is it cheating

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is though, whilst some people might believe that photoshop is the easy way, they will learn it isn't.

Like I said earlier, to get great results you need a good starting image.

More importantly, photos are taken in a fraction of a second, creating something in photoshop that could've been done at the time of exposure would be a massive waste of time.
 
pepi1967 said:
Dont get me wrong ash i am sure that alot of photography students want to learn the right way but an equal number want to learn the fast way and to me editing is a far cry from manipulation.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Where did you get that crucial statistic from? ;)

It is human nature to look for the easy and/or the fast way of doing things. Many people start new hobbies or make resolutions that they later give up on because the effort, time or dedication is greater than they anticipated. I will go out on a limb and say that students who are not prepared to learn 'the right way' (whatever that means - I'll take it to mean 'superficially') and are looking for a quick and easy fix at the expense of comprehension and skill/technique are not the ones that succeed or excel.
 
Im my experience, the only people that think that PP is "cheating" are the people that either don't have the required technical knowledge to do it, or aren't very good at it.
 
my feeling its not cheating (for the reasons discussed) unless you arent honest about what you've done - if you composite three shots then claim the image is straight out of camera for the purposes of entering a competition then you are a cheat - and an idiot because you are bound to get caught.

However this is no different to taking shots of a captive wolf jumping over a gate and then claiming its a wild shot ... its not the photographic technique which is cheating, its the dishonest representation that follows it
 
When you set the rules you can decide what is cheating.

For most purposes there are no rules
When there are obey them.
 
pepi1967 said:
And just to add vinyl will always be the best way to listen to music:naughty:
Click to expand...

this is the issue

Vinyl, is the best way to listen to music.... when you are not on the move, when you have a perfectly clean record, when you have spent a lot of money on an exotic cartridge and deck... All of which I can equate to

However

CD's are portable, fairly resilient, and as an overall experience (in most situations) much better

Now I have a very decent hifi, and I listen to 78's on a wind up gramophone, vynal on a elite rock turntable with a SME5 arm, and CD's through a Mark Levinson CD player, and have a front end to match

However, I haven't lost sight of the reason I have it - that is the music

- louis armstrong on a 78 - magical
- Thelonious monk on Vinyl - brilliant
- Al de meola on CD - perfect

Its all about the music

and to that end photography is the same

a good photographer will figure out how to take a stunning photo on any camera. Good photographers edit - its the finished product that is important

A good musician will sound good on any format, and studios will edit them, its the finished product that is important
 
The only cheating in photography is stealing someone else's work and claiming it as your own. All else is fair game.
 
pepi1967 said:
I mean when we were all using film the shot you made was just that, your shot, your skill, your learning curve, but now with all this software you can buy when i look at a photo im not sure if im looking at a photo the photographer did with his skill so i can admire his work, or should i be asking his laptop for an autograph?
Click to expand...
So if the person is shooting jpeg should you be giving the camera an autograph? After all its made several editing changes...

Computers and editing software are tools for the photographer to use to get the end result, just as the camera is.

You can decide how much control you want over the end result for any image.

You can put the camera in fully automatic and shoot in jpeg with preset edits.

Or you can shoot in manual and shoot raw and tweak the image to suit what you want it to look like. (This is what I do.)

Or you can take it further and clone/change the image a lot.

Or any variation in between.

None of it is 'cheating' - its just different ways of doing photography.
 
A good question and one that has been asked many times. Take the footings for a building for example. You could have a hundred architects and builders come up with different end results.
Look upon the image that comes out of your camera as the building block to start with. You have to learn new skills regards editing, and you have to be creative. If it is in the category of being an artistic image then you may well have to think what it will end up looking like. You have to make it interesting and appealing to people, some of this will need to be done when you take the shot and some of it will need to be done in PP.Imo editing software is just a tool of the trade so to speak and you have to be the architect and builder rolled into one.
 
Last edited:
A negative is like a musical score and prints are like performances. The score is unchanging but each performance may vary depending on season, mood, audience etc.

