Opinions: Is photo editing cheating?

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

03/31/2005 11:37:07 AM · #26

i think its cheating because its not the photographers skill its the computers

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

03/31/2005 11:39:16 AM · #27

Originally posted by broly:

i think its cheating because its not the photographers skill its the computers

Along the same lines ... what your camera does is not your skills either. Should we be using cameras?

grigrigirl

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

03/31/2005 11:43:31 AM · #28

WHen i didnt have a darkroom, I stopped taking pictures. I still took color snapshots..but that was it. No lab could make my black and white prints look the way i wanted. I always believed that processing was half the art. Digital gave photography back to me. So much easier to make my computer my darkroom. Less smelly too! I believe anyone who argues that photoshop is cheating has probably never had experience in a darkroom.

03/31/2005 11:47:30 AM · #29

good point
but still editing takes the original photo away and replaces it with a better photo but leaves the photographers skill in the computer besides im 13 used a nikon D70 and an epson photo pc 600 and im better with the epson

Prof_Fate

03/31/2005 11:50:53 AM · #30

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

I agree 110%!!!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/31/2005 11:53:54 AM · #31

Message edited by author 2005-03-31 11:54:36.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

03/31/2005 12:00:32 PM · #32

I think that editing is 'not' cheating as long as you stay within the rules of this site and rules of art. What I mean by rules of art is; if you are a photographer then adding something that is not there in the original shot then it is no longer a photograph but a fake and IMO deemed cheating.
But as far as editing to enhance the elements within the photograph that you have captured is totally legal. After all you can not enhance something that is not there, burned out or blackened out due to under and over exposure. Editing can not make a bad picture look great.

Physics_Guru

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/31/2005 12:03:49 PM · #33

Thanks for the replies so far. It is interesting to see the opinions and how they are stated.

As for me, I should have given my response to my own question first. I will try to cover all the comments made in this reply....

I fully agree that art -in general- has no bounds / no rules. Photography is most definitly art and is in the eye of the artist. My style of art may not be your style, but it is art none the less. Agree fully.

I know that editing was done by film processors in the past. I have an interest in learning the art of developing but right now it is not feasable due to being a full time college student, father, and business owner. But it is an interesting aspect of photography.

Digital photography has opened up the photography community like AOL opened the internet community many years ago. Where there was a time when only very serious photographers could get in the game, now anyone can buy a camera (heck - most cell phones have them now) and get pictures on the web. As with internet skills, the quality will vary greatly. But if one does not keep on top of technology, one falls behind. This is true in the computer market, internet, and - as we know - the digital photography world.

So my answer would be that photo editing is not cheating.

And yes, I am big into physics... and funny thing is the course I took for intro optics is what showed me I didn't want to master in optics after I get my BS like I had once planned. :)

joebok

Fujifilm X100F

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

03/31/2005 12:24:34 PM · #34

I'm seeing a lot of "no" is isn't cheating replies. I think we need to evaluate the consequences of such hasty decisions.

If you allow even one pixel of one image to be changed, the effects will be horrific! If you allow cropping and rotation then nothing is safe!

I can start with a perfectly innocent image:

If I change the color of the top, left-most pixel, then project the bastardized image and take it's photo, I can then alter the top, second-to-left-most pixel - making it any color I want!! If I repeat this process 271998 more times, and make one crop and one rotation, then I can turn an innocent leaf into this monstrosity:

Nobody wants that! Anarchy! Who will protect the children?

Luckily I have a solution. Digital cameras are becoming more and more sophisticated - perhaps verging on self-awareness and rudimentary sentience. I say we make them the copyright holders of the images they take - then others, including the photographer, would not be able to infringe by creating derivative works until 70 years after the last battery for that model of camera lost it's charge.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/31/2005 12:25:33 PM · #35

Originally posted by Physics_Guru:

... Photography is most definitly art and is in the eye of the artist. ...

Are you including the documentary in art, or excluding it from photography? Surely you can agree that some photography is not art, can't you?

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/31/2005 12:41:49 PM · #36

This image, for all intent and purposes, is out-of-camera:

This one has been 'photoshopped' ad absurdum with subtle effects:

This one has very little Photoshop work, but uses an obvious effect:

This one is (nearly) straight out of camera:

This one, however, has been altered dramatically in Photoshop:

I could go on, but I think these examples demonstrate the futility of trying to categorize photographs by evidence of post-processing.

Personally, I am only interested in image. I really don't care what tools are used to create one. The tools -or so I feel- should fit the purpose and sense of the image.

It is much easier, of course, to classify a particular effect than it is to articulate one's sense of a photograph.

03/31/2005 01:12:23 PM · #37

This was sort of a silly question, if you ask me. "Is photo editing cheating?" Think about it. In order to allow the possibility of cheating, you have to have rules, and no rules are deined or even implied in the question.

Now, if the question had been "Is an edited photograph still a photograph?" then it would at least be a valid question, although we'd then get lost in trying to define what a "photograph" is. Of course, that's sort of what's happened in this thread already isn't it?

Then, of course, we have the issue of what, exactly, constitutes "photo editing"... Purists working with film sometimes take the position that even CROPPING is a violation of their art, and show the edges of the negative in the print to "prove" that they have not cropped the image. But of course, they've PRINTED the negative, and in doing that they've made a decision (at a minimum) to print on a particular paper with a particular developer, and this will look completely different than some other film/developer combination. So can't we say that the mere act of making a print involves an "editorial" decision?

Better we ignore the question altogether, IMO. Editing is an integral part of photography. The amount of editing that's "permissible" depends on the game you're playing. If you're a photojournalist, you have ethical constraints. If you're an artist, whatever constraints you have are much looser, and are mostly self-imposed, unless you're "playing" in a venue (like DPC for example) that imposes its own, arbitrary constraints on your work.

