Is it considered cheating...

joxby said:
I couldn't care less about Dave Hill, or anything that looks like his, his work isn't very interesting.
Click to expand...

That's beside the point really, Dave Hill's work isn't about a click of a few buttons in a photoshop action, it's a very involved and technical process and he created it himself, it's his 'look'.
Whether you find it interesting or not is up to you and your preference, the point is, just like any other individual style of photography, it can't be replicated with actions alone. Try it, many have and failed miserabley.

I really don't think there's anything to worry about, you can experience the many different tools available in Photoshop first hand, use them and learn how to implement them into your style, or you can have a fiddle with pre written scripts and break down the elements and learn that way too. The possibilities are endless.

My interpretation of what Petemc is saying is that it's far more beneficial to use your imagination and use the tools in your own way rather than grab an off the shelf action and apply it to your image.
If your into image processing that can only be acheived with photoshop then help to expand your vision and learn the various tools and facilities that are available.

petemc said:
...Its like a carpenter going to MFI for a chair and then saying "Well I put it where I wanted in the room"
Click to expand...

LMFAO
 
Marcel said:
No it's not cheating.

What about using Levels, is that cheating? How about the rotate feature? Is that cheating?
You're not doing it yourself...Photoshop is....and did you write Photoshop? No...then you're letting someone else do the work for you ;)
Click to expand...

Asking if someone wrote Photoshop is like asking the photographer if he built the camera !
I think the solution to the answer will have to be a bit more subtle !

Keith.

* Great thread though ! *
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
That's beside the point really, Dave Hill's work isn't about a click of a few buttons in a photoshop action, it's a very involved and technical process and he created it himself, it's his 'look'.
Click to expand...

Its relevant if your premise is that Dave Hills heavy choppery has much to do with photography.
If you find it acceptable to be described as such, then it is besides the point as far as you're concerned.

I don't think Hills work is a good example to use to support any point of view including mine anyway, its too extreme.
 
Its a perfect example. Many people want his look. There are downloadable actions that claim to achieve it and that is the topic of discussion here. Whether his photography is any good or not, or whether its photography at all isn't the topic. Off the shelf styles is the topic.
 
Unfortunately, you can't copyright a style, I'm all for developing and finding your own way through the woods, its really the only way to do it.
But peeps are always gonna draw parallels between unknowns and famous photos if they contain similar elements, whether its a processing style, a pose, specific lighting, whatever.
I don't see the difference between using an action and taking inspiration from celebrity artists work, if Annie Leibovitz can steal a style, anybody can.
 
No-ones suggesting you need to copyright a style. There is a difference between drawing inspiration from and flat out pasting a look onto an image.
 
What's the difference, pasting a look, pasting a pose, they are both different photos with similar elements linking them.

Don't you think Liebovitz's arrangement of peeps/scene is a Penn rip off.

Is it that the action is a "thing" where as a pose is an idea anyone could "accidentally" have.

If you were to crack the enigma code to Dave Hills processing and used it to make pictures like his, is that ok, not a Dave Hill rip off ?
 
joxby said:
Its relevant if your premise is that Dave Hills heavy choppery has much to do with photography.
If you find it acceptable to be described as such, then it is besides the point as far as you're concerned.

I don't think Hills work is a good example to use to support any point of view including mine anyway, its too extreme.
Click to expand...

So you feel Dave Hill isn't a real photographer?
Try taking his camera, lenses and white lightning rigs away and see if he can whip up some of that 'digital art'.

I agree DH's style is an aquired taste, personally there are a few of his images that are too much for me but overall I really like his style of photography, it's fresh, innovative and he's making a career out of it. Am I going to rip him off or spend my time trying to get his 'look'?
No. I want my own style and I'd encourage folk to find their own too.

All new styles and 'looks' get flack from the more purist favoured fields, take HDR for example, post production technique that requires multiple exposures and still it provokes a very controversial reaction.
As does the very young photographer Joey Lawrence, a nineteen year old who had only picked up a dslr when he was 16, by 17 he landed a few commisions with recognisable bands on major record labels and now is known for his lighting and individual post processsing techniques. The more senior pro's really 'loved' him. I though it was superb, a teen doing better business then someone twice his age, so be it I say.


