Just because you can edit an image in Photoshop’s Digital Darkroom doesn’t mean you should.
If I were a newspaper journalist, changing the actual content of an image would be a complete no-no.
As a travel photographer, I try to follow those rules and rarely change anything other than making the image pop. Curves, levels, contrast, saturation and other layer adjustments are usually the limit of my edits.
However, the digital artist in me sometimes feels that removing a certain element will make the photo much better. That’s where my internal battle begins…
. . .
Editing Saint John’s Basilica in Selcuk, Turkey
Did you notice anything strange about the above photograph? If you look below, you will see that I removed a grate from the center. In my opinion, it completely distracts from the sense of historic wonder I aim to inspire with the image.
However, the edited photo is not reality. In “reality,” archaeologists placed a storm drain smack-dab in the middle of St. John’s tomb in order to protect the site from flooding.
For that reason, I would use the below image on this site: even though I like the first one more. But should I is a far more interesting question…
. . .
With that in mind, my question for you is twofold:
1. Visually, which photograph do you prefer?
2. In terms of journalistic integrity and artistic license, would you be disappointed to learn that an image on this site had been altered to change the reality of a scene?