Am I Cheating

[deevinemissm]

Interesting discusson! I am a "retired" graphic designer and now call myself a digital artist. I love my Nikon D70s - it was my retirement gift. While I love taking photos, the fun begins when I get them on the computer. And I'll admit I mostly shoot in Auto Mode. I've been shooting my grand-daughter's softball team this season and don't always have a chance to get every girl at bat or on base. And some of them sit the bench a lot. So I took an average (or less ) shot and with some photoshop work, made a teenager feel like a star!

Before: http://www.pbase.com/deevinemissm/image/111122256
After: http://www.pbase.com/deevinemissm/image/111122258

The pose was genuine, the surroundings were, too. But by putting the focus on her,it went from a ho-hum photo to something exciting! And, that's my 2 cents worth!

[christophertravels]

What your eye and brain thinks they see when you take the shot and what your camera actually "sees" and photographs are often not the same thing. How many take a photo of their loved ones and there is a post sticking out of the top of someone's head. "I swear that lamppost wasn't there when I took the shot". What's the harm in removing that post in the digital darkroom? Or you take a photo of a lovely sunset and it's over-exposed. What's the harm in changing the exposure post production? Or suppose you're on safari and you have a 300 mm lens, but you need 500 mm to fill the frame with that cheetah. What's the harm in cropping on the computer?

I suppose the computer allows you to re-compose back home after you didn't get the perfect photo the first time. Before digital, these mistakes I mentioned would be fixed by re-taking the photo with a different viewpoint, a different exposure or a different lens. I don't know if using Photoshop is cheating, or getting a second chance to get the photo right. But to be sure, these examples are relatively benign. There are examples of mis-representation which can cause great concern / embarassment / legal action etc.

Part of media literacy needs to be how to recognize images that mis-represent and those that are merely touched up for aesthetic reasons.

[vglass]

I believe that this is the artisitic forum, so it does not apply to types of photography, like photojournalism where the intent is to capture as close to "reality" as possible (consider the Vietnam war photo that caught a south vietnam officer firing a bullet through the head of a suspected Viet Cong guerilla).

The answer to your question is - anything you do as an artist is not cheating. All digital images must be manipulated. There are two types of manipulation. The first is due to the nature of digital capture, for example all digital images should be sharpened and digital noise and fringing should corrected. The second is personal and artistic - what you want to communicate in the image (if you do not know what you want to communicate that is another issue). When someone asks me "Is that real" I always say yes. If they ask me "Did you manipulate the image", I say yes. If Van Gogh or Picasso were asked "Is your painting real", how do you think they would respond? A famous painter, whose name I do not recall, was asked what he paints. He responded "Light and shadow."

There is good forum that address "Is Photography Art?" and it is http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/ind ... owforum=19

[photodocsj]

Photography is art. Make the best IMAGE that you can - that is all that is asked of you. Otherwise just take snapshots.

[chestersgallery]

Thanks so much to all the Pbasers who have posted on my original question, its been great reading all the replies and a nice to hear that many of us think the same way on the subject. I Don't really know if I was expecting an ear bashing over the questions I possed, but I am so pleased i didn't get one . And from the deatil of some of the replies its an area of the subject thats close to your hearts. The main difference for me I suppose is the time it takes, to pick up the editing skills required on photoedit software is relativly little (time and cost) . The old darkroom boys (and girls) however were almost amature chemists as well as photographers.

Anyway thanks again for such a great response.

[nmrai]

Personally, I dislike images that scream "processed". I'm also not especially fond of a lot of the filter effects in photoshop that attempt to look like a painting. I suppose I'm a bit of a purist. Cropping and the traditional darkroom techniques, used judiciously, are OK, not to rescue a photo but to enhance it. But then, it's all individual tastes in this matter.

[yanliurn]

The history of altering the image to get the result that the author wanted goes on and on. You are not the first one and will not be the last one to do it. The purpose is the same: to best show the audience what you wanted to express from the picture. No comments to the photojournalist's political intentions tho.

[dmajfsharp]

As an amateur photographer, I thought that pictures should be left as taken, maybe sharpened a little bit, colours corrected or altered as necessary. As I spent time as a PA for a photographer in Boston. I learned more about photography, especially composition. I learned that composition is of primary importance. If your shot is composed well, there isn't really much to do. I also learned that it comes down to the photographer's (artist's) eye. With the virtually limitless options that are available through digital photography, you can shape the image into what you find to be aesthetically satisfying.