All of the above rely on photographic equipment and without it they can't create.

I like both edges to the sword personally and don't condemn either.

P.S, I apologise for taking the thread a little off topic, just bally well interested, sorry.
 
I like Joey Lawrence, you can buy a DVD in which he presents his processing methods, his processing is light enough that if I don't like it, I can strip it back in my mind, I can see his photography...well, most of it.
Can't do that with Dave Hill, I didn't say he was a bad photographer, his raw material has to come from somewhere, I'm saying what he presents isn't a photograph any longer, its digital art.

Off topic ??, its all related..

loosely...:suspect:

incidentally, if I buy Joey's DVD and make pictures using it, is that ok cos I paid to copy his processing..

:)
 
You really don't seem to be getting this. Its about packaging up someones look so you could apply it to any photo you wished any time you wanted to. Its not about reading, learning, be inspired by and then applying it to your own photos after spending a bit of time trying to get the same style. Its the difference between learning to sing and pushing a button to sound like Tom Jones. Its not your voice, its his. Its not your talent, its his.
 
petemc said:
Its the difference between learning to sing and pushing a button to sound like Tom Jones. Its not your voice, its his. Its not your talent, its his.
Click to expand...

Man, if I had that button, I'd be pressin it right now..

"If I only knew, what I could do...to make you, make you love me...."

joxby said:
I like Joey Lawrence, you can buy a DVD in which he presents his processing methods, his processing is light enough that if I don't like it, I can strip it back in my mind, I can see his photography...well, most of it.

Can't do that with Dave Hill, I didn't say he was a bad photographer, his raw material has to come from somewhere, I'm saying what he presents isn't a photograph any longer, its digital art.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
It's one of them, fellers with different opinions. Peace love and respect though!
I could debate all night long but it's just no fun not being in the same room and also the rather upsetting absense of beer is quite upsetting.

joxby said:
incidentally, if I buy Joey's DVD and make pictures using it, is that ok cos I paid to copy his processing..

:)
Click to expand...

Nope. As you would have to take the same identical photo's that he does first, forever!
Incindentally, I'm going to buy JL's DVD, I just hope there's not too much of that 'I'm Joey L' tune. :runaway:

T.
 
joxby said:
You don't seem to be answering any questions, just offering an opinion.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be asking any questions, just offering an opinion :p No I have been replying to your posts with my opinion on the subject, which some might say is an answer to a question.
 
Some might, but them some might have read the 4 un-answered questions in post 47...:D

s'ok, I know they're tough

I actually don't disagree with you, hill has probably spent a lot of time and effort and his own money (probably) sussing out his style.
Why should some oik off the interwebz take that for nothing and use it on his own work for monetary gain or whatever.
Its his style, it belongs to him/end.
Explain to me how Liebovitz's faux pa is any different, Penn used his experience knowledge/know how/whatever to create this famous (whether you like it or not) photograph, in the same way hill created his processing "style".

Seriously I think allsorts of things ought to be credited in photos, even filters used, but they aren't, nobody does, there were a few rumblins in the media when Liebovitz's Vanity Fair cover came out, but on the whole it was accepted by the masses, I don't like it, but that's the way it goes, what can ya do..:shrug:
 
petemc said:
Probably best you read the thread before replying :)
Click to expand...

I did read the thread, theres nothing wrong with using ANY preset/action it's up to the photographer what he/she does with their image post process wise. You might want to look up the definition of "cheating"

Quote
"Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others."

Improving their own image is hardly fraud is it?? Wayne
 
petemc said:
Its like a carpenter going to MFI for a chair and then saying "Well I put it where I wanted in the room"
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with your analogy Pete. It's more like a carpenter making a chair and getting someone else to apply the varnish. The underlying product is still that of the carpenter's, just finished by someone else.

Your style isn't just defined by your PP; it's your choice of subject, composition, timing etc. etc.

I agree that whilst it's not technically cheating using a preset action, it isn't exactly developing your own style either.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I did read the thread...
Click to expand...

