is it cheating

[TheBigYin]

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!

That was the "perceptol" tap you drew a pint from!

You need to be careful what you drink in F&C

 

[ameyjaney]

Personally, I don't think it's cheating. Like other people have mentioned previously, in film you are still technically doing a lot of editing, just in a different way/environment. The photo is entirely dependent on your skills in the way you compose it, the way you choose to present it. You could give two people the same scene or object and you will be given different ways in the way it was composed.

 

[redhed17]

As has been pointed out, it depends what you mean by cheating, and what skills are being cheated or in danger of being lost. :shrug:

The vast majority of users of film had point and shoot cameras, and had little photographic skill apart from maybe composition and timing, which of course are no minor things.

I would even say that most of those film users who went to the expense of a SLR, just gave their film to a shop to develop and print. (I know I did) Many problems of poor technique were fixed (or at least improved) by the shops machines. You never saw the original at time of capture, so you never knew that you may have been making mistakes with exposure if the print came back OK. :shrug: Polaroid and Slide Film showed exactly how well your technique was, and only professionals used Polaroid's in that way, and Slide Film wasn't exactly mainstream.

And as pointed out by TheBigYin, if you went to the time and expense of developing and printing yourself, there were so many options pre capture, and so many options post capture to correct any problems when the pictures were taken, but also to enhance perfectly captured exposures. Just like there is now, it's just easier, and more people can do it relatively cheaply.

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.

Depends on what things they are attempting to fix. :shrug:

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.

Every learner should be taught to do anything they're learning correctly, be that Photography or whatever. :shrug:

Whether they go away and continue to do things correctly is another thing.

 

[donut]

i think it would be more in the direction of cheating if it was for reporting the truth , as in news stories ,photojournalism and so on ,
like these cases taken from another thread ( nicked from fitp's post )

http://pdnedu.blogs.com/pdn_pulse/2010/07/getty-photographer-fired-over-altered-golf-photo.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1316516...t/altered-images-prompt-photographers-firing/

 

[Richard King]

there always has been a lot of image manipulation. The root cause to begin with was the dynamic range of the whole process Vs the dynamic range in the real world. Hence the use of ND grads and graduated filters. Back in the B&W film days, the red and yellow filters were used, and of course, combined with a choice of film, and then the option to push or not

Then came a wide range of filters, and to add to that, we then bung in our own lighting

So that's the "in camera" cheating" then comes the darkroom manipulation or the digital manipulation. It was always there, but only affordable by the few, or practices by those who had their own gear

Back in the good ol' days they even hand painted and tinted prints

So where are we now..

Basically anyone can use Lightroom, Aperture or Photoshop (or similar) however, very few have the skill or patience to use it excellently

Most modern cameras on "automagic" outperform and produce a fairly decent shot, and that is a move forward for the masses. However, nothing much has changed...It is still only the truly skilful photographer that can tame a camera and consistently produce excellent photography. Whilst photography has been democratised, not much has changed at the top

Effort in = results out

 

[jon ryan]

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

True enough. The top artists have their own style, whether they're photographers or painters. But most will have had some good tuition. Turner worked in an architect's office, for instance, and Constable studied at the Royal Academy. you learn from the best teachers available to you - and then put your lessons into practice.

Post production shouldn't be separated from the other aspects of photography. It is a vital part, if you want to become a photographer whether amateur or professional.

 

[pepi1967]

I think my main problem lies between the enhancment and the manipulation of a photo. Eg i take a photo of a sailing ship on the river thats the image my eye and my lens see. In development i notice a mark on the ships sail so remove the mark enhancing the picture so i now have a sailing ship with a clean sail. the mark was to small for my eye to see in the original. 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. its then a very imaginative picture but not a photgraph.

 

[sarahemjones]

When I teach my students I tell them they shouldn't even consider pp when taking an image.

Taking a poop image and relying on editing to fix it will show in the image.

