20mins of myth busting and common sense. This is gold. Sean, the best of the best for you.

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams

"Sky replacement"... reminded me of the time Peter Mckinnon added an entire mountain in the desert lol!

I have to edit heavily because my family are very ugly.

A photograph is NEVER an exact copy of reality. Photography is manipulation of light and time. The manipulation starts when you set your shutter speed to capture a certain amount of time. It continues when you adjust your aperture to let the desired amount of light in. These are captured on an emulsion or sensor, which are designed by others to represent the light that goes trough your lens in a certain way. In the digital age, when you shoot "straight out of camera" JPGs - your images further manipulated by the built in software. When you shoot "straight out of camera" you already get a heavily manipulated representation of "reality". You also let others decide how your photos look (camera or film manufacturer). As a photographer, I believe my photographs represent my perception of reality. I start shaping this perception when I dial in my exposure settings. I fine tune it in post-process. It's OK for someone to like the SOOC results. But to claim that one can take a photo that "doesn't change reality" is not understanding how photography works. Further more, to claim that you can't process your photo if you want to be a "good" photographer is just an absurd lie with no grip on reality. Thanks Sean for this insightful video.

I remember how when I started photography a decade ago I got frustrated because I thought good photographers didn't edit their photos and I simply couldn't understand how their pictures were so flawless while I couldn't achieve that straight out of camera

When I take photographs, I want to capture what my eyes see. But my camera can only capture what it sees. I use editing to transform what the camera found in reality into the vision I saw there. My preference is for light editing because my focus is to learn my camera - I want to learn how to get the best photo I can in-camera so I can have good ingredients to work with. Thanks for another great video!

I own couple of digital cameras and couple of film cameras. I'm sorry if this socks someone's world but some editing has always been done even before the artist has hit the shutter button. With film the pre-editing is done by the manufacturer. The chemicals on the film dictate how the scene is saved on the medium. I have not used a film that accurately replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it. There is always some kind of "Fuji-look" or "Kodachrome-feel" in the image that is captured on the film. Same applies for digital cameras. Design and engineering teams at the manufacturer decide what is "Canon-look", "Olympus-colors" or "Sony-shadow". After that the camera saves the scene as it is programmed. I haven't used a digital camera that replicates the scene 1-to-1 as I saw or felt it.

"Don't waste your time looking around for other people's work to denigrate." Wise words to live by. When I feel I'm getting to the point where critique turns into criticism, I find it helpful to ask myself that particular piece of art or creative process offends me beyond simple differences in taste? More often than not, this approach will uncover areas within my own process or knowledge that I would be unable to cogently defend or explain, assumptions I might have for reasons that are entirely my own. These, of course, are all actionable items I can focus on. Focus on your own craft first and foremost, and try to take away lessons rather than scalps from others' work.

I often find that people who say something like "It's not really art if you edit" is people who don't produce art or is in the infant state of their own journey, and therefore don't feel comfortable editing themself. Just like me. I tell myself that I think that using other light than the sun is a bit cheaty. But in reality, I'm afraid to try shooting with a lamp and fail. When I write I often come back and edit something I wrote a month ago. When a painter paints he often goes back and redoes or "edit" the painting. A musician edits the music, so it sounds the best, and sometimes they do an alternative version of a song, a kind of edit. And lastly, a chef corrects the spices in the end so the dish taste just right. It's all a form of an edit. It's all to enhance the experience. But yes. Be honest! Great video Sean.

My favorite story about post-processing of film images is Ansel Adams' own description of his most popular image -- Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico. He didn't like the sky in his original print -- it was too light and there wasn't enough contrast with the moon --so he re-did it and pushed the sky to completely black. Adams, who was trained in classical music, liked to compare photography to the performance of classical music; he would say , "The negative is like the score, and the print is like the performance." The real magic in Adams' photographs was done in his darkroom. As for digital shots "straight out of camera"... What most folks don't realize is that every digital photo has been processed, in camera, using an algorithm developed by the manufacturer's engineers. If you've every heard someone argue that some cameras produce better colors than others, that's why. Photos of the same scene taken with different cameras look different because they're been processed differently, in camera. And high-end digital cameras allow the user to adjust the in-camera settings used to process the images. For example, you can change the contrast setting in-camera, so what comes "straight out of camera" -- in a jpeg, say -- can vary. The truth is, people who criticize digital photography for not being "realistic" like film photography, don't really understand either one.