Or something like that. Ansel Adams said it in the film days. He'd apparently spend a lot of time in the darkroom perfecting his prints. Was he cheating?
 
Last edited:
... and photoshop can't perform miracles, a bad photograph won't be rescued although a mediocre photograph may be enhanced. You still need to be able to take the photograph in the first place
 
Iris said:
... and photoshop can't perform miracles,
Click to expand...

well it sort of can if you are good enough with it which I believe is what this thread is aimed at. Photoshopping to the point that the original photograph would not even be recognised...
 
The way I look at it is that these days you are not only the photographer but also the technician in the darkroom too. If you shot a slightly overexposed negative you would compensate for this when producing a print in the darkroom. These days you just do it with pixels and maths rather than chemicals.

It is also very easy to photoshop an average picture into a terrible one, and very hard to turn one into a masterpiece.
 
ernesto said:
well it sort of can if you are good enough with it which I believe is what this thread is aimed at. Photoshopping to the point that the original photograph would not even be recognised...
Click to expand...

This was more my point

Bambi72 said:
...It is also very easy to photoshop an average picture into a terrible one, and very hard to turn one into a masterpiece.
Click to expand...
 
and something that is very hard means it just has to be done by someone who is very good which was my point :)
 
Photography is an art, there is no right or wrong, the purpose of the image is to create a response, be it positive or negative. Independently of the technique used in the post processing the image is still a photograph. Some photographers sacrifice settings in favor of other aspects of the photograph, knowing they will adjust them later on, with software.

Music, Cinema and Photography have embraced the digital format because of all the new creative possibilities that they offer. For students and teachers, it is more relevant to learn this new techniques and the benefits of it, than how to develop film in a dark room.

You still have to learn all the concepts and basics, but this time you either apply them on camera or you can do so on your computer.
 
Yes but if you take bits of pictures from other photographs to add into the original then it is more of a collage than a photo as such, if you start 'painting' with brushes to amend the photo it is more electronic painting than photography etc, etc,.

That is my understanding of what is being questioned here rather than just adjusting WB, highlights etc,.
 
TheBigYin said:
Well - being someone who's shooting career is firmly rooted in the film era (and who still shoots film and digital on a 50/50 basis) I can assure you that unless you shot on Transparency Stock (E6 or Kodachrome) the shot you captured on the negative was no more the finished article as far as a picture went, than the RAW file from your camera was.

For example, taking a B&W picture as the desired end result - you had the choice of which film you wanted - not only in ISO rating, but in differing characteristics within the film - some films (say Fuji Acros 100) are pretty tonally smooth, where others are far more contrasty. Also, for the same ISO rating, some films are far smoother or grainier than others.

Of course, you also had the option to push or pull the film - to shoot (say) ISO 100 film at a nominal rating of 50, or 200 or 400 (or occasionally even higher) then correct the exposure in the developing. So - you'd overexpose the film and under-develop it to compensate. or Vice-versa. Either of these processes would also alter the tonal ranges and/or grain characteristics.

Then you had the choice of different processing chemicals - from standard brews like ID-11 and Rodinal, through to all sorts of exotic brews - I've even developed film in Cheap Supermarket Coffee, Washing Soda and Vitamin C tablets! Again, all these different chemicals could alter the tonal balances.

And when you'd actually got the negatives - then the tweaking could REALLY start. You can change the contrast of the image either by ising different Grades of paper, or with "multigrade" paper by using different colour filters in the enlarger.

Dodging, Burning, Spotting, Masking all came from film - indeed some of the symbols on the CS5 toolbar reflect the tools you'd use in the darkroom to perform the action.

You could always "print in" a different sky should the one in your shot be grey and featureless... I used to have a "bank" of sky negatives just for that purpose.

