| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2005 08:57:17 AM · #1 |
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. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:02:11 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Physics_Guru:
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. |
Whenever this sort of question comes up, someone always mentions Ansel Adams and his darkroom work. I thought that I'd try to be the first.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:02:40 AM · #3 |
I wanted to be the first! |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:03:12 AM · #4 |
They edited their photos way before photoshop. They have been dodging and burning photos since they been taking photos. Now, its not as advance as what you can do in photoshop but it was and still is editing.
The one nice thing about art is there is no rules...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:07:29 AM · #5 |
Seems to me art has always included the observers interpretation of what he is seeing. Cheating implies a set of rules have been established and a code adopted for applying, enforcing and penalizing. So, it depends on the rules in effect for any given event, for overall photography, not at all. For specific events, it may well be.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:11:17 AM · #6 |
| digital photos, especially those taken by dSLR's are made to look best when slightly edited. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:14:04 AM · #7 |
no.
composing a good shot takes skill. so does having the artistic skills to edit it in photoshop, not to mention technical skills.
it's all about knowing what is visually appealing. you either have it, or you don't. photoshop is just a tool. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:15:18 AM · #8 |
| In my opinion as long as the final product gives people joy to look at and perhaps stirs up some kind of feeling, even if it is only for your self then there should be no rules. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:16:30 AM · #9 |
even when you take film into a good photoshop they edit a little bit for you. I know the lab I used to use made sure each photo looked the best possible way before they gave me proofs back. sure I paid more but well worth it in the end. So, to answer your question not I don't think its cheating unless your combining 2 images together into 1 or adding something that wasn't there in the original.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:17:34 AM · #10 |
I think there's no such thing as a "pure" unprocessed image.
Even the most basic techniques in dark room post processing (timing) affect how the picture will look; even with the modern machines you use at your local photo printing store, there will be some manipulation made to the negative before printing. With digital; unless you shoot in RAW format the camera will do some automatic postprocessing for you before showing you the final output.
Now, when you create a composite that didn't really exist, I personally think you're making ART (it would be called cheating if you used that image as a proof of some sort).
But when you use photo editing techniques to enhance some of the elements already present in your shot, I would say you're maintaining photographic integrity. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:18:52 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by notonline:
So, to answer your question not I don't think its cheating unless your combining 2 images together into 1 or adding something that wasn't there in the original. |
This would be cheating in a challenge here, but in general I wouldn't call it that necessarily unless the end result is being passed off as unedited. In making a pleasant image to look at, surely anything is legitimate?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:21:26 AM · #12 |
sorry if I read this wrong, but it almost is saying that photography isn't an 'art'. I think they are one and the same.
good examples of how photography is fine art:
check out skiprow, zeuszen, imagineer's portfolios.
Originally posted by rgarciah55:
I think there's no such thing as a "pure" unprocessed image.
Even the most basic techniques in dark room post processing (timing) affect how the picture will look; even with the modern machines you use at your local photo printing store, there will be some manipulation made to the negative before printing. With digital; unless you shoot in RAW format the camera will do some automatic postprocessing for you before showing you the final output.
Now, when you create a composite that didn't really exist, I personally think you're making ART (it would be called cheating if you used that image as a proof of some sort).
But when you use photo editing techniques to enhance some of the elements already present in your shot, I would say you're maintaining photographic integrity. |
text |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:22:42 AM · #13 |
The only palce that specific editing limitations need to be in place is for photojournalism or evidentiary photography.
Performing very significant edits, like compositing of two or more images, can be troublesome if the photo is represented as being an image of an actual scene. This is where the negative connotation of "photoshopping" comes from.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:23:57 AM · #14 |
Even before I hit photoshop a lot of editing is done. I crop the scene with my zoom lens. My camera does white balance, sharpens, and does noise reduction automaticaly.
What I try to do with my post processing is make the scene look like the way I remember it. Sometimes I make it the way I want to remember it. Thats what makes it art. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:27:20 AM · #15 |
I would say you are cheating both the viewer and yourself if you don't edit. IMO an editing program is an integral part of the process, and learning to do just the right things is the difficult part of the task
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:40:28 AM · #16 |
| The Mona Lisa was originally painted wearing a necklace and there was a dog in the background. The aritist decided to paint over them. If he had a computer, would he have used PhotoShop? |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:41:23 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
sorry if I read this wrong, but it almost is saying that photography isn't an 'art'. I think they are one and the same.
good examples of how photography is fine art:
check out skiprow, zeuszen, imagineer's portfolios.
|
I totally agree with you that there is some photography that is ART by itself, and we have very talented artist photographers here with us in DPC, that will "create" their images by putting together light, POV, DOF and the best exposure to create a composition of the elements they are shooting in a frame.
But you also have to admit that not ALL photography is art, for example the common family album snapshot won't necesarily fall in the "art espectrum".
Now, I think that every composite of several images or elements is a creation, thus may be called ART despite being good or bad, tasteful or distasteful.... I'll leave that to the experts.
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 09:53:43. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 09:48:53 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Physics_Guru:
...
Do you think photo editing is 'cheating'?
