I get this question every now and then when I show friends, acquaintances, or potential clients some of my landscape or architecture shots with some gorgeous lighting: “These pics have gotta be edited, arent’t they…?”
Simple question, quick and easy answer: “Yes, of course they are edited.” If you shoot RAW like I do, then editing is literally the whole point – that’s how you give each image the care and treatment it deserves.
So why do I still sometimes hesitate before answering? Because I suspect that when people say „edited,“ they often mean something else entirely. They don’t just mean “processed in a RAW converter”; they mean „manipulated,“ as in „not true to reality,“ and maybe even „fake.“
And that, my friend, pokes at the very heart of my photographic pride. 🙂
So, in an effort to stop awkwardly mumbling my way through these moments, I started working on a short and snappy standard answer. That’s when I realized just how deep this rabbit hole goes. In this little essay, I’ll try to break it down into digestible parts, knowing full well they sometimes overlap and influence each other.
Just a note before we dive in: This isn’t about press or documentary photography. Those fields follow very strict rules about what’s allowed and what’s not – for good reasons!
What does „edited“ even mean?
This is where the confusion often starts. For non-photographers, „edited“ can sound a bit shady – like you’re cheating or distorting reality. But for photographers, it’s as neutral as saying you „edited“ a Word document or a spreadsheet. Every digital photo needs some form of editing to become a finished product.
Of course, wiping out an ugly industrial building next to a beach resort for a travel ad? That’s manipulation. But what about cloning out cigarette butts from a forest path? Or removing a pimple in a portrait? Still editing – but not quite the same ethical weight.
So just to be clear: when I use the word „editing“ here, I mean it in the broadest, most neutral sense – everything from basic RAW processing to color tweaks, dust spot removal, cropping, or even straightening lines.
How does a digital camera even work?
Here comes the 60-second science bit. Your camera sensor can’t actually “see.” All it does is record brightness levels for each pixel. The colors? They come from a bunch of colored filters laid over the pixels (yes, I’m simplifying here). To turn all that into an image you can see on a screen, software has to interpret and process the raw data.
And that’s the first stage of editing: it happens whether you like it or not. Every camera brand has its own ideas about color rendering, contrast, etc. Kind of like how every film stock back in the analog days had its own look.
RAW vs JPEG
RAW: Not one format but many – every camera brand does it their own way. The camera just processes enough to give you a preview, but all the data stays intact. Nothing is baked in, and you can tweak to your heart’s content.
JPEG: Universal format, easy to view anywhere. But it’s compressed, so information gets thrown away. Changes are irreversible.
People often say only expensive cameras shoot RAW. Not really true. All digital cameras shoot RAW. The difference? Fancy cameras let you access the RAW file. Cheaper ones keep it to themselves and show you the pre-cooked JPEG. It’s like getting a microwave meal vs. cooking with fresh ingredients 😉
OOC (Out Of Camera) images
People in online forums sometimes demand for “OOC” images to prove authenticity. But even those are edited – just by the camera, not the photographer. They’re still interpretations, not some universal truth.
Bottom line: there’s no such thing as a completely unedited photo. Just varying levels of control.
Perception is personal
By now, you probably see where this is going: there’s no absolute truth in digital photography. Every sensor, every camera, every bit of software interprets the data differently. And honestly? So do we.
Imagine five people all sketching the same scene. One draws the dramatic sky, another highlights the cute sheep in the foreground, someone else goes nuts over the green grass. Same moment, five completely different takes. That’s how perception works.
Our brains are like cheap cameras – they process the RAW feed from our eyes into highly personalized JPEG memories. 😉
Editing while shooting
Until now, we’ve talked about editing after the fact. But choices you make while shooting affect the image just as much.
Big aperture? Soft background. Slow shutter speed? Motion blur. Use a polarizing filter? Boom, deep blue skies and juicy greens. Or long exposures that turn water into silky magic? That’s also a kind of editing, just done in-camera. Which, surprisingly, tends to earn more recognition and seems to be less frowned upon than digital post-processing.
So, what’s the final verdict?
Did I find my short and sweet answer? Kinda. 😉
This topic is too layered for just one sentence. But I’ve landed on three relatively simple takeaways:
Every digital photo is edited. Either by your camera or by you. The camera’s edits are automatic and reflect the software engineer’s preferences; yours are intentional and personal.
I edit my photos to match the feeling I had when I was there. Ever looked at one of your photos later and thought, „It felt way more epic at the time“? That’s because your brain interpreted the scene differently than your camera did. So I edit my pictures not to fake „the one and only reality“ (which doesn’t exist…), but to bring they closer to my reality.
It’s all about how much editing you do. A pinch of salt = delicious. A whole bag = inedible.
What do you think about all this?
.
Alle Fotos in den Beiträgen dieses Blogs unterliegen dem Copyright Enrico Caccia. Ohne meine ausdrückliche Genehmigung ist das Kopieren, Herunterladen, Vervielfältigen, Verteilen oder sonstige Verwenden dieser Bilder aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen nicht gestattet. Bei Interesse an einem der Bilder nehmen Sie bitte unverbindlich Kontakt mit mir auf.
For all photos in this blog: Copyright by Enrico Caccia, all rights reserved