Get an amazing image in camera and a little edit can make it an amazing image.

 

[leepunyer]

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?

Just remember you can't polish a turd. It still is and will always be a turd.
Likewise you can't photoshop a rubbish photo and make it a masterpiece.

You need to have a photographers eye in the first place.

 

[Phil V]

I think my main problem lies between the enhancment and the manipulation of a photo. Eg i take a photo of a sailing ship on the river thats the image my eye and my lens see. In development i notice a mark on the ships sail so remove the mark enhancing the picture so i now have a sailing ship with a clean sail. the mark was to small for my eye to see in the original. 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. its then a very imaginative picture but not a photgraph.

This kind of 'example' always makes me laugh.

If someone is spending hours 'creating' an image in photoshop, then they don't want that to be seen as a 'photograph' because to do so completely ignores their artistry. Photographers quoting this kind of 'example' are miles wide of the mark.

But all of the 'photographic' stuff we do in the lightroom is the same as we did in the darkroom. That's a vast majority of photographers just using new tools to do things that have always been done.

 

[pepper1786]

images have always been manipulated, since the year dot, nowt wrong with that

 

[SoDoSoPa]

No i dont think its cheating, I'm sure most of us strive to get the best picture we can with our camera but unlike film we can now enhance or get rid of unwanted objects on our photographs, like powerlines, beer cans or the odd spot or two. I just think that now we can maker our photographs better.

Sure there are some who go over the top with editing and make quite sureal pictures that look nothing like the photo taken with there camera but i think its all art, and photography is art no matter how much you do to a picture.

 

[pepi1967]

If someone is spending hours 'creating' an image in photoshop, then they don't want that to be seen as a 'photograph' because to do so completely ignores their artistry. Photographers quoting this kind of 'example' are miles wide of the mark.

And thats my point it isnt a photograph anymore at all it is now computer generated art which in itself is a incredibly difficult thing to do well and i admire them for it, but is it photography? The worlds best artists used brushes and that love and passion for the art would show but if they had of created it on a computer then how would the artist have been able to put his heart and soul into his work? I can see i will have to drag myself kicking and screaming into the real world if i want to progress further with my photgraphy or maybe im to much of a (when i was a lad) type of guy lol.

 

[ernesto]

scott, you have now given a clearer example of what you were getting at. Before it was assumed you meant editing along the lines of exposure, highlights, sharpening etc,. which nobody has a problem with as they are integral to the image making process.

However, when you start to create a 'collage' made up of different photos blended in using Photoshop that is a different matter.

 

[Phil V]

If someone is spending hours 'creating' an image in photoshop, then they don't want that to be seen as a 'photograph' because to do so completely ignores their artistry. Photographers quoting this kind of 'example' are miles wide of the mark.

And thats my point it isnt a photograph anymore at all it is now computer generated art which in itself is a incredibly difficult thing to do well and i admire them for it, but is it photography? The worlds best artists used brushes and that love and passion for the art would show but if they had of created it on a computer then how would the artist have been able to put his heart and soul into his work? I can see i will have to drag myself kicking and screaming into the real world if i want to progress further with my photgraphy or maybe im to much of a (when i was a lad) type of guy lol.

But I'm afraid if that was your point you didn't make it clear.

Your posts are all about 'cheating' and Photographers pretending that their 'digital imaging' work is being passed off as photography. When it simply isn't.

We all have lines we won't cross, but when you start threads like this and use broad brush statements it makes it look like you're just anti-processing. And that, as many of us have pointed out, is ludicrous.

So from your example, cleaning up the sail on a yacht, ok.
Enhancing the sky, ok
Adding a different sky, would depend on the circumstances.
Adding loads of other boats, no longer a photograph.

As far as 'when I was a lad' it's somewhere between a lack of knowledge and rose tinted glasses. As many of us have pointed out, between the light going through your lens to the print, there is processing. Whether that's done with automatic software, processing machines for film and print or a completely artisan process, is a matter of personal preference.

