Cheating?

[The Vulcan]

In a recent thread a point was raised questioning whether image manipulation (via Photoshop etc) was actually "cheating".

The OP suggested that a doctored image was a fraud as it had been tampered with.

What do you think?

[jayenram]

In a recent thread a point was raised questioning whether image manipulation (via Photoshop etc) was actually "cheating".

The OP suggested that a doctored image was a fraud as it had been tampered with.

What do you think?

IMO it depends upon how and why the image is tampered with. Adjustment of brightness/contrast can be achieved by bracketing shots (as with the old film cameras) but it is simpler with digital cameras to use Photoshop type software to achieve this.

I do not consider superimposing for effect to be cheating either because it is generally obvious what has been done therefore is not meant to "lie" to the viewer.

The one effect I use regularly for portraits is the "healing tool". Many subjects in Thailand wear only minimal makeup and the general population's skin quality is rather poor. Whereas in the West, any skin blemish is disguised by make-up (cheating?) this is unusual in Thailand so the "healing tool" is of advantage.

Just my 0.83 new penneth!

[Jimmyd]

If you took the same image from 5 different cameras with exactly the same f stop and time, you would get 5 different images. Which would be the correct one?

Saying that manipulating the image is cheating is saying that the camera is the god and should not be messed with. The hole in the argument is there are many gods.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Jimmyd

[taxexile]

i dont think its cheating , its just the photographers interpretation of the scene.

the skills that are used in manipulating exposure with manual cameras have been made almost redundant now and new skills (and a lot more patience ) are required to get the best out of digital manipulation.

its still all down to the depth of the photographers imagination , just as it was in the darkroom days.

a pleasing image is a pleasing image no matter how it was created.

[PhilHarries]

I'm with jayeram on this except that it could be considered once an image has been doctored it is a fraud in that it is not the original image. The degree and intent of doctoring merely alters the degree of fraud. Simple touch up work to correct minor irregularities is no big deal as is superimposing images where the fact that it is a fraud is, or should be, blindingly obvious. Touch up work could be viewed in the same light as the final touch up artists give to paintings, the image is complete but not quite to the satisfaction of the artist. Don't forget that a certain degree of touch up could be, and was often, achieved by photographers in the dark room so the electronic version is not really that different.

So yes, in the purist's eye, doctored images are a fraud but at the end of the day does it matter? IMO as long as subject matter has not been introduced nor substantially altered the finished work is what the artist intended.

[canuckamuck]

If you want to define cheating then you have to define to role of the photo. If the photo is evidence of something, in legal terms, or it is representative of something, in advertising terms, then a case can be made for cheating. If however you are simply making the image in the way you want to make it, then there is no limit. Create whatever you like. I use to cheat quite convincingly in the darkroom. When Photoshop came along, it just made the job easier. I can guarantee you that in the world of advertising no image is left untouched anymore. The standards are just too high. Straight shooting is for Journalists and cops, and even they use many tools or techniques to emphasize what they want to show.

When I shoot an image, I am already considering what I will do with the image in Photoshop. It is just part of the process of creating images.

[Kan Win]

Panoramic stiching is so much fun.

See you all in 2008.

Kan Win

Edited December 31, 2007 by Kan Win

[nidge]

I adjust my images all the time, i love to use masks to make part of my image black and white. My photographs/images are reminders of past events or locations. Unless you are adding something to an image that was not there then how can it be cheating? If you used a film camera with black and white film is that cheating?

[MrSquigle]

Yes fun, but not the real thing, artwork perhaps, but not a real photo of what was 'actually' there in front of your eyes when you 'actually' took the picture.

Sorry, did not mean to create a monster...

I did say that simple modifications are ok, resizing, cropping, rotating etc. But when you change lighting and any number of other qualities, then the image has changed significantly to what was there.

For example the old hilltribe ladies photo in another thread, imagine her wrinkles and imperfections photoshopped out and she might look kinda cute....but whats the point. Why take out the imperfections to make a false image of what was not there in the first place, unless as I said it is for artwork or commercial work.

I know all magazine photos these days are touched up to varying degrees, but they are to please a mass audience to buy their magazines and so on. We all know they are doctored, but I do not think someone should try to pass off a touched up perfect photo as something that they snapped in real life.

I am lucky, I cannot and never have really used any of that stuff, nor know how to, so all my pics, good and bad, are natural....or wrong depending on who the expert is looking at them. But then I am not a good photographer, just like taking pics and good memories.

