I want to talk to you today about a subject subtly underscores the double edged sword that is the modern darkroom. BTW, this comes about thanks to some very good questions raised by Jeff and Crystal (and probably others).

Digital editing. First, let me just come right out and ask you a question.

What level of editing or manipulation do you consider acceptable for a photo? Personal photos? Real Estate? Editorial?

While you are thinking about your response let's get a few myths out of the way:

- - -

Myth 1: The True Masters of the Film Era wouldn't stoop to manipulating their photos.

Answer: I hear this one a lot, people say it in a wistful tone as if lamenting a bygone era. Actually it's hogwash, and it simply illustrates how little most people understand about photography.

Consider Ansel Adams for example. Probably the greatest recognized landscape photographer of our time. An undisputed master of the black and white film period. And an incorrigible manipulator.

Adams is famous for a philosophy of making images that reflected how he felt about a scene rather than a literal image. He had a team of people doctoring his images (yes, I said doctoring) and he publicly stated in the very early years of computer technology how excited he was about their potential to improve photo editing!

Myth 2: The darkroom has no relation to modern editing tools available in photoshop (or similar programs)

Answer:This is another good one. The fact is the basis for photoshop early on was an almost direct copy of standard darkroom technique, dodging burning etc. The computer is the modern equivalent of the darkroom.

Of course nowadays we have many more tools available and this can hardly be a bad thing but the same basic logic still applies.

Almost all professionals shoot RAW format, and much like the darkroom of old, some moderate color, contrast, and exposure adjustment are standard procedure while converting the image into it's final format. That's about as close to darkroom technique as you can expect.

Myth 3: Editing photos is 'cheating' or even 'lying'.

Answer: Oh goodness, not only are we exercising bad taste according to this person we now have a distinct lack of moral fiber as well.

Another pro I respect greatly told me the following once. He said; 'Photography is the only art from that is 100% subtractive, every choice you make excludes something."

His point is that no matter what lens you choose, what focal length, what DOF, what focus point, etc etc etc you are making decisions about what to display...and what not to display. You are telling a story, and that story changes depending on what you include or exclude. This is an important point and we'll come back to this later also.

When I hear people take the view that you can't edit in post (unlike all the editing you do when you pick the lens, the location, the shutter speed etc) I jus feel embarrassment for them. Even worse is some professionals will say this (usually ones that are leery of computers and photoshop and therefor wish to convince others it's 'bad' to use them).

Imagine sitting down at a restaurant having a waiter tell you that you have two minutes to make all possible choices about what you want to eat for the evening (including whether you will want dessert) because 'it's wrong to make changes later'.

- - -

Anyway, let's head back to that question I asked you. What is acceptable editing?

Let's get the easy ones out of the way first.

If it's your own personal photos you can do pretty much whatever the heck you want to them. Would you like great skin? Different color eyes? Slim down a few pounds? Go for it. Have fun with it. :)

On the flip side of the coin photos for news purposes, historical purposes etc should be handled with the absolute lightest touch possible. Generally the only thing acceptable here is:

1. Exposure adjustment (global)
2. Sharpening (global)
3. Cropping
4. [possibly] color balance (global)
5. [possibly] white balance (global)

So, that leaves us photos for commercial purposes (in this case by commercial I am referring to business in general). Let's look specifically at real estate as that is what most folks here will be interested in.

I'm going to surprise a few folks here, and maybe stir the pot with the following two statements: 

1. The composition of the photograph is 100 times more relevant to it's descriptive abilities than good faith retouching (versus obviously fraudulent editing)
2. If it's relatively permanent, you must leave it in...if it's relatively temporary you can usually edit it.

Let's take a look at issue number one, I think some examples will help here.

Here's an image I took ages ago. Hardly portfolio worthy but perfect for this discussion.

This photo has almost zero digital 'tampering' applied. In fact, it would pass the most stringent of all standards, editorial.

But guess what? Just underneath that railing is a horrific rectangular cement cistern full of murky blue green water suitable for even the most discriminating swamp monster.

That's a pretty nice view, right?

Hmm, by now you know I have a surprise in store.

Just behind the corner posts lives a wonderful specimen of telephonus powerpolus (you can see the wire just above the railing).

Keep in mind I've violated not the slightest protocol, these are literal images that have no editing whatsoever beyond a little dash of color and whatnot.

Last one. We have a really nice water feature, and a great composition favoring the lines of the house and the deck.

And...we are excluding a nest of power lines on both sides of the house.

Some of you by this point are scratching your heads. Isn't this some new form of cheating Bryce has invented?

Remember when we talked about photography being a subtractive process?

Every choice you make when creating a photograph leaves something out.

Let's say you decide to shoot this even wider or farther back to get those power lines in. Ok. But...what about the lot next door which is under construction. So...you go wider again. And again and again... where does it stop?

There is no lens wide enough (or telephoto enough) to get every detail in every photo. Don't even get me started on focal length spatial distortions which every Realtor with a wide angle lens (yes, even you kodak v705 owners) is benefiting from.

However, relax...there's a natural check and balance built into this system.

People come in person to see the house. There's an inspection, disclosure etc. etc. etc.

Some of you are shaking your heads.

"But Bryce, we live in the era where people sue McDonalds because it seems that hot coffee, being that it's hot...can actually burn the skin."

Sad but true...frivolous lawsuits exist and sometimes even succeed.

What can you do? You can take 1000 photos of the property from every conceivable angle and past all over them "house may appear different than shown".

In reality, take the shots you want...some things will be excluded, some included. That's a fact of life. Remember, the buyer is coming to see the property, and if they aren't (which is crazy but I suppose folks do buy sight unseen, or is that site unseen - haha)...that's a whole separate case and I'd suggest consulting a lawyer about your contract.

Wow, ok...that was a lot of text. Let's get to the actual editing!

It's fairly simple really. Things that are there to stay need to stay in the photos, things that can quickly or easily be cleaned can be removed, things the seller is stating they will fix asap can be removed etc.

Here's quick list of some examples:

Things I never remove or edit from photos:

• power / telephone lines
• power boxes, meters
• driveway cracks
• any kind of structural damage whatsoever
• nearby houses
• stop signs
• badly damaged or dead lawns
• neighbors junk cars (sitting)
• skyline changes
• view obstructions
• And so on

Pretty much everything on that list is something permanent. Of course there are many more...these are just examples.

Things I usually edit:

• smudges on paint
• minor lawn blemishes
• missing light bulbs
• dirty windows
• dirt / leaves on the driveway
• dead spiders / bugs (no kidding)
• nail holes (yes, even those!) ;)
• And so on

Most everything on that list is pretty much cleaning related. I do want to point out that when a home owner commits to fixing, replacing or repairing something quickly I will adjust it in the photo also.

BTW, for some reason people seem particularly gung ho about nail holes from pictures on the wall.  I don't think I've ever seen a house without some, and the idea that someone would see one and decide a house isn't worth buying or that they had been 'mislead' is bordering on the absurd. Frankly, shooting wide angle you almost ever see them and the only reason I do...is i do a lot of work at the pixel level. Still, if you want to draw your line in the sand there, more power to you...and better safe than sorry not a bad way to think at all.

For example for one of my wife's listings the downstairs carpet had some grease stains on it, the carpet was being totally replaced a few days after the shoot so I took out the stains in the photos.

Whew, ok...I know I could go about this but I fear I'm going to bore you guys to tears.

Pleas ask questions if you have them. :) 

Cheers, -B