It’s an art form people just experience the image and enjoy or move on.

"To edit or not to edit is a choice, and *it's not a moral one.*" This statement really resonates with me. Quite often in my life I have encountered people who give moral weight to things when it only serves to alienate others. Accept people have their own ways of doing things, especially when it comes to something as subjective as art. Great video!

I am continually impressed with your thoughtful, informative, and instructive communications.

Once again, Sean, I couldn't agree more. Don't use post processing as a crutch to try to make a bad image good. Use it as PART of the art of photography. When it all comes down to it, that's what it all is: art, especially if you use it correctly. I've seen many photographers use very heavy post processing to add an amazing quality, if you will, to their images. If it's done right, even if I don't agree or am not particularly moved by the image, I can still tell when it is done correctly or is just a means to paint lipstick on a pig. It's pretty much the same as appreciating what good music is whether it's music I like or not. Just because I don't like a particular kind of music, doesn't mean it's not well done. As it's been said many times before, beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Whether it's well done or not is still even rather subjective. If I do criticize a piece of art, I often say that it's a nice piece but not my taste (which I've heard you say often as well). Please keep "doing you" and don't listen to those who say you're doing it wrong. I have found so little to disagree with your philosophy, it's not even worth mentioning. Thanks for your great work.

It’s a shame some people think the photographer work is just Xerox copying the reality. Photographers create images using everything in their hands. I dare to say that the best photographers create better reality. Thank you Sean!

I photograph for my self as a hobbyist. I crop and colour grade. I love the film aesthetic and I think that I get pretty close to it. I remember editing a photo of my dog to look like it was shot with a disposable camera. I added a horrible light leak and some dust/scratches. The majority of people loved the image as it reminded them of their old family photos and for some it reminded them of their old family pets. As it got shared around, the photo snobs had to leave their negative opinions. Funnily enough they told me it was a horrible photo from a disposable camera which made me happy as it was obviously a digital photo. I was criticised for the bad composition which was intentional as I wanted it to feel like a shot by Dad or mum photograph. I explained it to them but they just didn't get it. All I can say is trolls gotta troll and I have a block button.

Love this, Sean. Always the best when it comes to dissecting these kind of questions we all ask ourselves. 👏🏻 Also, that Elliott Erwitt Photo is my favorite example when people preach about cropping. I think he would just laugh if people ever questioned his work because of cropping.

Thanks Sean. I'm just a hobbyist but Cropping, dodging, and burner were techniques I learned in high-school back in the film days. I never learned how to remove objects so always felt bad about using the clone stamp to remove a distraction of something I didn't notice, but knowing it was done before in film makes me more at ease. Always enjoy your content.

The commenter you quoted talks about "reality", but he doesn't seem to realize that there is NO actual common reality, what I mean is, we all see and experience the world in our own individual way. When we are born we learn to interpret what our senses feed us, our interpretations are influenced greatly by our environment, our society, our experiences and our feelings at the time. In this respect we can say that there are over 7 billion versions of "reality" out there. We all have a unique "take" on so called reality. What I see and feel in an image you may not and vice versa. I see photography as producing images that portray what you want them to and what you like, there is no right or wrong, we are expressing our individuality. The bottom line... process your images all you like, or don't process them, it's up to you, there's no reason to call either stance right or wrong.

Well said , just enjoy the art and other peoples creative vision. Everyone has a process .

Hey if you can crop in with a zoom lens or "foot-zoom" then you can crop in after you take the shot. In my street photography I always shoot with a prime, like 35mm, so I tend to crop a lot. The only time it is unacceptable to add in or take out something is in crime scene photography.

I completely agree with you Sean. Still so many people thinks of photography as a way to show objective reality, it never was really, is always the photographer's reality. Even reality itself is different for everyone..

Sean's photography is so much different than my own. But there is no one more authentic, whose videos I enjoy more and whose KZfaq likes to dislikes is so high. Kudos.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you Sean for your words and your examples. I'm really struck by this particular image by Fan Ho.

Half the FUN of my photography is editing! That is ART.

Mr. Tucker - incredibly well done. People who think pros never used to retouch, crop, dodge and burn, have never been in a darkroom themselves and wanted to see their vision on paper. Why do they think Photoshop still uses the terminology from the film days? Its great to get it all right in camera, but few of us are Cartier-Bresson. Please keep up the excellent work.

