How Much Photo Editing Is Too Much? | Ask David Bergman

[@Adorama]

Closed captions are now available, everyone!

[@noel_s_visuals]

Always enjoy listening to David. Every time I learn something new

[@wadecoffie7255]

Excellent! Thank you for that clear, concise definetion. Excellent.

[@Joizygyrl926]

As always you give us great advice! I always learn something new when I watch your vids. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@dvongrad]

I'm in agreement for the most part. Personally, I hate telephone poles sticking out of people's heads for the purposes of portrait work and the like, but for editorial or sports photography, I might consider moving a few feet or zooming in a bit to get distracting elements out of the frame as much as possible while not taking away from the overall feel or anticipated action. When said distractions just can't be removed because what's happening occurs much too fast for moving or zooming to be a viable option, then I accept the image for what it is. It becomes somewhat debatable when something like a faint image of a firefighter carrying a survivor over their shoulders through thick smoke could be enhanced by dodging/burning that part of the image to convey an element of heroism even if it's printed in a newspaper or shown on their website. Ultimately, the intent of the shot is my guiding principle.

[@charlieross-BRM]

I got humbled when I was chief cook and bottle washer for a recreational tourism pocket guide. A pro-angler sent in the requested image for a cover but it was cluttered and that was promotional, not editorial so I went to town on it. I got too carried away and didn't really know my species of sports fish so . . . sent them a proof for approval and his wife told me I changed a small mouth bass into a large mouth (or vice versa). Just the once.

[@mrz1342]

So wised and logic, academic and to the point! Despite of this clear statement, the current problem for photography and photographers is: shoot without knowledge and skill of fundamentals in photography (10%), and then spend time for 90% in post to create an image with high chance to get like! This is the one that I call “imageography” and not “photography “. Thank you.

[@laurenlulich7650]

Very valuable information clearly explained. Thank you!

[@1979kdean]

Beginner here so this is very informative and a question I had pondered. Thank you!

[@richarddukeshire]

When editing photos of shows or events, I edit to make it look as accurate as possible. I want each image to look like anyone would have seen it that was there.

[@davidmurphy7847]

Good review of what is appropriate. I agree with your perspective.

[@photoquent]

I think David hit this one out of the ball park, I agree it all depends on the end use. Having said that and as Roger mentioned above I think post processing is already going too far. Looking on Instagram there is now so much AI imagery it’s hardly worth looking at. As my photography is for me I do remove distractions or on portraits blemishes that will go in two weeks, but I try and keep it real and don’t go too crazy with the texture slider!

[@KevinRusso]

I see your videos and give it a like before I even watch it, Your info is always interesting. I haven't been let down yet,

[@Adorama]

Thank you for the support, Kevin!

[@alexanderpons9246]

Great topic David Bergman and thank you for clearing out what is allowed in Editorial Photography! I think that because so many people doing Selfies and applying Filters to those images the expectation of heavy Editing in Portrait Photography has expand. Thank you ADORAMA for all these great videos on your channel!

[@MorrowsPhotos]

Thank you David!

[@brad_in_yyc]

I think you hit the nail right on the head David. There definitely becomes a point where a photo becomes digital art.

[@felixrodriguez782]

It depend always on the image and subject matter to me simple is always better by have it in camera for less work later on. When being creative one can express more style in the image as long it not over done that the image has not lost it impact. Great subject David

[@joeysnburg4254]

Hey David great portrait of the band! I find that when shooting live music... most of the time there's so much equipment and crap on the stage it's hard not to edit it out!

[@rogermanning4353]

Spot on advice. I fear that the further we go into the 21st century, however, the rules of journalistic photography will continually erode. Hope your new tour provides satisfaction and portfolio filling pics. Cheers!

[@wadecoffie7255]

l love all of the Adroma contributors. Each brings their own professional style. I must say however, that David has a talent education and making it simple.😊

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Thank you!

[@Black_Jesus3005]

Thanks David.

[@jvkperspective]

Thanks for a great video. I see this as a spectrum on one side you have documentary/editorial with only basic edits allowed and no changes on the other end of the spectrum you have art where everything being allowed. And, in-between a sliding scale as you pointed out with fashion and promotional and other photography. There are some tricky questions: e.g. I took pictures of a tree over a year and then blended them all together into a picture showing the tree from spring to winter - so it's kind of documenting a tree over the period of a year in one picture - but taking such a picture in camera would require a lot of fixed setup and masks over the lens to make the same effect so composite editing is a much easier approach.

