is it cheating

[DemiLion]

...Look in the papers the evidence is their...

Again absolute codswallop. The instances of manipulation in press photography are very few and far between. No one is stupid enough to risk their job or contract these days ( or in the past either for that matter).

 

[Dave *]

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

I'm sorry, but just because your point of view is being disproved doesn't mean you should just resort to wild and unsubstantiated comments.

In the press, photos have to be as shot, I can only think of 2 recent instances of a photographer photoshopping images, and both were immediately sacked by their agencies. One in the States, who made a composite of 2 bird photos (herons?) and the other in the middle east, who added to a photo of an Israeli jet.

 

[Phil V]

....

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.
...
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

You see that's where you have (most of) us wrong, I'm not defending using photoshop any more than I would be defending using a lens. It's unquestionably part of the process from subject to print. There's nothing to defend.

How an image is changed, and whether it's 'cheating' is very subjective - and this thread has got nowhere near that discussion, because rather than real world examples (like the famous Dove advert - or my earlier workflow example) someone keeps talking about imaginary cows in hats and it's just ridiculous - and you've done it several times - it's not real life as most of us know it.

..... BUT i now add four other sailing boats a few spectators some stormy weather change the colours of all the boats add layer after layer throw a bit of fog in for good measure and now i have an image that i wished i could have seen rather than what i did see so the photo im now left with is not the photo or the scene my camera took its an image from manipulation and imagination...

:shake:

.... As for how i could tell that the image i saw in the gallery was photoshopped to death, well as far as i remember grass is green not red, daffodils are yellow not blue/green and if he had said "this is some ARTWORK i produced" it wouldnt have have annoyed me as much as to the comment" this is the PHOTO i took". ...

..
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?.

If i took a picture of a cow i got a cow back not a cow with a hat and scarf.

No-ones defending any of that, we're looking at it open mouthed (there's no suitable smiley for gobsmacked).

See my further post - a day in the life of an average(ish) photographer

(true story):

and a very ordinary situation. Is that cheating? If so where?

BTW if it is cheating I hold my hand up as a cheat.

But the important parts of that post are the last 2 points - it's always been done, it's not a 'quick' or 'simple' fix - getting it right in camera is almost always the quickest and easiest way.

 

[ernesto]

So to sum up;
Question - Is it cheating to use the tools that are available to a photographer in the digital age to get the best out of their photograph?
Answer - No

 

[pepi1967]

BTW if it is cheating I hold my hand up as a cheat.

Thats very big of you. I accept your hand

And as for the press/magazines etc everyone knows how much PS goes on its common knowledge. Especially womens mags and beauty mags. Or do you want examples of that too

 

[pepi1967]

So to sum up;
Question - Is it cheating to use the tools that are available to a photographer in the digital age to get the best out of their photograph?
Answer - No

Thank you. that was my original question and thank you for answering it.

 

[Phil V]

BTW if it is cheating I hold my hand up as a cheat.

Thats very big of you. I accept your hand

And as for the press/magazines etc everyone knows how much PS goes on its common knowledge. Especially womens mags and beauty mags. Or do you want examples of that too

Which bit was cheating? Not putting my hand down - I just want to know where in that scenario I crossed the line - In your opinion, that'll help us all understand. Because all we know so far is that it's somewhere between download and putting a hat on a cow.

And you can't combine Newspapers with womens magazines. It's like saying Policemen and Security guards. There's a massive amount of difference in the way they work and the standards they work to.

You've been given examples of why press photographers aren't allowed to 'cheat' and the fact they get sacked if they do. Trashy womens magazines are something else entirely - and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Newspapers, photographers or photography - so lets try to be careful and we can move the discussion on properly.

 

[DemiLion]

And as for the press/magazines etc everyone knows how much PS goes on its common knowledge. Especially womens mags and beauty mags. Or do you want examples of that too

I'm getting a touch annoyed with you.

You clearly have absolutely no idea about the difference between the newspaper and magazine market.

Perhaps you'd like to keep your half-baked ideas to yourself?

 

[pepi1967]

I'm getting a touch annoyed with you.

You clearly have absolutely no idea about the difference between the newspaper and magazine market.

Perhaps you'd like to keep your half-baked ideas to yourself?

Or maybe if you dont like the subject you dont reply? just an idea like.

 

[Dave *]

This topic is becoming a little strange with the OP's one track mind argument, and a totally closed mind to any debate or argument given.