Okay - digital has made manipulation like this easier, and more accessible to a wider audience, and (best of all) it's made the end results consistently reproducable. I remember spending 3 evenings in the darkroom - probably 20+ hours, to get a print for a client. Maybe 15 scrapped sheets of very expensive paper before the one I liked. Loads of dodging, burning, and other tricks... Gave the client it, and, you guessed it - "thats great - can I have 4 more copies - one for each site please..."

So - in short - photography is not just about the editing - but please don't think that ALL the shots you've seen from the film era were "straight out of camera" - yes, there was a bit more of a premium on getting things right in camera, as you only had 36,12 or even 1 or 2 frames to play with, and the "penalty for failure" in terms of post-processing work was a bit higher, but if PP work is cheating, then we've been cheating since Fox-Talbot's days...
Click to expand...

Well said, taking the shot was just the start, even with film.
 
ernesto said:
Yes but if you take bits of pictures from other photographs to add into the original then it is more of a collage than a photo as such, if you start 'painting' with brushes to amend the photo it is more electronic painting than photography etc, etc,.

That is my understanding of what is being questioned here rather than just adjusting WB, highlights etc,.
Click to expand...

Thats all i was trying to get at but the original post like most changes the longer it goes on. I understand that all photos are edited in some way and always have been but ive seen photos that are more than just tweeked or cleaned up they are clearly photo shopped with the addition of things and totaly removal of things so little is left of the original but then gets shown as the photo i took but it clearly isnt the photo that you took.

Since ive been here on this forum i myself have not only read members posts regarding photo shop but also dabled with elements 10 and i think its amazing what you can do with as little knowledge as i have in photography but still create some nice looking art work.

But my original question still has never changed. Is it cheating I wasnt calling anyone a cheat or anything i was just asking a question on the use of photshop. How many of you have taken a realy fantastic shot right out of the cam shown it to someone for them to say how much photoshopping did you do? you say none they say you must have its perfect.

Every none photographer on the planet has heard of photoshop so every photo they look at in magazines on the net in your photo album the first words they say when they see them is.. Its been photo shopped that has.. so are we as photographers being percieved as cheats because the man in the street who has heard of photoshop thinks every photo taken is photo shopped and not all your own work?

And how far CAN you take photoshop before it isnt your photo anymore but just a piece of electronic art?
 
Just a quick e.g .....I am in a cycle race racing against a guy equal in ability he wins the race he used steroids he gets called a cheat for not playing fair.

I am in a photgraphy competition against a photographer of equal ability we both take sunset shots. Mine as it comes out the cam he adds a battle ship to his. He wins is he then a cheat?

In both of the above MY point is with both the photographer and the racer both were equal in ability until they added something.

Hence my original post of is it cheating.
 
pepi1967 said:
I am in a photgraphy competition against a photographer of equal ability we both take sunset shots. Mine as it comes out the cam he adds a battle ship to his. He wins is he then a cheat?
.
Click to expand...

it depends on the rules of the competition - if it specified no additions in photoshop (as many do) then yes he's cheating and will get caught

if it specified composites allowed then he's done nothing wrong

on the wider point it is virtually impossible to make that kind of addition so flawlessly that an experienced photographer (as most judges should be) can't tell.
 
pepi1967 said:
Just a quick e.g .....I am in a cycle race racing against a guy equal in ability he wins the race he used steroids he gets called a cheat for not playing fair.

I am in a photgraphy competition against a photographer of equal ability we both take sunset shots. Mine as it comes out the cam he adds a battle ship to his. He wins is he then a cheat?

In both of the above MY point is with both the photographer and the racer both were equal in ability until they added something.

Hence my original post of is it cheating.
Click to expand...

Possibly the worst comparison of scenarios I have ever read on the internet...

I get what you're trying to imply, but it's just a crazy analysis of your dislike for using photoshop to change an image

As has been said several times by various posters, the dark room was the basis for photoshop to be created, but you seem to ignore that people have enhanced their images since the dawn of photography, and instead insisting that it's just a "new generation" of photographers that are too lazy to learn their camera.
 
