Photoshop Insider

My Photo Editing “Code of Ethics”

By Scott on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 6:02 am | updates.

A couple of weeks ago, RC, Corey, Matt and I were sitting around talking about photography, as we basked in the afterglow of a triumphant Bucs win (which sadly we did not enjoy yesterday after our one-point loss to the Jaguars). Anyway, we wound up discussing what we feel comfortable doing to our photos, and the more we talked, the more it became clear that each of us has our own personal “Photoshop Moral Code” or our own “Photo Editing Code of Ethics.”

Basically, since none of the four of us are photo journalists, I guess we each keep an internal list of what we will or won’t do to a photo, and still be able to sleep at night. Now, as a “Photoshop Guy” you’d probably think that since I know how to do a lot of things in Photoshop, that I’d want to. But if you’ve been reading this blog for any time now, you know that my goal is to do as much “right” in the camera as possible, and use my time in Adobe Photoshop for finishing my photos, and not “fixing” them. That being said, here’s a short list of my internal guidelines; my own personal “Photo Editing Code of Ethics” for what I will or won’t do to one of my photos.

(1) This may sound silly, but I absolutely hate cropping in Photoshop, and go out of my way to avoid it. I want to do my composing in the camera, so if I wind up having to crop later in Photoshop, I feel like I didn’t “Get it right in the camera,” and it drives me nuts.
(2) I have no qualms whatsoever with removing any distracting element in my photo. So, if there’s a distracting telephone wire, or a sign, or a piece of trash on my beach photo—it’s gone. No questions asked.
(3) Although I don’t think twice about removing an object from a photo, I don’t like to add anything to a photo that wasn’t there when I took the photo. In fact, I hate it. For example, even though I know how to replace a bad sky in my photo, with a sky from a different photo, I have to be really, really, really desperate to do so, and I can count on one hand the times I’ve done it. The reason I hate it is; personally I know “I cheated,” and I’ll never look at that photo the same way again.
(4) Although I don’t want to add anything to a photo, I have no problem whatsoever with duplicating something in my photo. For example, if I take a photo of a child standing in a pumpkin patch, and there’s a empty spot to the child’s right, I’ll clone one of the other pumpkins in the photo over that empty spot to fill in the gap. My personal Photoshop moral code says; “If it’s already in the photo, it’s OK to have more of it in the photo.”
(5) I feel like I should make the final image look as good as it did when I took it, but if it winds up looking a little better than the original, or a lot better than the original, I’m fine with it. In fact, I’m happy with that. So, if the grass wasn’t as green as I remember it (or I would like it), it suddenly becomes greener. If the sky was kind of gray that day, it won’t be when you see my final image.
(6) I think nothing of: double-processing my images (exposing one version for the foreground, one for the sky, and combining them in Photoshop), or making creative choices with White Balance after the fact, that might turn a dusk photo in a dawn look. I also don’t think twice about creating a “look” using Photoshop, but I don’t like to use effects filters. I know, I’m weird that way.
(7) When it comes to retouching people, I have a simple guideline: Make them look as good in print—a medium where each and every flaw will be magnified—as they do when I met them in person, and if need be, I’ll use each and every Photoshop retouching trick I know to reach that goal. In fact, if it’s a portrait or headshot of me that needs retouching, I will actually hire teams of people, working in round-the-clock shifts, using large mainframe computers, with the mandate that they continue retouching my portrait until I look at least somewhat like George Clooney. Clearly, these teams are still at work.

Here’s perhaps a weirder thing; my Photoshop code-of-ethics only applies to photos I’ve taken myself. If it’s someone else’s photo, and they ask me to edit it in Photoshop, then all bets are off, and anything goes. I’ll use anything, and everything in my bag of tricks to make their photo look the way they want it to, so I definitely have a double-standard.

Now, there are two things I need to clarify: (1) I am not in any way trying to impose, or convince you that these should be your code of editing ethics. That is totally a personal decision, and you have to decide what you feel you’re comfortable with, so I was just sharing—not dictating or instructing on any level. And (2) I can’t defend any of my decisions listed above. In fact, I can’t even give you solid reasons how I came up with my list of what I will and won’t do, and why some things I find totally acceptable while other things absolutely make me cringe. It’s just how I feel about my photos, and about how I feel about editing them, so it’s a totally personal thing.

Now, if you’re not a photo journalist (who is bound by the strict rules of photo journalism, which I fully support), I imagine you probably have your own personal set of rules–your own “Photos Editing Code of Ethics” (even if you haven’t sat down and thought about them in that light), and I’d love to hear some of your own guidelines, so I encourage you to share them by posting a comment here.

I’m interested to know where you “draw the line,” and what you’re willing to do, or not do in Photoshop to create the type of images you feel good about. Thanks for “baring your soul” here, and giving other readers some insight into how you feel about your photography and editing them in Adobe Photoshop.

