Should i feel guilty?

krazy_horse

krazy_horse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
824
Edit My Images
Yes
Since i have been into photography, i have noticed that many, many pictures look too good to be true, and now i'm beginning to understand why.

When people post a picture on here it is usually the best that they can achieve, and i feel that some post on here just to show off their work to make themselves feel better, i know this because i am one of them.

I'm not the greatest with a camera and do not have the best kit, so i have to make up for it with PS, i know that part of the art of Digital photography is the post-processing, and the creativity you can achieve is fantastic, but are we really deceiving our viewers?

This is why i feel guilty.

I have recently posted a picture of a Wren in the Animals & Nature section, and have shown the shot to some of my non-tog friends and family, and they are all amazed, and giving me praise for it, but what i haven't told them is the time spent on PS tweaking levels, curves, dodging and burning and cloning etc. So they only see the final product.

So i end up feeling guilty that they do not know the whole story, that it was a bit underexposed and there were reeds in the way and colours don't really look like that etc.

Should i tell them the secrets behind my pictures or leave it as is; for them to think i'm great with a camera, and the picture came out just as they see it?

Thanks for your thoughts,

JB

ps maybe i'm just mad to feel like this?
 
Results are what matter. Don't feel guilty about using additional skills in PS to get the best out of the image :thumbs:
 
When they look at your work, does it make them happy? If the answer is 'yes' then why feel guilty? The medium you used as a template for your 'Art' was a camera, I think that makes it a Photograph wether you cloned in/out this or HDR'd that etc. The only time you should feel guilty is if you are a documentary/photo journalist and start removing, or adding random things to the picture to change the story and mislead the public. Relax, it's a Photograph, and manipulation of images goes way back to the wet/dark rooms , it just took longer back then.
 
i know what your saying :lol:

at the end of the day you took the shot you ps'd it you get the credit...

the more you do the better you get the less pp work you will have to do.

just my thoughts anyway

md:thumbs:
 
monkeydave said:
the more you do the better you get the less pp work you will have to do.
Click to expand...

I agree.

If you keep having to clone out twigs.... you will slowly start changing your position when taking the photos to make sure those twigs arent there in the first place etc...

so therefore it could all be quite productive :thumbs:
 
You are only deceiving people if you say the shot came off the camera like that. I agree with pxl8, all that matters is the end product.

Rob
 
No I don't think you should feel guilty but I understand where your coming from.
Are you documenting reality or producing artwork.
 
Just think back to the times when photographers would spend hours in darkrooms producing the print they wanted. When you look at those prints do you feel they've cheated. They used not only their skill with a camera but also their skill in the darkroom to produce the result they envisaged.

The fact you spend time in front of a computer screen, is exactly the same as spending it in the darkroom, with the advantage that you do see daylight, and you can see the result of your efforts a lot quicker.

Also if was easy everyone would be doing it. Take the praise for a good image however it was produced. You took the time and effort to produce it. It was your skills that made that image

Enjoy
 
of course you should feel guilty you bl**dy cheat . :-)
 
I would not worry.

My PP is average it best, hence why I love shooting sport above all else, as the images can remain vanilla and allow people to see how good I am at that.

Would love to learn layers etc properly to be honest.
 
I would guess that definition makes 90% of posters here cheats as well - and that's daft
PP is no different to darkroom processing a print

did Rembrandt say - well actually I rubbed out a few bits and mixed a couple of my own colours???????

results are what matters

bet you even used auto-focus once :gag:
 
I think you make a very valid point. It can be very disheartning for newcomers, as they are bombarded with images in photo magazines, ones that people have posted on here, plus of course the usual newspaper and billboards ads we see everyday. These photos are the best of the best, and when Joe Public spends £500 on an entry level DSLR and a bit of kit, I think many expect to press the shutter and get David Bailey results, instantly and without any effort.