Last edited:
Ash THAT is the biggest load of tosh i have read. I have never said that i dislike the use of photoshop infact if had bothered to read the thread i state quite clearly i myself use it.

Show me one post where i have said i dont like photoshop or would never use photoshop or i have a dislike to it. i asked IS IT cheating to use it not it WAS cheating to use it.

As a noob to digital photography i ASK questions i dont STATE questions.

so if you want to comment on my thread great but atleast read what is put not just cherry pick the bits you wish to comment on and leave the important bits out.
 
Last edited:
Scott, I'll fix what Ash said, you've never said that you disapprove of the use of photoshop - however your posts are full of 'negativity' towards what you believe it's being used for.

However, despite many requests -
  • You've never acknowledged that PS is a natural progression of what was done in a darkroom.
  • You've never told us at what point you think 'cheating' starts - you clearly know it when you see it - but you seem to see more of it than most.
  • You keep comparing PS with 'out of the camera', when many have told you that those images are processed too, so where does your idea of 'processing' start?
  • You have continually said it's about these 'youngsters' not wanting to learn photography - despite being challenged by teachers and the 'youngsters' that it's simply not the case.
As many have said - You can easily make a good photo a great one in PS, but you can't turn a crap photo into a great one. It simply can't be done - so despite your 'gut feeling' there is no point at all in not learning to do it properly. No-one advocates it, and no genuine photographer is doing it.
As Pete said - even a great photoshop artist isn't convincing any photographers that work is 'as shot'. And average ones can't even convince a random member of the public.;)
 
Here's a scenario (true story):

A couple of weeks ago I was pushed into doing a family shoot for a friend - at very short notice:(.

The white background cloth needed ironing and stretching but there wasn't time:thumbsdown:. I was tired and I needed my tea:thumbsdown:. I never really got the backlight for the background far enough back:thumbsdown:. I took a decision I could fix those things in Post - The customer will never know, is it cheating?

If so where?
I open the image in PS (very little work to the RAW conversion because I was in a fixed situation and M was easy).
The first thing I do is boost colours, contrast saturation (1 action).
Then I select the white background and create a layer with it. That layer is lightened and then the creases are cloned out.
Flatten image and sort any blemishes on the subject (not really required on this occasion).
Sharpen and close.

Is that cheating? Those images look very different to what came out of the camera.

2 points of real note - they've been alluded to many times in this thread.
  • All of that would have been done in a darkroom historically.
  • A little more care before the shoot would have given me a more efficient workflow - so my 'laziness' cost me in time.
 
I agree that using ps is a natural progression in photography i have never said otherwise.

I Still believe there are new photographers and old photgraphers that will use ps to decieve. Not all and not many BUT there are photographers that will and do use it that way press photographers mostly.

I still believe that when i took my film to the chemists it was ADJUSTED to get the best picture possible but not enhanced to such an extent that it was no longer the photo i took. If i took a picture of a cow i got a cow back not a cow with a hat and scarf.

I believe i will not change my opinon because it is my opinion and we all have our own.

Case in point i have seen photographers post pictures for crit not just on this forum but lots of other forums too and i do mean lots of forums...EG QUESTION: took this photo last night what do you think? any thing i could have done better? ANSWER: you could photo shop that bit out and add this bit in and tilt that bit round etc..

MY ANSWER: if you cant see properly move over go back and take it again. And that is how i will always take my photos over and over till i get it right.

do i think its wrong to ps NO I DONT
do i think ps is over used YES I DO

Thats my opinion.

I believe this thread has run its course so wont be replying to it further but thank you to all who have replied.:)
 
pepi1967 said:
Case in point i have seen photographers post pictures for crit not just on this forum but lots of other forums too and i do mean lots of forums...EG QUESTION: took this photo last night what do you think? any thing i could have done better? ANSWER: you could photo shop that bit out and add this bit in and tilt that bit round etc..

MY ANSWER: if you cant see properly move over go back and take it again. And that is how i will always take my photos over and over till i get it right.
Click to expand...

