Is it considered cheating ??? your opinions from the experts.

[Mega]

I have only been into digital Photography just this last year although i did do some 35mm stuff about 30+ years ago but that stopped due to getting married,house and kids etc,but this last year the urge to take this hobby up again surfaced and after doing some homework a bought a few nice cameras albeit not over the top price wise but also not the cheapest going either.

And i will admit i am really enjoying it,have done alot of reading and trying to learn as much i can from some very good forums,its all coming together in terms of subject matter and how best to get a few spectacular shot rather than massive's amount of rubbish photo's as i would describe them.

This is the part of modern Photography that i still cannot grasp if its right or wrong and is it classed as possibly cheating,and its the photo editing software side of photography.What i mean by this that with modern technology we can manipulate rubbish pictures into semi decent one,maybe not award winning quality but how do the old timers see this new technology especially the software side of things.

I will admit i am a total novice and only just started out,but i am trying to gain skills so that i can take better 'original' pictures that in theory dont require any modifications to say low light quality or removing things etc that software can.So am i the only one that thinks its classed as cheating or perhaps that may not be the right word to use.Any input or thoughts about this topic from long standing folks in this hobby.

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

n/t

 

[Mega]

Kelly,as i mentioned perhaps that was not the right word to use,but what i mean is that say in the old 35mm days although it was possible to change things in a picture of course modern technology has made it much easier.

So lets say that you took a picture years ago,not only had you the subject matter to get right but things like lighting and other things as well and i guess that was a great skill to get everything right and bring it all together,but today you can take a picture and the the subject matter could be right but the lighting and other things could all be wrong.But you can these days change that by using the various software packages that are on the market,so by changing the various faults with a potential great shot,could this not be seen as cheating or change that to some other word if that is not the right word.

Of course it could be seen as a skill in its own right using the software to gain a better picture,it was just a topic that i was not sure about and of course other folks can see it in a different light,hence why i thought i would post it on this forum,to see what other folks think about it.

Maybe i am missing the point but just wanted other folks opinions on it,if its not important you can delete it i guess.Prehaps its the novice in me that is showing through.

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

be important people. Second, the question had to be important to you or you would not have posted it, and it certainly will not be deleted.

Using photo editing software to enhance a picture as per se is a broad subject and is usually done at the discretion of the photographer's likes and dislikes. I do use photo editing software for minor tuning of a picture: Brightness, contrast, resize, crop and etc. Somewhere down the line, I might try my hand at HDR painting and other special effects, but it will be done for my enjoyment, not for other's approval. Photography is an art, and there is no limit on enhancing a picture, you should do what makes you happy.

Always remember that you enhance a good picture to make it better, and on the other side of the coin, all the enhancing in the world will not improve bad picture...in my humble opinion.

Please have a great day! Kelley (Texas)

 

[RustyNTX]

n/t

 

[Romanf]

No, I don't think it is cheating...in the old days virtually all the adjustments were made at the enlarger. If you read anything about Ansel Adams you will see that he spent a tremendous amount of time dodging, cropping, and in general working over every photo he took. None of his famous pics are straight out of the camera. So today we are doing it digitally instead of spending hours leaning over an enlarger. So go ahead and bang away at Photoshop or whatever program you are using (there are several free ones out there) and enjoy what you accomplish.

 

[Roscue2]

People ask Ansel Adams son all the time if they think he would like digital photography. The son always answers that he believes his dad would love it. I almost never edit my photos, but I don't consider it cheating.

 

[Kellyco/Brad]

In my years of photography (8 years) and 11 years of photoshop, I have a "look" to my photos that I try to make it feel natural but look strikingly beautiful to the eyes. A lot of big time photographers will say "get it right and you wont need to mess up the photo in an editing software" but as far as I see, especially if you lack the glass to take those picture perfect shots, you will need to edit to sorta filter out the "cheaper equipment" feeling just to help your photos gain momentum and popularity. I use a $100 dollar lens but the photos never come out like I want with lighting, so I do figit a bit around with the lighting to fix my cheap lenses lack of quality.

Now, I do not like a lot of PP, and do not like the feel where people want to over contrast, kill the colors by making them look unaturally vibrant, or by making the photo HDR. HDR is hard to shoot right, but people trying to do HDR on random shots just need to stop. My opinion of course.

If I think a shot is ruined or too blurry or just blown out completely, I will PP that picture until it looks pretty cool, even if it isnt my style, and if I can not fix it, it goes in the trash. example, the picture on my profile was blown out from the sunset, my wife doesn't know how to adjust accordingly, so it was not a picture I could use as a natural shot, but I was able to bring the colors out of the sun onto the water and really make the picture look artistic. I like the way it came out, although it is not how I normally work. Everyone will have their opinion, I do not think PP is cheating, but will always have a "like it or not" feel for a lot of upper class photographers trying to get the shot right. They will take pride in not editing their shots, just let them sit on their high horse with their $10,000 equipment.