If you are going to change something to the photo above, then it becomes artwork and that is fine also, just not a real life photo is what I am getting at.

Edited December 31, 2007 by MrSquigle

[astral]

Are you saying a photo is not a work of art?

Surely it is, unless we are talking about photography as a forensic tool,

and that is quite a different matter.

We can now do on the computer, what photographers have been doing down the ages in the darkroom.

Is it fraud to correct converging verticals?

If you have the money you can buy a special lens for architecture that does the job,

or you could do it in the dark room, by tilting the paper, relative to the enlarger,

or you can use a tool in a photo editor.

No fraud involved. If you went and checked the building with a plumb line I expect

you would find the walls are vertical.

I must admit I was rather horrified when one of my sons started taking photos with the camera at 45 degrees......

He created some interesting results.

We need to open our minds and experiment to see what we can achieve.

To me that is the beauty of digital. No film and developing costs.

Just shoot the shots as you see them, and throw away those that do not work.

[taxexile]

To me that is the beauty of digital. No film and developing costs.

Just shoot the shots as you see them, and throw away those that do not work

but ...... the beauty of photography before digital was that you had to think about the camera and the lighting more than you thought the computer..... to my mind you had to concentrate on the essence of photography , which was to consider the lighting , the depth of field , and the composition and manipulate it by adjusting 2 simple controls on the camera. it really didnt take long and you soon developed an understanding of light and how a camera actually worked even if your composition skills were useless.

these days the number of choices presented by even the simplest camera is bewildering , and adjusting them can take forever , and thats before you have sat down at the computer correcting your image and , more often than not , putting right the mistakes you made out in the field. the changes made to an image in the darkroom were much more subtle and to my mind lovingly done , you had to coax the image , teasing the light to warm up the shadows or cool down the highlights rather than coldly working the pixcels with clicks and clacks.

in other words , it doesnt matter if you fukc up the shot , you can always sort it out later. since going digital i have found that my photography has become less enjoyable and more sloppy and am considering going back to film and transparency , but unfortunately i dont have a darkroom here and its getting harder to purchase film and get it developed.

i guess i'm just old fashioned. i'll get me pipe and slippers.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

For the most part I don't think it is cheating. Getting people to pose isn't cheating nor is cropping a photo to make it better. When I change my wifes blue eyes to green I don't think it is cheating, anyone who knows her would know they have been changed but it is a interesting effect.

I can remember with the old 35mm film changing the shading and blocking out backgrounds that distracted from the image you wanted to display, and that was never considered cheating. I think it is just a form of art (unless it is done to deceive someone).

[canuckamuck]

To me that is the beauty of digital. No film and developing costs.

Just shoot the shots as you see them, and throw away those that do not work

but ...... the beauty of photography before digital was that you had to think about the camera and the lighting more than you thought the computer..... to my mind you had to concentrate on the essence of photography , which was to consider the lighting , the depth of field , and the composition and manipulate it by adjusting 2 simple controls on the camera. it really didnt take long and you soon developed an understanding of light and how a camera actually worked even if your composition skills were useless.

these days the number of choices presented by even the simplest camera is bewildering , and adjusting them can take forever , and thats before you have sat down at the computer correcting your image and , more often than not , putting right the mistakes you made out in the field. the changes made to an image in the darkroom were much more subtle and to my mind lovingly done , you had to coax the image , teasing the light to warm up the shadows or cool down the highlights rather than coldly working the pixcels with clicks and clacks.

in other words , it doesnt matter if you fukc up the shot , you can always sort it out later. since going digital i have found that my photography has become less enjoyable and more sloppy and am considering going back to film and transparency , but unfortunately i dont have a darkroom here and its getting harder to purchase film and get it developed.

i guess i'm just old fashioned. i'll get me pipe and slippers.

I can understand the sentiment; I have spent many hours in traditional style photography and darkroom techniques. I worked for a professioally with a 4x5 view camera, similar to the style Ansel Adams would use when an 8 x10 was too big to lug around. I remember when I heard a statement from Kodak saying that film would be virtually dead in 10 years. It turned out they were exactly right.

