Editing in the era of AI-what's different?

Bloody. Brutal. Horrific.

Every scene around him was just that. One typical war zone scene after another.

His eyes stung from the smoke. He smelt the burnt remains of metal and muscle. His ears rang with the screams of the injured.

Above all that, he felt intense frustration.

He was a photographer who believed that it was his duty to convey the true horrors of the war to the people back home, that it was not a heroic, chest-thumping event, but a terrible event where real people lost lives, often in unimaginably horrible ways.

But, he was not happy with any of this images. He didn’t feel they were powerful enough to convey the true nature of war. He felt the story was left unsaid. That his feelings about the true nature of war were not being conveyed forcefully enough.

He thought of a different approach.

He combined multiple images to create a single image. In one case, the smoke from one image was added to the image of burnt trees lining a road. The result was a series of dramatic and striking images, that finally conveyed a sense of the fear and horror that he personally felt in the midst of a war.

One of Frank Hurley's composites. The smoke may have been added from a different image. The emotion of a fearful soldier peering from behind the tree might not have been felt

without the added smoke

Opinions about what he did were sharply divided.

His editor refused to publish these images, saying that they were fake. To the photographer, his images conveyed the true nature of war and that should be more important.

The photographer was an Australian, Frank Hurley.

This  happened more than a hundred years ago, around 1919, during WWI.

This debate of what should a photograph do, how much alteration to an image is honest, how much should be tolerated is clearly not one that has started since AI has popped its head on the horizon. It has been going on for ages.

AI, of course, is an incredibly powerful force, the most impactful tool that we have ever had. What might have taken Frank Hurley, an experienced photographer, considerable time and effort could today take mere minutes at most. Even for a novice.

However, regardless of the tools available, at a fundamental level, the question remains the same as it has been for over a hundred years : how much editing is right ?

Let’s first start with the simple expectation that some people have, that a photograph should be truthful. That it should depict things as we see them with the naked eye and that any modification is a crime.

The fact is, that any photograph, the moment we take it, is already a modified one, since it is never an exact replica of what the human eye has seen.

First of all, when we compose an image, we define its boundaries. We put a frame, a rectangle or a square around the portion of the scene that we are capturing. We are consciously deciding what we choose to keep in the frame, what we choose to leave out.

We are editing out what is not captured. It is quite possible that some of what is left out might make the image look vastly different from what the final image shows.

 I love this image. To me it captures all the mystery, the stealth and the wariness of a leopard.

But the uncropped image will not convey all this. Is cropping...or the extent of cropping, right or wrong ?

What about what the camera itself does ?

The right lens and settings will give you a dreamy background or  the perfect foreground blur. The naked eye doesn’t see these blurs or the background the same way the camera does. If I use a wide angle lens, it is capturing an image that is very different from the way our naked eye sees. A big zoom lens will condense the distance in a manner that a naked eye cannot. A slow shutter speed can create a magical sense of movement that is unseen to the naked eye.

The use of a wide angle lens exaggerates and brings the focus to the hero of the image - the horn of the rhino and the tusks of the elephant. The slow shutter speed conveys the timelessness of the action of the elephants crossing. None of these images look this way to the naked eye.

The image you take with your camera is never a 100% truthful depiction of the scene even before you use any processing software. The camera has already ‘distorted’ the reality of the scene as defined by what your naked eye has seen.

Then there is that terrible question.

“ Did you use Photoshop ?”

This seemingly simple question is most often, not a enquiry about the post processing software one is using but instead, is cloaked as an accusation. How much have you altered the image on your PC is the unspoken question ?

Why is it that any changes that we make in-camera are considered to be different from the changes that we make using a software ? How is it that underexposing in-camera is considered to be be different from doing it in post processing ? Or changing the White Balance in-camera to make the sunset look more orange different from doing it using a software ?

In other words, why is doing it 'in camera' considered to be morally and ethically superior to doing it in post processing ?

That logical inconsistency apart, the fundamental point is this - If photography is seen as an art, then art has no rules.

