Where Should Post-Editing Sit in the Photographer’s Process?

In a world where cameras keep improving, the question becomes harder to avoid. Where does post-editing truly belong in photography? Is it a tool for correction, a space for creative expression, or an essential step in translating what we saw into what we hoped the image would convey?

Should editing be used to restore the scene as our eyes perceived it when the camera could not hold the full range of light? Or does its purpose lie in shaping atmosphere, asking whether cooler tones, softer contrast, or a colour shift might better express the feeling of the moment?

How much of editing is simply guiding the viewer? When we lift a highlight or quiet a distraction, are we altering reality or clarifying intention? And when we remove a stray sign, a dust spot, or a bright corner, are we cleaning the frame or rewriting the story?

At what point does editing become interpretation rather than correction? When we convert to black and white, stretch exposure into abstraction, or lean into expressive colour work, are we still documenting, or are we creating something new from the raw material of the scene?

And how important is consistency across a body of work? Does editing become the thread that ties a portfolio together, the signature that makes a series feel like it belongs to the same voice?

Post editing is not a single step but a conversation between what the camera captured and what the photographer intended.

Interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on this