Does an image always have to match the original exactly? - Photoclub

07.12.2021, 11:33 #1

Hobbyfotograf

Should or must an image always match the original?

Photo editing: yes or no?

There are basically two camps: one insists that a photograph should always stay as true to the original as possible.
The other prefers the freedom to edit a photo in a way that appeals to *them*.
I’m curious—what are your thoughts on this?

07.12.2021, 14:44 #2

Heinz Licht

Handyknipser

Everyone should edit their photo in a way that they like.

If they decide to share it, they have to accept that others might not like it.
A slight adjustment during raw processing is inevitable anyway.

In the end, only the photo matters and how others perceive it.

07.12.2021, 15:41 #3

Janet Kölliker

Hobbyfotografin

I mainly edit my photos to suit my own taste... If others end up liking them too, all the better!

07.12.2021, 16:08 #4

Frank Weller

Hobbyfotograf

Of course, I always edit my photos. Not always heavily, but who hasn’t experienced the effect where high contrast makes the sky look milky, with no cloud details? Unfortunately, even edited photos often look different after uploading—they suddenly appear much brighter than they did on the home screen. That definitely needs to be adjusted, but ultimately, the photographer is the master of their own work.

07.12.2021, 16:33 #5

Günter Rudi Herzel

Photography doesn’t just capture reality, let alone the truth—it creates new realities.
I believe I won’t let reality dictate what I perceive.

07.12.2021, 18:58 #6

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

It's always a subjective matter.
Image editing actually starts right in the camera—most cameras already have built-in software that’s constantly running, even if you haven’t adjusted any settings.
But what exactly is image editing?
Is it just about what I like, or am I also expecting reactions from others who view the image and form opinions about it?
Of course, most people keep their opinions to themselves, but is that what I want?
Am I open to accepting others’ viewpoints or not?
There are rules in photography, too—but are they always meant to be strictly followed, or are they more like guidelines?
So, there are a lot of questions.
Naturally, I edit an image the way I like it—I also try to stick to some basic principles.
But for me, things can get pretty colorful.
In our "Photo Club in Dresden," we have very diverse opinions on this.
They range from experimental approaches to the belief that the subject should never be altered and should remain true to how it appears in the original.

07.12.2021, 21:24 #7

Frank Weller

Hobbyfotograf

Andreas, it’s completely normal to have different opinions when it comes to photo editing. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Nowadays, even completely replacing a sky is no problem with modern editing software.
That said, I wouldn’t do it myself. But I consider making corrections to an image to be perfectly fine.
I’m not sure how most of the other photographers in the forum shoot—whether they save their sensor data in RAW or JPEG format. When shooting in RAW, the camera makes very few changes to the image file, aside from correcting lens errors introduced by the manufacturer. With JPEG, there’s quite a bit of in-camera processing going on.
Personally, I shoot exclusively in RAW because it offers much more flexibility in post-processing. Not to mention the color depth of the images, which is usually 12-bit per color channel. This gets reduced to 8-bit in the JPEG process, which is a significant loss if you want highly detailed color in your photos. Of course, the print quality then also needs to be just as high.
But if I then go to the supermarket where Cewe has a photo printer that only prints up to 15x10cm using a direct printing process with 256 colors, then shooting RAW feels a bit pointless.

That said, deep photo editing takes a lot of effort. Not everyone wants to commit to that kind of work.
In our photo club here in Aquitaine, about half the photographers use the software provided by the camera manufacturers.
Using Photoshop or other programs is too time-consuming for them. A few photographers still work with an older version of Lightroom, which can’t read newer RAW formats anymore, so they convert the files into a readable format using the DNG workaround.

Have a great evening in Dresden, Frank

07.12.2021, 21:36 #8

Uwe Rau

Hobbyfotograf

@Janet Kölliker Exactly, I post pictures that I like. I don’t cater to customer requests. And if others like them, that makes me happy. I don’t have very high expectations.
I’m out and about with my camera. It’s not that I take the camera and just happen to experience things along the way. Sometimes I watch one or more animals, for example, and just enjoy the moment without taking any photos.
Salami, that’s life. 1f609

08.12.2021, 09:01 #9

Janet Kölliker

Hobbyfotografin

@Andreas Bibas
Everyone sees an image through their own eyes, so naturally, there can be different perspectives on it.
I’m always happy to receive tips on my photos, but in the end, it should still be MY picture.

08.12.2021, 09:09 #10

Frank Weller

Hobbyfotograf

@Uwe Rau Hi Uwe. I feel exactly the same way—having a camera with me but just observing. However, my previous response missed the point. The question was specifically about whether or not to do image editing.

08.12.2021, 09:57 #11

Frank Weller

Hobbyfotograf

@Janet Kölliker
Absolutely right, but when it comes to photo editing, it’s not about adjusting an image to suit the viewer’s taste. The enhancements are made from the photographer’s perspective.
The photographer can then seek feedback to see whether the viewer shares that vision or not.