Comment form for this post

^#1

Personally I feel the way that I will make the photograph, as it looked when I was there with my own two eyes. There are just certain things you can do that makes it more photo manipulation than photograph, but basically as the scene were, I will make it be but I really hate and I just won’t replace objects or so in the photograph such as the sky, because to me that is a photo manipulation and I would need to go back to the location another time to get it right instead.

Erik Bernskiold on October 29th, 2007 at 6:19 am

^#2

Like you I want to get it right in camera if I can. I don’t mind tweaking (a little technical jargon there for you) the colours to get the photo to match how I ‘felt’ they looked at the time.
I will crop without the slightest qualm if I think it will enhance the photo.
In fact, apart from the cropping, I have subconsciously operated pretty much along the same lines as you.
It is only in thinking about it for this comment that I have actually quantified that I worked by any ‘rules’ .
Thank you for making me think about it.

Any way, keep up the brilliant work. Being in the UK I can’t get to any of your workshops etc, but at least I have your books and this blog.

Mind you if I was in the USA I probably couldn’t make one of your seminars/workshops as I am on Incapacity Benefit here and as such the old ‘green stuff’ is in short supply, but no matter I can still read and enjoy the enjoyment of others.

Glenn Piper on October 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am

^#3

I will not sharpen elements within a photo. The overall photo…sure, but if I failed to capture something sharp that should have been…too bad.

Even if something happens to enter/fly into the frame at the moment of capture and is blurry…so be it. Call me crazy.

Also, just returned from Smoky mtns. (Cades Cove area} and it beat last few trips combined! It is a “must go” spot for fall color. Finally brought home slew of photos that were “spot on” right out of camera too!

Ned Leary on October 29th, 2007 at 6:27 am

^#4

1. Scott, I’d ask you how you can compose when you’re camera viewfinder (and mine) only shows 95% of the scene? The missing 5% on a super wide angle can include an awful lot of extraneous elements and I spend way too much too much time cutting them out and straightening. Not to mention needlessly throwing away so many pixels.

2. The thing I never hesitate to eradicate are distant aircraft in the picture or minor contrails. Most other distracting elements are weeded out from the start with the exception of the 5% found in point 1. As far as trash is concerned I always run a cost-benefit analysis now over how much time to physically remove the offensive item vs Photoshop edit time.

E. Rogers on October 29th, 2007 at 8:06 am

^#5

Very useful post and food for thought.

I’d like to say that I only crop in camera but often I end up tweaking things slightly to improve the composition.

It’s posts like these that encourage myself and others to strive that bit harder.

Scott Wiggins on October 29th, 2007 at 8:26 am

^#6

I try to keep the final image looking like what I remember seeing through the viewfinder. Especially in terms of sky color, etc

I’ll occasionally remove things, and refuse to add things to the photo that weren’t there originally. I won’t swap out the sky.

The one thing I absolutely refuse to do it totally change the colors in a photo because the original colors don’t match someone’s sofa. We really did have someone ask us to change the colors in a photo to match her sofa.

Patty Hankins on October 29th, 2007 at 8:26 am

^#7

I try not to over-retouch people. Some flaws are characteristics of people and I am very careful - especially in wedding photography - not to retouch faces and bodies unless asked.

And the end result really drives my ethics. If it’s a fun picture, then I have no issue with changing the photo. But if I want to portray the scene, I’ll color retouch, but not duplicate and remove items.

Stacie Morris on October 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am

^#8

Hi Scott,
That’s quite the list of goodies you posted. Having watched you edit your images, I know that most of the time you are doing those things without thought. They are just sort of ingrained in you. As for me, I have two different rules that I live by. At work, you know I don’t change anything except in a “global” manner, e.g., color correction, luminoscity, some sharpening, and very minor cropping. That’s work. My personal stuff has no real bounds. Sometimes I think I have the image composed just the way I want it in the camera but when I see it on the computer, it doesn’t work. But sometimes I can save it by giving it an entirely different crop. Color, tone, sharpness, all those things are givens. But the real thing is that I have an idea when I take an image of how I want it to look so whatever means it takes to achieve that look are ok with me. I think people need to get away from the idea that using Photoshop is in some way bastardizing the process. In today’s world, it is part of the creative process, just as much as those days when a darkroom technician would spend hours working at an enlarger, dodging, burning, and masking to make their final print.
But hey, that’s just me.

Jeff Revell on October 29th, 2007 at 8:59 am

^#9

Everytime i go out and shoot i think of my old Pentax 35mm from 1976. I got on a major Photoshop kick a couple years ago and let me skills slip when behind the camera. I have since all but removed Photoshop from my computer.

When I shoot now every shot is taken thinking photoshop doesn’t exist. It has to be framed and exposed right out fo the camera. If i see I am going to have to edit a picture more than a 1/3 stop it is not even looked at anymore.

I have played with cs3 and the new tools. It is pretty amazing how you can chop up pics now with the vibrance slider etc. I think most pictures being put up on the web now have way to much color satruation, over sharpened and boosted to the point they are unrealistic anymore compared to the original scene.