Thing is thats fine if you can - but what about when a reshoot isnt possible (e.g any event, any wedding, a lot of wildlife, sport etc) - point being that all those things could have been done in the darkroom so photoshop is nothing new - all its done is move post process from the cupboard under the stairs to the laptop.
 
pepi1967 said:
Just a quick e.g .....I am in a cycle race racing against a guy equal in ability he wins the race he used steroids he gets called a cheat for not playing fair.

I am in a photgraphy competition against a photographer of equal ability we both take sunset shots. Mine as it comes out the cam he adds a battle ship to his. He wins is he then a cheat?

In both of the above MY point is with both the photographer and the racer both were equal in ability until they added something.

Hence my original post of is it cheating.
Click to expand...

Steroids are illegal in most sports, so not really a fair comparrison.
Hows this one?
The other rider has a better lighter bike than you with more gears and better brakes and he wins is that cheating ?
 
pepi1967 said:
If i took a picture of a cow i got a cow back not a cow with a hat and scarf.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's different to what most people do, they enhance what is there rather than making fundamental changes.

pepi1967 said:
I believe i will not change my opinon because it is my opinion and we all have our own.
Click to expand...

I think we could see this throughout the thread. And Phil V's #108 post shows this well.

You were quite vague on what you were talking about with the amount of editing after the fact, but putting a hat and scarf on a cow is probably noticeable to most people, and will normally garner a response of 'has it been 'photoshopped''?

Most people don't ask whether my images have been photoshopped, unless it is obvious, but if they show interest in the image I always say it's had a bit of 'jiggery pokery' if I've done a lot, so as not to leave them with the impression that they could pick up a camera and get the same result just by pointing the camera at the same scene. If they are really interested, then I will tell them what I did. :shrug:

I'm proud of the picture I took, but I'm also proud of any editing I did. It is what made the final image after all. :shrug:

pepi1967 said:
MY ANSWER: if you cant see properly move over go back and take it again. And that is how i will always take my photos over and over till i get it right.

do i think its wrong to ps NO I DONT
do i think ps is over used YES I DO
Click to expand...

As has been said, not always possible, if I'm on holiday in another country, and unfortunately I am not a perfect photographer every time either. :shrug: And sometimes the environment wasn't perfect at the time, and it's not possible to get there again. :shrug:

pepi1967 said:
That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

And you are quite welcome to it. :thumbs:

If you are starting a thread with a closed mind though, then why ask the question?
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
The other rider has a better lighter bike than you with more gears and better brakes and he wins is that cheating ?
Click to expand...

That is a better analogy and could also add that he knows how to use his bike more effectively (better choice of gears to match his power output, more aero riding position etc,.) and none of those are cheating either.
 
pepi1967 said:
I still believe that when i took my film to the chemists it was ADJUSTED to get the best picture possible but not enhanced to such an extent that it was no longer the photo i took. If i took a picture of a cow i got a cow back not a cow with a hat and scarf.
Click to expand...

But the proverbial "hat and scarf" addition has been around for at least 150 years!

So photoshop is not adding anything new to this sort of editing ( I won't use the word "cheat").

This was posted earlier in the thread.

This is the original image (from 1865):

Manipulated-Photoshop-Photos-Civil-War-Generals-Original.jpg


This is the end image, do you see the "hat and scarf" on the right? Or the fact the photographer has also added a new background?

Manipulated-Photoshop-Photos-Civil-War-Generals.jpg



What about the Cottingley Fairies? (from 1917)

CottingleyFairies3.jpg


Photo manipulation is almost as old as photography, all digital has done is make it easier and less messier.
 
Last edited:
pepi1967 said:
I agree that using ps is a natural progression in photography i have never said otherwise.

I Still believe there are new photographers and old photgraphers that will use ps to decieve. Not all and not many BUT there are photographers that will and do use it that way press photographers mostly.

I still believe that when i took my film to the chemists it was ADJUSTED to get the best picture possible but not enhanced to such an extent that it was no longer the photo i took. If i took a picture of a cow i got a cow back not a cow with a hat and scarf.
Click to expand...

