A recent thread on Reddit’s r/photography reignites the debate of what makes a “good image.” The idea that photography can capture reality as it is is a myth that many young photographers consistently feed on. And the thread showcases how little people know that, like any other medium, a photograph is about composition and observation, but is also as much about how visible, accessible, and contested editing has become.
Most young photographers are taught to never touch an image. I do the same with my class. However, the idea of keeping the image untouched is to encourage young minds to capture the image correctly in the camera first, before moving on to editing. As our former staff member, Dan Ginn, said in his article, “Taking a photograph, or at least a decent one, is extremely hard.” And it surely is.
Today, the ethical line is not only between an “edited” and “unedited” photograph, but also the intention of the photographer.
While today we have Photoshop and AI tools to make editing easy, photographers such as Ansel Adams, Man Ray, and Imogen Cunningham were using editing as their signature style. As Adams once said: “The negative is the score, the print is the performance”. Each of these photographers showcased that an image does not end when you release the shutter. In fact, during the Civil War, photographers staged images (as seen in the work of Roger Fenton and Felice Beaton), and these images were further edited through techniques such as dodging, burning, contrast control, cropping, paper selection, and chemical development. Each element was responsible for influencing the final print’s appearance. The selection of the lens, the wait for the light, and the way you want your subject to appear must all fall in favour of the photographer. As many critics note, editing begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder. You are actively removing elements in your photo the minute you start to make an image.
However, what must be a challenge today is not editing a photo with dodge and burn, but rather how AI is now rapidly increasing the pace, enabling photographers to churn out images in bulk. That was not what photography was about during the film era. The darkroom required time, practice, and physical labor, all of which is now done with one single click. With AI sky and background replacement options, photography feels like a diluted craft, where one’s vision is often lost.
Today, the ethical line is not only between an “edited” and “unedited” photograph, but also the intention of the photographer. This becomes even more prevalent in fields of wildlife photography, scientific imaging, and photojournalism, where manipulation can cross ethical boundaries. An example of this is Steve McCurry himself, who was accused of removing details or altering them. The fact that his images were presented as “truths” is why these minute changes have undermined his credibility in recent years.
However, if we move beyond this to macro photography or astrophotography, both genres depend on swifting through data, controlled backgrounds, or using composites to get the final results. In fact, the argument reveals a truth: there is no single standard of photographic honesty. Photography is a window to reality, or that is how it began, but it is also about intention and context. Thus, the problem we must address is how photographers can remain true to their audience. Whether it is the use of AI or increasing saturation, as long as there is transparency, and the photographers own that responsibility, the medium may not lose its power.