But as others have said, it's an important part of the process and has always been done. You can choose not to do it, like you can choose to be sloppy with any other area of your photography, but it will show in your results I'm afraid.


And for the record, an artist working in digital will be putting as much 'soul' into his work as he would working in paint. I'm sure there were many 'traditionalists' who got upset when upstarts started using pre-prepared pigments, and again when they started using synthetics that dried quicker.

 

[Ash.]

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.

I completely get what you're saying.

For me, I am for post processing, it can enhance a shot, however the aim for me is always to continually improve my photography so that I need less and less post processing.

I don't think all 'students' are like that. I do not study photography but although i'm new to taking photo's, I work hard on learning more and improving my skills as a photographer - both using the camera and using software.

Sometimes I take a shot that looks awesome on my camera, but I get home and change things once it's on my screen. I keep in mind what I've changed and why, and always aim to improve the shot the next time.

I get the impression you've just met a couple of people who are happy to take the easy option of using PP to cover all the imperfections - you can tell those people apart from someone who's worked hard with the camera to acheive a shot.

 

[pepi1967]

but my original question hasnt changed. I asked was it cheating to photoshop. ive been to loads of gallerys were the phographer has claimed this is all his own work i took this photo on a summer afternoon etc when its clearly been photoshoped to death things added things taken away etc well in that case he didnt take THAT picture did he? He computer generated an image that to me then becomes computer generated art work not a photograph. and thats why i asked if the way the students who are learning now are being taught to be photographers and learning to fix there mistakes by better technique or just to photoshop it out and dont worry about it.

 

[weybourne]

but my original question hasnt changed. I asked was it cheating to photoshop. ive been to loads of gallerys were the phographer has claimed this is all his own work i took this photo on a summer afternoon etc when its clearly been photoshoped to death things added things taken away etc well in that case he didnt take THAT picture did he? He computer generated an image that to me then becomes computer generated art work not a photograph. and thats why i asked if the way the students who are learning now are being taught to be photographers and learning to fix there mistakes by better technique or just to photoshop it out and dont worry about it.

I think that to make this meaningful, you're going to have to start giving examples instead of anonymous instances that no-one else can refer to.

 

[Phil V]

None of us were at the gallery with you, so we can't really comment on that specific example.

All I know is that most 'photographers' I know wouldn't call something a 'photograph' that has a different subject from the image captured.

I'd like to know though what you describe as 'photoshopped to death' and how you would know. I'm no landscape photographer, but if I clone out some daisies in a group shot at a wedding, is it no longer a photograph? Is the ubiquitous image of Che Guevara no longer a photograph because of the obvious contrast enhancement? All done in a darkroom of course.

And how do you feel about the work of Ansel Adams, all of which was the subject of a lot of hand printing magic, as one of the most famous landscape 'photographers' of all time, do you consider him a charlatan, or a genius? A photographer or a darkroom artist?

My frustration is that you're hiding any specific points behind a smokescreen of 'it's all wrong'. Whilst there are many trying to pin down the rights and wrongs of the issue.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Image manipulation is not a phenomena that arrived with photoshop. Frank Hurley created composite images of the battlefields during world war one. Was he cheating? Well yes if you regard them as reportage, but he couldn't satisfactorily capture in one image what he felt.

http://www.greatwar.nl/hurley/passchendale.html

http://treasure-explorer.nla.gov.au/treasure/hurleys-passchendaele/resources

 

[redhed17]

Eg i take a photo of a sailing ship on the river thats the image my eye and my lens see. In development i notice a mark on the ships sail so remove the mark enhancing the picture so i now have a sailing ship with a clean sail. the mark was to small for my eye to see in the original. 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. its then a very imaginative picture but not a photgraph.

