything that comes from a shutter button being pressed is a photograph, always. I would, however, group certain outcomes into narrower categories. 'True photography' where the image is either not edited or edited slightly as to resemble the reality. It's main task would be to capture the subject and it's surroundings and only then the feelings (so landscape, wildlife, street, portrait, documentary - not so much conceptual, studio, abstract). And then is the 'modern photography' with all it's shenanigans, weirdness and conceptualism - it's more modern art than it is photography. That's my opinion, quite puritanical, yes, but I think it stays true to what photography was invented for.

[@qvarfoto]

The way I see it, It's all quite subjective and therefore a bit moot, but I guess the key questions would be "does it matter - and if so, then why?". If pureness is important to you then watch something that's "pure" (i.e not edited in this case). For me personally, if I like the end result the process is of little importance. Or I guess "value" is a better word, as I would find the process interesting and therefore somewhat important. In my own experience I've often come to the conclusion that many of the people who tend to dislike edited photos, are in fact struggling to keep up with the times and their own editing skills... a rather unpopular opinion perhaps, and I mean no disrespect. In short; to each their own.

[@Don-qp1bl]

Funnily enough I just thought about this discussion while looking through Liam Wong's TO:KY:OO. I came to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong side to this argument. As it is art it is always subjective and the borders where one artform ends and another begins are deeply personal. Also we might want to consider a certain media theory, I believe it was from Marshall McLuhan. It states something along the lines of everything being a medium. So maybe we should look at photography not just as art but as a medium itself. And as a medium it can be transformed. It is not just Art but much rather the basis on which art can be created.

[@wendyforsey7451]

Perhaps we should consider photography as another medium for expressing something. For example, do we argue that if you use gum turps to thin your oil paint that it is no longer an oil painting? I would also argue that the editing is also part of the artists work and how much editing is done is purely up to the artist. We seem to get very hung up on putting things into boxes and categories and giving them limits.

[@instantcharlie1225]

This is just me, but editing doesn't really stop the piece from being a photograph, but when you start throwing in elements from other photos: then it's almost a collage of sorts. The artist is still a photographer because she took the photos that would become the piece, but it's almost like the Ship of Theseus where we have to ask ourselves: Is this the same image when there's hardly anything in the final product that resembles the original/ base photo? It's one thing to crop, adjust color, dodge, burn, etc. because that's just part of the process, but to throw in subjects or other elements that were never there kind of devalues it as a "photograph" because the implication is that this final product is what you saw and captured; I will say that it doesn't devalue it as art, in fact the pieces are quite beautiful and impressive, but I wouldn't necessarily call these pieces "photos".

[@teocrawford]

Ahh I see your point about this feeling of devaluation due to the simple addition of elements. Makes one feel like "why didn't you just composite it in the first place then?" haha. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@Jonas_Bernotaitis]

In my opinion, art has two points of value - the initial and original point of value is the idea, effort and execution of the artist or author. The other point of value is entirely in the eye of the beholder - in other words opinion and subjective likes and dislikes of the masses and of the individual. Most photography I would consider art, and so it follows these points of value.

[@maxstyne]

🔥🔥🔥

[@cortanathelawless1848]

I'd say photography is always meta art because even when your subject is just a landscape the landscape itself and the art the photographer is doing is trying to capture that art in a way that is most evokative but still true to reality. To me its about capturing the magic of every day life and for that reason i dont wanna edit too much because then i get away from my original work and purpose. The creation of new magic is the domain of other artists.

[@gabrielb1727]

I like to put filters to highlight certain colors, but that’s it. I don’t edit any further.

[@Joep00]

Great video Teo, very informative and entertaining! Totally off topic, but I was wondering which microphone you use for these voice-overs. It sounds soo good.

[@teocrawford]

Thank you! :) Haha no problem - it's just a Rode Video Micro! :D By recording quite close to the microphone and adding a little bit of post processing you can really get some great quality audio from this relatively cheap mic :)

[@Joep00]

@@teocrawford Ohh wow, very nice indeed. Thanks for taking the time to answer:) Keep it up man, I really like your content!

[@thewhiteapparation]

Great work.

[@TS84NO]

The way I see it, there's a huge difference between post-editing, and the "editing" done in camera, if you shoot jpg. And some people are good at using their camera to get the result they want, while others are good at editing to get the result they want (and some are good at a combination of both) However, either you're more skilled at one or the other, the results can be just as impressive :)

[@virtualcircle285]

You edit the ISO, shutter speed and settings. The camera sees in a way your eye never will to start. Where's the line?

