is it cheating

Status
Not open for further replies.
pepi1967

pepi1967

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,856
Name
scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all knew to digital photography and need to learn as much as i can. Asked this question on another forum and the admin closed the thread after only three replies saying not this old chesnut again so i will ask it here and see if i do any better.can i ask do any of you consider using all this editing software to be cheating? 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? will it come to the point where there is no skill in photography left at all and even the newest newby can just point shoot and get award winning material? I my self am new is to the hobby and need and want to learn about taking THE shot, the shot that stands out from the crowd, the skill involved in getting it perfect or have i got to learn to be a fab software editor instead? Is photography taking a back seat to the editing now?
 
Yep, been asked many times but not going to close this old chestnut. ;)

Unless you were using a polaroid camera, then what came out of the camera had to have some processing done and many of the techniques used in photoshop today were derived from the darkroom.

Har far you take it is a matter of choice and taste but not cheating in my book.
 
So wen shooting film didnt you ever purposly over or underexpose an image or push the old ASA 400 beyond its limits just to get the shot, cheating surely.
 
pepi1967 said:
Hi all knew to digital photography and need to learn as much as i can. Asked this question on another forum and the admin closed the thread after only three replies saying not this old chesnut again so i will ask it here and see if i do any better.can i ask do any of you consider using all this editing software to be cheating?
Click to expand...

No, it is not cheating.

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? will it come to the point where there is no skill in photography left at all and even the newest newby can just point shoot and get award winning material? I my self am new is to the hobby and need and want to learn about taking THE shot, the shot that stands out from the crowd, the skill involved in getting it perfect or have i got to learn to be a fab software editor instead? Is photography taking a back seat to the editing now?
Click to expand...

As well as, not instead of. Top photographers know all aspects of photography. This includes how to process the image to obtain the best possible result. Post-processing is just one of many skills you need to become a complete photographer. Always was, always will be.
 
If you believe that the photo you took on film automatically became the finished print then you have no understanding of the processes involved.

Serious photographers spent a lot of effort making sure their prints were a meaningful product, and that's the same now. Less serious photographers left that part of the process to their lab, those people nowadays shoot jpeg and are proud to be shooting SOOC. They were wrong to believe that they were totally responsible for the end product then, and they're still wrong now that the camera is doing the work.

The only difference between then and now is the democratisation, now anyone can sit at a computer and achieve what used to be a difficult thing in a lab.
 
It just gets a bit worrying to think that all the skills it took in the days of film will soon be lost. the way photography tec is going there wont be much skill left in it. point shoot terrible shot never mind the laptop will fix it. i know the the labs used to sort some/most probs out for you but that was normaly used for comercial or top end fashion not normaly for the man in the street that was left for us to do with our camera before they got the film. if you give a student photographer a fully manual slr whould he know how to set it up for the best shot or are those skills being lost. i think it would be best to teach photography first then photoshoping.
 
Best to teach both how to use a camera and how to get the images out of it. And it's important to remember this: Cameras do not take photographs.
 
Dont get me wrong im not against it i just think you need to be a photgrapher first then touching up, some of the photos you see are stunning then lose the appeal when you find out that 90% is adobe and not pure photography. artistic yes defo but skill with a camera still not sure on that.
 
I very much doubt that you'll find many of the best shots are 90% Adobe. Give an experienced photographer a cheap P&S, and a novice the best available kit. You'll easily be able to tell who took which shots, no matter how much Adobe is added to the final result.
 
thats what im saying jon because he learnt to be a photographer and that i think is where the skill is lacking in the youngsters who are learning the art. Ive been told by a student that they learn how to photo shop in the first few weeks of the course and its a part of the end exams.
 
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...
 
pepi1967 said:
thats what im saying jon because he learnt to be a photographer and that i think is where the skill is lacking in the youngsters who are learning the art. Ive been told by a student that they learn how to photo shop in the first few weeks of the course and its a part of the end exams.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with that - it's how I teach my students!
 
Good question "is it cheating? it all depends on how much editing is done.
I always think of it like selling a car, do you sell it in a dirty filthy state or polish and clean it up inside to make it look better, you could ask the same question "is it cheating?"

