WHEN IS EDITING NOT EDITING?
PTD guidelines are an attempt to articulate ethical conscripts to the images we create if they are going to be submitted for competition and/or exhibition. The goal of the guidelines is to define some kind of elusive concept of “truth in photography.” That “truth” is what the camera records. President Schnelzer, in the May 2023 issue of the PSA Journal writes: “Today we face new and on-going abilities to change what the camera sees.” The ever-increasing power of editing programs for post-processing as well as the advent of Artificial Intelligence with their ability to change what the camera sees and consequently, change what the truth is, present ethical challenges that we, as photographers must consider so that we can retain our artistic creativity while maintaining the truth in what the camera sees.
Recognizing that challenge, the PTD (Photo Travel Division) has produced guidelines that members may use as they utilize those editing programs so that they still maintain that elusive truth in photography. They are:
ALLOWED EDITING TECHNIQUES
- Cropping straightening and perspective correction
- Removal or correction of elements added by the camera lens, such as dust spots, noise, chromatic aberration, and lens distortion.
- Global and selective adjustments such as brightness, hue, saturation, and contrast to restore the natural conditions of the original scene.
- Complete conversion of color images to greyscale or monochrome
- blending of multiple images of the same subject and combining them in camera or with software (such as exposure blending or focus stacking)
- image stitching-combining multiple images with overlapping fields of view that are taken consecutively (panoramas)
EDITING TERCHNIQUES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
- Removing, adding to, or changing any part of an image, except for cropping or straightening
- Adding a vignette during processing
- Darkening parts of the image during processing to hide elements in the original scene.
- All conversions other than to complete greyscale or monochrome
- Conversion of parts of an image to monochrome, or partial toning, de-saturation, or over-saturation of color
However, those guidelines, flexible as they may be, may not go far enough, and may require further “tweaking.” Consider this example:
In the recent past, I submitted the image below of the abandoned City Hall Station of the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) of the New York City Subway system to my Travel Division Study group for comment in a recent session. The following information was submitted along with a description of the image:
Gear: SONY a-7 IV, 24-240 mm, opened to 30mm
Data: ISO 6,400, f 4, 1/30 sec.
Metering: Pattern
WB: manual (set to 6,4000K)
EV: 0
Date: November 21, 2023
Image taken with White Balance manually set to 6,400oK
Study groups offer, in my view, a great source of comment on both the composition and technical aspects of an image as well as suggestions to further enhance the image through allowable post-processing techniques. As always, the image generated helpful comments from group members with varying and different perspectives. However, depending on how you read the guidelines and what your philosophy is, this image may or may not have conformed to PTD editing guidelines. In other words, what we have here is what gamblers call a middle, where you can win both sides of a bet. In this instance, an image can be edited or not edited at the same time. A middle.
How can that possibly be? Either the image has been edited or it hasn’t. The devil is in the details. The image above was created using a while balance of 6,400oK that I stated in the data. The only trouble is that the actual white balance was 3,800oK which I measured with the “Light Meter”
app. Shooting at the actual white balance of 3,800oK, I obtained the following image:
Image taken with White Balance set at measured 3,800oK
Note the difference in color between this image and the one I submitted to the study group. Both the images were created scant minutes apart, with the image using the white balance measured at 3,800oK being created first. So why didn’t I just submit this image to the Study group instead of the one I did? I had last visited this abandoned subway station 16 years ago. The station is characterized as the “Jewel in the Crown” of the NYC subway system because of its elaborate arches, tiling, chandelier lighting, skylights (unfortunately covered over since World War II), and construction plaques. Sixteen years ago in 2007, I created the following image using AUTO white balance:
Image created in 2007 using AUTO White Balance
Compare the color of the 16-yearold image above to that of the one created in 2023 that used the actual white balance of 3,800oK. Sixteen years ago, in 2007, the bulbs in the in the chandeliers were incandescent. Not so in 2023, when incandescent bulbs are a rarity and the bulbs in the chandeliers have all been replaced by LED bulbs, as can be seen by the halos surrounding the bulbs in both the first two images, while the bulbs in the image created in 2007, show no halos and are clearly incandescent. The LED bulbs with their fluorescent-like light were the reason the white balance measured 3,800oK and that contributed to the cold, barren, antiseptic atmosphere of the present station. The light in 2007 was clearly different from the light in 2023, as can be easily seen. Preferring the warmer light of the incandescent bulbs, which I recalled from my visit 16 years ago, I manually dialed up the white balance to 6,400oK, knowing it was incorrect, but the camera, not knowing that and “thinking” the light had a color temperature of 6,400oK, when it actually had a color temperature of 3,800oK, emphasized the warmer colors, thus creating the image, in camera that was submitted to the study group. That image, created in camera with no post-processing or editing of any kind was more pleasing to me, being reminiscent of the warmth of the station in an earlier time and also what it would have looked like in 1904 when it first opened.