That's totally something different to what it seemed you were talking about in your previous posts. You made it sound that people were being lazy and not getting the basics, exposure, white balance correct, in the knowledge that they can 'fix' things in the computer. :shrug:

I agree with Phil V

So from your example, cleaning up the sail on a yacht, ok.
Enhancing the sky, ok
Adding a different sky, would depend on the circumstances.
Adding loads of other boats, no longer a photograph.

It only becomes a problem for me if the person adding boats and this and that to such a digital image claimed it was untouched, and 'straight out of the camera' with minimal editing. :shrug: And peoples definition of 'minimal editing' is different from person to person btw.

But then if it's not an image purporting to be real life, such as a journalist, almost anything can go. :shrug:

The final image is what matters, and people decide what they think is too much in an image they're viewing, and how much is too much in an image they are editing.


It has always happened though, as people have said. This is my favourite example of image manipulation from 1865. This is one of the images I show people when they say you can't believe anything you see now. I think this would be an amazing piece of work now, (as if it never happened before digital came) nevermind manipulating images in 1865.

Most images in magazines and other media, fashion mags in particular, have always been manipulated. :shrug:

 

[Ash.]

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.

but my original question hasnt changed. I asked was it cheating to photoshop. ive been to loads of gallerys were the phographer has claimed this is all his own work i took this photo on a summer afternoon etc when its clearly been photoshoped to death things added things taken away etc well in that case he didnt take THAT picture did he? He computer generated an image that to me then becomes computer generated art work not a photograph. and thats why i asked if the way the students who are learning now are being taught to be photographers and learning to fix there mistakes by better technique or just to photoshop it out and dont worry about it.

You're confusing two types of scenarios:

A: someone enhancing the colours / contrast / WB etc - because they don't know or care to learn the basics of photography

B: Someone who is creating a completely different image on purpose, by adding objects / removing objects from the image - because realistically they couldn't have created the 'artistic idea' in any natural form.

Although I don't personally care much for the latter option, neither are wrong in my opinon, they can be used to great effect in the right application.

 

[pepi1967]

Actually i have never said its all wrong, in fact i said i admire the artistry in the way its done. And can i also say that if anyone reading this or posting on this topic thinks i have insulted anyone or feel insulted by my comments that is not my intention. A lot of my comments seem sharp when i read them back so please dont be offended by them. All i was asking or should of said was i understand that photgraphers who have worked their way through the ranks who have learnt their trade from sweeping up in the darkroom to being a full time earning working photographer and who now teach people to become photographers should be teaching how to be a photographer by correcting their mistakes at the lens not on a computer. I understand we have to move with the times but when the ART of photography is being taken over by the SKILL of a computer whizz then i think the photographer loses something very special. When i was young i was inspired by the art in a photo the thought, the proccess but the new younger photographers of today get inspired by what they can alter on a laptop and are encouraged to do just that. 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 understand that to sell photos or use photos only perfection is accepted but when i asked the question is it cheating i should have given examples and also said its not processing i am on about its the total manipulation of a photo, then trying to pass it off as A PICTURE I TOOK, is THAT cheating? That was my fault and i can only appologise. As i said if i have offended anyone that was not my intention. I think now i have read all your replies i can answer my own question and that would be it depends on how much it was used and was the use to enhance or hide detail. Was it done to be artistic or was it done as a deliberate ploy to pretend you are better than you are. Either way i understand that TRUE photographers can spot a wannabe a mile away no matter what they do to hide the faults on a picture, i just hope that those same photographers can teach the younger ones to learn the way they did, from the ground up.

 

[Phil V]

Actually i have never said its all wrong, in fact i said i admire the artistry in the way its done. And can i also say that if anyone reading this or posting on this topic thinks i have insulted anyone or feel insulted by my comments that is not my intention. A lot of my comments seem sharp when i read them back so please dont be offended by them.

All i was asking or should of said was i understand that photgraphers who have worked their way through the ranks who have learnt their trade from sweeping up in the darkroom to being a full time earning working photographer and who now teach people to become photographers should be teaching how to be a photographer by correcting their mistakes at the lens not on a computer. I understand we have to move with the times but when the ART of photography is being taken over by the SKILL of a computer whizz then i think the photographer loses something very special.