[@ernie28ernie]

Hi David, thank you for this fantastic episode! 👍 It's good to hear the arguments from a man with your authority! :) One further aspect (for me) is, how do I want to see myself? More as a 'classic' photographer or more as a 'digital artist'. Both has it's merits, so please no flame war ;) Good lenses and experience help a lot to not need to edit the photos so much afterwards... Cheers, Martin

[@petermcginty3636]

Thanks Dave, great video. My rule for editing is "time". I just want to get the most pleasing image in the shortest amount of time. Thanks.🎉🎉🎉

[@skillcubator1]

Hello David, I am learning indoor portrait photography and bit confused with the process. the way I understand is: Step 1: Take a first shot to eliminate all the ambient light. Basically, the first pic should be complete dark. This will be the baseline to begin with. So if at Aperture:F 5.6, S: 1/200 and ISO: 100, we are getting a complete dark image, this would be my starting point. I understand I have to be within the flash sync speed and lowest possible ISO. So, there is a bit of a freedom to change the aperture. For shallow depth of field, I will have to open the aperture a bit and vice versa. Step 2: Set the light meter to S 1/200 and ISO: 100 and take the reading by keeping the light meter dome in front of the model, pointing towards the key light until we get F 5.6. At this time, my light meter and camera settings must be in sync to get the correct exposure. Depending on the result, we can adjust the light. Question 1: Is that the correct process if I going with just one light setup? Question 2: If I am using a 2nd light (fill light), do I need to repeat step 1 and step 2? Is that the correct process? I look forward to hearing back from you.

[@AdrianBacon]

Personally, I think there's way too much editing going on in general. As you pointed out, for non-editorial stuff, there aren't really any rules, but in all honesty, I miss the days when editing meant culling down your images to just the keepers. Cameras these days are so good that if you have any skill at all, it's actually pretty difficult to get bad images and editing *should* consist of culling down to the best ones and maybe doing some adjustments for the intended output. Alas, that's not the case and it's pretty common to see images that are just absolutely put through the wringer and look nothing like the original image as it was captured. For the type of work I do, I do retouch images, but keep it as light as possible. I retouch so lightly that it's not uncommon for clients to come back and ask for additional changes, so I could reduce the amount of back and forth by being a little more heavy on the retouching, but many of my clients love the fact that they actually don't look retouched, and in my opinion, that's the hallmark of a well edited image. If you can't tell that it was modified, then that was a job well done, and that's the way it should be. Unless you're going for a full fine art thing, keep the image as close to the original as possible.

[@DonaldWMeyers-dwm]

Ansel Adams said tripping the shutter was the beginning, not the end, of the process of making a picture.

[@el0blaino]

Great discussion, David!

[@jbliborio]

I try to make the best to capture a good photo and do little editing as possible. Sometimes I think that all the AI and other possibilities of editing is making us a little lazy... This video was fantastic! Good to hear from a pro photographer.

[@Joshua82PDX]

I grew up in the film era eagerly awaiting every month for the next National Geographic to arrive. For me, Photography is the art of storytelling. A good photographer sees the story, composes the elements, and captures the moment. My litmus test for editing is what I could've done with the image in the darkroom. If I have to do anything beyond that, it was a bad picture. Anyone can push a button, only an artist can consistently create art.

[@TheDailyStoicist_Officials_001]

I have a question .. Where I should put it write for your concern ?

[@Adorama]

Hello Mr. Rafayat, you can submit your questions to www.AskDavidBergman.com. :)

[@simongentry]

Wow, David! You're booked for April and May for One on Ones!

[@jacktingle215]

I learned from feral photojournalists in the days of film. I agree with you. Get a good shot in camera & go with it. I recently took a photo of a red-winged blackbird against a bright sky. That took a bit of work in darktable for bringing up the BLACK feathers without killing the sky. That's about my maximum.

[@dkayeb]

Absolutely luv these segments! I try to get everything right in-camera, too, and do very little editing only if needed. I like my photos to be a realistic depiction of what I see. As far as "too much", I personally don't like the over saturated colors and heavy vignettes a lot of photographers do. Thanks for all your great content on Adorama's Channel! ~debb~

[@just_A_Hack]

Personally, I think we should always be trying to convey the truth, regardless of the technology. I really dislike some of the programs that are out there removing noise, changing skies, etc. I want to do as much as humanly possible to get things right in camera. Honestly, in your Luke Combs photo, I genuinely dislike even the removal of the mic and symbol. I don't think it is wrong, per se, but I thought the original image was great in its own right because it captured that moment and that is what it looked like. BUT, I am not making promotional images so lol. Love the conversation and it is a great think piece for all of us going forward.