You are absolutely right in reminding people that editing has always existed, and that it was, for some photographers (like Ansel Adams) a very important part of their work. There are a few things that should be noted though : 1) When people criticize editing and say that photography cannot be trusted anymore, they usually (apart from the few elitists) "criticize" people who take a snapshot of a landscape, and then add a different sky, a mountain, a few animals, sunrays, etc... That was not something you could do with analog. That is what they (and I include myself in it) mean when they say that you can't trust what you see anymore. When I see a film photography of a landscape, I know that the colors were there in the first place, and so were the clouds, and the other elements of the picture (except for double exposures but that's a different story). In this sense, they are right, I think. On a side note, I have 100 times more respect for the landscape photographers who take the time to have all the elements in the frame, who go back to the location again and again until the light is right, the sky is right, than I have for those who tweak everything in post. That amount of work, I think, should be "rewarded", distinguished from what I tend to call "visual art", not "photography". One example : Nick Brandt, who spent 17 days on the field with a Pentax 67 to take one picture of a lion. That deserves respect, I think. By the way, I do not despise "visual art", or "graphic design", whatever you want to call it. Some people, like Rafy A, produce amazing work in Photoshop. I just don't call it photography. 2) Retouching and editing was far more complicated in analog. Dodging and burning is pretty basic as a technique, but mastering it is something else, and it takes a lot of time and practice. Today, you can try millions of things without needing to go in and out of the darkroom, using a ton of paper. Another example : the hand on the Dorothea Lange picture is still visible, and so is the alarm clock. It's mostly gone, but it's still there. Today, you can make things completely disappear, and no one will know (the new content aware feature in PS is amazing for that). 3) You're right, it comes down to a choice we must all make. I have used PS a lot in the past. I have produced "moments" that were never really recorded in camera by compositing 2 images. I have taken people and objects out of a lot of pictures. I have retouched skin, a lot. But it has always bothered me, and I try to not do it anymore. I want to be more like the photographers whose work I admire, photojournalists in particular (McCullin, Burnett...). But I also follow people on Instagram whose work I can tell has been heavily edited, and I also admire their editing skills. I try not to judge people based on what choice they have made in terms of editing "philosophy". Ok, I rambled on enough :) As always, great content ! Take care of yourself in this time of quarantine. Cheers from France, Sam.

I still use a darksoom and shoot on film, as well as shooting digital. Shooting film, it has always been 50% in the field and 50% in the darkroom. Same applies to digital.

I love that part; “just don’t lie”

Summed up the debate on image editing perfectly Sean. If you are only concerned with the technical aspect of how an image is put together, to represent reality, then you are not creating anything new. When you stage or apply digital manipulation, to achieve your own subjective interpretation of an image, you are creating your own personal art and pushing the boundaries. We remember those photographers who broke the rules to create a new artistic vision, rather than those who aimed to be technically correct. To reinforce how long image manipulation has been around in the 1860's French photographer Gustove Le Gray joined two separate negatives, in his seascapes, to replace the sky and balance the tones with the sea in his final prints.

This touches on a debate I have seen ad nauseam on some websites. Thank you Sean for putting some common-sense perspective on it. I have spent some time researching the history of photography and can completely concur that cropping, editing and retouching have been around as long as it was technically possible to do so. So too has the debate if a photography is a work or art, a mechanical contrivance and if it is "the truth" - another great subject for a video, if I may be so bold. When I hear people say that a photo is not truthful I respond with the question "What is truth?". There are so many differences between what we perceive and what the camera captures that truth is a very dubious term to use. Just to name a few for still photographs: * We correct distortion & colour shift, the camera does not * Our eyes adapt to tonal differences, the camera less so * Our eyes scan continuously, a camera does not * The camera has no emotional attachments, we do * We see what we expect to see and ignore things we take for granted, the camera does not * Our brains isolate, the camera does not * We see in 3D, the camera captures in 2D - we need to create the illusion of depth with composition or by using dual cameras How we isolate * We have evolved as part of our survival and social demands to be selective in what we observe: * The brightest element - particularly useful for finding food * The strongest, most saturated, and warmest colours * Our brains have a bias towards green (hence the Bayer Array setup) * Sharp or well-defined or well-contrasted areas * Texture - hard light vs. soft light and back light * Contrasting movement and stillness * The largest element * Leading Curves and perspective lines - frame placement * People (esp. children, faces, eyes) or animals * Patterns attract us * We read text! So when one questions if what a photograph produces is "truth" or "accurate" we have to ask exactly in what context that is meant.

