Did You Photoshop That?
If you have shared any photos online, I am guessing that you have been asked this question before, and maybe even a few times. I’ve heard it a lot, especially when I have shared HDR photos. People don’t always believe things are real, especially in today’s world of AI-driven and AI-created images. There’s so much fakery these days that it’s hard to believe everything you see (or anything you see, LOL).
And while I don’t use Photoshop very much - so technically my answer would be “no” - I do edit my photos, and that is really the question they are asking. In essence, they want to know if the image is real or fake. Did it actually look like that, or am I making things up here? How far did I go in post? Were the enhancements I made subtle or did I hit it with a sledgehammer?
Well, I guess it depends on how you define photography. I think a lot of people (non-photographer types, that is) think all photography is just the act of the camera exactly reproducing a scene - the camera takes an image and the image shared is 100% exactly what the camera saw, and that is 100% the same as reality, etc. We all know that isn’t the case - heck even the camera is doing a little “processing” or “editing” of the image based on user inputs such as aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc.
I’m of the opinion that photography is an art form, and as such each artist should create their art however they like it. If this means it is Photoshopped, then so be it. (You can sub in any app you use instead of Photoshop - I’m using it here for the obvious reason that it has become both noun and verb in the common lexicon). And, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, either. It’s your photo, so do whatever you want to it. What’s the point of art if we are given rules we have to follow?
Nobody asks a painter if the scene “really looked like that”. For sure Salvador Dali wasn’t asked that LOL. But in all seriousness, photography is art just like painting is art. Who cares how it is produced? Who cares how the sausage gets made? Can’t we just create and share what we want? Isn’t that what makes art great in the first place? And shouldn’t we be free to grow, explore, and experiment to bring our creative vision to life?
Every photographer knows that Ansel Adams did copious amounts of dodging and burning in the darkroom, so that he could craft a beautifully dynamic and dramatic image. Do you think people asked him if that’s really how it looked? No, he was making art and bringing his interpretation to life.
And by the way, no one ever asks that when I share a black and white photo. Why not? Was the world suddenly devoid of color while I took the photo? Of course it wasn’t - and what’s the difference? The world is obviously not black and white, but I never get asked if I Photoshopped one of those. It’s usually just “wow that’s dramatic” or something along those lines. And admittedly, much of my processing on a monochrome is heavier-handed than my color photos, believe it or not. I love pushing a monochrome image pretty far in post. Why not? That makes it more dramatic, and in my view, more beautiful and more interesting.
Perhaps this isn’t as big an issue these days, since everyone has a smartphone with a pretty good camera in it, and they take and share photos too, and maybe even use some apps for some minor edits. In short, everyone’s a photographer these days, to some extent. So generally speaking, I think these days that people “get it”. But there are those that definitely don’t, and remain absolute purists. And that’s ok too. You can like what you like. If you don’t like edited photos, cool, I don’t care. That’s your business, not mine. I’m not here to convince you.
The other thing that this brings up is this: what you are “obligated” to disclose when sharing a photograph? I used quotes on the word obligated because you’re not technically obligated to disclose anything. But I am of the opinion that I want to disclose certain things. You can of course decide that you don’t want to, and that is fine too. I’m just sharing my opinion, but here’s where I draw the line between disclosing my edits and not disclosing my edits:
If I add something new to the photo that did not exist in reality, I prefer to disclose that. This is typically considered a composite photo, but includes lots of different ways to add things. If I use sky replacement, that counts here. If I use GenAI to add in something new, that counts too. And if I use layers to mask in something new that didn’t exist in the original (traditional composite work), that also counts. NOTE: I don’t disclose when I add a texture - which is a new layered image - because it’s obvious, and at that point crosses over from photograph to photographic art in my opinion.
If I erase things that did exist because it simplifies or cleans up the photo, I do not disclose that. This could be simple dust spots, or some items that clutter up the image (trash can in a street scene, for example), and it could be GenAI to erase something larger, like a car. I don’t disclose that. Removing stuff doesn’t get people “excited”, whereas adding things does. Plus, how would they know?
Whenever I edit a photo and do not add anything new that didn’t exist when I was taking the photo - but do make varying amounts of edits to the photo - I do not disclose all the edits I make (except in a tutorial video of course). So this can be light adjustments using various sliders: Exposure, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks, Contrast, etc. This can also be color adjustments such as HSL and lots of other color tools. This can also be pretty significant color shifts, which I sometimes do as well. This can include all kinds of masks to shape the image to my liking via light, detail and color adjustments. This can include a lot of things actually - except adding in something that wasn’t already there.
In simple terms, the distinction for me comes down to objects in the image. If I add objects, I disclose it, but if I do not add objects (or remove objects), I do not disclose it. That’s my current thinking on this topic. Maybe it will change some day, and I am open to hearing your take on this as well (comment below if you want to contribute).
I realize I am walking a fine line here, because in some cases I am enhancing colors way past the point of what I actually witnessed, so technically it didn’t exist in the real life scene that I saw with my own eyes. But I am working with the original raw file and not using additional files/layers/etc to add in new objects to the image so it feels less like I am “making it up”. It’s creative color grading, to be specific, but it’s achieved with a single raw file, so nothing was added.
You could also technically argue that a long exposure is fake, because obviously I did not see it that way with my own eyes - but I did capture it in a single image and thus did not add any new elements. And I don’t think anyone feels like they should “disclose” that they used a filter to drag the shutter for 30 seconds or whatever. It’s obvious anyway.
You can easily see how this becomes a bit of a slippery slope, and to be fair - there is no right answer here. It’s all subjective as far as I’m concerned. It’s a spectrum and we exist on it in various places, and our position may vary based on the image. We all have our own opinions about it, and that’s ok.
The interesting thing is an HDR photo, although it’s a blend of multiple images, is not “adding something new” to the final image, because it’s just light manipulation essentially - and it’s all captured at the same time and place, only seconds apart - and the raw files are all of the exact same scene. And of course the high dynamic range of the final image most closely mirrors what we actually see with our own eyes. So even though HDR images are the ones that I most often have gotten the “did you Photoshop that?” type comments from, they are actually most like what we actually witness so in that sense it’s less “Photoshopped”.
What are your thoughts on this topic? How do you feel about it?