When i was young i was inspired by the art in a photo the thought, the proccess but the new younger photographers of today get inspired by what they can alter on a laptop and are encouraged to do just that. 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 understand that to sell photos or use photos only perfection is accepted but when i asked the question is it cheating i should have given examples and also said its not processing i am on about its the total manipulation of a photo, then trying to pass it off as A PICTURE I TOOK, is THAT cheating?

That was my fault and i can only appologise. As i said if i have offended anyone that was not my intention. I think now i have read all your replies i can answer my own question and that would be it depends on how much it was used and was the use to enhance or hide detail. Was it done to be artistic or was it done as a deliberate ploy to pretend you are better than you are. Either way i understand that TRUE photographers can spot a wannabe a mile away no matter what they do to hide the faults on a picture, i just hope that those same photographers can teach the younger ones to learn the way they did, from the ground up.

I think it's difficult for us as you keep 'trying' to say the same thing but the words change. But if someone's selling a picture with such false colours it's obvious to them and their customers that it's not a 'photograph', no matter what you thought he was saying.

Now you're saying that you 'believe' younger photographers take the capture less seriously because they can easily fix it later. Still without examples it's an impossible conversation to have, like I said, I don't know pro's who have that attitude, I don't have experience of photographers who manipulate to that extent and call it photography.

And in answer to your point about helping others to learn from the ground up, just look in the basics forum here, no one ever gives the 'dont worry you can fix it later' type of advice. Those of us that are older and hopefully wiser, always advise to get it as good as you can through the lens, but we still advise on how to improve on the limitations of the medium.

No ones taking offence, but it's a bit like nailing a jelly to a ceiling sometimes. I've always said that the biggest help that the digital age has brought to photography is the speed we can learn now. When I learned the basics it took years to understand my mistakes, the books and magazines were rubbish, training courses were expensive and camera clubs weren't for the likes of me.

A newcomer today can learn the basics in weeks, and learn advanced techniques in a matter of months. That's got to be a good thing surely.

One of my competitors has a prominent image on their site, which has the worst case of fake background blur you're likely to see, it might convince some customers, but you'd find it silly. But if customers are attracted by that image and thats what they get delivered, then there's no 'cheating' really, no matter what I believe it does for professional photography.

 

[pepi1967]

[A newcomer today can learn the basics in weeks, and learn advanced techniques in a matter of months. That's got to be a good thing surely/I]

I agree but if the student is being taught to edit out mistakes what incentive does the student have to learn the correct way of taking the shot? infact what incentive does a teacher have to teach them the correct way?

When you was learning or being taught how many shots did you take and think cr*p if only i had of done this or that it would have been perfect. And what did you do to put that shot right? you did it over and over again until it was right. but now students dont need to all they do is stick it through the editing software and bingo all fixed. That is not a good thing.

I wonder how many good photographers today would be able to make a living out of this hobby if you took away all the editing software and left it down to his skill? People like yourself who learnt the hardway would be able to carry on without to much of a problem because you have the skills you learnt but these skills are not being passed down enough i dont think. Imagine a forum for photgraphy in ten years time no one will have any skills left to pass on.

Now you're saying that you 'believe' younger photographers take the capture less seriously because they can easily fix it later

I spoke to a young lad on the sea front just last week taking some sunset shots he looked to be having a problem i asked what his problem was he answered nothing adobe cant fix now why would a student not want to fix it there and then? either he hasnt been taught or hes been taught that he can fix it later either way its not a good thing.

 

[skiking]

My simplistic view is that doing PP in terms of colour saturation, contrast, exposure (too a certain degree) is no different to the days when I had a darkroom. When it comes to removing a rogue branch in the foreground of a landscape or a piece of litter that could have been done at the point of taking the picture by taking a different view point then, to a certain degree, that is cheating; as is altering an image to make a, say, a woman thinner or with bigger boobs or longer legs!

