Is Editing Cheating?

A

Amnesia180

Suspended / Banned
Messages
278
Edit My Images
No
Hi There...

I'm in a bit of a dilema, and don't know how to deal with it.

On my website you can see a bunch of Photos from my Trip to South Africa. The majority have been cropped, and edited (to adjust light, and make them better exposures).

Anyway, when I copied all the originals to the computer I put them straight onto a DVD and sent them to my relatives in South Africa.

I'm now being faced with "Where are the photos on your website?" and "Why aren't they on your DVD". I explain they are on the DVD, but the DVD hasn't been edited, so they are all the originals.

To which their reply was "Isn't that cheating?" - And some part of me thinks yes... because I didn't take the image you see on the website. I took the clip, but the computer edited the rest.

So, how would I answer if I was faced with that question again?

The only reason I'm asking this, is because if you guys do a wedding. Do you crop and edit the photos? If so, would you crop/edit all photos then put them onto a DVD for them to proof.

Or would you just put all the originals onto a DVD then send it over to them?

Thanks in advance!
Amnesia
 
I tend not to crop unless I really have to but I do edit particularly if is for a client as they will want to see the final versions. Most editing is just to levels, contrast and a bit of sharpening but I shoot RAW exclusively so there is no 'in-camera' work done.
 
I'd love to see an example. Are you talking about significant post-processing, or just minor like Hacker mentions above?
 
If you go to www.dan-taylor.co.uk and click on Gallery - you can see all the photos there. They have basically all been cropped. Especially the eagle one at the end.

I'm not talking about HDR, or erasing parts of the animal, or editing in extra things.

All I've done is change the contrast and levels only (i've not gone any further in my learning than that just yet).

Basically to bring the colours out more etc.

In the Sunset ones you can see i've adjusted the RGB as well... and you can see some blues, reds, oranges etc coming through.

A selection of my South Africa photos are in the gallery at www.dan-taylor.co.uk (i don't have access to the originals at the moment).

Thanks,
Amnesia
 
Many years ago, when cameras were more like huge boxes and the images produced were mono, for special occasions, the photographer could get the image coloured. Was that cheating? The final result wasn't the cameras efforts, it had been 'edited' ;)
My point is that pictures have always been 'edited', be it in the darkroom or on the computer screen or even with the artists brush, its not 'cheating', merely enhancing. ;)
The only time I would consider it cheating is when two or more pictures are merged to make a single image that is then presented as being an original 'single-take' :nono: Bu that is just a personal thing of course, I have nothing against merging images as a way to get the image you want.



...and always show the client the final versions. :D
 
Remember cheating's only cheating when you get caught, and you were caught :lol::lol::lol:
 
I wouldn't call it cheating. After-all, there are no rules to cheat.

People have been using techniques to enhance photos since the darkroom days. The finished item I'm after is the final image, whether it's straight off the card or not. Probably doesn't really answer your question, but I thought I'd say that anyway...
 
The rules for competitions like Wildlife Photographer of the Year say that things like levels, crops and sharpening are allowed but not cloning etc. I think that is a good metric to work on.

Levels could be done to some degree through processing in the dark room as could cropping. So, those are fine to me...
 
Most of the photo related editing commands in photoshop where derived from processes used in film days. So dont feel guilty about editing, its certainly not something new, It was a widely known fact in photog circles that the top photogs where splicing in skies to give shots a wider appeal.

And doesn't an artist drawing in pencil use an erasor or paint over something thats not turned out quite as they want? All art is edited in one form or another.

But to the question, "Isn't it cheating?" I would answer "No, I'm merely putting my uncompressed RAW files back to how I saw the scene that day" I would also add that "Photos from most cameras have many image enhancements applied by the camera, RAW files have none. Hence the difference from the files I sent you and the finished photos on the website"

BTW, you did send the RAW files, didn't you?

Steve...:)
 
No it's not cheating it's all part of the modern digital process. Cropping, colour correction, retouching, editing etc. has always gone on but it used to be a bit more 'behind the scenes' than it is now. The only time it's cheating is in journal type photography for newpapers etc.

My father inlaw will look at a pics of mine and says 'that's great! Has it been retouched in Photoshop?' and when I say yes, he says 'Aahhhhh ... I see .....' and give me that knowing look. He's a musician who spends hours on post production on his work in a studio :shrug:

There is something about photography in particular that make people think it's 'cheating' when post production work is done on a shot. They'd never go to a cinema to watch 14 days of unedited footage everytime a new film is released or actually listen to Posh Spices voice straight from the mic when she releases a new 'hit' would they? Strange.
 