Over the span of these last few months, I have come to appreciate the style and content of your videos. They are quite enjoyable ... well executed ... thought provoking ... and in my opinion, a breath of fresh air in this world of photography related youtubery. Thank you!

That was 19 mins incredibly well spent as I consumed a late supper. I remember reading a long time ago that a writer should either do something worth writing about or write something worth reading. Perhaps the modern video analog of that would be to do something worth making a video about or make content worth watching. You have succeeded on all fronts. This video essay simply resonated with me. Thank you.

I just now found this video, and all I can say is, Bravo!! The more I photos I take, the more I see of other photographer's work, the more I am convinced that "get it right in the camera" is a disservice to the art. There is no "right" or "wrong." There should only be what we see - in our MIND'S eye. All else is just documentation. And for me, personally, documentation is boring. I'm not the greatest photographer / artist in the world (far from it), but I don't worry about that any more than I worry about how other people edit or don't edit their photos. BTW, my experience has been that people who go on and on about we shouldn't edit our images are often not being honest with us or themselves. The problem isn't so much their opinion that we shouldn't edit photos as it is they don't know how and refuse to learn (loved that part of the video). Thanks for doing such a great job of putting into words things I've felt for a very long time. Love the channel, BTW.

Photography is not about making a complement to nature; it's about making a compliment to nature.

Probably the best use of 19 minutes ever on KZfaq. Bravo Sean. Class content as always. Thanks

Three hoorays Sean, totally agree with you! I want to put my stamp on MY photographes, that’s MY art, not someone elses. And I’m totally open about what I do in post.

"And in the post production you can use all the tools available. The choice is yours." Thanks! Very much to the point.

Awesome Sean. Integrity is key. Disclose honestly how you do things. Most hateful comments comes from lack of knowledge or fear. I love to edit, it's winter 11.9 months a year here in Canada :) So it's not always fun to go out. So during those colds days I dig up older images and work some creative edits on them in. To me it's an added layer of creativity, another opportunity for photographers to show their vision.

Thanks Sean for addressing this rather controversial issue. It is an important conversation to have. I tried posting on National Geograohic's website some time ago but quit because I could not in good conscience follow their very definite guidelines that they only wanted images that had very little to no post processing, straight out of the camera. Their statement was that they only wanted to see the image as I had seen it. This is odd because it is often the case that only after post processing that the image truely captures what I saw. Best, Mel

That Arnold Newman example speaks wonders! I love the way you integrate the history of photography in this video! Delightful as always.

I was one of those critics that didn't approve the work of other photographers just cause they used more editing than I did. Thank God I get rid of all those prejudies, two years ago this video would helped me so much, this need to be shared.

I tell people this constantly. Photoshop is the digital dark room. I can't begin to imagine how difficult dodge and burn in a dark room or to create a composite. Truly amazing.

I just had a relatable conversation with a photographer friend of mine. He was talking about shooting with film, portrait photography, and the lens and camera he used to produce the photo. Very little was spoken of in terms of the actual merits of the photo itself, but he felt it necessary to qualify the photo with the process. I'm not one to judge whether a photo is good or bad, but my philosophy is that you should stand by your work and let the photograph speak for themselves. Then some Q&A if you would like! Loving the content, style, delivery, perspectives and everything between. Keep it up!

Thank you for making this video. "Don't lie about how you got it." great advice. Starting out as an amateur trying to figure how people get the results, then realizing they did not actually do it "in camera" was a real eye opener. I don't care at all how someone edits, but it is enlightening to know how the artist got there. Really great thoughts and ideas here. Really enjoy your videos.

I have to agree with GVP in his description of the process of photography. I have found that my photos are rarely what I see with my eyes no matter how good the lens or the camera is supposed to be. I spend my time post processing to make my photos more in line with what I thought I saw when I took the photo. We also have to remember that our own minds post process images we see with our eyes constantly. Our mental post processing is happening very quickly so it isn’t like we always see an image that slowly improves as our mind chugs along. That same mental image can be mentally processed over and over as our biases and perceptions change the memory of that image as times goes on. I admit, I don’t like images that have the color enhanced far beyond reality could ever be and yet I have done it over and over myself, thinking I was improving the photo. I really liked this vlog! Sean made some really great observations.