To the other extreme, building a 'photograph' from other photographs (as seen in a example of a 747 plane crash posted on here recently) to me is not cheating, but then again its not photography but art and in this case was fantastically executed.

 

[weybourne]

When it comes to removing a rogue branch in the foreground of a landscape or a piece of litter that could have been done at the point of taking the picture by taking a different view point then, to a certain degree, that is cheating;

But why isn't it cheating to alter the scene by removing something that you find aesthetically displeasing before taking the picture? Surely that is as much 'manipulation' as it is by doing it PP - if not more so - after all you can't undo cutting a branch off. Why would the secatuer be an honest tool but the mouse not?

If we really are talking about whether an activity is cheating because it changes the original - then is it honest (and not cheating) to decide that 'original' starts inside the camera and not outside - and that anything you do to change the original (whether that be removing or adding items, staging a scenario, changing the lighting) before taking the shot is not cheating?

Photography doesn't start or end with a shutter actuation and everything thing is a manipulation or an editing decision.

It is not what is done that is the issue but why - and imho, it becomes cheating when there is a will to maliciously mislead - and doing something to enhance or improve the picture does not necessarily constitute cheating - for example, to improve the complexion of a model's skin to create a more aesthetically pleasing picture in itself is not cheating, but to do so for a beauty product advert would be.

 

[Phil V]

[A newcomer today can learn the basics in weeks, and learn advanced techniques in a matter of months. That's got to be a good thing surely/I]

I agree but if the student is being taught to edit out mistakes what incentive does the student have to learn the correct way of taking the shot? infact what incentive does a teacher have to teach them the correct way?

When you was learning or being taught how many shots did you take and think cr*p if only i had of done this or that it would have been perfect. And what did you do to put that shot right? you did it over and over again until it was right. but now students dont need to all they do is stick it through the editing software and bingo all fixed. That is not a good thing.

I wonder how many good photographers today would be able to make a living out of this hobby if you took away all the editing software and left it down to his skill? People like yourself who learnt the hardway would be able to carry on without to much of a problem because you have the skills you learnt but these skills are not being passed down enough i dont think. Imagine a forum for photgraphy in ten years time no one will have any skills left to pass on.

Now you're saying that you 'believe' younger photographers take the capture less seriously because they can easily fix it later

I spoke to a young lad on the sea front just last week taking some sunset shots he looked to be having a problem i asked what his problem was he answered nothing adobe cant fix now why would a student not want to fix it there and then? either he hasnt been taught or hes been taught that he can fix it later either way its not a good thing.

Or perhaps he was just being flippant.

I could almost hear myself saying the same thing.

The thIng about having a strongly held conviction, is that you will always find evidence to back it up.

Try to spend an hour reading through Talk Basics, see all the newbies questions and the answers they get. Try it with an open mind and see if it'll change your opinion a little.

Personally I don't believe anyone is being taught to fudge it and make it right in post. Mostly because it's inefficient and plain wrong. Having the best file you can get will give you the best end result, no matter how much resource you throw at Photoshop. No matter how many times it's repeated, 'You still can't polish a turd', just like musicians still need a great acoustic space for a clean recording before the post production starts, or chefs use the best ingredients available.

I may have learned in the film days, I can use a fully manual camera and deliver results. But I'd want paying a great deal to go back to that way of working. My fast fps, blistering AF and feedback with data are something I would be devastated to give up. As soon as I can afford it I'll happily give up the processing though.

 

[weybourne]

A newcomer today can learn the basics in weeks, and learn advanced techniques in a matter of months. That's got to be a good thing surely

I agree but if the student is being taught to edit out mistakes what incentive does the student have to learn the correct way of taking the shot? infact what incentive does a teacher have to teach them the correct way?

