Board index Photography Artistic Questions Am I Cheating

Artistic Questions

Am I Cheating

Discuss style and artistic aspects of photography
chestersgallery
 
Posts: 184

Am I Cheating

Post Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:44 am


Having come into the digital SLR's scene very late I often wonder how much editing is fair or unfair to the viewer. With my old film SLR I had no darkroom and the pictures came back from the developers as taken. In other words the skill was in the shoot.( And still is to a point) Now with the ability to shoot in raw and alter all manor of things afterwards I often wonder " What exactly is a reasonable amount of editing". I know its down to individual opinion but what are the individual opinion of PBasers on this subject.

For example in your opinion

Is cropping OK ?

Is altering levels OK?

Is saturation and digital Burning OK?

Should it be stated on PBase what level of editing took place? ( I know some of us do anyway )

In short. Are we cheating the viewer? ( assuming of course the viewer cares)

Hope this kicks off some interesting response :D

djwixx
 
Posts: 1360

NO

Post Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:49 am


Ultimately you have unlimited options in camera to define the result as well as your own take on the subject, so what's the difference with using options in photoshop if the shot becomes the result you want? Even with film you had the option to choose the film and the result it gave, then further expand on that in the dark room. Ansel Adams 'created' most of his results in the dark room!

Now if you're submitting photo journalistic shots then the rules are far more strict and you have little or no option but to submit a true in camera result.

chestersgallery
 
Posts: 184

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:27 am


Yes I know what you mean Dave, Im not great on Photoshop so my editing is limited. Composition is king in my opinion, which I always try to sort out when Im shooting, but I am inclined to crop away when required too. I was trying to get an idea for how others feel about this and other editing issues. If for instance you see a well framed shot with great composition, I always end up thinking, did the photographer see that shot, compose it in his lens and shoot, or did he pick a good crop from a larger picture, ( which I often do, having limited resource in terms of lenses. ) and then I think is the guy who didn't crop more talented. Then again , I suppose the second you use a zoom your doing the same.Thanks for your opinion on this , lets hope we get some more. :D

djwixx
 
Posts: 1360

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:55 am


I think most photographers will try to get what they want in camera, as do I (not always successfully), now I've learnt a little more, but there are always little corrections that may have missed the eye at the time. I remember pointing out a little flaw to someone who I consider a renowned photographer (on Pbase) and their reply was simple "it will be fixed in the finished
result".

Even the best of the best see extra potential on what they want the result to be.

moffetb
 
Posts: 154

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:07 am


The basic question to ask is not whether you are cheating, it is whether you are presenting what you want to present. If you are presenting photojournalism, then sticking the the pyramids of Egypt closer together would be cheating. If you are portraying wildlife in it's natural habitat, you might want to note this as Kennan Ward does.

Most people consider what could be done in a darkroom to be "okay" in the digital realm. However, even Ansel Adams was an expert on what could be done in the darkroom.

Good luck, try your best, and remember luck favors the prepared.
Brian

dougj
 
Posts: 2276

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:13 am


As Brian stated, photojournalists have restrictions on what they are permitted to do in the field. There have been a number of shots passed off as 'original' that have had heavy editing to the point that objects were moved, added or deleted to improve the photo's shock value.

Reuters updated their guidelines last year on what is permitted in editing:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/1 ... photoshop/

Beyond PJ work, get it right as much as possible in the camera and then edit as desired or required. A lot of what we do in post processing on a computer today, was done in the darkroom with optics, chemicals, temperature and sometimes masks and scissors or a knife. I don't consider editing to be cheating. Ask the lovely young bride or groom if they would like the pimple on their forehead removed, or left in their photos :-)

shawnkraus
 
Posts: 352

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:38 am


I don't believe there is a cut and dry line that can be drawn. I wonder how many camera clubs deal with the issue of what is allowed and what is not for competition.

jerseyfinn
 
Posts: 56
Location: New Jersey USA

No, it's not cheating

Post Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:11 pm


Chester,

Unless you are referring about photojournalism which must always convey complete veracity & certitude in the image, photography in general, is a wide open proposition. It has its defining "technical" parameters, but those things aside, photography is artful & in essence an aesthetic endeavor. Things aesthetic don't follow rock-hard rules . . . it comes down to how each photographer elects to work with their image & how others react to the image. One guy's "great shot" here on PBase can elicit a yawn from another member. Who is right? It really doesn't matter as it's all about aesthetics & how inidividuals react to them.