Each artist would have his/her own rules that they follow. But, art by definition, doesn’t have rules. The artist, the photographer in this case, sets the rules for himself/herself. 

I, as a wildlife photographer, am trying to convey an emotion, a feeling through my images. To achieve this, I might tease the saturation a little bit, play with the contrast somewhere, experiment with the Dehaze tool. I might do it in camera or achieve it in post processing.

The question that I should instead ask myself is – what are the rules I will be holding myself to, while doing this ?

Or, maybe…. What am I NOT going to do ?

The challenge today is that AI, its accessibility and the quality of tools it provides, could make this decision making difficult for the photographer. The constant question that would pop up today would be – what is the line separating enhancement from manipulation ? ( Of course there is another question - is manipulation really as bad as it is made out to be if the artist is simply expressing their vision creatively ? - but let's assume for the moment that the photographer is looking at enhancement and not replacing colours or objects as part of a creative exercise. Enhancement vs manipulation becomes a relevant question here )

As I use today’s vastly more effective Sky mask and move the Dehaze slider to tease a little drama selectively into the skies, at what point do I stop ?

If I am comfortable with decreasing the exposure in post processing, should I fight against the seductive lure of the lens blurring tool, when I have failed to achieve it in the field ? If I have captured a beautifully evocative scene, got the light and the shadows interplay in perfect symphony, will I be crossing a line if I remove an offending bit of grass that  popped up at the wrong place ?

Where is the line which, if crossed, enhancement becomes manipulation ?

Sadly, the burden of this decision making falls squarely on only one person - the photographer.

It’s not an easy place to be at today. The decision on where not to pass  the baton from a personal creative vision to the machine doing for you is increasingly becoming a tougher one. That point of transfer of control is a shape shifting, blurry one on a slippery slope.

What about the photojournalist ? Can photojournalism be considered to be art ? Most might disagree. Many might not view them through the same lens as we might do with a wildlife or a street photographer ? Should a photojournalist shoot to depict what is happening or to demonstrate their creative intent ?

How do we view what Frank Hurley had done a century ago, his honorable intent notwithstanding ?

That brings us to our third element, other than the photographer and their tools - the viewer.

What is it that the viewer wants ? How true does the viewer want an image to be to the real event or would the viewer be more concerned about how an image makes them feel ?

Would it make a difference for the viewer if, after being blown away by an image, they are informed that the image has been significantly enhanced by AI ?  

Would there be disappointment or would the viewer shrug unconcerned ?

Would viewers start looking at the dramatic skies or the beautifully diffused morning light filtering through the trees in an image and wonder if it was enhanced by AI ?

Or would it not matter to them ?

I guess, no one knows.

 Would the beauty of this scene feel different if you know if I altered this scene significantly in post processing or created in mostly in camera, or if it was mostly an 'aim and shoot' image ?

Some people advocate that, in the spirit of transparency, artists should be calling out the use of AI in their images to inform the viewers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work. Today, you are using AI almost at every step of your editing even if in a minor way. So, where exactly is the point of no return after which you should be calling out the use of AI ?

Maybe, as artists, one should go back to the original truth : You first create for yourself.

Not for your audience. Only for yourself. Get your creative voice out there. Say what you want to say -  not what you think the audience will say.

And while saying that you want to, do what you are comfortable with. Stick to your goals of how much you want to achieve through your camera in the field and how much by using a software.

In your studio, if you feel comfortable to push that Dehaze slider to the right to get that stormy look in the skies, go ahead. If you feel that removing that piece of grass which is popping up right in front of the eye is sacrilege, don’t do it. And, try not to judge those who do. ( Note to myself :) )

Create in the manner you are comfortable with.

Does the final image convey what you wanted it to, and yet has been created in the manner that you are comfortable with ?

Slippery as it might be to pinpoint, that is the sweet spot.

And, in the age of AI,  harder, yet urgent, to find.

PS : One of the main sources for the Frank Hurley story was : https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/stories/truth-and-photography