... |
Answer: No.
In fact, it is both necessary and essential.
As a physics person, as your screen name implies, you surely recognize that a camera CANNOT capture what the eye sees. It NEVER captures what was "really there". There ALWAYS is far more "there" than a single setting of shutter speed, f/number, lense and photo detector will record to disk.
It can't even get something as basic as colors right because the colors are recorded differently for different exposure settings. Take the same scene at different exposures and look at them. The color is different in each one.
Should you do the absolute best in the field to get the very best possible capture? Of course. Only a fool would do otherwise. Famous last words are,"I can fix that in Photoshop!".
But snapping the shutter is only the beginning. It is the duty of the photographer to take the raw image and bring out what was "really there".
Get real, learn the tools of the trade.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 10:17:41 AM · #19 |
I think the real debate stems from those who hang on to the film process. That is, you can do most of the same techniques in a dark room but if you mess up then you have to start all over, not just clicking "undo" -- somehow giving more "artistic" value to the painstaking process of a dark room.
I find it interesting that some posts mentioned combining more than one image as not acceptable. I disagree. One of my favorite things to do with my film camera is multiple exposures (something I miss on my digital), not to mention you can combine multiple images in a dark room.
I personally think that digital image editing is acceptable, to a degree. Is it to enhance the image that is already captured? Or is it outright manipulation, no longer resembling something that could be captured with a camera? With the latter I would not call it photography; true it can still be art but a new format where an image is being created instead of recorded.
Are there any of us that would not give more weight/credibiilty/value to an incredible photograph with the least amount of alterations than to the same image (or at least very similar) produced through manipulation?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:04:23 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Physics_Guru:
... But.... does this specific technology degrade the quality of photographers in todays world? |
Undoubtedly it has. And will degrade them more as time goes by. Increasingly people rely on photo-editing software to make up for a lack of skills in using the camera.
Originally posted by kirbic:
The only palce that specific editing limitations need to be in place is for photojournalism or evidentiary photography. |
These are certainly two large areas where editing needs to be limited but putting the word only in that sentence bothers me. Medical and architectural photography are also areas where editing should not go to excesses. I'm sure there are more. Perhaps some, but not all, of what we call landscapes and cityscapes. Maybe photographs for textbook illustration.
Originally posted by crockettdl:
The Mona Lisa was originally painted wearing a necklace and there was a dog in the background. The aritist decided to paint over them. If he had a computer, would he have used PhotoShop? |
Or perhaps, if Leonardo had a digicam, he would have looked at the image on his computer, and then asked the model to remove the necklace and used a wider aperture to blur out the background, or just kicked the dog out of his studio.
Originally posted by sammy_stecchino:
Are there any of us that would not give more weight/credibiilty/value to an incredible photograph with the least amount of alterations than to the same image (or at least very similar) produced through manipulation? |
Fraid so, lots of them. Some even in this thread. But those who say the result is what counts and it doesn't matter how much editing is used are devalueing themselves. Even if the viewer cannot tell the difference, the photog knows how the result was achieved, and whether or not the methods used violate their own principles and values, or some other set of principles and values such as the rules here at dpc.
I think the real arguement is about how much editing, and the use of which tools, moves a photograph out of the world of the documentary and into the world of photo-art. There will always be debate and disagreement on this point.
If you desire to work in the documentary areas, and say your goal is to do as near to perfect as you can with the camera alone, then I think you must posit the possibility that a perfect image can be captured by the camera without the need for any editing, and therefore photo-editing software is not "essential".
Message edited by author 2005-03-31 11:09:26.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:06:15 AM · #21 |
Cheating?
Unless there is a set of rules, one cannot 'cheat'. So for DPC entries, you can cheat. For your own pleasure, no, there is no such thing as cheating.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:08:25 AM · #22 |
| I think it could be called cheating if you try to pass a severely edited image as a straight photo. Back in the old darkroom days there was a lot of tricks that you could do to an image including sandwitching 2 negs together. I think as long as you are honest and explain what you have do, have at it. I don't think that it should be used as a crutch for poor photography though. |
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:16:24 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I think it could be called cheating if you try to pass a severely edited image as a straight photo. I think as long as you are honest and explain what you have do, have at it. |
I agree. If the aim of your final work is art, then there should not even be a consideration of cheating, unless the piece in question was being entered in a specific exhibit or contest that had prohibitions on such editing.
Editorial work, reportage, and wildlife photography on the other hand should never undergo more then the most basic post processing, such as exposure and contrast, unless a prominent notice is attached to such work.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:20:45 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Editorial work, reportage, and wildlife photography on the other hand should never undergo more then the most basic post processing, such as exposure and contrast, unless a prominent notice is attached to such work. |
So you're telling me you won't beleive my pics of the Unicorn?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2005 11:34:56 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Editorial work, reportage, and wildlife photography on the other hand should never undergo more then the most basic post processing, such as exposure and contrast, unless a prominent notice is attached to such work. |
So you're telling me you won't beleive my pics of the Unicorn? |
Only if you buy my Jack-o-lope photos..... =) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:58:28 PM EDT.