18.12.2021, 13:19 #12

Andreas F

Experte

Hello Andreas, What exactly is the original?
When I expose the paper in the darkroom, I’ve already made some adjustments earlier when choosing the film. Then, selecting the paper grade involves further decisions. “Oh, the sky is way too bright... I need to dodge or burn in some areas.” So, what counts as the original, and where does image editing begin?
Even with my black-and-white film in the darkroom, some form of adjustment is inevitable. It’s unavoidable.
The original, in fact, can only be seen through my own eyes. Still, I’ll perceive the original differently than someone else would.

Best regards, Andreas

18.12.2021, 13:42 #13

Günter Rudi Herzel

No matter how you develop it—whether in black and white, color, or digitally—it will never fully capture reality. It will always reflect your subjective perspective at the moment you press the shutter. Are you making the sky dramatic or spring-like? That’s your point of view. That’s why I tend to exaggerate with color and do my black and white shots in sepia. That’s what makes it exciting.

22.12.2021, 18:02 #14

Markus Schmitz

Hobbyfotograf

If photography is understood as an art form, the creator should have the freedom to decide how much an image is edited or altered. Additionally, as several comments have pointed out, development—whether analog or digital—involves editing and transformation.
However, when it comes to pure product photography aimed at showcasing an item for sale, editing serves to represent reality and acts as a tool to achieve that goal.

24.12.2021, 20:11 #15

Andreas F

Experte

@Markus Schmitz

Especially in product photography, it used to be common to create a sense of reality by completely altering the image.
The wine was never actually in the glasses.

Often, reality was so dull that photographers had to enhance it to create a more appealing "reality"—one that was visually pleasing and suitable for presentation or print.

24.12.2021, 21:38 #16

Markus Schmitz

Hobbyfotograf

However, if product photos are meant to sell, the images need to represent the product realistically. For example, when someone orders a product online, they rely on the description or the quality of the photos. If the product doesn’t match what’s shown, it could lead to a return (in the worst case). Take fashion photography as an example: if a sweater or shirt looks different than in the photo, the customer is likely to be disappointed because they expected something else based on the image. That’s why, from a customer’s perspective, the photos should accurately reflect reality—at least, that’s my opinion.

24.12.2021, 22:12 #17

Andreas F

Experte

Yes, it’s meant to reflect reality. However, the footage doesn’t always show reality exactly—it just needs to look real.
A common trick was to pour cola into red wine glasses so that in the final photo it would actually look like red wine.

It definitely raises the question: what exactly is reality?

24.12.2021, 23:27 #18

Josef Prinz

Hobbyfotograf

@Andreas Friedrichs
Cola instead of red wine? I don’t see the point.
Even with liquids that contain water, you sometimes have to deal with tiny air bubbles (be careful when using a brush, for example) that rise to the surface and escape from the liquid.
(Water that freezes from the bottom up is almost crystal clear because the air has time to separate from the water.)

Better examples: whipped cream tends to break down quickly! A workaround is shaving foam—of course, this product is not meant for consumption, just a product photo!

Best, Joe

25.12.2021, 00:08 #19

Josef Prinz

Hobbyfotograf

@Markus Schmitz
Calibration 50:50 success! Maybe achievable!
The reason is the human eye!
I'm a chef, not an eye doctor! But it all starts with the color receptors in the eye of the viewer.

Broken down: 255 255 255 — is that really white?

Best, Joe

25.12.2021, 01:23 #20

Günter Rudi Herzel

@Andreas Bibas
A great comeback when my photos get criticized for the colors being off, too dark, or too bright—
why should I care about reality when I see it differently?

25.12.2021, 02:25 #21

Josef Prinz

Hobbyfotograf

@Günter Rudi Herzel
Printout: calibrated paper for printers? ... then, for cost reasons, the original cartridge wasn’t used!
Light hitting the monitor, shadows, half-shadows, drop shadows? All affect the development of the raw file—and every output image!
How many people are there? Exactly that many different perceptions of color exist!
That’s the AMEN in the prayer!

Another topic:

Use a level for checking horizontals! User x: do you think the image tilts left/right by 0.0x mm?
Use a plumb line for vertical checks, converging lines? [excluding optical diffraction—own chapter! Important chapter, affects the overall image!]

Does anyone really believe: “a facade is 90°, a gable 180°!”?
Optical illusion at Kilimanjaro: water appears to flow uphill!
Horizon: Is the water surface higher on the left or right? Yes/no! Shoreline = flat or elevated? = bay or promontory!

Best regards, Joe

27.12.2021, 14:35 #22

Andreas Schäfer

Experte

A photograph never fully captures the original scene (the photographed reality, which alone is 3D, unlike any image). Anyone who has looked into what Ansel Adams did in the darkroom knows that even back then, images were manipulated. I wouldn’t try to debate this topic as a universal truth because, in my view, it leads nowhere. If someone enjoys swapping skies, slimming waists, enlarging eyes, changing colors... even creating composites, that’s their choice—and what we’re seeing today is just the beginning. Every JPG is edited, whether developed from a RAW file or processed in-camera, and if you want to bring out the best in your photos, you can’t avoid some form of editing.