[@teocrawford]

Exactly! :)

[@JHurrenPhotography]

Thanks for making this compelling video! This topic is very interesting. I could write long and hard, but presently my camera is calling to me to operate it. Gotta go!

[@teocrawford]

Hahaha then please go, follow your calling! :D

[@williamcurwen7428]

What is a photograph, but a container of light made permanent - after that, all bets are off. Whether they be analog or digital, I edit every single one of my photographs until they match what I saw or what I see in my minds eye. Some take longer than others, it depends upon what is being expressed and the best way to go about it. I think that Samantha Cavet is a fantastically talented photographer whose detractors are simply jealous of her integrity.

[@mattarnold7633]

I believe your quote is from Damian Hurst.

[@RÅNÇIÐ]

I do tend to be quite purist about many things in life. I wouldn't really say that photography is "art" per se. There are artistic elements to it for sure, though.

[@teocrawford]

Ohh interesting. Of course photography is not art in general, but I believe photographs taken with artistic intentions result in art. Thanks for sharing your perspective! :)

[@davidrothstein3661]

I think that the arguments about what is photography should really begin with a differentiation between image creation and photography. Overworked, over manipulated, over saturated pictures are images, to be sure. They cease to be photography when the technology turns a potentially good photograph into a computer-generated image. I have 1X specifically in mind here. The thing that’s also normally missing from these discussions is the difference between art and craft. In any art school worth its salt students can’t start doing abstract or experimental work until they’ve proven they can produce worthy representational images. You have to learn the craft first. To me the great virtue of beginning as a photographer with the limitations of mechanical cameras (one frame at a time), film stock, light meters and processing in the darkroom with film and chemistry and light is the best way to truly understand what photography (painting with light, not pixels) is and can be. There’s nothing elitist about it. How can you really react emotionally to a photo by Ansel Adams, for example, if you don’t know what he did to create the image, what went into it? Creating art is probably the most self-centered endeavor in which humans engage without killing each other. Whether it’s writing, painting, sculpture, whatever, fundamentally a work of art has only one audience: the artist him/herself. If your work is important to you and you have to go looking for validation from others as the principal criteria for judging your own work, you need to find something else to do before you lose your mind. Besides, having your work recognized as art is not up to you. It’s up to the gatekeepers who control what gets seen/heard/read and who influence everyone else who doesn’t have the time to think much about it. I believe that at any other time Andy Warhol’s soup cans would have been laughed out of town. Marilyn should have sued him. The best advice I’ve been given is this: Do what you do. It’s what generations of artists have done and it’s the best way to integrate art into your life and your life into art. Finally help stamp out HDR. It truly sucks. Every photographer who aspires to create art (or even good images) should be required to read In Praise of Shadows by Tanizaki Junichiro or watch the NHK video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWWVeoF-rLmZeq8 Cheers

[@caseywilliams3124]

I feel like, if you capture the image with a camera, then it's photography. You can edit color, sharpness etc as much as you want. If you add things that aren't there, it's a composite. But I mean, if you want to call your images photography, then do it. Let everyone else argue and panic and categorize it for you. Who cares, do you 😋

[@murlidhr]

to me i believe anything that you can consider to be put up on a wall that is not drawn or painted is photography else is a painting :) also in photography a scene is captured in a particular way representing a real life scenario at a particular time. let's say we have captured a cloud at a slow shutter speed of 1min. the trail or design that came off it is based on something real.

[@teocrawford]

True! However how about the difference between a photograph and a painting of that same cloud. The artist sees the cloud and then paints it, which results in the painting also being based in reality - I suppose? Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :))

[@murlidhr]

@@teocrawford yes but the imperfections in painting of a moving cloud makes it a painting. in photography we document the accuracy in physics or whatever. i hope you get what i mean. this is what i believe is the difference between painting n photography. while i don't really believe in this but few people call it fine art photography for this type of images captured. btw i love capturing a sea waves at slow shutter speeds. i find it amazing how the shapes take a form each time. yes it could be painted using an imagination but with photography it is fun when i surprise myself each time when i capture it n see it on my camera screen.