As you rightly pointed out, what we see everyday is the best of the best. For example, someone will happily visit the zoo and post the lovely shot they got of the tiger looking right at the camera, all nicely tweaked in PS, but its a pretty safe bet that their memory card had AT LEAST 20 shots of the tiger out of focus, wrongly exposed, looking the wrong way etc etc. None of those will ever be seen and its only the cream of the crop that will appear "in public" - and that is true of the newest photographer and the most seasoned pro!

I see nothing wrong in photoshop in most circumstances - certainly not in tweaking levels, curves, sharpness etc. Im not so keen on adding whole chunks of new stuff into an image (such as replacing a blown out sky with fantastic storm cloud array) or cloning out MASSIVE amounts of stuff, but generally, tweaking the colours is nothing new, and is basically just a more advanced carry over from the darkroom days. I guess its personal choice really.

I think we are so heavily blasted with photoshopped images in the media these days, that its rare an "as is" photo will cut the mustard anymore - maybe thats kind of sad???
 
I certainly have no problem with your Wren, it's for the photographer him/herself to decide their own ethical stance on what is acceptable alteration.
Personally, I say, if it looks real, it is real, since we as viewers will never know the extent of alteration in specific images, theres no point in bringing authenticity in to question.
What I dont like is un-realisticaly altered images being banded about as photographs when they clearly fall outside the definition by some extrordinary margin, that, I can plainly see, there is no "not knowing"
There is also a commercial client brief factor to consider, where due to financial constraints you have less control over the methods you use to obtain the image, to ask whether this is a photograph or mostly digital invention is irrelevant.

Rembrandt made paintings and called them paintings, he never suggested they were anything else, the definition of which is nothing like a photograph, no miss-representation.
 
When you look at 99% of images in the glossies do you think that an amazing tog has run them out the back of his camera? if you answer yes then you'd be supprised at just how much retouching is going on.. I worked in a Lab in the early 90's as an E6 (Transparancy's/Slides) and C41 (Negatives) tech, i then started printing.. it was a commercial Lab, we used to Dodge and burn just like you do in PS3 and with the use of filters (Primary colours) we would add or take away colour casts or add what ever the brief was to correct or just change the overall look.. the difference is that with PS you just click away, but back then it was all done with your hands 'Scouping' light away from an area of the image or blocking light from another part.. then there was the compers.. these guys used to do the 'Cloning' part.. cutting out bits of one image or shaping the waist of a model ect then printing it up.. its been going on since cameras have been invented.. pretty much.. At the end of the day you are producing an image.. the fact that it isnt quite what you were looking at through the view finder doesnt take away that its still an image.. These days the Tog can do his own retouching.. its made things soo much easier.. AND cheaper!! but its putting pressure on an industry thats changing on a daily basis.. putting people out of jobs?? maybe..
At the end of the day, if you need Ps to finish your images then work harder on your photography.. thats what IM doing.. it makes me try harder.. which is a good thing, id love to be able to download to my putta and thats that.. im getting closer, but digital photography being what it is there will always be SOMETHING that needs a little tweak.. so im not going to beat myself up over the tweaks i make.. if it looks good.. then... its a GOOD picture..
Good luck with your photography, but you shouldnt feel guilty.. Embrace the things that we can do and enjoy..
 
It's a great "shot" if it was achieved standing behind the tripod.
It's a great "picture" if it was achieved sitting infront of the monitor.
The creator is responsible for either option.....

Bob
 
Digital editing is by no means cheating. The image of the camera is just the start of producing an image. I have the in camera processing settings turned off or down the minimum so Im in control of the image and not the camera.
 
Hi JB. :) I can relate to your comments on post processing of images, so understand how you are feeling.

Being a beginner with photography, I initially thought when I started taking it more seriously around this time last year, that the pics we take shouldn't have any modifications done in order to enhance and improve. This though all depends on how "good" the shot was in the beginning, or how good "I" may think my picture maybe, even if it may need more contrast, saturation etc. I firmly believed in the beginning that what we shoot, we shouldn't alter, but after about 6 months of taking more pics, and joining a couple of photography forums, reading lots of articles etc, I realised that the image we see through the viewfinder, isn't always captured in the same way!