I have broen my rule on several occasions recently when taking pictures at race tracks. At several spots around the track my 600mm lens just cant bring the action in close enough. I have framed for my artistic views of the scenery/landscape witht he track, but it takes away from the racing. So I have had to cop somewhat on a few shots that were ‘money’ shots. Don’t tell anyone!

These are just my humble opinions.

Steve Beck on October 29th, 2007 at 9:04 am

^#10

Hi Gang:
Thanks so much to those of you who have posted comments this morning. I think it’s really interesting to see how each of us have developed our own do’s and don’ts, and some of your comments are really food for thought for us all. Keep it up!

-Scott Kelby

Scott on October 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am

^#11

Hi Scott,

I don’t know Photoshop good enough to have many do’s and dont’s. However, my wife being a Bucs fan, I feel your pain. I simply hope my Cowboys can get past the Colts or the Pats on their way to another Super Bowl Win.

See ya,

Mike

Mike on October 29th, 2007 at 9:16 am

^#12

Some interesting points. In my work, very few of the photos I edit are ones I’ve taken. We have a staff photographer. And many photos are sent from people from around the world, the various levels of photographic ability. So whenever possible I try to communicate the photo I want, but usually I have to settle for an approximation. If a sky is totally blown out, I have no problem adding a fake sky; it certainly wasn’t white in real life. I’ll edit out distracting elements. Very rarely do I add anything, but in one case we took a green screen shot, added a winter background and falling snow. In another case we completely changed the shirt a woman was wearing. Many of the photos happen to be TV studio shots, and it is not uncommon that we replace the live TV feeds on the monitors around the studio with something more appropriate than whatever happened to be on at the moment the photo was taken.

Michael on October 29th, 2007 at 10:11 am

^#13

I work for a magazine and I took a photo of an airplane on display during setup day at a trade show. There were trucks, boxes, cars all over the place that were part of the setup process, so I blurred the distractions and left the airplane untouched. It set off a firestorm and I learned I had “doctored” the photo.

Al Marsh on October 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am

^#14

I do not have issues with artistic changes being made in Photoshop to create surreal images, dream effects, modern art emulation or creating composite images, etc. Where I sometimes have an issue is with major Photoshop editing that is then “presented” as reality and no mention of the editing.
As for comments on your list –
(1) I also want to do my composing in the camera; however I have no problem with cropping to get the desired “focal” point and composition of my image. I find that it is sometimes it is better to crop something out than to try to edit it out in PS.
(2) Ditto with you on removing any distracting element(s). I may also blur out or edit elements that I may not have permission to include, ie a business name or the name of someone’s boat or auto license plate, etc.
(3) Depending on whether the desired effect is more “artistic” rather than capturing reality will determine whether I add or remove something from the image.
(4) Ditto with you
(5) Ditto with you
(6) You cannot always have the right lighting or be somewhere at the absolute right time, so some altering of the “setting” maybe necessary, but when I do so, my attempt is to make the image an artistic interpretation rater than reality.
(7) Retouching people- I only edited out minor anomalies unless asked to “make me look real good”
Thanks for making us think about what we do and how we do it.

Peter on October 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

^#15

I agree with almost everything, except number four. For me, if it wasn’t there, it wasn’t there. I will add my own personal (albeit odd) rule - if it’s a place I can revisit to get the shot right, I will, and I won’t even edit the photo. For example, if I think a location has promise, and either it or I wasn’t fully up to our potential that day, I’ll go back. For me this basically means anywhere within driving distance of my house. However, if a photo is from a place I’ll likely never return to, I’ll pull out every “trick” I know to maximize the photo’s potential. Maybe that’s odd, but that’s just me.

Doug on October 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

^#16

You’re a decent human being!

Dan on October 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

^#17

My Personal Code of Ethics in Photoshop is:

Do whatever is needed to enhance~repair~create the photograph!

Whatever to all the above people..why not allow my imagination to be the creation!

I am an artist. I create. I use many mediums to create with including the fabulous medium of PHOTOSHOP!

Sandy on October 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

^#18

I have absolutely no problem with combining two or three shots of the same scene to a single photo. I do this especially when taking group shots. Someone always looks away.

I count this as finishing, not fixing.

Claudius Coenen on October 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

^#19

Hi Scott,
I like your code of ethics.
I think you should get it right in the camera but I think if you are time limited photographing a landscape and don’t have time to use photo filters.
For example, If I don’t have time to put a split netural filter for the sky. I will make two exposures, one for the sky and one for the forground. Then combind them to get exposure correctly. If I dont have time again I will use NIK color effect filters.

I feel if you can make your image natural. Thats what makes a great photograph.

I dont mind cropping images.
I do agree on, taking out distracting thing in a image. Also if there is a flower that is damage, i think its ok to repair it in a photograph for example a torn flower petal.

I will use filters on my camera if I plan the location. but most of the time i will try to do it through the camera- using filters, tripod, cable release.