This episode should get the KZfaq Video of the Year Award ... it has in my mind!

"Nobody bothers how you got the image" .Great Sean. You have explained in a different way. Thanks.

I've had this so much through my career. My images are not meant to be 'real-life' they are polished versions of what I want to represent, yet I get lots of criticism about 'It's all Photoshop'... I honestly don't care though, I didn't 'ASK' for an opinion so it is simply ignored... Great advice as always Sean, I do really appreciate your down to earth, modest approach to Photography...

Dodging, burning and cropping were darkroom skills I learned in the 1970's. I wasn't very good at it. I can't tell you how good it made me feel the first time I pushed the shadows slider in lightroom and it made a difference as to how much better it made the photo look. I've digitized some of my negatives from back when and it is so nice to re-edit those pictures using photoshop and lightroom. Having the edit appear on a screen as opposed to watching it show up on photo paper is luxury.

Taking a complex issue and making it comprehensible. Thank you.

Love this. I can't believe this has ever been an argument, taking the photo is only half the job.

Walking with a friend he told me "Look, is that the same dog i saw the other day? i think it was white, not yellow". He was wearing yellow tinted sun glasses. You don't need photoshop to alter reality. Do you wear makeup? Do you place the light in a certain position maybe to hide some imperfections in the shadows? Do you arrange objects in a scene, or move with your camera to a certain angle to avoid or hide some elements in your composition? Do you shoot at 200mm? Do you use a shallow dof? Do you use long shutter speeds? Do you use color or gradient nd filters? Then where's the line? Just Lightroom but not Photoshop? Do you realize how much a picture can change just by using basic controls in Lightroom? You can alter the mood of a scene just by changing the white balance. You can hide elements in the shadows just by tweaking your exposure and contrast. Or as i read in previous comments, the same process of converting a raw picture into a jpg involves a lot of changes in the color representation. Of course i think there are moral limits, and that's just what Sean said: you shouldn't deceive. It depends on the kind of photography we do. But maybe we shouldn't liquify all the beautiful girls in the magazines because it affects badly on our perception of reality, and it may ruin young girls mental and physical health.

Great video Sean. Those people who gave it a thumbs down, this video is for YOU! Artistic licensing is a thing!

Photographers just need to chill out and get out there, have fun and take photos for THEIR own pleasure instead of shooting what they think others will like. Those that harp on about 'real' photography and criticize, those that edit, or those dont shoot film, or don't produce full-frame images, funnily enough, they NEVER seem to have an online portfolio or have their images published so we can see their work :-). This is another great video Sean thanks for making it, ♥ Sean in Belfast

I love how honest and calm you are about this kind of stuff. I discovered your channel about two hours ago and I haven't taken a break since. Great views on photography as an art form and great tips. Thanks, man.

4:42 "He just presented an image to the world and said: enjoy!"

Great messages here Sean. These are debates we are always confronted with and it is great to have some evidence to show this is nothing new. It is these techniques that enable us to become artists. Thank you.

Sean, I am in the main a black and white film photographer, (I also use digital and my phone) I love the fact that I shoot, develop and scan my own images which are then edited in photoshop. Its a beautiful process that works for me. However in another life as a product photographer before the days of photoshop all images had to be perfect before being accepted for printing. I just wish all those years ago I could have tweaked my images to prevent the wasted time re-shooting products. Having the ability to edit images yourself is an absolute miracle and a must in todays world...great video as always

If you turn off all the image profiles, sharpness and contrast settings in the camera, you will get a very flat image profile which doesnt look like real life either. The real world is very hard to capture accurately or objectively anyway, and to get it close to what you 'see' takes post processing, and some people dont know that modern cameras do post processing as well.

Ansel Adams Quotes. “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” IMO - photography is art. A photograph is a work of art. Every medium has a process. If you edit, you edit, if you don’t then you don’t. For me, as an armature/enthusiasts, trying to get better and better. I spend hours studying photography. I use the editing process to learn how my composition could have been better, or how I should’ve set the camera in a specific lighting condition so that the next time I’m faced with a similar situation, I will have a better idea of how to take the shot. Editing helps me learn.

Absolutely. Vote with your feet, not with your fists. Jamie Windsor did a similarly video a while back - some of the most iconic photos ever are cropped, dodged, burnt, tidied. As long as there isn't a lie in the process then allow people to make their own opinions on what they see.