That's not to dismiss technique and fundamentals -- PBase is itself a virtual classroom where I look both at compositon & POV as well as scouring EXIF data to see how some of the really skilled artists here capture light so masterfully. But what you decide to do when you're out there camera in-hand or sitting at the computer doing post processing is entirely up to you. You're not gonna be put on double secret probation for any act of comission or omission, at least in my book.

In simplest form, photography is about light and composition and how you handle it with your camera ( which could be a cheap P&S or a $10,000 DSLR ). From the moment that you hold up your camera to snap a shot, every photographer practices "exclusion" when they frame their shot & decide what's going to be it. That is the common legacy shared by all photographers. After this point it becomes a slippery slope as lens choice, exposure, light, & what one does post processing with RAW adjustments, & finally Photoshop-type editing are simply modern metaphors for what formerly went on in the dark room.

The great thing here about PBase is that we can enjoy the work or pros and amateurs alike who are using all sorts of approaches to the paradigms of photography. Find a technique/approach which suits you and hone your skills while having fun along the way.

Barry

akmc_in_au
 
Posts: 954

Re: No, it's not cheating

Post Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:21 pm


jerseyfinn wrote:Unless you are referring about photojournalism which must always convey complete veracity & certitude in the image, photography in general, is a wide open proposition. It has its defining "technical" parameters, but those things aside, photography is artful & in essence an aesthetic endeavor.


I'd generally be inclined to agree. After all, the camera never lies, to use the old adage... but it can only tell the truth to within at best about 10 stops of dynamic range, amongst other limitations. Accordingly there's always a degree of uncertainty.

That having been said though, I do sometimes wonder whether, when an image becomes 10% photo and 90% Photoshop, it wouldn't be better to just go out and hire a good cartoonist and be done with it. This is the sort of thing that I'm thinking of: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/12/ ... 46549.html

And to be honest, I'd rate the "before" shot as being pretty damn flattering as well for that particular... "subject", to be polite... which makes the "after" shot less of a cheat, and more of a complete and utter fantasy.

bradjh
 
Posts: 65

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:28 pm


I proposed this same question to a couple of friends who are pro photographers who started in film and their answer surprised me as I thought they would be negative. They said something to this effect.....

Shooting film is no guarantee of realty. The type of film you choose (color, BW, saturated, high grain) all effect the image. Then you shoot with filters. Pros who have access to darkrooms can effect the image further with filter, burning, dodging, and film/paper developing techniques

I use photo shop heavily, but when it comes to creating images that I want to represent reality, I stick By a few rules. Basicaly don't do in PS anything I couldn't do in a dark room

Don't combine images
Do crop
Don't increase saturation more than 10%..... this usually looks like Velvia film to me
Do burn/doge
Do make color into BW
Do minor color correction

kaj_e
 
Posts: 181

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:08 pm


It is your image. You have the right to tweak it as you see fit. No, limits on what you can do as long as you are happy with the result.

There are of course exceptions; many photo competitions have specific limitations on what is allowed and what isn't.

If you do journalistic photography, only simple global adjustments and some minor dodging and burning is typically allowed. Some organizations accept only completely original unaltered images and prefer to do any editing themselves to retain ethical control of the reporting.

As has been noted in some posts above even film shooters, particularly art photographers like Ansel Adams, did and do extensive darkroom manipulations including combining different negatives into a single image("sandwiching").

xtranch
 
Posts: 11

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:32 pm


what you are describing is normal editing. One of the most common errors I see in posted photos is over editing. If you have a nice landscape and it looks a little like a cartoon you are over editing. Sometimes I do major changes that has some effect I like, this I consider to be digital art from a photograph. I also like to emulate the effects seen in very old photography. take a look at my galleries, I have one titled digital art, another is monochrome edits using nik silver efeks. pbase.com/xtranch.

genghis45
 
Posts: 5154

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:49 am


chestersgallery wrote:Having come into the digital SLR's scene very late I often wonder how much editing is fair or unfair to the viewer. With my old film SLR I had no darkroom and the pictures came back from the developers as taken. In other words the skill was in the shoot.( And still is to a point) Now with the ability to shoot in raw and alter all manor of things afterwards I often wonder " What exactly is a reasonable amount of editing". I know its down to individual opinion but what are the individual opinion of PBasers on this subject.