But if you photograph a image without filters on a camera and bring it into photoshop, you can choose to bring the saturated colors up in a photo, or you can put different color filter on the sky using nik filters.

for example I used a sunset filter on my camera out west and when i got home i liked some of the results but i was dispointed on some of the photographs. So I should photograph them with only a polarizer filter instead. this way I have a choice.
Theres nothing wrong using color filters on the camera, as long as you like the end results. I will use a spilt netural, polarizer, and sometimes when i dont use filters i will make two exposures (sky&forground) with a polarizer filter but thats the only thing I will use on my camera.

Michael C. on October 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm

^#20

I see everyone’s point here and would tend to agree on many points. I like having an idea of what I want the finished shot to look like when it’s processed, even if that means that I do some artistic processing or cropping or cloning.

I don’t tend to do a lot of cloning. And when I crop, I usually keep the same aspect ratio. I usually do a general sharpening and add seom lens blur to make the overall image appear sharper.

I have a pretty high standard for my personal work but I’ll do what I need to do to make it look like I want. I agree that some people use tools and filters because they can, not because it actually makes their images better. When it comes to my professional work, I will be more spare in my edits to serve the clients’ needs and the requirements of the project.

I think I’m actually the opposite of you, Scott, when it comes to editing my own vs. others’ photos. I deal with some pretty marginal photos that come from clients and I’ll do what I can but won’t put the effort - note, most of the photos I process for work are client-supplied for websites and videos that are generally used “as is” with only minor adjustments, unless otherwise directed by the client. But for my own, it’s no holds barred.

Good conversation to have!

Jason D. Moore on October 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

^#21

ScottDaddy, what a great post!
I liked it so much that I thought about it for most of the day (so much for productivity). In fact, I thought about it so much that I finally just wrote it all down and made it into a post for my blog! (Hey, at least I’m posting, right? ;-> )

The thing that surprised me the most was that I found myself disagreeing with several of your 7 points. I credit you with the majority of my knowledge in digital photography so I figured I would fall right into the same train of thought. So I was shocked when I realized that I was following my own path in the areas of photo cropping and the duplication or removal of objects.

I then went back and looked for photos where we were on the same trips together and then I compared them to the ones in your Gallery (I told you I spent to much time on this today) and sure enough… we’re each following our own code. (I posted a shot for comparison.)

But that’s the beauty of working as an artist instead of as a photo journalist… each and every one can follow their very own “code”. To Each His Own!

Rod Harlan on October 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

^#22

Hmmm…how do I say this…my photos into two categories.
1. There are Photos that I call my Photography. I’m in line with most of what Scott says about his own photos. He speaks for me. Interesting.
2. Then there are photos that I use and a launching pad for creating some art that might not resemble photography or the image or images that I took at all. In this category anything goes….let the imagination roam…slide all the sliders all over the place…cut and paste, mix and match, have fun…be a kid, play…..

These two categories are very distinct.

Gerald Daly on October 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm

^#23

Code of ethics? I don’t know if it’s more naive or related to guilt. How can anyone actually believe that any photograph digitally captured and processed be the truth? So 85% of the truth is ok? You seem to be finding slippery slope exceptions for yourself in denying that images created by you are not illusions. The ends justifies the means and today everyone trying to find their own 15 nanoseconds of fame like Dave Hill or Joey Lawrence frankly could care less about ethics. Work for hire, user supplied content is doing more damage than adding a few pumpkins. I love what you share, but ethics, nice to see someone of your position in the PS world has reminded us of how it’s spelled. Replicating the truth for a news event is the last bastion for ethics, everything else is just creation and the truth may have little contribution or none and success is still prevalent in the image. Thanks for at least bringing up the topic. Don’t forget to eat at Bern’s while you’re in Tampa. The dessert room is worth the whole visit. Cheers!

Scott Ely on October 30th, 2007 at 7:56 am

^#24

I use photography as an art. I do not mind adding elements to a photo to create an image I have in my mind. You can see some of them in my portfolio, such as the lights added to lighthouses, the eagle added to a photo of the Oxbow in Teton Nat.Park. When I am out and photographing wildlife I always look for backgrounds that I can place an animal in. Photoshop has given us as much artistic licence as a painter. I use to envy the ability of painters to create what ever kind of light they wanted. We also have these abilities now. I don,t think it matters how we arrive at our final image, only that we did. The public will be the final judge.

Steve Metzner on October 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am

^#25

I’m still processing most of Scott’s “rules” but I have a comment about cropping in or out of camera. In the day of film and 4×6 or 4×4 prints this train of thought made sense. However, the end result(s) of any particular photograph may not be a print. In todays age of electronic media we are not limited to any particular size or shape to display our images and therefore cropping in photoshop/lightroom etc. may be required.

Jim Krale on October 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

^#26

Scott said: “If it’s someone else’s photo, and they ask me to edit it in Photoshop, then all bets are off, and anything goes.”

That really cracks me up. I hope all of your ethics aren’t programmed with the same logic.