[@000CloudStrife]

Correct answer is most photogs don’t know Jack about editing,retouching and culling. To a high end quality. Yes fs or any variation is not professional. Neither are 99% of color presets.

[@risbill1]

For me it has always been that if it's a live moment that wasn't staged like a wedding then I don't retouch other than what you mentioned. I prefer natural and realistic color tone for live events. If it's a staged image with a model or even say senior portraits then I'm good with being more expressive in the edit.

[@photodan24]

It's sad that fashion/glamor photography accepts so much destructive editing because it also has the ability to do damage. So many people get unrealistic body image ideals because of the edits.

[@inlocoparentis]

The editing should ALWAYS be in service to the storytelling and use of the image. I was a photojournalist for the U.S. Army for five years, so I have that journalistic instinct to portray things as exactly as possible. In my portrait and boudoir work, I limit edits to the person to only things I'm explicitly told to remove, like scars. The only things that I may clone out are distractions in the background, or things on them that are not permanent, like acne or bruises. Back in 2018, I did a photo shoot with some Star Wars cosplayers at Dragon Con. Normally I want to use the images as stock as possible, but the prop sabers they were using needed some pretty heavy photo shop to give the real feel. Those are some of my favorite images.

[@BrianKilgoreCanada]

Your work is valuable. -- BAK

[@ramesesptolemy4865]

Nevertheless, the processed, leaner version of your portrait in the clip thumbnail is hot. For some, losing their weight would spoil their young looks, but for you, David, it rocks!!

[@wbuttry1]

for portraits head shots and full body portraits I wanna just remove a few things like a scar a sore on the face or something that is distracting other than that I like the natural look of my customers. How you view on the street is the way they look in the portrait. Sports shots no editing real estate just enough to make the space look right. I don't believe in very much manipulation o photos seems like that is wrong when trying to show a representation of a person place or thing.

[@jesseorgaard1231]

I like photos to be real very little editing

[@wmshannahan]

I think, in most cases, we should be as honest as we can. What I don't like is those who post an image and try and pass it off as if it is str5out of the camera. When you can clearly see that the shark in the beach that is chasing the girl was added in post.

[@jmvc140]

Give your thumbnail designer a raise

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

LOL that's me! :)

[@danbrowning2418]

Even manipulated photos can get into newspapers and magazines as long as they are labeled "photo illustrations." Otherwise, great presentation on this controversial issue.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

That's always been the case, but I never liked it. I think, unless something is obviously manipulated, most wouldn't know it's not a "real" photo because they don't look at the photo credits.

[@HR-wd6cw]

I don't think there is any right or wrong answer, however too much editing (say crushing the contrast or the blacks and blowing out the whites) may be over the top in many cases (or over saturation or making vibrance too high). Again, it does depend on what you're trying to go for, but for high school sports, I'd go more on the less is better / less is more mentality. You're not trying to capture a moment that's "clean" (ie. free of as much distraction as possible) and create an image with interest, but you're not trying to create some other-worldly image of a landscape necessarily. So I think it depends on WHAT you're shooting and what your goal is for the resulting image. My guess is for high school sports or seniors, your goal is to provide good quality images that capture the character of the person in their preferred environment, and so less may be better, keep it "real".

[@donwright2161]

As little as possible, do as much in camera

[@pdcorlis]

If I could do it in a darkroom, I will probably do it digitally. But no fake skies, virtually no cloning, and hardly any cropping. It’s much better to get it right in the camera than trying to “fix it in Photoshop.”

[@FernandoSLima]

Well, as an old school photographer, i´d rather shoot the perfect shot instead hours of post processing. I love the creativity part of photo editing nowadays, specialy for landscape photograpy... it is just a new world, but a lot of people will strugle behind computers because the lack of knowlodge about light

[@dennisbicksler1485]

What are your thoughts on cropping sports photos before submitting?

[@heqaib]

A telephone pole coming from somebody's head. It looks stupid. Remove it. In a candid shot, where the subject is important, why not. The most important topic you didn't cover is cropping. The football shot had more impact when the magazine cropped it, than yours did. Why does every photo have to fit in 8x10? Maybe in the old days where paper size was standard. But today, for example, people display the images, digitally. Be creative, make an impact!