The image submitted for comment to the study group with the white balance of 6,400oK was not post-processed in any way. It was SOOC (straight out of the camera). PTD guidelines lump editing and post-processing together, inferring that such actions occur after the image is created, and the guidelines give strict rules as to what is permissible and what is not. And those guidelines make clear that no conversions other than to greyscale or monochrome are permissible. But what about settings applied in camera beforethe image is created? PTD guidelines appear not to specifically take this situation into account, where the camera features are used to create an image with no post-processing. There are no specific PTD guidelines that address the camera settings used to create an image. Now, adding some controversy to the issue, the image below is an image that has been post-processed from the image with the actually measured at 3,800oK, and would, according to PTD guidelines, not be permissible because a conversion to other than greyscale or monochrome was made during post-processing, changing the natural color after the fact from the actual conditions under which the image was created. So, here, we have the middle; one image, the one that was submitted to the PTD Study Group with the white balance of 6,400oK does not violate the PSA guidelines, because it was not edited or post-processed in any way, while the image below, that produced pretty much the same result does violate the guidelines. What’s your view?
Post-Processed Image that converted the color to other than greyscale or monochrome
Why do we have this apparent conundrum? We have it because our gear continues to evolve and offer features that permit this as well as a host of other operations in camera. And if the features are available, why should they not be used? After all, if one is going to spend upwards of $2,000 for a camera because it has all those features, why should one not use them? And why should PTD not permitthem to be used? If one takes the position that the image submitted to the Study Group is edited because it doesn’t represent the true white balance, one might ask, “what is the true white balance? Applying the simple definition, the truth is what the camera records without any further manipulation. And it recorded the image submitted to the study group. Going further, if one is to say that the true white balance was not illustrated by the image submitted, then the question is raised as to why should one purchase a camera with all those features if they may not be used to create images in camera acceptable for PTD submissions? If in-camera use of the features qualifies as editing then all one would need is a very inexpensive camera that shoots in JPEG, with all features set to AUTO, or better, no features at all since one won’t be able to use any in camera features, because to do so would qualify as editing. It is the presence of features that sets one camera apart from another justifying the increasing price as one moves up the ladder from an entry level camera to the top of the line, and it surely sets cameras apart from phones. And, if post-processing programs are available why should they not be used? An interesting discussion.
PTD guidelines are an attempt to create ethical conscripts to the images we create if they are going to be submitted for competition and/or exhibition. The goal of the guidelines is to define some kind of elusive concept of “truth in photography.” President Schnelzer, in the same issue, asks: “When is a photograph not a photograph? Are the thoughts of the photographer, translated by a computer a true representation of the world, or is it more like a painting process, where the mind of the painter directs the hand to paint what the mind creates.” The circumstances in this essay are analogous to those words, as they pose the question, “is post-processing different from setting the camera to do so in the first place?” Should PTD guidelines recognize the powerful features our current gear allows and that the use of those features results in what the “truth” of what the camera records? And moreover, thus specifically state that in-camera use of those features is not considered to be edited or post-processed but rather, like the painter, the photographer’s creative and artistic interpretation of the scene, so long as it was done before the image was created? The conundrum is then, to say that, then in camera use of camera features would be allowed, but post-processing to achieve that same creative effect would not. Does that appear to be unfair? To use those in camera features, to create an image beforehand, one must understand first, what those features are, second, how they work, and finally, have the expertise to use them. But even before any of that is done, the photographer must have a creative image in his/her mind about what he/she wants the image to look like before he/she creates the image. It’s simply not the same thing to say so after one creates the image and then decides to manipulate it. But the image where the white balance was manipulated in camera is still manipulation, or is it? Consider this: A photographer pushes the wrong button inadvertently and changes a setting and fails to notice the error and creates an image. In this example, if the white balance had inadvertently been set to the “cloud” icon, it would have produced the same coloration as in this example. If the photographer didn’t notice it, assuming he/she had set the white balance to AUTO and enters the image in a competition, has he/she entered an “edited” image? Would a ‘mistake’ qualify as an edited version, given the fact that the photographer didn’t even know that he/she made a mistake and assumed that’s what the camera saw the image to be, thus giving him/her the “true” image? How many of us have pushed the wrong button and didn’t even realize we had done so? Has this photographer submitted an “edited” and unallowed image?
PTD guidelines are yet to definitively address these circumstances, as well as both sides of the ethical issue. So, is the image submitted to the study group edited, or not? Let the discussion begin…or continue, as we as photographers strive to achieve, above all, the elusive “truth in photography.”