[Scott in a court of law:]
“I am innocent, your honor. Robbing a liquor store is totally against my code of ethics. I was asked by Mr. Kloskowski to help him rob it because he couldn’t guard the door and empty the register at the same time. You see, he wants the new Nikon 10-600mm/f1.4 FX IF-ED VR with night vision. If it were my photo . . . umm . . . my lens, I would have taken a more ethical approach by not blurring the cashier and cropping the money from the register.”

Cooper on October 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

^#27

Wonder what the code of ethics are for changing someones post?

Sandy on October 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

^#28

Actually a pretty neat dicsussion thread. As a strict amateur with no ’stake’ in selling my photos - I have no ‘photoshop ethics’. Whatever make the picture look good hanging on the wall is cool with me. That being said I have ‘touched-up’ a few photos for less ‘photoshop-savvy’ friends - they usually give me the parameters to work with. Most often blemish removal, sometime whitening teeth but after that most folks call it a day.

Steve Allison on October 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

^#29

Well, you had me at your first point - I crop ALL THE TIME, but this is because I take sports photos (for fun, not profit), and I have the 70-200mm, but that only gets me about half way across the width of a soccer field, and if the photo I took can be enhanced by cropping in to single out a specific happening in the photo, then I’m all for it. Of course if I could afford another 5D and afford a 400mm prime to put on it, then cropping would never be an issue.

Julia on October 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

^#30

I never crop unless I absolutely have to. If I edit my own photo I’ll try to make everything look perfect, including me :D. In terms of other photos, well I’ve never really had an experience there so i cant really say much. Just do what the client wants and what makes it look good.

Sean on October 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

^#31

I had never really thought about it, but I don’t mind just about any change that is minor. I don’t mind any retouching that takes away distractions, or makes people look the way I perceive them, rather than how the camera captured them.

There is a line I don’t like to cross, where I feel that I have gone too far with the adjustments. I think I like them to be so subtle, that an untrained eye really wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the original and the retouch without my pointing it out. If it’s too obvious, then I feel I got it wrong in the camera.

I don’t like cropping in Photoshop because I feel like I’m wasting valuable pixels. Still, I do it to improve composition, especially in candid shots when I did not have much time to compose properly.

However, if I am working on some experimental/artistic manipulations, then all bets are off, of course.

Steve on October 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pm

^#32

I have been using Photoshop for a while but have just in the past year begun to do any photography. I really appreciate your thougths here, and will come back often now that I’ve found your site!

Zura on October 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am

^#33

I don’t really care if you add or subtract from a photo as long as you don’t lie about it and then make a lot of money from sales. If you like artistically re-arranged photography check out this site. http://www.uelsmann.net/ Jerry Uelsmann uses enlargers to make his art, not Photoshop. It’s really nice work.

mike meyer

mike meyer on October 31st, 2007 at 8:46 am

^#34

Sandy, you have my apologies. I should have taken a more direct approach.

I was trying to point out that maybe we’re discussing two different things — ethics and artistic standards.

In my view, a “code of ethics” should not change depending on the situation. For example, taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own is obviously a big one. I wouldn’t do that in my own work, nor could I in good conscience assist anyone else in doing so.

Much of what everyone seems to be describing are artistic standards that they use to keep themselves from “cheating” in their own pursuit of photography.

For some, cropping/cloning/healing/masking/etc. is cheating their art. For others, extensive and excessive application of said techniques is the attraction of their art. Your personal artistic standards are often derived from the definition of your art.

When I was reading Scott’s post it didn’t occur to me that there was a difference until he mentioned that he would throw his ethics out the window for someone else. (Hence the analogy of robbing a store for someone else and having no ethical qualms about it.)

If anyone feels like I’m just playing semantics, I apologize. The word “ethic” has a strong meaning for me. It was not my intention to dilute a perfectly good discussion. I just thought it was worth pointing out because both topics are very important, and perhaps some could benefit from a differentiation of the two.

Cooper on October 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am

^#35

Scott,

I think this code is right on. I especially like the comment about people. I truly believe that it is our “job” as photographer/photoshopper to cast people in the best light.

JPO

Joe O'C on October 31st, 2007 at 11:14 am

^#36

When I cross over to “manipulation” in my own mind and the photo is given to others via web, email, or actual copy I will state flatly that it has been “photoshopped”. Nothing else will be stated unless I am asked specifically. Having done the novice photojournalism thing with film in the past I will always try to get it right in the camera and keep it that way unless I am trying to artistically enhance it so that what I think I saw matches what the digital print actually shows. This is just one reason why commercial photography and what Bert Monroy can do to enhance it continues to amaze me.

Bill Chinn on October 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm

^#37

It all depends where the final image is to be used or seen. So, anything goes if I am posting in my photoblog or making a vacation album. But, if I am shooting for a client, then I put restrictions on myself.

clarence on October 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pm

^#38

Scott,

That’s a very interesting topic you discuss here, and basically I conform with all of your points but #1. As someone who is obsessed with lines emerging from corners (and exactly doing so), and furthermore someone using a camera that covers only 96% in the viewfinder (Nikon D200), I would go nuts if I didn’t crop at times.

