How much editing is too much editing?
A jumping Lechwe - limited editing and a slight crop applied
Happy New year!
All my photos are shot in Raw. Raw is the unprocessed and lossless image data collected by the camera’s sensor when exposed to light. Unlike JPEGs, this ensures that more image data such as tonal ranges and colour information is preserved. JPEGs are processed in camera, where the camera will make automatic decisions on sharpening, contrast to be applied, and level of colour saturation and the like. This limits the data captured and the flexibility in subsequent editing. Raw files on the other hand requires post processing to bring out the image to its full potential. So, rather than letting the camera make the decisions around how to process and present a photo, I have that full control in front of the computer after the event. This is clearly more time consuming, but also gives me the freedom to interpret the scene and the event as I like.
This image has had limited editing and a slight crop applied
Sitting in front of the computer with modern powerful photo editing software gives me a lot of options as to how to present and bring out the ‘best’ in an image. I can crop, change contrast and exposure, apply sharpening, manipulate white balance, apply selective changes, and also remove distracting features and much more. This is where the endless debate kicks in around what constitutes an accurate depiction of the subject in the image and what – with many edits applied – becomes less of a genuine representation of the scene and more art. The internet is full of discussions on this topic with as many different opinions as there are pixels in a full frame image.
The removal of some branches of another tree to the left made this a more balanced composition
Some people are purists in terms of editing, refusing to crop and only apply minimal changes before declaring an image processed and final. For them, it is all about ‘getting it right in camera’, on the spot, on location. If you have to crop, well, you just weren’t close enough and too few of the potential pixels landed on the subject, so it is a sub-optimal image in their opinion. Others take editing to the other end and make no excuses about the fact that the image is heavily processed. Many beautiful photography books of wildlife contain heavily edited images and you can be in awe about both the photography and editing skills that went into the publication.
Un-cropped but a couple of tiny but distracting branches removed from the right hand side - half way up
Where do I stand? I’m relaxed. I have my own guidelines about what I’m happy with which work for me. And, I won’t criticise anyone for how they edit their photos – what works for them, is fine by me. This is not a debate I want to spend too much energy on. Below is a table which tries to explain how I categorise and think about degrees of editing and what makes me feel good about my images or not. And ultimately that is what counts – what do you feel good about? Let’s say you have printed and framed a stunning scene of a leopard attacking an antelope against a ferocious red sunset with crocodiles yapping at the leopard’s feet in the foreground. A truly awesome shot. Well, was that what you saw through the viewfinder with minimal editing in post? Or, is this a composite of multiple shots put together with a dramatic sky replacement AI tool? Were the leopard, the antelope and the crocs even in the same vicinity – let alone at that spot at that time? If the latter, whilst I could admire the editing skills and the creative art elements of the framed picture, it would not be something that would give me much satisfaction. But, these are two extreme ends of a flexible editing spectrum. Here are my five broad categories of editing:
Editing Category
Adjustments
My Satisfaction Level
1. Ultimate in-camera capture
Minor edits such as sharpening, limited localised dodge/burn, limited saturation, subtle contrast/curves, normal noise reduction etc, no cropping
Very high – I was close enough to the wildlife / right lens choice, and the framing, exposure, sharpness and DoF is beautifully captured
2. Competition entry
Sharpening, white balance, dodge/burn, saturation, contrast/curves, noise reduction, dust removal, crop to enhance framing (within good pixel density parameters)
Still Very high – a bit more editing and likely some cropping, but a very strong image I would be proud to enter into a competition (although that rarely gets me any accolades ;-)
3. Subject optimisation
As above, but with selective editing such as subtle blurring of background to better isolate subject or removal of distracting features not part of or essential to the situation or main subject, such as distracting peripheral elements (e.g. branches, reflections, other background/parts of other animals). This could also be the conscious and deliberate act of shooting two or more frames for the purpose of focus stacking or the like.