I agree with everything you said i hope all of us will listen, most who take pictures and develop their own prints take bigger shot than they need to for cropping. You know as i know who developed their own prints 35 mm do not fit most pager sizes, so people lie that they don't crop when they do in printing. The do not chop the papers to fit each shot, they just print over size to make it fit and what looks right. I was dogging and burning in 1964 using 35 mm ILFORD FILM, I always used to say look at the picture of a landscape i don't care where it is just it's a nice picture.

You know (and I've said this in the odd video... and I do make some odd videos), I find that attitude all the time and it is one that really annoys me. What they're actually saying is "this is what photography is and if you don't do it the way I want you to do it, you're not a photographer." It's utter claptrap. It's gatekeeping of the highest order when photography at its purest is really an art form. The final image you get has to be one that is pleasing to you and your audience. What's worse, many of the people who say this seem to produce the most pedestrian photos because... well, they're not editing them. The image is everything. If you can't be pleased with your final image beyond knowing that you got the technicalities right, that image is not going to connect with your audience. Unfortunately, editing is a big part of the photography process, especially when shooting Raw. In fact, it always has been, right from the early days of the technology (it's worth visiting Lacock Abbey to see the history of photography exhibition and see this in action). Photography is not just getting everything right technically. It's about getting the image right, transplanting the world inside your head onto the screen/page. Nothing about it is 'natural'. The very process of exposing a chemically soaked material to light (or nowadays, an electronic sensor) means that it can't be. Editing isn't about making bad photos good and somehow cheating to get people's attention. It's about producing an image that will inspire and delight your audience. It's about producing art the way you want your art to be. So, be the guy who never edits their photos. That's fine! But, don't complain that others aren't doing things the way you want them to. You do you and let others do what they want.

“Just show us compelling photos!” My guy!

After viewing this video I have to say AMEN BROTHER ! I couldn't have said it better. In my opinion editing your work is what makes photography a true art form. I really enjoy your videos and this is one of your best. Photographers need to stop worrying what and how others choose to create there photos and just enjoy them or move on. 🤔🤔🤔 😁📸😁 Thanks for all your hard work.

I love your honesty bru. Art is personal. Shoot, edit, create however YOU want to. It's your process

I’ve been waiting for a vid on this subject from you. Nice one.

From now on, I'm just going to post my RAW images and hope people like them. Hehe.

Hi Sean, this has been VERY insightful and couldn’t agree more. Thanks for sharing this. I have been reading Ansel Adams 3 volume photography book series and it has been very inspiring (aside from being also very educational) how he methodically made (not just took) his images, from camera, to development (negative) to darkroom (print). But to your point, even comparing ourselves to Ansel doesn’t make sense as we each have to decide for ourselves what our vision and goal is and how much we want to process/modify our images according to our (artistic) purpose and vision.

late on the comment but for a long time I heard "don't use presets"....another you tuber released 5 of his presets for free. I really enjoy his work so I though what the heck, I'll see what it does. It opened a whole new approach for me. I was amazed at how hist approach/preset really opened up on my images in certain situations. I learned a ton from it. Im just a hobbyist and make no money from photography. Nor do I publish anything (even on social media), but when showing my photos to my family over the holidays i even told them that the inspiration was from one of the guys I learn from on KZfaq. Having watched this, Im glad I did. Im continually amazed by your content. Please continue to share your philosophical approach to photography but more so to life itself.

This, this, and more of this!

Where does someone get off sending you that bloody email in the first place 🤨😠. I don’t see many art reviews of the impressionists criticising them for being too abstract. You can like an image or not like an image, the rest just feels like bitterness to me. Good video though Sean 👍

What a fantastic post Sean. I love your respect and honesty. Keep it up, thanks for giving to the community.

Well said Sean. We all have our own interpretation. Go with whats right for you

I edit my images because I want you, the viewer, to see what I saw in the moment of its creation.

Can I hit the “I like button” one million times? I’m so fed up with all the art fundamentalists. Let artists do what the feel they have to do! There are no rules in art.

I think you hit the nail on the head (As usual) "Be Honest" I don't care what people do, it's their image to change if they want to as long as you don't claim it's documentary, I take pictures and view them as raw material (no pun intended) to hopefully produce something pleasing at some point, sometimes it's months later before I find an image in a shot...