And it’s not only that. Actually, I try to avoid cropping, but only to avoid losing resolution. Other than that, I see no reason whatsoever, to think of cropping in any other way than of all the other little enhancements that I let my images enjoy. It’s only a tool, nothing more.

I guess it boils down to the question of how you see your images, faithful representation of some reality, or artful expression of your creative mind. I myself find the idea of recording an exact representation somewhat childish, but that wouldn’t be the worst problem, the worst problem is, that it bores me to death.

On the other hand, when “representation” is off the list, there is suddenly a whole world that opens up, a world of true art, a world where the noise at ISO 1600 is neither relevant nor a topic at all, a world where you can proudly disagree with what the camera believed to see, a world where your images are suddenly an expression of yourself and not an impression of a so-called reality.

Andreas

Andreas Manessinger on October 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm

^#39

Sorry but, I stopped reading after I read number two. The reason for this, I don’t believe in a code of ethics regarding image-making. It’s absurd to me. It’s a human prescription based upon ideas of different disciplines.

There are a couple of things that I think about when finalizing an image for a client or for my fine art portfolio. With this, I will only need space for two of my own “code of ethics.”

(1) Please the client: What does the client want and how do I do the most that I can to satisfy the objective of the assignment?

(2) Please yourself: The end result is ALL that matters - how you got there does not matter. Let me say this again; how your final presentation of an image is successful or not does not matter if you cropped your image or made the grass a little greener or took out a telephone pole or added some clouds for drama. It doesn’t matter! What does matter is if you made an image worth looking at.

We’re not lawyers, we’re not politicians, we’re not doctors - though some photographers have a bit of a God-complex, we’re in the business of making good images! That’s all. So, please - please - find something else to fill your blogs and books with.

-lucas fladzinski

Lucas on October 31st, 2007 at 11:19 pm

^#40

Everyone seems to have an infinite amount to say about Photoshop ethics and all the comments are interesting. Most of the the things that people don’t want to do that are associated with Photoshop are tools that have always been available to photographers in one form or another. Digital just makes it easier and more available to more people. Henry Peach Robinson and Oscar Rejlander, for example, made composite images in the mid to late 1800’s shortly after photography was invented. Cropping for me has been part of professional photography for over 30 years. It doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t get it right the first time….just one more tool to improve an image when needed. Many times the “crop” is because the proportion doesn’t fit and there is no STANDARD size that fits all situations. The images that are heavily manipulated usually look it and consequently everyone knows it and no one is “fooled.” What CAN be done has made many folks suspect of all images, unfortunately, and many great images that are not manipulated (more than normal enhancement) have now become suspect. To me, that is a greater loss to the industry than all the excessive manipulation combined!

Bruce Dart on November 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 am

^#41

Interesting food for thought. The point that I have to break with is swapping out.(for instance Scott you mention the sky). I have done this only on two instances and mostly for the experience of extracting items in the photo. I don’t know if I completely understand your differences between swapping them out and changing the color. Yes it is there, but not as you have portrayed it. If my sky is washed out and a bit of another blue sky works better explain the difference. You say it was not in the original so I won’t add….then you immediatley contradict yourself and add that oh….I will add if it is already there and by adding another I can “help” the composition. This is not meant as a total slam I love your work and your teachings, I just find the disparities between what you say you will do and the way you rationalize what you actually do amusing.

Soapmaker on November 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

^#42

I wanted to check out this thread after hearing you mention it on the Digital Photography podcast. I think about this topic often. I’m amused when I see images posted and the photographer adds “no photoshop used”. I think this topic of “ethics” is important and useful, but I also think a parallel discussion could be started on “what does the viewer believe they are actually seeing and why?”. I think the notion that a viewer is seeing “reality” is an interesting myth that needs to be recognized and corrected. I’m by no means an expert on the history of photography, but it seems evident that from day one it’s been a challenge to devise chemical and now digital means of making an image that mimics (not captures) reality. I sometimes feel like putting a black rectangle up on my Flickr page titled “I didn’t even take the lens cap off–beat that for reality!” I recall the story from earlier this year of the press photographer who came under fire (no pun intended) for darkening the smoke in an image to make (I believe it was a war scene from Iraq) things appear more dramatic. Well, unless you were standing next to the photographer how can the critics say that darkening the smoke in the image made it less “realistic” than it was in person. Perhaps it was simply overexposed in the original image and the darkening is closer to reality. Putting a polarizing filter on a lens creates an image that is radically different than one perceived by the human eye. Which is real?…which is ethical? I realize my notions aren’t original, but again I never seem to see much written on what creates the notion that a picture is ever REAL. Is it more ethical to remove a stray branch from the foreground of your image with your hand than it is to clone it out? My personal code of ethics is simple. If something is done to manipulate or mislead the viewer I avoid it. If somebody clones in an extra pumpkin I could care less–if they clone in somebody looking at the pumpkin that was never there that’s another matter. But again, to restate my original thought–no one should believe ANY photo depicts reality. Hope it doesn’t sound too cynical, but it’s the truth. sorry to go on and on (and believe me I could continue) but I wanted to put my 2 cents in. Incidentally, as concerns S. Kelby’s personal ethical code I find it very strange that #1 on his list is avoiding cropping. I think cropping is perhaps the MOST neutral of the items on his list. First of all photographers are constrained by a field of view that is determined by their equipment. Just because a 2:3 ratio is standard for viewfinders, sensors etc. why should one feel ANY guilt if the best composition for an image is different than that? If there is no way to compose a subject you want without including something that you don’t want what can one do? Also, as mentioned by another poster–I simply can evaluate the image much, much better on my computer monitor than I can squinting into a viewfinder on a sunny day. I try to crop as minimally as possible, but the notion of feeling like I’m cheating if I don’t “adjust” the image seems odd to me. not to bitch too much thanks for the opportunity

