Home › Forums › Photography Q&A › Photo Manipulation: How much is too much? › Reply To: Photo Manipulation: How much is too much?
I personally do not think that you “crossed the line” with your editing of this photo. I think you’ve made some great improvements that simply make it a more appealing picture to look at, but you have not made it look unnatural or unrealistic. This is a great topic for discussion and one I have pondered in my mind many times. Where we draw that “line” is going to vary from one individual to the next according to our particular goals and artistic expression. For the individual who only wants to portray a scene exactly as it was seen in person, there is going to be very little room for “photo manipulation”. On the other extreme there are individuals who simply have the idea of starting with a photo and turning it into whatever artistic design they perceive in their imagination. Unfortunately, most individuals that gravitate to that extreme are usually following the twisted thinking of the carnal mind and their “art” becomes at best unrealistic and at worst extremely vulgar. As Christians our goal is to glorify God in all we do and that of course includes photography. So when photo manipulation gets us to the point that we are no longer glorifying God, then it obviously becomes wrong. But I personally feel there is a lot of room for photo manipulation and artistic expression that falls easily within the realm of still bringing glory to God. In my photography, my goal is to portray a scene in a way that is pleasing to look at and displays God’s Creation in an attractive manner. In a sense “photo manipulation” begins when we set up a composition and begin taking shots of a scene. For example if you use “forced perspective” where you take a wide angle lens and get real close to your foreground subject to make it appear larger than it is, you are in a sense “manipulating” the scene. Have you ever been taking pictures when family and friends were with you and later when you show them your photos they say, “Well, I was there when you took that picture, but it didn’t look like that to me!” What have you done? You’ve taken a scene that was already beautiful, but you’ve created an attractive photo by “manipulating” the scene into an appealing composition. So in my mind, editing a photo is really no different. If I can remove some distractions or do something in post processing to further enhance the scene, then why not? As long as the photo is still realistic and portrays God’s Creation in a way that is attractive and natural looking. Recently I had the opportunity to take some photos in Badlands National Park. This sunset photo appealed to me for several reasons, but I was not totally happy with the composition. It seemed off balance and I decided that it would look better if the sun was on the left side of the photo instead of the right. So… time for some “photo manipulation”! I simply reversed the top portion of the photo to make what I feel is a much better composition. The photo appears more “balanced” and the predominant leading lines point toward the setting sun instead of away from it. Of course, there are those purists who would be appalled at the fact that the sunset is now “backwards” from what it was in person. But in my opinion, I took a composition that was lacking and improved it into something much better and made a photo that I find much more appealing to look at. It’s not bizarre and unrealistic. It’s not a different sunset from a different day and a different place. It’s the same beautiful scene that was in front of me that evening but I simply “corrected” my composition in post processing. And also, like you Benjamin, I took out a few little “distractions” that I though took away from the beauty of the scene. So personally, I love photo manipulation because it allows me to make improvements to a photo. But I absolutely hate photo manipulation when it is used to created bizarre and freaky images that portray a twisted concept of that which God created.