I'm beginning to imagine the OP as a short hairy fellow hiding under a bridge.....

 

[Marc]

Or maybe if you dont like the subject you dont reply? just an idea like.

Everyone has a right to reply Scott, Mark especially as he is a press photographer.

 

[Phil V]

Or maybe if you dont like the subject you dont reply? just an idea like.

I don't think Mark disapproves of the subject - however, as he actually knows something about journalism and you er.... cough.

I can see why he would get a bit narked. And if you had any common sense you'd have realised that.

Although, I am perhaps beginning to see why your thread on the other forum was closed - and it wasn't them being precious.

I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but....

We like our pigs to be able to cross bridges safely at TP.

 

[ernesto]

I'm beginning to imagine the OP as a short hairy fellow hiding under a bridge.....

Or if he isn't then we can quickly make him look like one with a quick bit of Photoshop eh

 

[pepi1967]

You've been given examples of why press photographers aren't allowed to 'cheat' and the fact they get sacked if they do. Trashy womens magazines are something else entirely - and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Newspapers, photographers or photography - so lets try to be careful and we can move the discussion on properly.

As far as i am aware the question i asked has been answered several times by several different posters. so not sure where you wish to move the discussion on to tbh. surely you cant think that i am the only person ever to ask is ps cheating..

I came with an open mind and asked the question IS IT CHEATING Some say yes, some say no, some say maybe, some say depends. Either way the question i asked has been answered so as far as im concerned i have read nothing to change my mind either way so i shall make up my own mind as to what i wish to believe or think re the over use of PS.

infact as far as i know i havnt asked anyone to PROVE anything to me OR try and change my mind re the use of PS. I asked is it cheating .we all have an opinion but i do find that the people who worry me the most are the ones who protest so much.

 

[Phil V]

You've been given examples of why press photographers aren't allowed to 'cheat' and the fact they get sacked if they do. Trashy womens magazines are something else entirely - and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Newspapers, photographers or photography - so lets try to be careful and we can move the discussion on properly.

As far as i am aware the question i asked has been answered several times by several different posters. so not sure where you wish to move the discussion on to tbh. surely you cant think that i am the only person ever to ask is ps cheating..

I came with an open mind and asked the question IS IT CHEATING Some say yes, some say no, some say maybe, some say depends. Either way the question i asked has been answered so as far as im concerned i shall make up my own mind as to what i wish to believe or think re the over use of PS.

infact as far as i know i havnt asked anyone to PROVE anything to me re the use of PS we all have an opinion but i do find that the people who worry me the most are the ones who protest so much.

No, that's the problem, you're happy to hold an opinion about something (PS and Newspapers) which is factually incorrect - Proof of anything is anathema to you, your entire manner is designed to level the balance of facts and opinions - which I find rather juvenile.

The only answer to your question has been offered many times, it depends on context. Am I cheating if I put a hat on a cow and pretend I found it like that - Yes. If I put it on in PS and say I photographed it that way - Yes. If I say 'look at this funny picture of a cow in a hat' - No. If I genuinely found a cow in a hat - No. So it's not PS that creates the cheating - it's pure and simple old fashioned dishonesty. There's not a single poster on this thread that would argue with that - it's simple.

It's become tiresome - you'd promised to stop posting until you discovered the thread had come back to life and there were people to bait

 

[pepi1967]

you'd promised to stop posting until you discovered the thread had come back to life and there were people to bait

I also said phil asked a question so i think it deserves an answer.

As for baiting?? very childish comment if you ask me. If you think me having an oppinion is baiting then i find that odd tbh.

But like ive said my question has been answered and i realy wont be comenting on this thread again i think it should die a death now. But i do hope the admins see fit to leave it floating around the board so as when another noob asks the question he can be pointed in its direction and see how fiercly some photographers defend its use and how upset they get when they get asked about it.

TA TA

 

[Phil V]

You have read an entirely different thread to the one I have..

 

[Yv]

But like ive said my question has been answered and i realy wont be comenting on this thread again i think it should die a death now. But i do hope the admins see fit to leave it floating around the board so as when another noob asks the question he can be pointed in its direction and see how fiercly some photographers defend its use and how upset they get when they get asked about it.

TA TA

No, the staff will leave it floating around so that anyone that asks the question again can be pointed at it and make up their own minds, like grown ups... unlike some of the bickering on this thread.


Now if you will excuse me, I need to photoshop in a door to close