First and foremost trying to get things right when taking a photo should be every photographers aim, however when a picture is displayed on a computer screen often slip up can be spotted. A typical example is someone standing in front of a lamp post. In a photo it would look as if the lamp post was growing out of the top of the head, or another example is seeing a rubbish bin in shot, something undesirable and editing it out would be the obvious answer.

In those two examples I wouldn't call that "cheating" but improving , cheating in my book is making someone look better than they are by smoothing out skin -making them look slimmer or in other words not portraying what the original photograph was like.

Then again it all depends on what the photographer wants to achieve, if going out and out making an abstract from a photo then that would not be cheating as that was the original aim.

The problem with digital photography is it allows one to manipulate a photo to the ninth degree and here lies the answer to your question. Does the photographer alter an image to suit themselves or alter an image for others to look at. When one person likes another may not, in one persons eyes its cheating in another its enhancing.

It all depends on a persons point of view, so you will never get a definate yes or no to your question.

Realspeed
 
as i said on one of my other posts im not against it just wondering if it goes to far where the editing takes over from the skill of the shooter. maybe im just stuck in my ways lol
 
pepi1967 said:
maybe im just stuck in my ways lol
Click to expand...

If you were, and were wanting to treat digital like film you could always take your photos on a very small memory card, then send the card with your payment to someone else and let them do the photoshopping for you.

When they are done (a week or so later) they could print them out and post them back to you.

Then you can be just like the old days back with film :D
 
Portrait photography requires correct lighting so is that cheating to bring out the best?
Selecting the best position to take an outdoor photo,is that cheating?
Taking a photo in the "Golden Hours" only, is that cheating?
getting the best angle, is that cheating?
Take a look at estate agents photos, good examples, they never show an electricty pylon that is 50 yards from the house or a rubbish dump next door. is that cheating or taking a picture to the best advantage.

There are so many ways even without editing to take the best photo, it is as I said up to the photographer in the end

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
what i mean by cheating is when the photo is taken the skill in the photograph is in the set up of the equipment so the choice of lens etc is part and parcel of being a photographer but is the skill using photo shop getting to the point were its more important for the student to be a better editor than a photographer and manipulating the image so far that the photo is not the one the camera took. That way how does the student learn to correct his skill if most problems can be sorted in photo shop?
 
Last edited:
@ dave1 that made me laugh
 
pepi1967 said:
what i mean by cheating is when the photo is taken the skill in the photograph is in the set up of the equipment so the choice of lens etc is part and parcel of being a photographer but is the skill using photo shop getting to the point were its more important for the student to be a better editor than a photographer and manipulating the image so far that the photo is not the one the camera took. That way how does the student learn to correct his skill if most problems can be sorted in photo shop?
Click to expand...

You seem so hung up on Photoshop, as everyone has already explained, the more common Photoshop actions all have an origin in the darkroom with film printing.

Do you want to go back over a hundred years to the time before even darkroom editing occurred?
 
Some people will consider it cheating, others will coinsider it to be an essential part of their photography. Frankly, who cares what anyone else thinks, just do what you are happy to do.
 
top and bottom of it, PP is not cheating, it's part and parcel of getting the best out of a given image - same as it was in the days of film!
 
Ok may be my on personal view and taking nothing away from the teacher/pupil learning curve if that is what one wants to do.
But learning from someone else means you are to a certain extent using their methods of taking photos and not developing your own individual style. All the great painters are renown for the way they paint and not from what they have copied from others.

Realspeed
 
You can't change the composition or the subject material and that is the key part of the photo. Yes you can change the exposure, shadows, highlights but if a photo has not interest it doesn't matter what you do with it in editing.

The skill of the photographer is to get an interesting shot. Learning how to use a camera is the easy bit....
 
pepi1967 said:
what i mean by cheating is when the photo is taken the skill in the photograph is in the set up of the equipment so the choice of lens etc is part and parcel of being a photographer but is the skill using photo shop getting to the point were its more important for the student to be a better editor than a photographer and manipulating the image so far that the photo is not the one the camera took. That way how does the student learn to correct his skill if most problems can be sorted in photo shop?
Click to expand...

Just pretend you're a student shooting print film.

You take a shot that's underexposed by a stop, you send your film to the lab and get a perfect print back, cheating?