[@ChemTrailEnjoyer]

I hope to preface what I am about to say with I am someone who leans more toward the "purest" argument. Preconceptions aside, consider the following: Imagine you can have 99.99% pure gold and I offer this to you. You accept, no strings attached. However, I mention after, "Oh, it was made in a lab." Now, it's still gold. And economics aside, it still shines brilliantly and is no different from any other pure gold bar of the same oz. But it was cooked up in a lab. Along similar lines, when I look at the shot at 12:22 I see that pure gold bar. "Wow, so moody. The water on the lens, the wash of blue fog shrouding the trees." And then you say it's been edited to include the water droplets, the fog was considerably less pronounced, and the blue, etc. I still think it's nice, it's a pure gold bar, but it was made in a lab. My eyes relax and my awe subsides a little. Do I ask for maximal effort? No. Does it influence my perception of it's merit. Simply put, yes. If you read this far, I personally think a more honest interpretation of the "purest" perspective is not meddling in what constitutes "photography" or the "edited" from the unedited photo. This might seem odd, but more of a spectrum approach. An appreciation for the least amount of editing in order to produce a result. This may still seem flimsy as for what's been pointed out in this video. Our conception of editing has changed and this is true. However, leaving the more pedantic b&w transition to color photography aside, if you want a 100% cotton shirt and you respond with, "well there's been many advancements since then and the cotton we have today actu-" ... no. We can reasonably assume what I mean when I saw I want a 100% cotton shirt. I want, within our current means, a shirt which is to the extent to which possible fully cotton. It doesn't help that you can easily have an 100% cotton shirt, but I feel that the analogy still holds. I prefer and appreciate a lesser edited photo. I just wanted to add that (ironically) the editing in this video was immaculate Teo! The transitions are on another level here! Been watching for a while and this stood out.

[@acmdv]

Hi there, I follow your KZbin channel and have commented on some of your videos (to which you have replied). I think your question "What counts as photography and where is the boarder of an artwork being a photograph" is a very interesting question. When we edit a photo then as I see it the original "photograph" is transformed into an "image", thus photographers are in fact "Image Makers" as are painters, illustrators, etc... So is photography art? I would say yes because it is not just used to depict reality but also to express ideas, emotion, non-reality, etc... When it comes to film photography the film you use is a chemical process for which no film stock can record the reality we see only a close approximation.

[@teocrawford]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! My answer is in your inbox :)

[@kevlarnegative]

Samantha's work is beautiful and Art in its own right but the end result is closer to, if not a painting. To my credit I have shown her work to colleges at work without telling them what it is and all of them agreed that most of it are paintings. If you disagree, that's fine. This is my personal view and doesn't discount how talented she is.

[@teocrawford]

Ahh interesting, because in my perspective her work is far from a painting. I suppose my thinking is that a painting is a picture created with paint, not with a camera and other digital tools. Thanks for sharing your perspective :))

[@kevlarnegative]

@@teocrawford I see. I think that how you start the proces and what tools you use isn't as important as the end result. Take photography as an example, we have analog and digital, two very different processes but the end result is the same, a photograph.

[@joseerazevedo]

Ansel Adams, wasn't a reality photographer, but a nature one. He captured nature the way HE visualized it. He manipulated everything so that he could end up with the visualization he had of the scene. Isn't that photography because it was manipulated? Almost all painters mix available commercial colors to reach their palettes. They manipulate it. OH! All paintings are trash from now on... People have a tendency to value the tools more than the result. This is the point of this discussion: do you like the tools over the results? I don't care. Tools exist for a reason: free your mind. Some minds fly higher, no matter the direction. And hardly they're to ones that complain. Thanks for the video!

[@teocrawford]

Ohh that's a great perspective on the tools pushing into foreground in front of the art itself. I agree with your points, thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@domidarko1166]

I respect all artists vision but to me, photography (as in, the images selected for competitions) should be pure. Manipulation of light is important and has its place, in some genres more than others. Editing should be minimal and enhance the image to produce the artists unique look. Layering photos, changing elements such as the sky, HDR, heavy dodging and burning or adding fake textures or light rays is not so much about the skill of capturing the moment with just a camera, its more about editing skill and design. I personally don't follow people who use these methods but that's just me. I appreciate photos much more where they artist has captured something beautiful using just the camera in that moment and their skill in seeing the composition and using the available light and colours. The meaning of photography is different for everyone though and any type of edited or non-edited photo has the potential to be beautiful and worth something to someone depending on how it's perceived by the artist and the viewer. Regarding photography as art, I think it depends on what the artist is trying to say. Just taking random photos of nothing or not quite having the skill to produce something special, probably not. Producing a visual style that is hard to replicate or telling a story through one or a series of photos then yes, it most definitely is art. The more compelling the photo the more worth it has as a piece of art.