matt on November 15th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

^#43

I switched from black and white photography to digital 3 years ago. For 30 years I never cropped an image and kept my manipulation to burning in and dodging. For the most part, I still use these techniques digitally although I discovered quite quickly that they can be enhanced. For instance,the ability to extract the subject from the background before dodging or burning in is an advancement or evolution of this time-tested method and something I have done quite often in order to save an image which otherwise would have been discarded. As for adding a background, I have only done this once and as you said, every time I look at it I am reminded of this.

I rarely crop, but when I do, it is slight and in preference to removing an object from an image with Photoshop. It is just my way of doing it. I always keep the same 2:3 ratio.

My final comment though is a very personal one. regarding Images I look at on the web recently, just seem just a bit too perfect. The sky is the right shade of blue, the leaves are a perfectly rich green, the subject has no pimples, there is is always detail in the shadows and highlights, etc. These pictures are technically correct but lack a sort of feeling or reality which I like to see in an image. (think HCB, Kertez, Weston, Frank, Capa, etc.) For me, a good picture must have a certain undefined sense of passion, composition and movement to grab a viewer’s attention and no amount of “Photoshopping” can do this where it did not exist before. Far too many pictures I see today are altered to the point of “surrealism”. They all have that fantasy look. To put it in movie terms, I prefer the look of a “Raging Bull” to a “Lord of the Rings”

Having said that, there are still manipulated images which do grab my attention but I strongly feel at they are good because they were originally made in the camera.

The most wonderful thing about photography though is the vast gamut of styles that one sees. I suppose one might say “if it works, it works.”

David Saxe on November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am

^#44

To be picky for sure, but the word is photojournalist. One word, not two.

I knew a man, Cliff Edom, who was in the room when the word was coined by the dean of the journalism school (the first one) at the University of Missouri-Colombia.

Cliff went on to be the father of photojournalism education.

/picky

Eric on November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

^#45

I agree with the most, but sometimes you have to crop an image. The real world doesn’t always fit in the 2:3 ratio from your camera, or the ratio from the camera your currently using. But most times I know I have to crop the image before releasing the button of the camera.

Hans den Boer on November 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

^#46

Scott,

What service do you use for your blog? I guessed Typepad, but friends disagree? I use VOX for mine, but like the look and feel of yours.

Jim

Jim White on November 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

^#47

Doh! I just realized that I’m not on your blog page and this comment section is related to the ethics article . . .

Jim White on November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

^#48

Some have already alluded to this in their comments here but I think this discussion of “ethics” in photo processing has omitted an underlying framework for why we have or need such ethics. In general, ethics is a process you apply in decision-making to ensure that the outcome of your actions are fair to others.

But, if your purpose is simply to make pleasing images where exactly is the need for ethics? Does the artist have a code of ethics dictating which paints, brushes or papers he will or won’t use? Now, if your purpose is photojournalism that’s a different story. Or if you’re representing an image to be an accurate portrayal of a scene, that too, is different from making art (or just making pleasing images). But it seems to me we each need to state up front what our intention is before proceeding to expound on why we will or won’t do a particular thing.

Both the camera and the computer are simply tools that allow us create images. The cameras of today give us much greater creative control than we had when I first began shooting seriously 25+ years ago. And what if tomorrow’s cameras give us even more control over the way images are captured—as they undoubtedly will? What makes processing in the camera more legitimate than processing in the computer? After all, once the photons hit the sensor anything that happens downstream is all digital processing. Granted, there are good technical reasons to “get it right in the camera.” But those don’t have anything to do with ethics.

The paper that you print on, the ink that you use, and the printer itself all contribute much to the final look of an image as does the matte, the frame, the wall where you hang it and the lighting in that room. All of these things have subjective effects on the viewer’s perception of the image and several of them have objective effects as well. As with the camera and the computer, they are all just accouterments that allow us to eventually create a visual impression on someone’s eyeballs.

