Life through a lens: does editing rob an image of truth?

I’ve heard more and more photographers complaining recently about the use of editing to enhance their work. Some say that an image is a snap shot of a moment and by editing that moment you pervert it. It isn’t the same image; it’s been processed and cleaned, meaning something is missing from that original scene, even if it is imperfect.

Others see editing as vital to photography. After all what is photography except the use of technology in an attempt to capture an image? As technology progresses, so does our ability to capture those images more purely. Editing is merely an extension of this process, who really has the right to say that a photograph is a true representation of a moment anyway?

The skill of simply using a camera to capture an image is truly a skill in itself and post-editing allows those less skilled behind the lens to create, what appears to be, good work. Whether this is a positive or negative thing is debatable as is what qualifies as a good photograph.

Personally I detest over edited images as that smooth filter distances me from the scene. I want a photograph to transport me to its world. The more superficial and distant from its natural state, the less I believe in a photograph and the less I feel a connection with it.

This is not to say that edited images don’t produce stunning results. Highly polished macro images of insects and the natural world allow access to aspects of our planet which I didn’t think was possible. Literally allowing people to see things from an animal’s perspective is a truly powerful tool and as shutter speeds improve and more details are exposed through photography, it opens up a raft of possibilities.

One negative of stylised imagery, however, is the fashion world. Heavily edited glosses pictures have led to a distorted image of what attractive women look like. No-one has the complexion of a peach without even a slight blemish. This is not a true representation of a woman – but it was never meant to be. An example of this is the actress Kate Winslet. While no one can doubt she is an attractive woman, the majority her photographs used in magazines have been airbrushed to the point that she doesn’t even look like herself anymore.

Is this really art?

Then there’s the cult of Instagram. While initially the sepia tinged images looked cool and retro, now they look tired and unimaginative. While this may spur some talented photographers to make something special out of a limited medium, the majority of the images produced are boring drab looking affairs which have spoiled the initial popularity of the app.

But what is truth? When a photographer snaps the lens shut, they do so with an idea of what they are trying to achieve from that scene. Maybe they’re trying to tell a story or there’s something interesting in the frame they know can be sharpened through editing. The point is that truth is subjective.

If an image captures what a photographer set out to capture then that is a true representation of the image they wanted to project. Whether this happens on the first snap through a camera, brilliant but if it happens after a laborious process of editing: who cares? As long as they remain true to the idea they wanted to capture, that’s all that matters, even if it just a picture of a burger in a sepia frame.