Then you should have seen my reply. I agreed with you before you replied to my post. I do shoots where I take 1,000 photos and need to batch process them quickly. I load them into Lightroom and select one of my presets. It process them quickly. I get all that. I get why photographers use actions. The point I'm trying to argue is that they are my presets. I've started from scratch and built up a style I like that I apply to my photos.

The issue that I have is applying others processing to your own photos at the click of a button. Thats different to drawing inspiration from. Why? Its not entirely your work then. Its your photo and their processing.
 
Hey Pete I think we need to just accept that some people like to drive a manual so they can make the most of the engine whilst others prefer an automatic for less effort. They both get you to your destination but for some, driving a manual is far more satisfying.
 
Yup. For some people the journey is more interesting than the destination. I'm in this for life so I've got time to learn things.
 
And sometimes the journey is rewarding enough that it makes no difference if you actually end up where you intended or not.

...are we getting too deep here for a Monday? :-)
 
Garry79 said:
Your style isn't just defined by your PP; it's your choice of subject, composition, timing etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, if the shots look cool content wise,without any processing, then I'd imagine almost any styles of processing could be applied and they'd still be cool shots.

--

Just adding a tangent of this subject...
You could argue that shooting in jpeg meant your cheating, since much of the processing is being decided by the manufactures camera software .. That would be taking it too far right..
 
Lightroom or your printer are applying a colour profile to your images, is that cheating? your camera applies it's own processing (even in RAW) is that cheating? your skylight filter alters the colours slightly, is that cheating?. Why is it wrong to use a bought action/preset but not wrong to use software that alters/corrects your image?? At what point does image correction stop and cheating start?
The last thing we need now is the photo police telling us what we shouldn't do!
Maybe we should all go back to gum bichromate and contact prints using the sun (or is that cheating too?) Wayne
 
Hopkin Green Frog said:
Hells no.

I have a simple philosophy when it comes to anyone who thinks using any tool to do anything in a creative field is "cheating". This applies to people who take exception to sampling in music, to photoshopping in photography or whatever - that philosophy is...

<bender>Bite my shiny metal ass</bender>
Click to expand...

:lol::lol: Class! I used to be one of those people who didnt like editing...until I tried it myself. I think its great now, I can get rid of stuff that spoils my shot etc, and as long as the picture looks good and what you want then it doesnt matter how you get there I reckon.
 
I have to say I agree with Pete on this one and I think a lot of people aren't actually understanding what he is trying to say.

If you are using somebody else's pre-sets it's essentially the same thing as paying somebody else to do your processing. Sure the underlying image is your's but you didn't do everything or have an understanding of everything that's went into creating the image.

I prefer to do all the stuff myself and know how it's done rather than just taking the quick fix and not knowing the underlying working. If you want to take somebody else's action and dissect it to find out how a particular thing is done I don't think there is anything wrong with that as it's just another form of learning.

I personally am against using other people's actions for the same reason Pete is, if i'm not doing all the work can I really take full credit for the image?
 
Use whatever you can to get the desired effect on your shot. If you have the time to make your own action ... Then great ... :thumbs:

... If not ... Don't worry .... :D






Nobody needs ever know .... :suspect:
 
mole2k said:
If you are using somebody else's pre-sets it's essentially the same thing as paying somebody else to do your processing. Sure the underlying image is your's but you didn't do everything or have an understanding of everything that's went into creating the image.
Click to expand...

Many professional photographers pay people to process their photos even though they have a good understanding of how to do it themselves. There's a decent amount of work for retouchers etc. and this isn't considered "cheating"; it's considered getting the job done the best way.
 
I don't really have a problem with that as people who generally pay others to do retouching work have the knowledge but wish to spend their time on other aspects.