When I see an image that speaks to me, it doesn’t really matter how the photographer or artist achieved that result. That said, there are certain edits or alterations—no matter how skillfully done—that I just don’t like (too much HDR, overly exaggerated edits, for example), much like how I’m not a fan of cosmetic surgery. But that’s simply my personal opinion!

This entry has already been edited

27.12.2021, 16:17 #23

Frank Weller

Hobbyfotograf

@Andreas Schäfer
Basically correct. But photo editing is increasingly moving towards AI these days. Take Luminar AI or Neo, or Adobe, which even offers AI features in their simplified Essentials program. The software decides how the photo will look in the end.
You can really notice it when all the photographers swap out a cloudy sky for a sunny one after an outing — that’s when a photo critique session becomes necessary.
But everyone should decide that for themselves.

27.12.2021, 16:30 #24

Andreas Schäfer

Experte

@Frank Weller
Ultimately, it’s still the photographer/editor who decides what the software handles for them (calling it AI isn’t quite right, since it’s not truly intelligent but just algorithms, impressive as they may be). Swapping out a sky might seem straightforward at first (I also use Luminar sometimes), but the lighting, the original photo, and the new sky all have to match perfectly—otherwise, even a trained eye will find it looks pretty silly.
And I love how quickly you can create a perfect mask (not just for skies, but for other things too), because that part is just tedious “grunt work”—the creative part comes after the mask is done!
Yes, it’s becoming easier to produce technically good edits, but in my opinion, a truly great photo requires more than what AI can automatically deliver.

The old days are over! I still ride a bike without a motor, but for many, the e-bike was what got them back on two wheels and moving. And nobody hikes across the Alps on foot anymore (except for fun).
I don’t mind if others find it easier today to get decent photo results, and I had to struggle through Photoshop myself (now I mostly work with Lightroom and love anything that saves me from tedious busywork). And let’s not forget: we’re all shooting with good digital cameras!

28.12.2021, 01:37 #25

Günter Rudi Herzel

@Frank Weller When a painter decides to paint the sky green, that's perfectly fine. I recently tried the trial version of Luminar and was honestly amazed at how many wild skies I could add to my simple landscape. Is that okay too? If someone likes it, why not? Like I’ve said before, who cares about reality when I see things differently and have a magic brush in my digital art kit?

29.12.2021, 11:04 #26

Dirk Peschen

My approach is to do as much editing as necessary. I differentiate between adjusting various settings in Lightroom and performing detailed retouching in Photoshop.
Editing and shaping an image to suit my taste is part of the fun I find in photography.

29.12.2021, 11:47 #27

Simon Hank

Image editing has been around since the days of the darkroom. Essentially, it’s the same process you do with your RAW files today, while the JPEGs produced by modern cameras are already processed, with settings you can still adjust in-camera. Everyone has their own style when it comes to editing, but of course, it’s best not to go overboard.
I edit all my photos because I shoot exclusively in RAW.

This entry has already been edited

10.01.2022, 12:02 #28

Holger Förster

The answer is actually quite simple: truly unedited photos don’t exist — technically, they can’t. This applies to analog photography as well. It all comes down to the degree of editing, and the distinction is gradual rather than marked by a clear cutoff point. (Side note: At what point does a handful of sand become a sand dune?)
For me, the question of acceptable editing depends on the purpose of the photo. Documentary photos, press images, and the like should, as much as possible, represent reality accurately. Photos intended for art exhibitions can be edited as extensively as the creator wishes. Everything else falls somewhere along a gradual, fluid spectrum...

10.01.2022, 16:11 #29

Günter Rudi Herzel

@Holger Förster I feel the same way; I've always handled it that way too.

08.05.2022, 15:24 #30

Wolfram Sieber

I use every tool that image editing and distortion offer me—texture transfer, structure, vignetting, skies, and so much more. I love exploring all possibilities, and none of my images match the original. My macros are probably the most natural. In my view, flower photos only become truly beautiful when they're romanticized. I’m not shooting on commission for an encyclopedia, after all.

I believe the digital flood of images hasn’t made photography any easier. Pictures get skimmed over in a fraction of a second in the usual media. But then, suddenly, a gaze lingers. Why? Because of an exceptionally striking image or a particularly successful distortion.

Over many years, my photography has evolved a lot—from as realistic as possible to now romantic, playful, and artistic. I enjoy self-arranged still lifes, vividly colorful autumn forests, blossoms with light reflections, and mist. Those kinds of things. Macro photography has changed too. Where once a photo had to be as close and sharp as possible, now the surrounding environment with the insect and special lighting matters more.

Ideally, I’d even like to combine painterly elements with photos. We’ll see if that pans out. Well, I guess few people share my perspective, but for me, nature, its perception, and the photographic expression—amplifying my impressions—is a very personal fairy tale for grown-up dreamers.

Should or must an image always match the original?Should or must an image always match the original?Soll oder muß ein Bild immer dem Original entsprechen ?

Should or must an image always match the original?