 

[Romanf]

Actually the professional photographers use Photoshop and other editing software a lot more than you think. Again, if anyone thinks they will get the perfect picture everytime straight from the camera, then they are just being too hard on themselves. That just does not happen often enough that you can count on it. I have been a professional for 40 years, use expensive equipment, and still use editing software. In fact, when shooting for a client, it is actually expected that some tweaks will be needed. After all, mother nature does not provide us with the perfect photo op when we arrive at the photo shoot.

So, get out there, shoot the best you can, and edit away.

 

[Kellyco/Brad]

I know a lot of pro's use editing software, but I am talking about guys like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc0vyC9Uy5c
Zack Arias says deliberately in this video "lets do this right.....don't fix it in photoshop, don't be that idiot" around 9:50.

Now he is a great photographer, although he pretty much puts anyone that edits in the trash. That is the type of pro I was talking about, not your ordinary pro.

 

[Romanf]

Sure, but not all pros shoot in a studio with known lighting, etc.....Imagine taking pics at a wedding. There is no time for reshoots. What is an ordinary pro?

 

[Kellyco/Brad]

Well from my own personal meaning, magazine and sporting photographers, and wedding photography. Someone that will use editing to further their business and not be so arrogant like that guy as a pro.

 

[NM5K]

I don't consider editing to be cheating at all, unless the picture is intended to be an example of not using any.
I crop a huge number of my images. And I adjust the color/brightness, etc on a lot of them if I think it's
better than the original. Cropping alone can turn many mediocre images into pretty good ones.
This is one example I did for a guy that was pondering the benefits of cropping. He gave us a picture he
took, and asked what we would do with it.
This is the original he took.

I looked at it for a few minutes, and to me, I saw too much clutter. You had elements of old mixing with
modern elements, and they clashed. Mainly the fence, and also the fencing in the background.
Your eye wants to be drawn to the wheel, but that awful looking fence wants to grab your eye and steer
it away from what should be the main attraction. I'm of the opinion that anything that does not benefit the
image should be whacked. So I pondered it a while and did this as far as the crop.
It changed the image quite a bit. It's more up/down vs the original, but all the clutter is gone. No fence to
distract the eye, and no modern clutter to take away from the old stuff. With the modified image, you can't
tell if it's 2010, or 1942, or 1921.. Anyway, just an example of how clutter can be removed to improve the
overall image. And I have no problems at all doing this.. They used to do the same with film images too,
so it's nothing really new.
I also made several color/texture mods using edit tricks like water color, etc, etc.. But I won't bother with
those here..

 

[NM5K]

For portrait type images, I can see his point. The better he gets raw, the better off he is going to be.
But I don't shoot many portraits.. :/
Heck, with any type of image, getting is as good as possible raw is always the best. But I'm sure
not afraid to whip out the editor if I feel something is not like I want it.
With me, I do take care with shooting the picture as far as framing, etc, but many of the pictures I
end up using are crops from bracketed shots where I point half decent, and just let the camera take
three quick shots. I pick the sharpest one and go from there. I bet I crop 80% of my images to some
extent. Some fairly major, some just slightly.
To each his own I say. The end result is the bottom line.

 

[NM5K]

Sometimes I like to use the edit toys to come up with weird stuff..
Would never get one like this raw..

 

[Kelley (Texas)]

n/t

 

[nge]

Here's a slightly modified fall photo, can ya see what fun PS9 is.....lol....nge

 

[nge]

I have a ball with photoshop elements 9. And mostly, I use it to remove unwanted wires, jet trails, cell towers, and to mess with B/W, add sepia tones to old barn pics. But mostly for contrast and lighting.......nge

 

[Auriemma]

Hi. I'm new here. I've been into photography since I was 12 (nearly 50 now), and was a professional sports photographer for 7 years.

Is digital editing cheating? Only if it is used to change the truth in the image (adding someone else head to someone else's body, putting a gun in someone's hand, etc.). As it's been said, people have been enhancing their images since photography was invented, cropping, dodging, masking, filters, etc. it's all about making the image the best you can make it. Digital is no different, just easier.

When I submitted images to the leagues, they wanted edited images. They trusted my judgement. When I submitted to magazines, they wanted raw, as it came from the camera. You do what the customer or audience wants. If it's for you or for public sale by you, enhance away.

Again, if the image is good in the camera, it will need less post.

Otherwise... Shoot and enjoy.

 

[Roscue2]

Hi. I'm new here. I've been into photography since I was 12 (nearly 50 now), and was a professional sports photographer for 7 years.

Is digital editing cheating? Only if it is used to change the truth in the image (adding someone else head to someone else's body, putting a gun in someone's hand, etc.). As it's been said, people have been enhancing their images since photography was invented, cropping, dodging, masking, filters, etc. it's all about making the image the best you can make it. Digital is no different, just easier.

When I submitted images to the leagues, they wanted edited images. They trusted my judgement. When I submitted to magazines, they wanted raw, as it came from the camera. You do what the customer or audience wants. If it's for you or for public sale by you, enhance away.

Again, if the image is good in the camera, it will need less post.

Otherwise... Shoot and enjoy.