Earlier today Scott Kelby posted his Photo Editing “Code of Ethics” on his blog found here. When I first read it this morning I just thought it was an interesting article, but as I’ve gone through the day I’ve thought about the 7 points he lists numerous times… and I’ve come to one really interesting conclusion: I disagree with several of his points! Now this may not be surprising to you, but it certainly was to me. Mainly because 75% of what I’ve learned about digital photography I’ve learned from Scott Kelby. The other 25% comes from the other great photographers I’ve met at 16+ PhotoshopWorld conferences I’ve been privileged to be apart of over the years. (These include well known names like Moose Peterson, Vincent Versace, Eddie Tapp, Jim DiVitale, Helene Glassman, Joe Glyda, Laurie Excell, Randy Hufford, Dave Cross and Matt Kloskowski among others.)

So where do I differ from my buddy Scott? Generally in the areas of photo cropping and the duplication or removal of objects. On the issue of cropping, I absolutely try to get the composition right in the camera first. But sometimes when I look at the photo on a large monitor I notice a completely different scene or composition WITHIN the same photo. It’s a 2 for 1 special! I can’t crop fast enough in that instance.

I also can’t think of a single time I have ever duplicated an object to make it look nicer or set the scene any better. To me that falls more in the category of “fixing” instead of “finishing” a photo. However, Scott’s example of a child standing in a pumpkin patch and duplicating a few pumpkins to make the whole scene look better makes total sense to me. The pumpkins aren’t the focus of the picture, the child is, and you want to make the overall picture of the child look as good as it can. What people will remember about the photo is how cute the child looked, not the exact number of pumpkins that were in the patch on that particular day. So while I may disagree with the general “duplication of objects” principle, I have to admit that there is a pretty good chance that I will break my very own “code” at some point in the future.
The last place where I tend to differ from Scott is in the area of object removal. And for this one I have visual aids! The pictures below were taken on the same day, in the same 2 hour time period, with Scott and I each standing about 5 feet apart from each other. Now there are obvious differences between the two shots: I’m more “zoomed into” the scene (you only see one mountain dip instead of two) and shooting at a lower angle, Scott’s shot is taken later in the morning and with a wider angle lens, etc. But besides the color hue difference, the biggest thing I notice is the handful of reeds sticking up in the pond that are missing from Scott’s shot. If I were following Scott’s code I would have removed them as being “trash” in the middle of my pristine shot. But I like my naked little reeds! I think they give the scene character (like a small scar on someone’s face) and that’s why I left them in. That being said, I think Scott’s shot is a whole lot better than mine.
But that’s the beauty of working as an artist instead of as a photo journalist… you can follow your very own “code”. To Each His Own!

(Click on the picture to make it larger)