You're right - but you had a low expectation. Just like now you can set your camera with a little care and print the output. It's not right or wrong. But it's an acceptance of a lower standard than the equipment can achieve.

Back then someone who strived for perfection would have put more work into the choice of film, processing chemicals, printing techniques and paper.

pepi1967 said:
I believe i will not change my opinon because it is my opinion and we all have our own.

Case in point i have seen photographers post pictures for crit not just on this forum but lots of other forums too and i do mean lots of forums...EG QUESTION: took this photo last night what do you think? any thing i could have done better? ANSWER: you could photo shop that bit out and add this bit in and tilt that bit round etc..

MY ANSWER: if you cant see properly move over go back and take it again. And that is how i will always take my photos over and over till i get it right.

do i think its wrong to ps NO I DONT
do i think ps is over used YES I DO

Thats my opinion.

I believe this thread has run its course so wont be replying to it further but thank you to all who have replied.:)
Click to expand...

If you are happy in your opinion - why start a debate:thinking: - after all, there has been some great counter-arguments and facts stated. Or did you expect everyone to agree with you?

At least if anyone searches for a discussion on the topic they'll be able to see how ridiculous the term 'cheating' is without some good solid evidence.:)

Unless you can show us the cow with the hat on? Because I'd love to see that:lol:
 
Let's iron out one important point...

Reference to Photoshop/'editing software of your choice' is pretty much a non sequitur because, if you care about your pictures, almost all of them will require some form of post processing.

A much better question would be: Is digital manipulation ethical?

The answer to that lies solely in the image's use and whether the manipulation is admitted to or not.

Beginners, students and a matures are not the issue here. I'm far more concerned about the manipulation used in the fashion trade and magazine publication market.

Photos of models and celebrities Are routinely processed and touched up to give an unrealistic portrayal of the subject. The result is that young teenage girls in particular are given a misleading impression of how they should look. It's already been mentioned in this thread once, but has been glossed over.

In summary the terminology needs to be correct. Processing is fine. Undisclosed manipulation isn't.
 
pepi1967 said:
I Still believe there are new photographers and old photgraphers that will use ps to decieve. Not all and not many BUT there are photographers that will and do use it that way press photographers mostly.
Click to expand...


Balls
 
I did say i wont reply to this thread any more but phil being one of the most prolific posters to reply to this thread i thought he deserved an answer.

At least if anyone searches for a discussion on the topic they'll be able to see how ridiculous the term 'cheating' is without some good solid evidence

Look in the papers the evidence is their and in most photos on most photographic forums

The debate was IS IT CHEATING not IT IS CHEATING. But you prefer to see the word CHEAT and automaticly start defending PS as if some one gave you a personal insult.

i didnt ask how often you or anyone else needed to use it i asked is it cheating to use it. And as some posters have said it depends on what it is used for and how much of the original photo is left.

As it stands i did come in with an open mind but this thread has turned me more off ps than on to it. You ask me for good solid evidence. evidence of it use/misuse is all around You show me good solid evidence why you need to rely on it so much.

I didnt think all would agree with me but am supprised at how many feel the need to defend it to me and act a little un comfortable when asked the question is it cheating
 
The Press and Journalism field is where the least amount of editing goes on, or is even allowed. There have been photographers who have lost their jobs for editing images and distorting reality.

Those images more than most, have to portray the reality of the scene.


I think that the manipulation of people in fashion and advertising is a real problem, especially to young girls, though young boys are starting to be affected too. Taking a spot or two off someone's face, or getting rid of the odd stray hair is one thing, but to manipulate the shape and proportion of a person's body is another thing if it is selling a product or image of a person that a lot of people may aspire to. For personal work, that 'may' be another thing. ;)

I think the Dove video shows this rather well, and ends up with an image which no person could match, but unless you knew what had been done, it may no stop you going to extremes to try and match it. :thumbsdown: :bang:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top