This has been quite a firm principle for me, and I really found it difficult to do any kind of post processing at all. Though, after realising that the camera doesn't always take exactly the same way as we "see" the image through our eyes, that I knew that a small portion of pp'ing does enhance the image.;)

I guess though, if we can take or try to take a good picture to start with, and maybe just tweak it a little, then I suppose that is good enough for me. :D I'm not into the heavily processed images, as I feel that the results of the photo itself has not been created by the photographer, but purely by the effects of a photo editing programme, irrelevant of your editing skills or not. :)

I'm more relaxed about the basic editing methods, but not sure about anything further. I guess I'd have to try them out first, to see if it would change my way of thinking. :)
 
krazy_horse said:
When people post a picture on here it is usually the best that they can achieve, and i feel that some post on here just to show off their work to make themselves feel better, i know this because i am one of them.
Click to expand...

For me, the reason I post my best pictures is not because I want to show off or for people to say "wow, that's brilliant", quite the opposite in fact. I want people to critisise what I have deemed to be my best shots, I want people to say that you should have done this that or the other, or that I have spent too much time PP'ing them etc.

Posting your pictures on here and getting them looked at by knowledgeable people and getting constructive feedback about what you could have done to make them better or more effective is invaluable (to me at least). I would think that most people on here are aware of when they have taken a "bad" shot and can work out where they went wrong. What is more difficult is working out what you could have done differently with a shot that you have deemed already to be good to make it better, which is where the people on here come in! :woot:

I'm aware that some people probably do just post to show off what they have done. But, what is wrong with that :thinking: After all, what are art exhibitions and the like all about - people showing off their best work to inspire others :clap: I know I have certainly been inspired by other posters here! As for people just wanting to be made to feel better with positive feedback, I don't see the harm in that either - you need to be told when you have done something good as well as bad in life!
 
why not just show them a before and after shot, you will probably get even more praise!!.
look at it another way when you see a superstar model in a magazine or on telly with all the slap on you think whow, if you saw them in the super market you would probaly walk straight past, wonder if they feel guilty ;)
 
I'll bet that the wren that you actually saw bears more resemblance to your photoshopped wren than the image straight out of the camera!

Remember that what the camera can register in terms of colours and tones and lighting, no matter how technologically wonderful the camera is, is a tiny fraction of what the human eye can see. Levels, curves, dodge and burn, sharpening, etc all help to make the final image more like what you actually saw, in all its subtlety and vibrancy and sharpness. It's not cheating at all.

Also, as one person has said, the more time you spend faffing around in PS cloning out the rubbish, the quicker you learn not to include the rubbish in the original shot! ;) (I speak from experience here)!!

Cathy
 
I'm a graphic designer by day, and I can assure you that a majority of digital photos people supply will need tweaked! We occasionally photograph paintings instead of scanning them and it's unheard of that we'd take a photo and it'd be correct. That could just be done to our camera skills though ;)
 
Thanks for all of your comments folks, i have taken on board what you have said and i'm sure i'll feel less guilty in future when showing my pictures.

I agree with what was said in terms of inspiring others, and i guess that's how it got me hooked, so maybe in-turn I will inspire others.

And yes you're right that the more time spent behind the desk is less time behind the lens, which is not what i want, so it should in theory make me a better tog, or atleast make me think a bit more about each shot.

I have now added a before shot to my original Wren thread so people can make up their own minds to whether it is now a good shot.

Don't worry it won't put me off posting any new shots i can muster, and i won't feel too guilty if i have PS'd it a bit.

Thanks again,

Jonathan
 
dont forget, no matter how good or bad a shot is, you created it. be proud.
i dont post too many shots myself. only the stuff i find interesting or on subjects i havent covered before. mainly to get peoples opinions.
or the silly stuff.like my old mohawk. terrible shot on a point n shoot, but funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top