Digital is better than film because it is easier and because it has magnitudes of potential beyond film. 32 bit color will make image exposure into an unlimited realm of possibility. Camera sensitivity will be able to make pristine images at 6400 iso. You won't hardly need the sun anymore. Sure there was more craftsmanship in the old days, but in reality they were forced to waste massive hours on simple effects. Digital has sprung man from the darkroom ages. New artists are taking full advantage of this medium. How often do we get a new medium? It is a great age, don't resist it, jump in.

Woodcut artists used to be at the cutting edge (sorry about the pun) in image creation, I don't wish to return to that era.

[quiksilva]

I think touch ups etc are fine for personal and artistic use, however in my business (real estate) we prefer to use actual photography so as to avoid misrepresentation of the subject.

[percy2]

I think manipulation is perfectly ok.

If you want to enter an image into a competition there maybe rules as to what manipulation is allowed.

Cheers

I think touch ups etc are fine for personal and artistic use, however in my business (real estate) we prefer to use actual photography so as to avoid misrepresentation of the subject.

Estate agents the last bastions of truth......

[Firefoxx]

A photo that's used for artistic purposes to express what a photographer wants the viewer to see can be manipulated as much as you want to. In the end, as long as it conveys what the photographer wants you to see, then it's totally all right.

A photo that's used for something like evidence, OTOH, is another matter, and should not be tampered with. News photos are in a sort of gray area between the two, as they should represent reality, not the photographer's reality, but cosmetic adjustments are normally done to make it more presentable. It's normally OK as long as the photo's content isn't altered. There was a photo of a woman in the olympics who had fallen during a race, and photo manipulation had been done to remove a radio antenna that was sticking out of her face in the original photo, and that was totally acceptable (the photo would have been awkward otherwise). However, one photographer got in trouble when he took two photographs from two different scenes and made them into one (this was from Iraq or Afghanistan, I think).

[astral]

Perhaps I should quote the adage,

The camera never lies, but the photographer can.

PS to the estate agent.

It is quite easy to tamper with film photos, unless you are willing to give the original negatives to each customer.

[quiksilva]

I think manipulation is perfectly ok.

If you want to enter an image into a competition there maybe rules as to what manipulation is allowed.

Cheers

I think touch ups etc are fine for personal and artistic use, however in my business (real estate) we prefer to use actual photography so as to avoid misrepresentation of the subject.

Estate agents the last bastions of truth......

Obviously when I say "we" I refer to my practice and not for the entire industry in Thailand.

In the UK, the use of photography in advertisements is governed by the Property Misdescriptions Act etc. So whilst you do not have to give the negatives to all and sundry, negatives used in advertising a property must be kept on record, just in case a dispute is ever brought against the firm.

I consider this to be best practice.

Edited January 14, 2008 by quiksilva

[jayenram]

Just thinking this morning sat on the stoep.

I have a bag full of filters which I haven't used for years (maybe 15 years), polerize, colours, graduals, diffuser, etc. Is it considered "cheating" to use these?

Must try them out with the digital.

Cheers

J

[ignis]

Just thinking this morning sat on the stoep.

I have a bag full of filters which I haven't used for years (maybe 15 years), polerize, colours, graduals, diffuser, etc. Is it considered "cheating" to use these?

Must try them out with the digital.

Cheers

J

Wow yes I remember when I had loads of filters, the starlight one was great for night shots, and gave a wonderful result [every light looking like stars]

[MrSquigle]

Depends if the resulting photo is considered for artwork or an actual photographic record of your life and moments.

For example, the photo in the 'evaluate' section of the skyscraper workers and the red background and fitler used for this.

I consider this a great photo and piece of artwork. But not a real photo as it is not natural.

If you put the same filter on and took a photo of your children, it would again be a piece of artwork, maybe not good artwork...but hey go ask Andy Warhole...but if you took the photo of the children as a record of a fun day out and it was natural, no manipulation of the photo afterwards, then that is a real life photo and if it is doctored up, then it becomes not a real life record of that moment.

Just what I think and I am usually always right....except that one time...when the police carted me off.

[percy2]

Just thinking this morning sat on the stoep.

I have a bag full of filters which I haven't used for years (maybe 15 years), polerize, colours, graduals, diffuser, etc. Is it considered "cheating" to use these?

Must try them out with the digital.

Cheers

J

I use my bag full all the time.

Its quicker than post processing.

Cheers

[astral]

I used to carry a polariser and it was great for making the sky appear as it really was, on the film.

Now surely that is not cheating?