Do you think that it is wrong for photographers to crop or other-wise edit they're photo's?

Question

Why or why not?
http://www.myspace.com/ashlins_photography

What i mean by Cropping or editing.. is changing the coloring a little. or like on land scapes if you got something in the picture that you dont want should you crop the picture or simply trash it?

I am asking this question because i do edit my pictures. i was just wondering if you more expeirienced photographers thought it was right or wrong.
I'm 14 and i was just asked to be my church's photographer because my youth pastor saw the pictures that i entered in a county fair. and fell in love with my pictures.
i was just wondering if it was wrong to edit because it does mean you are a less talented photographer if you must crop your pictures.

Answer 1

It's a personal decision. Having grown up on 35mm and not being a professional or having my own darkroom cropping wasn't even a consideration. Now that I shoot work digitally and have more control, I'm still at odds. I have no problem with adjusting levels, contrast saturation, etc but I still don't crop. Its ridiculous not to though if a picture can be improved by cropping. Now if the photograph is used for journalistic work, I have very different feelings.

Answer 2

In classic photo journalism photography, it is ill-considered to crop a picture. This is due to the fact that the photographer should have utilized all of his or her creative and artistic faculties to capture the story perfectly in the negative at the moment of shooting the picture, requiring no cropping at all. Minor editing such as emphasis of light to interpret the picture in the darkroom is considered OK.

However, in the digital age, and that means photo editing on computers, it is permissible to crop when necessary and to interpret the photograph using the tools of photoshop and other programs. However, cropping and editing to cover up latent mistakes in the original picture is not generally accepted. If a picture is intially a good composition and technically a decent exposure, one can utilize the full range of artistic opportunities to render an original work of art.
Just to use digital tools for their own sake is not artistry. To use them to enhance the artist's original vision is OK.

A photograph must have vision and be able to "see" deeply into the nature of the subject, then interpret that photograph in the full light of consciousness, objectivity and understanding. A compssionate heart helps a lot.

Answer 3

Yes and no. For artistic reasons it may be necessary to alter a picture. You may want to change the shading or make the scene look better. If you are altering a picture of a person (putting a head or someone else's body, making a person look like a different race, making someone look thinner or heavier than they really are) I believe that the photographer should have express permission to do this to the person's image. Right now people are only asked to sign a blanket release statement for the pictures to be published. Legally the photographer has the right to do pretty much what he or she pleases with the pictures. It is also up to the consumer. I am assuming you are asking because of recent events in magazines where celebrity images have been altered. If we stop purchasing magazines or products that use altered images they will stop.

Answer 4

Is it wrong to use a colored filter? Isn't that changing what should really be in the photograph? Editing is just one of a photographer's many tools; and, as an artist, the photographer dictates the use of each image. A purist may decide not to edit at all, while a digital scrapbooker or graphic artist will routinely edit, crop, change colors, etc.

Answer 5

I should point out that photographers that use film and develop their own film adjust colors and contrast and even crop sometimes for better composition. So if your using a digital and putting them on your computer...adjusting them to your preferences is just the same as developing your own pictures in the labs.
My digital doesn't pick up colors the same as the naked eye sees them...so i adjust my pics to what looks natural to me.
It's not wrong by any means.
I wondered the same thing as you for awhile.
Good luck with your photography! It's such a great (but can get expensive) hobby!

Answer 6

Is it wrong for an artist using oils to paint a portrait with green? It's an artistic expression. Now, if is used in journalism, it should represent the truth so altering a photo in such a way that it no longer shows the facts would be wrong. But it's still done. Time Magazine has altered cover photos to make their political favorites look better and those they disagree with look worse.

Answer 7

Absolutely not! Sometimes cropping is the only way to get a good image. The important thing is that the photo present the information on it in an artistic way. If a little cropping focuses the attention where it belongs, that's all to the good.

Answer 8

in case you have Microsoft residing house windows, use the window viewer or Microsoft Editor. good click on the photograph you prefer to edit, click 'open with' decide for between the above. yet another window will open with your photograph interior it, there you've the small tabs to edit and alter the dimensions of your photograph and so forth. Or, you need to use the trial version of ACDsee, examine it on the internet via clicking in seek.

Answer 9

If it's ART that you're producing then you can do (almost) anything you want. ALMOST - because some things are just considered 'tasteless' by most people. Still, it is YOUR decision since YOU're the artist.

If it's JOURNALISM you can still crop and enhance colors but you should NOT distort or remove things from the pic or add anything that wasn't there in reality. Journalistic photography should show what's really there.

Answer 10

Don't be stupid.
A real photographer is going to do whatever is necessary to make the photograph worth of his/her art. This includes adjustments, cropping, resizing, re-coloring, de-coloring, background replacement, and outright distrortion.
Art is art, and can't really be held to anyone's whim or definition.