[@Re1ni]

Nice video, great insight. For me a piece of art or product is whatever the creator claims it to be, which then gets topped off with my own opinion about it, because this stuff is way too subjective to grasp rationally.

[@teocrawford]

Heeey, agree! Hence this video, cause so many people were defining what photography is :)

[@Re1ni]

@@teocrawford great job on the video, teo👏

[@teocrawford]

@@Re1ni aww danke!! :)

[@13opacus]

Wouldn’t monochrome be the original editing of an actual image? No one seems to question this!

[@thelightslide]

And it wasn’t just Ansel Adams who heavily edited in the darkroom. Most of the famous photographers (including ones famous for documentarian style like Cartier-Bresson) had printers, aka professional darkroom experts whose job it was to manipulate the image. And of course most really old photos- which were mostly studio work due to the exposure time - were heavily staged and touched up. And then there was pictorialism and the wave of photo compositing in the late 1800s early 1900s. Fairies, anyone? Even aside from the fact that photography is never “real” (silver halide crystals, as you point out, are not reality), photography has been heavily edited and manipulated ever since it was invented. To claim otherwise is ahistoric. I learned photography in my teens, in the 90s, and participated in the early photography forums online, and the argument was a century too old and tired then.

[@clarhettcoalfield3616]

Oddly enough, I think people are forcing upon themselves a delineation of photography at it not being art, once you accept photography as art, and not some puritan image of reality, then everything will naturally fall into place - photography is art.

[@teocrawford]

Ahh I love that idea of your's how everything will then fall into place - thanks for sharing these thoughts! :)

[@joshh6395]

Interesting debate. I’ll add that one issues I take with this idea that your ‘capturing’ objective reality is flawed. The camera and the medium itself is actually already editing the scene. It’s also an assumption that we objectively see exactly the same which has been scientifically proven to be untrue. Now the debate should be more about , how much manipulation and this is subjective … is to much. I believe this is more about purpose then about “photography” if your a journalist everything should be minimal and only to best portray the exact thing you saw…. If you’re artistic , the sky’s the limit as long as you are genuine about it, that is not deceiving the audience actively.

[@garykuhlmann8149]

Is an image made using photographic materials of any kind (camera, a lens, film, paper--any or all of such things)? Then it's photography. It certainly does not have to replicate reality. That's documentary photography, and that's fine. But documentary photography is only one of the many things that photography can be.

[@kykysknight3225]

Her art comes from the base of photography. I don't see any difference from her work and the other guys that use presets and go heavy in dark and yellow. Like making a green forest dark is not even close to what it is and on her photo you can still see the colors of the place she took the photograph.

[@teocrawford]

I see, yes seems similar to my opinion - thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@timshields8720]

Yeah... after your video I researched her and QUICKLY came to the conclusion that her work was way too edited. When a photographer has to edit their work way too much I wonder about their actual abilities as a photographer. To me they're simply good at Photoshop and not much more and have to hide their poor photography skills behind the software program. I haven't looked at her work since.

[@timshields8720]

@@gregtockner personal interpretation is a WONDERFUL thing

[@dahterrasse]

Or maybe, editing is the way she chose to realise her artistic vision. Her artistic vision is not to capture a scene realistically, but to evoke certain feelings in her own visual style. Editing, in this case, is just a layer of artistic abstraction. It's not used to hide poor skills, but rather it is used with her clear vision in mind. If an artist can realise their vision, who would I be to criticise their means of doing so?

[@timshields8720]

@@gregtockner trust me. I went down quite the rabbit hole re her work and in no way shape and form did i immediately dismiss her. "Her images are AMAZING... they look like PAINTINGS" ... why not paint then??? My guess it's far easier to press some buttons via a software program some other person has created vs. putting the time and effort into the art of painting. Again, this is a representative of my thoughts ONLY.

[@AceRamone]

If you can't do it with film then it's not photography

[@airdailyx]

It's not Photography but it's also not art. It's kinda both... It's Phart!! LOL!

[@Rumplestiltskin7]

Art gatekeepers are the worst.

[@GothRush]

Any amount of bad editing, that is poorly executed and detrimental to the effect the photographer is trying to convey with the image, is too much. If the editing is well executed and helps to achieve the result desired by the photographer, it's not too much. Man Ray et al. already made photograms without any camera at all. The silly romantic notion that all photography should be naturalistic documentary belongs to the 19th century when people were under the false impression that photography is not in fact a form of art.

[@superhussein]

your opinions are wrong because you are using too much audio and visual filters also you are a muslim man