I woke up with my morning coffee to these thoughts: “Overprocessing images can sometimes compromise the integrity of the image and do more harm than necessary. Here are several reasons why one should refrain from over-editing their images.” I thought to myself, “I need to caffeinate further before finishing this article” and took a big gulp of my coffee.
I asked my mega-talented colleague, Zhen Siang Yang, if he would mind me writing a rebuttal article, and of course, he graciously agreed to the writing banter. Now that I’m caffeinated, it’s game on: why I disagree with the criticism on “over editing.”
My work is highly retouched. When I say “highly,” I mean Burj Khalifa level. I’m neurotic. My images are so polished that people hire me for this very reason. “We love how clean your images are” is in most booking requests that I receive. Here are three reasons I think “over editing” is not actually a valid criticism and why it may even be a good tool in your own toolbox.
1. Commercial Work Has the Expectation of Perfection
When was the last time you saw a Bud Light ad with a dented can or a luxury hotel ad with a weed peeking through the sidewalk? In Yang’s article, he writes, “As full-time professional commercial photographers, we are often guilty of the pursuit of perfection in images. We should realize that over-editing can often blur the line between artistry and reality, diluting the authenticity that originally made the photograph meaningful.”
In my experience, commercial clients are not concerned with the authenticity or meaningfulness of an image. The expectation of the imagery is impeccability. From using glue for milk, glycerin for water, and frequency separation for the “glowing” effect of a skincare serum—flawlessness is generally the expectation for commercial photography, not authenticity.
I recently finished a retouching job for Coors Light. I was hired to edit five images for their next campaign. The retouching directions were longer than my nephew’s Christmas list! The 13-page PowerPoint of retouching directions included filling thinning hair, swapping skies, brightening skin, compositing, and removing wrinkles and logos from clothing, among other directives. I can say from experience that most brands expect perfection, not authenticity, in commercial work.
Sure, there are plenty of cases where photographers become sloppy with their compositions, knowing they can “fix it in post.” I don’t agree with this type of lazy photography. Having great editing skills should never be an excuse for poor photography. I’ve written an article about that topic here. Setting that scenario aside, post-processing skills can be a good tool when you want to alter your photograph to make it more balanced. My friend Anne (who you might recognize from Patagonia’s documentary Life Of Pie) recently came back from a shoot and shared this:
Typically, on a mountain bike shoot, I have the opportunity to ask for multiple takes, 5 to 10. On this one, Tim didn’t honestly know if he could make the distance, and therefore, we may have only one take. Because of that, I went in with the mentality to play things safe. I didn’t know exactly where he would be in the frame, so I shot vertically and relatively wide. Also, I shot with a narrower aperture than I would have normally so that I felt safe with my focal distance. With a busy background like that, I would want to shoot wide open to hide the distractions and allow the subject to stand out. The background looks busy and not as blurred out as I would have liked. It didn’t allow the subject to pop.
In this case, the editing allowed her to get the scene she had wanted, without all the visual distractions she had to accommodate, having only one chance to capture the image.
3. “Authenticity” Doesn’t Trump Artistic Expression
If we are talking photojournalism, of course, authenticity is the paramount priority. Steve McCurry’s venerated career is a good example of this. Outside of the documentary realm, though, who wrote the rule that artists should hold “authenticity” as the paramount, untouchable priority of imagery?
In his acclaimed book Art and Fear, David Bayles penned:
Art has no boundaries, let your imagination run wild.
Why do so many artists feel the need to wag their finger at artists who make art differently than theirs? Do we need to walk through art history again? Each artist has their own values. For a documentary photographer, the primary value of their imagery may be to tell an unaltered story. For an AI artist, it may be to create the most fantastical image their mind can conjure. For a commercial photographer, it may be to deliver impeccable images that assist in sales. Wedding photographers may have emotion as a primary value, while landscape photographers’ may prioritize beauty. No one is wrong. Art is not wrong.
In Conclusion
I’m writing the conclusion of this article as I’m waiting to board a plane from Paris.
I had on my agenda to indulge in a full day at the Louvre. Many paintings, which line the walls as the most revered artworks in history, were once considered rejected by their peers as “wrong.” The argument that this is leading to has been made so ad nauseam that I would consider it an insult to our readers’ education to go through its history. Having said that, why are so many articles written as variations of “This way is wrong; if you don’t do it my way, you should change”?
Here’s my perspective: edit, don’t edit. Over-edit, under-edit… hell, at this point, if you want to edit upside down and inside out… do that! If the image reflects what you want to create, make it. If someone doesn’t like it, tell them not to look at it. You’re an artist; you have the right to make whatever art you want, in whatever way you want. If someone makes their art in a different way, one or the other is not wrong.
This is my perspective, and for the foreseeable future, I plan to continue “over-editing” so well, it may just prompt you to take the product off the shelf and put it in your basket!