For example in your opinion

Is cropping OK ?

Is altering levels OK?

Is saturation and digital Burning OK?

Should it be stated on PBase what level of editing took place? ( I know some of us do anyway )

In short. Are we cheating the viewer? ( assuming of course the viewer cares)

Hope this kicks off some interesting response :D


Unless one is dogmatic to a fault, there are always more ways than one to achieve goals.

Image

hiero
 
Posts: 329

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:20 pm


In the end of course we have to realise there is no way to portray 'objective reality', so all imagery deviates from reality. The first 100 years of photography may be deemed cheating because photography removed all colour from reality. In many cases, including photojournalism colour may be very relevant to the subject. Chosing to shoot a river in BW may hide the fact that it is full of blood or pollution, that would be evident or at least suggested by the red or lime green colours in a colour image.

Some may say objective reality does not exist at all, so there is nothing that can be cheated on. But of course cheating should be reserved for intentionally hiding the means you use to create an effect that would be dismissed as unfair if we had known those means. This is mostly the case in the context of competitions, where you clearly want to have a more or less 'level' playing field. In other cases it is much more complex and not a technical judgment but a multifaceted moral judgement of the intentions of the photographer relating to the subject of the image and the desired effects on the viewer. These are really interesting discussions, but quite complicated. I can saturate grass and flower colours because I know people feel joy viewing these full colours. Is this unfair on the grass, the flowers or the viewer? One can do the same thing because one knows those images receive more clicks and one can show off one's statistics. Is this unfair or cheating?

I view the whole proces of creating an image, framing the shot, in camera controls and post processing as one chain of choices and actions without the possibility to deem sections of this chain as cheating. Most P&S camera automatically do a lot of processing in camera that slr users apply in post.

Let me be clear: I do not say that anything goes, on the contrary. A lot of images are highly debatable. But I think if there is truth to be found it is probably more in the debate around those images than in the image itself.
Jeroen Bosman, glad to be on Pbase
http://www.pbase.com/hiero

creativeimagery
 
Posts: 31

Re: Am I Cheating

Post Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:19 pm


This is a wonderful discussion because, I think, it gets to the heart of what photography is about. I can think of two "types" of photographs (and I'm sure there are more): There is "documentary" photography and "evocative" photography, with some overlap between the two. Documentary photography is what I think of as photo journalism. It is an attempt to accurately portray an event or moment in time with a high degree of verisimilitude. This means that a minimum of editing should be performed, and certainly you shouldn't be moving or deleting objects in order to make a "better" picture. But what about darkening a background, so that your central subject stands out more? How about cropping the scene to better focus attention? Since most of use see in color, is black and white film a true representation of "reality"? The image is two dimensional, not three, so what effect does that have? And finally, the camera has a very limited view of the overall scene, so the photographer has to choose a "frame", a small part of the scene to include in the photograph. Does that selection alter the "reality" of what shown in the photo because it excludes other information that might change your perception of the scene? Even at their best, documentary photos are only a crude representation of reality as we experience it, but by social consensus, we accept them as representing reality.

Evocative photography on the other hand, is about creating a feeling in the viewer. It may, or may not, closely resemble reality as perceived by your eye, but it's real purpose it to evoke in the viewer a particular set of emotions. That emotion might be a sense of awe at a magnificent landscape, or the beauty of a flower, or sadness, or any of the thousands of other emotions we experience. Evocative photography is free to use any technique available, including extensive digital editing. It is an attempt to express what was/is seen in the photographer's "mind's eye", and share it with others (and some of us see with a pretty weird "mind's eye"......). BTW, I think the best documentary photographs are also evocative. I tend to judge all photos by the emotions they evoke in me.

Ultimately, a photo is just, well, a photo! It's not reality, it's at best on a crude representation of reality. There is no "cheating", except to the degree that you try to present a photograph as reality. So, go ahead, use whatever techniques are available to you to create images that capture your vision. If you're good at it, or lucky, you'll be able to evoke in others the emotions you experienced when you took the picture.

Cheers,

Terry Melman

Next

Board index Photography Artistic Questions Am I Cheating

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests