When is it a Lie? The Philosophy and Ethics of Photographic Post-Processing

Photographic editing is a hot topic. When magazines set impossible beauty standards through extensive post-processing, the inevitable debate about the ethics of editing begins. What are the implications for fibre artists?

The Camera Never Lies... Right?

It's commonly said that the camera never lies, but that itself is a lie. A photo is never going to look exactly the same as the original scene. If you have 20/20 vision, and I can only see a foot in front of my face, which represents reality--the perfectly sharp image, or the blur of colour?

What about the innate limitations of the camera? No matter how good its dynamic range, it simply can't capture the same variation in light as the human eye. We can see details in deep shadows and bright highlights that the camera sensor will not be able to capture.

This is how the camera saw it.

And then there are the changes in perspective wrought by different lenses and focal lengths, the different renditions of colour depending on the camera's white balance and other factors (not to mention black and white photographic conversions!), the pixels, the depth of field, and any number of other factors that influence the appearance of the final photograph. Perhaps the camera doesn't lie, exactly, but we can hardly say it only tells the truth.

The Role of Image Editing

The truth is, in digital photography, all images are edited. The JPEG you see straight out of the camera has already had automatic edits applied to the raw data initially captured by the camera. There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

I would argue that raw data, as processed by the photographer rather than the camera, can actually do a better job in representing reality than the data as processed by the camera. The photographer was there, after all. The photographer knew what the original scene looked like, and felt like, and what he or she intended by the photograph. The camera can, at best, guess at these through an automated process. How many photographs have we seen with wildly inaccurate colours? How many time has the camera seemingly added ten pounds to the model? And what about all of those photos of tourists holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa?!

Image editing, when done thoughtfully, can convey the photographer's perception of reality.

This is how I saw it and felt it--green and gold.
23mm (37mm equivalent); 1/60 @ f/5.0, ISO 100.

Some Considerations

The guideline I use when processing my own images is simple: tell the truth. The truth, though, in the context of a photograph, is a nebulous thing. If I enhance the colours in my image to express how I remember seeing them, is this true, even if I get it wrong? If I erase skin blemishes--generally transient rather than permanent aspects of physical appearance--am I lying, or am I better telling the truth of the individual's typical appearance? I can only answer these for myself.

But fibre artists do have particular responsibilities, I think.

The designer owes it to the potential customer to accurately and honestly show the fit, construction, size, and details of the garment or other item. Editing in long sleeves when a pattern provides instructions for short sleeves would be a violation of the customer's trust, as would be editing away 30 pounds from the model's waist.

The yarn or fibre dyer owes it to the potential customer to represent the colours of the yarn or fleece as accurately as possible. Editing can (and probably) should be used if the colours in the image are not true to life, but a deep red should not be transformed into a bright pink through the magic of Photoshop. Tell the truth!

Ultimately, the decision of whether to further edit your images is up to you, the individual. I personally believe that thoughtful editing can bring the image closer to reality, make it more appealing, and better express my vision. But whatever you choose, choose it with careful intentionality and a clear understanding of your personal ethics.