TBH when I started my foray into "serious" digital photography ( not that long ao) I used to think it was cheating but as I have learned a few more tips and tricks I can now see the benifit of it and use abobe with a clear conscience.
 
didn't we do similar post-shot modification in the darkroom :shrug:

Of course it's not cheating. Cropping, levels etc is the norm. If, however, you shopped a shot of a relative giving her a slight boob enhancement then that might be construed as cheating :D
 
I personally don't touch my pictures, never have done. I don't see it as "cheating", but I do think some mediocre photographers get thought of as great because they're good with PP software.
And no, I'm not referring to anyone on here, but on a clubbing site I use, the amount of PP done far outweighs the time it took the get the pictures, which is something I can't get on with.
x
 
:agree: with 2blue

Photos are "always" modded in some way.
Originally that negative had to be developed, and that was an art to getting it right in itself. Then you had to make it bigger. It being the whole shot or just a bit of it. As well as bigger you had to fettle the exposure of the developer and colour balance etc...
So what's that in the digital world, crop and levels.

When "cheating" begins is always an interesting debate.
Adding something that wasnt there is probably a clear :nono: no, but is removing a blemish a cheat?
Removing a whole tree, probably is.
:shrug:

So are you developing a photo or modding it may be a better question.
 
Editing your photos is acceptable.
Its a way of getting the best from what you have captured,
But there's no substitute for nailing the perfect shot in the camera.
You also have to be honest with what you have done when editing,
as it could ruin your reputation if your not, as it has done to many a pro.
 
The way I see it is my camera takes raw files, these are basically negatives and have to be developed. Without developing the picture you still are just like with a load of 0's and 1's, if you take in-camera jpegs then thats basically applying a generic development over all your pictures and not optimising the settings.

Think of it like getting your shots done in a chemist or getting them professionally developed/developing yourself.
 
Thanks all!

Feedback has been appreciated. I can now edit with a clear mind :)
 
Edit away! It's not cheating. It's been going on for years since photography started. Before colour photography was a mainstream process, shots were coloured in by hand.

As photography developed, more techniques became available. As home darkrooms became widespread, people turned to newer techniques, dodging, burning, cross processing, et al.

So why, just a few years later, because we are doing the same things digitally, and more so (due to an advancement of technology available to us), we are suddenly considered cheating?

No siree :) It's all part of photography to me :)
I do think there's a point where it stops being photography and becomes art though. Once it detracts away from the taken image so much of course...but its still not cheating :)
 
But there's no substitute for nailing the perfect shot in the camera
Click to expand...

think Matt captured it in this sentence. I admire people more who can capture 'a perfect' picture straight from camera. To me editing in photoshop is more about editing skills rather than the photo itself.

Its not cheating but people are becoming more relient on photoshop fixing errors than trying to capture better images with the camera. I think at end of day if it gives you and others pleasure......... who really cares.
 
oldfart said:
think Matt captured it in this sentence. I admire people more who can capture 'a perfect' picture straight from camera. To me editing in photoshop is more about editing skills rather than the photo itself.

Its not cheating but people are becoming more relient on photoshop fixing errors than trying to capture better images with the camera. I think at end of day if it gives you and others pleasure......... who really cares.
Click to expand...

Very well said. (Just like what Matt said above too).

There really is no substitute for nailing the shot in-camera. In my personal photography development, my next step is to take a step back and try and get more shots spot on, in camera first. I'm one of those that is too reliant on photoshop to fix things, and I'd prefer it if I got it right in-camera.

I'd like to turn my photoshop skills to not fixing errors, but to adding to the shot...if that makes sense.
 
Thom Hogan said:
[#1 Photography Myth]--Photography Documents Reality
I'm constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. "People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them" goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to "capture" reality.

You choose which lens to use. You choose where to focus. You choose the exposure. You choose the composition. You choose a direction to point the camera. You choose what time of day and what season to take a picture. You choose the exact moment to preserve (and may distort that moment by using an extremely long or short shutter speed). You choose the type of film used (or the digital camera's color settings). And the list goes on. Meanwhile, reality also includes the moments before and after the shot, the area outside the frame, and much, much more. In short, you as photographer are making choices for the eventual viewer of your photo. The viewer only sees what you want them to, period.

On my living room wall is a large Ansel Adams print (Wonder Lake and Mt. Denali). It's a powerful image that captures the same spirit I felt standing in that same spot years later. But Adams shot in black and white. And he clearly manipulated the contrast in the final print. Even more interesting is that over the many years that Adams produced prints of that image, it appears that his burning and dodging techniques changed--later versions seem more contrasty and brooding than earlier ones. The exposure appears to be taken in very early morning on an unusually clear day (you can sit on that same spot for 20 days running and sometimes not see the full mountain). Did he document reality? I'd say no. He created an image that conveyed what he saw and how he felt in the presence of this immense mountain and Alaska's ever-changing light. And if you think he did document reality, try this exercise: take a large format camera and some black and white film to that same spot and try to duplicate the image. I'm betting that you'll find that very difficult to do, and only possible if you spend some time manipulating the final print. (My very different interpretation of the same subject is used at the top of this page.)

So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with Mr. Hogan, fwiw.
 
What cheating is there, if the customer is happy with what he/she gets? That's what counts for them and it's not like you were stealing something or hurting someone, is it?

Maybe it's the wrong question being asked. It probably should be "Where's the line between photography and photo manipulation and is there one?"

