on untouched photos and editing taboo

06 Jan, 2025

Saying an unedited photo is untouched is like driving a bus across state with no hands. You'll probably get there, but it's better to take the wheel. So many small things effect the final outcome of a photograph. Another analogy is baking a "pure" pie. If the photographer/chef dumps in all the ingredients, bakes it, and is happy with the outcome, good for them. But there is so much more potential for that pie/photo (photo-pie?) with some active hands at the controls. Rolling the dice with each exposure, or making the image as you intend.

The machine-gun approach to photography – by which many negatives are made with the hope that one will be good – is fatal to serious results.

Denouncing unedited photos is a bit of a strawman argument. I don't think there's many photographers that truly believe in not editing or the purity of an image that is "untouched". But there is sometimes judgement from laypeople or consumers that they've been somehow cheated. When really, the edited and finalized photo is the product of the artist taking full control of the medium. It's really a service that the artist followed through with their work and completed it as they intended. This is fundamentally a part of the process.

You don't take a photograph, you make it.

I think this kind of idea of "untouched" photos stems from a general human bias that hardware (any hardware) is objective and records a direct representation of reality. As opposed to a sketch artist using their hands and charcoal. Taking artist liberties is not something commonly associated with cameras. But it is a fundamental part of photography.

You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.

Thanks for reading,

Bruce

#film