So, I’d suggest we pause to clarify our intentions and to consider whether what we’re talking about is ethics (it may be) or aesthetics.

Dave

David Salahi on November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm

^#49

Hi Scott,

Terrific post. I feel the same about most of your ethics - except maybe the cropping.

I’m with you 100% on no. 7 - Retouching Thyself. I’m happy to spend hours in Photoshop beautiftying myself, removing spots, whitening teeth and the like. It’s also good fun to make your friends that appear in photos with you look tired, greasy-haired or sweaty - great for the self-esteem!

Jennifer on November 30th, 2007 at 1:32 am

^#50

Quite frankly who cares what you should or shouldn’t do. If you can do something in Photoshop that makes the experience of looking at an image amazing to to person looking at it, then you should. Whatever it takes. Just do it well, you don’t want people to know its been tampered with.

Neil

Neil Oliver on November 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

^#51

No cropping? C’mon, you want to be artist or a snapper/photojournalist? I refuse to be a slave to Canon/Nikon/Sony’s vision of the format of an image.

DavidOB on December 1st, 2007 at 12:57 am

^#52

Personally:
Cropping is fine but I also prefer to try to get it as close as I can initially or slightly wider if I’m not sure, so that I have the option to crop.
Most filters in Photoshop I will not touch except the high pass filter.
After applying high pass, I usually fade the high pass filter to 50 % or so, using whatever option works best, eg. overlay, pin light, multiply……
I’m also a big fan of shadow/highlight adjustment.

Ivan

Ivan on December 1st, 2007 at 5:22 am

^#53

It seems that your post is more “what I tend to enjoy doing to my photos” than any kind of ethical statement. I find the list interesting because of who wrote it, but there is nothing related to ethics in your list.

A post matching the title would discuss what you thought was ethical for a journalist or other who must maintain the “integrity” of the shot. Some cropping is probably okay, adjusting white balance perhaps, but what about highlight/shadow? What about dust-spot removal? How about “creative cropping” (where “intent” now becomes a factor)?

Your list is interesting, but it is woefully mistitled.

Jeffrey Friedl on December 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm

^#54

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

Idetrorce on December 15th, 2007 at 8:47 am

^#55

I feel very much the same as Scott for my photos. I will not hesitate to remove things that are distracting, nor will it bother me to make dramatic tone or white balance changes… but I don’t have much interest in adding things digitally to a scene. I can, but I choose not to. I want to find things the way they are I suppose.

Here’s a thought, what about adding things physically? Like throwing a leaf on the ground where there was none before, or even trash into an alley that was clean, etc? I suppose it’s all about what you want to say with your shot.

Jon Van Dalen on December 20th, 2007 at 8:02 am

^#56

I did a wedding believe it or not with my Nikon D2H and the pictures (most of them) turned out great. There was a particular bridesmaid that had severe burns on both arms, chest, neck and chin areas. Although I could have drastically modified or enhanced this women’s skin condition through photoshop, I only lightly “softened” these areas. The parents of the bride who paid me to photograph their daughter’s wedding and this particular woman’s mother were more than pleased with the outcome. Don’t be afraid to allow imperfections to show. They are part of the individual and personality, and “softening” skin is not an eraser. Thanks.

richard rygiel on December 26th, 2007 at 11:51 am

^#57

re: adding/subtracting/manipulating at the PS stage

Normally it’s no problem for me as long as it doesn’t purposefully mislead/deceive, ….It depends on the photos USE/PURPOSE. Does the manipulation directly relate to the image’s use/purpose.

~ Most times I will remove telephone wires from a photo unless the photo is used to illustrate an “unobstructed view from our hotel” (for example).
~ I might add plastic strawberries into a scene or clone additional strawberries in PShop, UNLESS the ‘purpose’ of the photo was to show mom’s wonderful strawberry pie! Then it’s a no-no.

re: adding/subtracting/manipulating at the photo stage

Photographer #1 comes along and “manipulates” a scene by hand placing an autumn leaf on a rock. He takes a manipulated photo and leaves. Is that wrong for him to manipulate/alter that ‘natural’ scene?

Photographer #2 comes along later in the day and photographs the same scene before him (the autumn leaf is still sitting on that rock!). Hmm… is it now OK for him to photograph the scene as a natural/unaltered view of nature?

re: art filter effects, etc. in PS
No way, if at all possible. People pay for human imperfection. It’s impossible for a computer to make a mistake. Art effects in PS (or ANY program) are too ‘perfect’, sterile and lacking life. The human element that breathes life into the image is lost.

Tim Shirey on January 9th, 2008 at 6:36 am

^#58

valla palidhje muta kokni

valla on May 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

^#59

Urmm…Okay..i have photoshop element 6.0..it was working FINE
but..all of a sudden..it won’t let me get on “EDIT” but on organizer and stuff…it will let me….whats wrong?

Ruth on June 4th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

^#60