That's really all there is to say.

Robt.

Prof_Fate

03/31/2005 01:16:50 PM · #38

Originally posted by bear_music:

Calling it an 'editorial decision' brings to mind writing. No one (beyond web posting like this) publishes their writing without some editing - syntax or spell check (like removing dust spots) at the very least. Often times another person edits the manuscript so the writer/author/creator has very little say over the end result. this is even true in news reporting, where 'creativity' on the author's part is (or should be) non-existent.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/31/2005 01:20:04 PM · #39

Right.

I am always amused by people who, for whatever reason, try to insist that "photography" is some sort of mechanical art, where the camera is the repository of the image and anything done to it once it leaves the camera is done at the expense of the "integrity of the image."

I can't think of any other art or craft, offhand, that does not allow revision and fine-tuning of the finished product, which always represents a series of steps along the path from conception to finished piece.

Robt.

coolhar

03/31/2005 02:01:03 PM · #40

Originally posted by bear_music:

Maybe a Jackson Pollack abstract?

How about a photograph taken by a police photographer of an accident scene? How about you bear, can you acknowledge that there is photography outside of art?

magicshutter

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/31/2005 02:04:15 PM · #41

Originally posted by Physics_Guru:

I am sure this topic will stir up some interesting comments. Let me first say that I am not against photo editing and use Photoshop 7 (more like abuse since I hardly know what I am doing at this point) to tweak my own pictures.

Do you think photo editing is 'cheating'? The essence of photography is having the photographer get the shot so that it is perfect from the beginning. While technology has progressed and to stay on top one must embrace technology (it makes life so much easier!). But.... does this specific technology degrade the quality of photographers in todays world? (Not refering to the final product as a bad photographer / good editor could still produce outstanding work).

I think it will be interesting to hear peoples opinions on this one.

Even film is 'edited'. It's at the mercy of the photofinisher/developer. So thinking that 'photography is getting a perfect shot' means there are NO photographers (except maybe the ones who use polaroid, and even then the camera does the developing) I'll give you the fact that digital is more manipulatable but it's still just 'developing'.

03/31/2005 02:29:07 PM · #42

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Right.

I am always amused by people who, for whatever reason, try to insist that "photography" is some sort of mechanical art, where the camera is the repository of the image and anything done to it once it leaves the camera is done at the expense of the "integrity of the image."

I can't think of any other art or craft, offhand, that does not allow revision and fine-tuning of the finished product, which always represents a series of steps along the path from conception to finished piece.

Robt.

Maybe a Jackson Pollack abstract?

How about a photograph taken by a police photographer of an accident scene? How about you bear, can you acknowledge that there is photography outside of art?

I'm referring specifically to "creative photography", coolhar. Obviously there are some professional disiciplines that use photography to RECORD things, and they have different rules, but this really doesn't concern us here. We are a site devoted to the aesthetics and techniques of photography. Frankly, I think it's sort of silly of you to attempt to use my statements to suggest that I don't admit of the possibility of "other" types of photography, since I already mentioned photojournalism and its different set of ethical constraints as an example of non-art photography. (QUOTE: The amount of editing that's "permissible" depends on the game you're playing. If you're a photojournalist, you have ethical constraints. If you're an artist, whatever constraints you have are much looser, and are mostly self-imposed, unless you're "playing" in a venue (like DPC for example) that imposes its own, arbitrary constraints on your work. )

As to the Jackson Pollack abstract, it didn't just happen, he created it from scratch, making conscious decisions as he went about it, and often went back to canvases many times to modify them before he considered them finished. There was an excellent documentary made on him working, I forget the title of it now.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-03-31 14:32:03.

Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD for Nikon

03/31/2005 02:33:28 PM · #43

use the camera for art not photoshop

Reddia

Nikon D70

03/31/2005 02:37:05 PM · #44

Originally posted by broly:

use the camera for art not photoshop

i agree

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/31/2005 02:39:42 PM · #45

I agree with Bear that it depends on the game your playing. But if the game being played is 'Photographer' when the editing becomes an intention to 'fix' instead of an intention to enhance -- the photographer is just cheating themselves.

For those like myself who are trying to learn photography, post-processing is an integral part of the process -- but nothing is learned when the perspective is tweaked or the dog is edited out instead of just reshooting the image.

Maybe it's the 'instant gratification syndrome' that seems to pervade society anymore, but I just don't understand why so many 'photographers' would rather 'fix' an image than take it as an excuse to pick up their camera again and go reshoot it until its right.

Maybe it's by background. When I was learning to design and write computer programs I was told early on to write it and then wad it up and throw it away. At the time it was hard for me to do, sometimes I had spend days getting it written -- but each time I did the second and third results where always much superior. After that, it came as no surprise to me when I took my first English Composition course in college that the instructor told us to always 'wad up and throw away' our first draft.

I have since been in the positions to assist others when needed as they learn to program -- and I have seen the same thing over and over again. They simply stop progressing in ability at the exact point the focus changes from 'creating' to 'fixing'. They may become experts at 'making it work', but they don't get any better at creating it.

In photography it has been the same way for me. Since I started I've been trying to always watch for the attitude shift to 'fix' and back up a step or two until it no longer needed 'fizing' and see if there was something I could have done differently -- even if it means 'wading it up and throwing it away' and then go reshoot it.

Doing anything else would be cheating myself in this game of 'learning photography'.

David

Bud

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

03/31/2005 02:40:40 PM · #46

Originally posted by Physics_Guru:

No, photo editing is not cheating. Why would any one think that?