I now have absolutely no problem with removing aspects of an image that I do not like, or want to be there. I am beginning to study portraiture. I find that people want to look their best. They ask me, can you remove/reduce these wrinkles, scars, acne or whatnot. With the high level of detail that is visible in pictures, people can be self conscious and it is now in your power, to a greater degree then in the past, to make those changes.

Is it dishonest? Is it cheating? It depends on your intent. I feel that if you see your photographs as art, you should use whatever tools you have at your disposal to best represent your vision.

[madlights]

An interesting discussion. I can't really speak for anyone else so....My own view is that unless I state, and it's usually obvious most times anyway, that a photograph has been manipulated (combined images, changed colors etc.) I try to get a photo, whether it's "in camera" or "in Photoshop" to look like it did to me when I shot it. Trying my best to get the crop I want, the lighting I want etc. "in camera" but not always successfully...so then do what photographers have always done...adjust the image...not so much to obtain impact or to try and be "creative" but more or less to try and get something to look like it did. Think that "adjust" and "change" are sort of key words. Have done obvious digital manipulation..combining photos for abstract effects, or 'artistic' effects, and stating so, if not obvious.... but like to keep the two entirely separate. A person for that matter can actually create unrealistic effects with only the camera, camera movement, low shutter speed on moving subjects (like water) control of DOF, even the chosen framing or crop... can be used to create scenes the eye can't see (even macro photography does that unless our eyesight is very good ). To some degree it seems too there are certain traditions within photography that aren't looked so much as changing but rather adjusting. Sometimes adding a slight vignette or a grain overlay, or a tasteful tone, or mimicking a contrasty B&W film in digital such as could be accomplished in film , seem acceptable to many. To me, if I'm taking a photo as a straight representation of "reality" I try to make it look like it looked, within certain bounds, with the camera or later with an editor if needed...and that in itself is subjective, since we all see or perceive things a bit differently. Regards

[mokadijook]

Unless an image is being used in a court of law, or is one of several kinds of photojournalism where "truth" is an issue, I don't see why you shouldn't do anything to that image that you want. I get some flak about my heavily-manipulated, PS filter-driven images - but I also get a lot of positive responses. It just depends on the person creating the image. Like everyone, I am really proud of the really nice out-of-the-box image - it means I am progressing in the technical area of my craft. But that doesn't mean I can't take that same image and crop it, tweak the sharpness, levels and dump a truckload of filters on it. If both the "pure" and the "adulterated" shots are hung side by side in a gallery each will get a response. If the observer is moved by the image it's a GOOD image. (JMO!)

[alanmars]

I wouldn't call it cheating. If anything the "Old Fashioned" photography primed us for what what was to come with Digital Photography. I am looking at some older photos and remember that when I took the shot I made absolutely sure everything was right before I pushed the button. I have some great photos from my 35mm totally manual Pentax K1000 (That's the way to learn photography... ALL MANUAL). If anything, I had a good grasp of photography when I got my first DSLR and had no problems getting acquainted with it. I must admit, there are probably some features that I still have not ventured into with my Canon 350D mainly because I am still stuck in Semi-Manual mode. I use the manual mode settings more than the automatic mode settings simply because I know how to get the results I want. However, these old eyes are a big fan of autofocus. As I get older Image-Stabilization is going to look more & more appealing to me as well.

One drawback is that now ANYONE can use these DSLR's like a semi pro which is making the photographer job outlook look bleak.

[jacklouis]

Cheating is in the heart of the photographer. A photographer who shoots wildlife in zoos, then presents the images as having been taken in the wild is cheating.
Improving a photo is not cheating - you know when you are creating an image that does not represent what you saw, which is ok if presented as a personal interpretation of a scene.
Photos straight out of a camera are only representations of reality, they are not reality as it is.

[pajamacat]

Photography is not a military drill. What ever floats ya boat is fine. Almost all great photographers cropped, dodged and burned, dipped it in cyanide to brighten hilites etc. Ansel Adams has examples in his books of before and after the darkroom print. I do find it personally satisfying if I don't have to crop of do anything to the original. But I am not that enamored by heavy photoshopping, phony looking HDR and pasting a seagull next to that light house just because it's pretty. Of course altering a photo for editorial purposes should only be done by people that really know how to do it.. .like Hitler and Stalin

[madlights]

I think we are all cheating. An image isn't the real thing...it's an image of it.

[goodlistener]

To my mind, you are only "cheating" if it doesn't work. More seriously, do you mind to take a look at this image? It has fairly sophisticated (to my opinion) post-processing in Adobe Lightroom and now it looks A LOT better than what came out of the camera in unadjusted RAW. Did I cheat, or did I create something?

http://www.pbase.com/goodlistener/image/119557353