High – the main subject is the purpose of the shot, and with wildlife there are often some distracting features – that’s nature for you. I will still be mighty proud of a photo in this category, although it would fall foul of most competition rules.
4. Subject Repair Improvement
As above, but with a level of editing using cloning, healing, in-painting to enhance the core subject matter of the shot (e.g. removing a branch crossing the animal’s body or face, adding cut-off wing-tips on a bird in flight etc)
It depends – it can be High if the scene is really special, such as a unique action scene or a behaviour of an animal that is rare to observe. Otherwise, Medium/Low and with a tinge of regret.
5. Subject Creation
As above, but with cloning of subject(s), adding of subjects into a frame from another frame, extensive scene alterations (e.g. sky replacement)
Low – I would not entertain making the effort in post-production to create such images.
Let’s look at a few examples with the unprocessed Raw next to the edited version (click on an image to enlarge it and use arrows to compare):
The above shot of this female Leopard in a tree has minimal editing and no crop applied. The framing with the lens choice works very well. Although this type of shot is not in the majority as I often choose a crop. Mostly this cropping is minimal, but it enhances the end-product. I will often choose to go a bit wider if I can to allow myself the flexibility to select a crop in editing. With high mega-pixel cameras this is a great benefit.
The above shot of Pied Kingfishers was taken from a moving boat handheld at 700mm focal length. This type of Raw file can be quite typical particularly for bird shots (although mostly with the subject more centred! I blame the moving boat ;-). Getting close to wildlife is always a challenge and a respectful distance is often required not to disturb the animal. Modern high pixel sensors are a blessing for these situations, allowing significant cropping whilst retaining enough data for a printable image (the new Nikon 800m Z PF lens would help too – but the waiting list is very long).
Above is a composite of two images I am more than comfortable with as it was a conscious decision to create a focus stacked composite whilst on location. This pair of Black-backed Barbets in Zambia landed on a tree 10 meters or so away from my makeshift hide. I focused on each bird in turn and took a few shots with the plan to combine two of them in post to get both birds in focus whilst keeping a shallow overall depth of field. This technique can work well, and I have used it on a few occasions.
This is an interesting one. I struggled to get a good shot of this Red-throated Twinspot as it jumped around on the ground between leaves, until I caught it flying up to a branch. The background was a bit harsh and the scene a bit messy. For me, this is a satisfactory final image as a good reference shot of a bird I had not come across before and will likely not see for a long while. I have removed several branches around the bird to make the Twinspot stand out more, but no cloning out has affected the subject itself. Will it win any prices? Nope, but for my collection of shots of different bird species it ticks the box.
Now this one is more interesting. We were tracking two mating Leopards for several hours as they went through their ritual in the bush. At one point the female made herself comfortable on a mound and we had a great shooting angle from below at a sensible distance when the male arrived for a bit of action. The morning light was beautiful. The only fly-in-the-ointment was a number of branches in front of the Leopards’ position. Nothing we could do about that sitting in the Landrover. It was a mesmerising sight – seeing these two Leopards in such an intimate setting. I had no option than to shoot through the branches, knowing full well that this would need some care and attention in post-editing. Among other edits, I had to carefully remove a highly disrupting branch which crossed the male Leopard’s body and lower face. A tricky and finicky edit. Am I happy with the result? You bet. It was an unforgettable encounter with wildlife and the resulting image reflects that.
Photography in the digital age has provided us a lot of freedom to explore any image captured and to tell a story that was much more difficult to achieve in the analogue age. Do I miss the Velvia slide frames and the heart-pumping first look with the loupe on the lightbox … only with a little nostalgia. The knowledge that I now can look at the image on the computer and start to think through how to optimise it further is a great benefit.
Finally, in what category does this great Osprey shot fit? … see image legend below …
Can you see it? The right side wing tips were slightly cut off … salvaged from an earlier shot in the sequence and gently added … too much editing?