Or you'd shot it on B&W film and printed it yourself and managed to get a great print in the darkroom, cheating?

So why is it cheating because there's no chemicals involved.

As per my other post, just that more people can do it.
 
pepi1967 said:
thats what im saying jon because he learnt to be a photographer and that i think is where the skill is lacking in the youngsters who are learning the art. Ive been told by a student that they learn how to photo shop in the first few weeks of the course and its a part of the end exams.
Click to expand...

Absolutely identical to the world of film, if you learnt your craft properly. You started as a darkroom assistant and worked your way up!
 
i shot some flowers to-day took a test shot and was to bright no detail in flower, was in aperture mode, so under exposed by a stop, didn't look to bad in camera , got it home thought dont like that and brought it to my liking in elements, i would love to know the correct skill when i took this pic
 
pepi1967 said:
It just gets a bit worrying to think that all the skills it took in the days of film will soon be lost. the way photography tec is going there wont be much skill left in it. point shoot terrible shot never mind the laptop will fix it. i know the the labs used to sort some/most probs out for you but that was normaly used for comercial or top end fashion not normaly for the man in the street that was left for us to do with our camera before they got the film. if you give a student photographer a fully manual slr whould he know how to set it up for the best shot or are those skills being lost. i think it would be best to teach photography first then photoshoping.
Click to expand...

The films skills will only be lost if no-one uses them anymore.

I have just had a fab week getting used to a camera that is older than me and has really made me think about every shot I have taken with it.

I will not be getting rid of my digital equipment and will be using Photoshop on my film images if I feel they need it.

The skill in taking a "good shot" is something that no-one can teach you, you must learn it yourself and it doesn't matter if you have the best gear in the world if you don't know what you are looking at through it!

Just my opinion.....

Heather
 
no dave not hung up on photoshop but that is the editing suite of choice. when a student can turn to you and say ah dont worry about that i will sort it in editing then to me the skill of the photographer has been lost and taken over by editing. surely it would be better for the student to be taught where his mistake was made using the camera and not to just fix it in editing. I totaly agree that to edit properly is an artform in itself and is not an easything to do i just think that skill should be learnt after everything else has been taught and not as an easy fix for a poorly executed shot.
 
pepi1967 said:
no dave not hung up on photoshop but that is the editing suite of choice. when a student can turn to you and say ah dont worry about that i will sort it in editing then to me the skill of the photographer has been lost and taken over by editing. surely it would be better for the student to be taught where his mistake was made using the camera and not to just fix it in editing. I totaly agree that to edit properly is an artform in itself and is not an easything to do i just think that skill should be learnt after everything else has been taught and not as an easy fix for a poorly executed shot.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but the exact same sentiment applies to the last 50 years (or more) of darkroom editing, nothing has really changed (except you don't need to sit in a darkroom sniffing chemicals under a safelight while you do your editing).
 
pepi1967 said:
no dave not hung up on photoshop but that is the editing suite of choice. when a student can turn to you and say ah dont worry about that i will sort it in editing then to me the skill of the photographer has been lost and taken over by editing. surely it would be better for the student to be taught where his mistake was made using the camera and not to just fix it in editing. I totaly agree that to edit properly is an artform in itself and is not an easything to do i just think that skill should be learnt after everything else has been taught and not as an easy fix for a poorly executed shot.
Click to expand...

Agree with this but that is up to the student.

The ones that are going to be any good rather than just ok will have the drive to be asking far more questions and therefore will learn more.

The ones that are doing the course because it is fashionable or they think it was the easy option will only ever be average as they lack the drive.

Photoshop is not cheating in my eyes but a way of rescuing a shot that I can't re-do but have stuffed up!

Heather
 
Like i said im prob just stuck in my ways. Give me a roll of 110 and a cube flash maybe a pair of patch pockets and i would fit right in lol.
 
pepi1967 said:
Like i said im prob just stuck in my ways. Give me a roll of 110 and a cube flash maybe a pair of patch pockets and i would fit right in lol.
Click to expand...

Well luckily for you this website has a vibrant and vigorous film forum where ( and no insult implied at all here) you'll fit in and be enthusiastically welcomed.


Just be a bit careful with the real ale - they don't clean the pipes often enough for my liking and the beer has a rather unique aftertaste! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top