When you was learning or being taught how many shots did you take and think cr*p if only i had of done this or that it would have been perfect. And what did you do to put that shot right? you did it over and over again until it was right. but now students dont need to all they do is stick it through the editing software and bingo all fixed. That is not a good thing.

I think you are wrong - photographers are not taught not to worry about mistakes when taking the shot - far from it - they are taught how to get the shot right. Indeed, some of getting the shot right, by necessity, involves PP - whether in the darkroom or at the computer. And of course students are taught how to fix mistakes - part of the trade (like many trades) is learning how to tackle remedial work on jobs already started - but that was taught 'back in the days' too. But not all editing is fixing mistakes but it is about making editing decisions.

I wonder how many good photographers today would be able to make a living out of this hobby if you took away all the editing software and left it down to his skill? People like yourself who learnt the hardway would be able to carry on without to much of a problem because you have the skills you learnt but these skills are not being passed down enough i dont think. Imagine a forum for photgraphy in ten years time no one will have any skills left to pass on.

You could equally ask how many good painters would be able to make a living without turps or masking fluid or how many good coppers could do their job without modern forensics - it is not a question of skill but a question of using the tools and materials that are available - skills are still important.

I spoke to a young lad on the sea front just last week taking some sunset shots he looked to be having a problem i asked what his problem was he answered nothing adobe cant fix now why would a student not want to fix it there and then? either he hasnt been taught or hes been taught that he can fix it later either way its not a good thing.

I wasn't there - but he could have been deluded, or joking (or even being serious - but you don't know what the problem was or how he intended fixing it - he could have set his white-balance wrong - how do you set white-balance with a film camera?) and there could have been ten others thinking what a fool he is. The observation is meaningless to this thread.

 

[pepi1967]

Trust me he wasnt joking deluded maybe but joking no.

observation is meaningless to this thread.

Not realy as i was asked the question about specific times when things had happend to make me think the way i do about photoshop and students.

But i have to agree maybe i need to read more about the subject with more of an open mind and i shall be doing just that. I just feel that photography itself is an art form and should be taught as such.

 

[Digifrog]

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,

No. Why?

I think you'll find that editing digital images is in much the same way as editing film, is it not??

I think you'll find that over the last 100 years or so true ameteur film photographers would develop their own film negs in a darkroom and use techniques such as dodge, burn, cross processing, masking, lithing, bas reliefing, montaging, sandwiching, tone lining & vignetting etc. etc. in much the same way as digital photographers edit in the lightroom. Would you send your RAW files off to a developer for them to do it? Or would you do it yourself?

I think you'll find editing (developing) & creative editing has always existed with photography only now in the 21st century it has evolved, expanded and improved.

To be honest, the question you ask is a daft one :thumbsdown:

Regards

 

[weybourne]

observation is meaningless to this thread.

Not realy as i was asked the question about specific times when things had happend to make me think the way i do about photoshop and students.

It might be meaningful to you but not to anyone that wasn't there

 

[Brent]

I agree with most people here, cheating is a negative term.....photography is always been a deception. The digital age blow the doors open and has just given more people the tools at hand, whether they use them correctly that's up to them. But what does it make people talk and doubt what we see....much like we should with reality tv shows! Is the below link photoshop or real.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/07/05/sk-lightning-engagement-photo-1207.html

To me using the raw image like the negative what I do and use whatever tools available to me to achieve a good image. I personally like to process a image so, that processing is not visible but not saying that others are wrong to use HDR, etc.....but to me doesn't look right and just a personal preference. I love negative b&w photography....is cheating if I convert to colour digital image to B&W....I don't think so.

http://brenthumephotography.com/machinery.html

 

[pepi1967]

It might be meaningful to you but not to anyone that wasn't there

good point lol

 

[Ash.]