It's more I have an issue with people who want to use actions without wanting to know the underlying knowledge. Either way it doesn't really affect me, I take photos for myself how I like it and don't really care what people think of them or my methods but I personally prefer doing everything myself.
 
petemc said:
Theres a difference between a filter and a downloadable style. You apply the filter how you see. Presets can be a complete style. Grainy high contrast b&w, whumpf. Job done. You didn't apply it how you wanted. Someone else did. The end result does matter but if you don't know how to get there then you'll never progress as a photographer. You'll be that guy who knows how to push "Run action." You won't have your own style. You won't stand out in a crowd. Its not really all your work. Its a bit of yours and someone elses. IMHO My photography needs to be as much mine as I can make it. Obviously I'm not going to write my own copy of Photoshop but I'm going to apply their tools as I see fit to get the end result. Its like a carpenter going to MFI for a chair and then saying "Well I put it where I wanted in the room"
Click to expand...

Using a preset is no different to using any filter, effect.....
I just don't see it
 
gazzauk said:
Using a preset is no different to using any filter, effect.....
I just don't see it
Click to expand...

Using a preset isn't any different to using an action. Using someone elses preset or action to completely process your image when you don't have a clue how to yourself is different. Its different to taking the time to learn the technology, to understand how to process a photograph and then save it as your own action. I can't believe I'm still having to make this point. :shake:
 
This has opened a huge can of worms which I am sure was completely unanticitapated given the apparent simplicity of the question.

This type of debate is certainly nothing new although it is pleasant to see that in this community at least the debate is polite and considered!

I have seen similar arguments in the past over the use of autofocus, variable contrast paper for black and white printing, processing of E6 film at a lab rather than doing it yourself, ditto for black and white film, use of c41 process black and white films, use of digital photography and PP at all, use of programme exposure modes, and use of matrix and similar advanced metering sytems to name the ones which come to mind off the top of my head!

Ultimately unless you are entering a competition in which use of downloaded actions is expressly forbidden the only person's opinion that counts is your own. If you feel that you are cheating, then you are. If it sits well with your conscience then you are not.

I am farly new to the whole digital malarky having come very late to the party and as a consequence my digital PP skills are very rudimentary - partly my own fault as I would rather muck about in the dark with chemicals than knuckle down and get to grips with the whole business and conquor the learning curve.

As a result I have tried some downloaded actions myself in the hope of bypassing the tedious learning process. My take on them is that for me they are a waste of time, because they have neither advanced my understanding of what I am doing when faced with an image to process in PS nor have they produced the results that I was hoping for.
 
petemc said:
Using a preset isn't any different to using an action. Using someone elses preset or action to completely process your image when you don't have a clue how to yourself is different. Its different to taking the time to learn the technology, to understand how to process a photograph and then save it as your own action. I can't believe I'm still having to make this point. :shake:
Click to expand...


Oh, i totally get your point, i just dont agree! ;)
 
You don't think theres a difference between you doing something and someone else doing it?
 
As Marcel said, I didnt write Photoshop, but I use it..............and I sometimes use a filter or effect with no clear idea of how it will turn out..it's just experimenting. Everyone does that. I dont see that it's any different.
 
surely, if you want to take this argument to its n'th degree, you didnt write the onboard software on your camera, so is not the result part you, part Mr Canon/Nikon etc Software developer??

At the end of the day, as someone said in the first few posts, you took the shot, so its yours.
 
Actually Mr Noseybonk to follow this through logically you'd have to have personally built whatever it was you were photographing.
 
gazzauk said:
As Marcel said, I didnt write Photoshop, but I use it..............and I sometimes use a filter or effect with no clear idea of how it will turn out..it's just experimenting. Everyone does that. I dont see that it's any different.
Click to expand...

Difference is that you are using it, as I've explained. You're using the tools to perform a certain job. You're not just standing there, selecting a style off the shelf and then applying it. You use the camera creatively. Adjust the settings, apply a filter in a certain way and then take the photo when ready. You then adjust the levels, curves, contrast, colours in Photoshop as you see fit. They're all your own edits using the tools. The difference is that using someone elses action is simply pushing "Play" and your image is now how they wanted it. You might like it but its not the same because you haven't edited it. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this :) You did not process the photo. Thats all I'm saying really. Nothing to do with whether it was a preset, action, guy across the road. You took the photo, its yours, but you didn't process it.
 
How do you process a digital photo? I just press print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top