To that, I'd say there is one for me and I'd consider photo manipulation a photo where someone has extensively added (painting in or pasted from other, different photos) or removed something - not cloning out wrinkles and telephone cables, mind you, but more like painting in stuff (although that would be matte painting and there's not that much of a difference for me).

In the end, it's the end results everybody's interested in, only a few are interested in the process of creation itself (obviously, not on these forums ;) ).

robmiller: Good post. :lol:
 
Marcel said:
Very well said. (Just like what Matt said above too).

There really is no substitute for nailing the shot in-camera. In my personal photography development, my next step is to take a step back and try and get more shots spot on, in camera first. I'm one of those that is too reliant on photoshop to fix things, and I'd prefer it if I got it right in-camera.

I'd like to turn my photoshop skills to not fixing errors, but to adding to the shot...if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

It does. It's just about what I do too.

I think editing should be only done do get rid of what you couldn't change on the spot and to make up for your tool's imperfections.
 
Occasionally I do get comments from people who say 'oh but you've cheated and changed them with a computer'. However its usually people who who know very little about photography and have a hard time giving compliments (i'm sure there's an appropriate word to describe them!:razz:).
I personally agree with others that I prefer to get it as right as possible in camera, however when shooting RAW some degree of PP has to occur to create the final image. :thumbs:
 
I'm a recent convert to raw (last 6 months or so) and now won't shoot any other way if possible. The flexibility and lack of wasted shots is brilliant.

I love the ability to make the colours slightly more vivid, adjust the levels etc.
 
I think you guys sum it up well. I haven't been remoing whole trees, or adding animals. I've been adjusting the levels. Making it slightly lighter, or darker... enhancing the images to get the full tonal quality of the different shades I saw in that bird that particular day.

So yes, I too think it must be perfectly acceptable to adjust certain qualities in an exposure to create the effect you want.

I'm going to start looking into RAW, and I guess... like you guys, will probably never turn back!

I enjoy sitting at my computer, messing around in photoshop, adjusting my images... I just love to create certain environments. Such as with Sunsets... such as the oranges and reds... bringing them out more. However, it's only adjusting what is already in the image.

I just said to my work mates "Is editing a photo cheating" and there response "Of course it is... anyone can take a photo and put it onto a computer to change it" I tried explainig... then thought - what's the point.

They like the outcome of the photo... they don't care how you get there.


*hmph*

Thanks for all the input though. It's hard to put into words exactly my thoughts on the matter... :P
 
It is cheating and for that there is a £1,000 fine.

If you PM me I will give you a bank account number which you can pay it into.

Michael.
 
Cheating has been going on for years, back in the days of film I remember masking cropping and layering in my darkroom to get a better look on my shots. Adjusting your shots to improve the overall quality is fine. It's unfortunate that the equipment we use doesn't produce the quality we expect of it, it is getting close now though.
 
the amount of PP done far outweighs the time it took the get the pictures, which is something I can't get on with.
Click to expand...

I can really relate to that but it's not something that exclusive to the digital age. Some years ago I printed an exhibtion for a photographer that spent a month in cuba getting great shots of the people and culture there. It was sponsered on the basis of his previous work and since he was quite a name at the time, he had no trouble getting Contax to foot the bill.

Now while he had a great eye for taking a shot, technically he was not all that hot. As a result to get 60 odd top notch grade AAA prints from his negs took me the best part of 3 months work. I know he didn't spend more than 3 seconds on any one shot. At the opening of the exhibtion the critics and well to do society folk were pouring over him and saying what wonderful work "HE" produced.

I can admit to being put in quite a huff about that at the time. That exhibition was in many ways far more my work than it was his. Without all the darkroom work (PP as it is now) those shots would have looked very plain indeed.

But at the the end of the day, that's what it took to realise his vision and the art was still great. Whether it became great in the camera or darkroom ulitimatley didn't matter one bit...... and it still doesn't.

There is no cheating in art, you use the tools available to create your vision. The only cheating is when you aren't honest about what you present. Saying it's a single image, when it's a composite. Or saying it's created in camera when it's all PS work.

It was Ansel Adams that probably said it best (he did things like that), the negative is like a music score and the print is like the performance. :)
 
Sice the first film images photographers have been editing their images. You think that the famous 35mm film users never cropped their images? Nonsense. Editing is a part of the artistic proccess.
Just remember there is a difference between editing and manipulation. :)
 
In that case it's cheating .
Even sharpening and levels :lol:
 
More seriously...

I think that the point where it's used to make an otherwise unusable image into a decent one is taking it too far and that is no longer photography but image manipulation.
Particularly if the methods aren't revealed.
 
Funny that by a lot of you guys' standards shooting in black and white would be cheating :/
 
Well I certainly don't consider this cheating at all. If you had a camer that took pics at 1600x1200, and another that took the same image at 3200x2400 but you had framed the latter poorly - you'd want to crop the original yeah - and in so doing you'd end up with an image exactly the same as the one taken by camera 1.

No difference - just a better camera allowing you to do more with your images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top