Preach it brother. Michelangelo never took a slab of marble from the quarry and just put it on a pedestal for people to see just as Ansel Adams never just collected some light from Yosemite and put it on a piece of paper. Each gathered in the field the resources they needed and turned them into works of art back at their studio.

In my early 20s - 1970s - I worked in a camera store and did custom B&W editing and printing for people. They could bring in their print and film, tell me what they wanted, and I did the darkroom work that the commercial photo labs didn't do. Similarly, my wife's father did wedding photography and her mother did the retouching in the days when B&W prints were touched up with pastel paints. Then when my son got into photography a few years ago he was all very pure and 'straight out of camera' was his catch-cry. It was time to tell him his family's history. :) He learned post processing and these days he produces the most extraordinary images that I sometimes wonder if we really are his parents after all. One of the things I send people towards when I hear the SOOC argument is this site that shows how some of the world great photographers marked up their proofs for darkroom editing to produce their iconic images. petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

20min with a coffee, avoiding a list of jobs to be done well spent as always.

Ansel Adams never hide his process, he wrote well regarded volumes on his process.

If it is 'elitist' to crop, alter light & dark in an image then there goes Stieglitz, Eduard J Steichen and their contemporaries and the ground breaking magazine 'Camera Works' that moved photography from being seen by critics as a simple recording device to a machine driven system that, through the combined skill of the photographer and their expertise in the darkroom, could be named as art. A little learning of the history of photography (and it is an art to produce great memorable images) which did not start with the point and shoot, and for those who consider so would not find it a waste of time to read a little history of one of the first images judged to be so. Winter - Fifth Avenue (1892) cropped & edited by Alfred Stieglitz. Brilliant video Mr Tucker.

"The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer

Everyone: editing photos is wrong Steve McCurry: hold my Kodachrome

If you want to see the world as it is, just look out of the window. I'm trying to transport an emotion. And absolutely am I using post processing to put a focus of what I'm feeling in that moment. By showing your images you're exposing yourself. It's an intimate moment. That's what makes images distinct. Otherwise I'd just read the papers.

This was a very convicting video. In my early days I was very heavy handed with my editing to compensate for being a lousy and lazy shooter. When I realized that was what I was doing, I worked harder on shooting better and like Sean pointed out, using editing to elevate my shots. He is right in that its a balance of using all the tools available. This was an awesome reminder.

I have to say I'm shocked actually. It's 2019 and there are still people out there who consider editing is a thing next to crime? We do photography for arts (whatever the purpose of the art is, from business to self-satisfaction). Life never gives you chances on a golden plate; One MUST edit to make that golden plate true. Heck, even when one opens a RAW file, they are actually editing even without changing any variable in the editor because it's raw data and shaped by the editor to some default parameters. Please, anyone reading this and think that editing is not real art or real photography, and you own a camera: Sell it. You need this money for something else. Trust me.

Internet: "Real photography never did ANY post-processing" Sean: "Lie detector says... THAT was a lie"

THIS. IS. SUPER. Thank you again for the wisdom! More power to Sean Tucker!

Photoshop came by necessity not at the suggestion of Adobe. So what do we do with Van Gogh? Attack him because he did not "faithfully" paint reality? Of course not. So what do we do with the movies? Many times we are seeing one that has us hooked and we do not know why, but then we realize that it is the colors, the makeup, the sound (especially this one) that in real life is not there. Excellent argument and very good subject, Sean.

Dabbing On Haters: The Musical

And I was just about to log out from KZfaq for the evening...

I very much doubt anybody else could have said this any better. Thank you Sean.

Just want to add, I think Sean is of the most eloquent speakers on photography and filmmaking I have come across.

people like the original writer of that email are the reason I wasn't interested in photography. that snobbery and gatekeeping are a huge putdown... now, IDGAF

the writer of that initial quote should never, ever, ever look at an Ansel Adams image again. YOU ARE HEREBY BANNED.

All artists shape their images. I started in film, developing my own negatives, printing my own images, and chose my film and paper to influence the end result. I dodged and burned and cropped almost all of my images. I was also trained and worked as a retoucher, taking out thousands of pimples, and under-eye bags, and wrinkles by painting on negatives - digital is like magic!

The honesty card is the only one that matters for me. No shame in doing composition instead of photography as long as you're honest. Perfectly summed up how I feel about these arts since I started learning about them.