Actually i have never said its all wrong, in fact i said i admire the artistry in the way its done. And can i also say that if anyone reading this or posting on this topic thinks i have insulted anyone or feel insulted by my comments that is not my intention. A lot of my comments seem sharp when i read them back so please dont be offended by them. All i was asking or should of said was i understand that photgraphers who have worked their way through the ranks who have learnt their trade from sweeping up in the darkroom to being a full time earning working photographer and who now teach people to become photographers should be teaching how to be a photographer by correcting their mistakes at the lens not on a computer. I understand we have to move with the times but when the ART of photography is being taken over by the SKILL of a computer whizz then i think the photographer loses something very special. When i was young i was inspired by the art in a photo the thought, the proccess but the new younger photographers of today get inspired by what they can alter on a laptop and are encouraged to do just that. 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 understand that to sell photos or use photos only perfection is accepted but when i asked the question is it cheating i should have given examples and also said its not processing i am on about its the total manipulation of a photo, then trying to pass it off as A PICTURE I TOOK, is THAT cheating? That was my fault and i can only appologise. As i said if i have offended anyone that was not my intention. I think now i have read all your replies i can answer my own question and that would be it depends on how much it was used and was the use to enhance or hide detail. Was it done to be artistic or was it done as a deliberate ploy to pretend you are better than you are. Either way i understand that TRUE photographers can spot a wannabe a mile away no matter what they do to hide the faults on a picture, i just hope that those same photographers can teach the younger ones to learn the way they did, from the ground up.

I get the impression that you're generalising every new photographer based one one or two examples you've noticed.

As a young photographer learning the art myself, I do not have a heavy emphasis on PP, and although I do use it - as in my previous post, my aim is to improve my skills with the camera - I'm sure many are the same.

I also get the impression your views on the modern photographer are clouded by nostalgia. it's similar to the "vinyl will always be better than computers / CDs - real DJ's use vinyl" blah blah...

As said, modern technology increases the speed in which the art is learnt, and offers alternative paths to explore and be more creative with for a wider audience.

 

[Phil V]

I get the impression that you're generalising every new photographer based one one or two examples you've noticed.

As a young photographer learning the art myself, I do not have a heavy emphasis on PP, and although I do use it - as in my previous post, my aim is to improve my skills with the camera - I'm sure many are the same.

I also get the impression your views on the modern photographer are clouded by nostalgia. it's similar to the "vinyl will always be better than computers / CDs - real DJ's use vinyl" blah blah...

As said, modern technology increases the speed in which the art is learnt, and offers alternative paths to explore and be more creative with for a wider audience.

Massively off topic.
Just to add.

Vinyl does sound better than CDs or mp3s in the same way as a 10x8 sheet of film looks better than an 18 mpix digital photo simply because it holds more data.

And in that analogy an mp3 file is an 8mpix jpeg sooc.

 

[Ash.]

Massively off topic.
Just to add.

Vinyl does sound better than CDs or mp3s in the same way as a 10x8 sheet of film looks better than an 18 mpix digital photo simply because it holds more data.

And in that analogy an mp3 file is an 8mpix jpeg sooc.

I share the same views, unfortunately a lack of funds has restricted my vinyl purchasing though

I just wanted to try and bring in a similar scenario to the one in the discussion

 

[pepi1967]

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.

A touch of contrast is just that a touch not a whole landscape re jig. I understand that photoshoping is part and parcel of photography now and i may very well be clouded by nostalgia but i also know and understand the value of the training that the older photographer went through that bought him to the point of heatbreak and excellence

To me that cant be forced rushed or photo shopped. But as i have said i will read all the info i can on the subject but this time do it with an open mind. I have found the comments on this topic very interesting and can see that most people on here use it as an add on to photography rather than a replacement for it.

 

[Ash.]

A lot of younger people will try to find the 'easiest' option no matter what they're doing

I agree though, it takes years to become a well rounded and knowledgeable photographer, even with the ease of modern tech. Those who have 'mastered' the craft will always stand out as the better artist from those who are new to it with some fancy computer techniques [in my view any way].

 

[pepi1967]

And just to add vinyl will always be the best way to listen to music