Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 4/1/2006
|
It's never cheating as long as you're honest about what you're doing. If you merge material from a dozen images, throw in some of your own artwork, and manipulate it all to some dream effect, call it "digital art" or "digital painting", not photography.
If you're producing an image of a single real world scene, using a single photograph or several photographs of said scene (multiple exposure), and performing manipulations that originated in the darkroom (where many Photoshop functions come from) such as levels, color balance, USM, etc., then you can rightfully call it photography.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
it's cheating as soon as you create something that wasn't there and try to pass it off as something that was there.
If you admit it wasn't there you're no longer performing photography but are meddling with the occult.
I take the same attitude you do, using minimal post processing (not more than I'd do on a scanned slide in fact).
If it's not good out of the camera, it's not good.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
Let's not all forget that alot of the masters of photography were masters in the darkroom as well, and would "change" & manipulate a negative to their liking spending hours working on images after they were "out of the camera" - does this mean that the final results they came up with were no good?
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
"does this mean that the final results they came up with were no good?"
A good photograph is one thing, a good print (i.e. final result) is another thing. One does not necessarily imply the other. If you make a great print out of a bad photograph, that makes you a great printmaker, not a great photographer.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
There is a definite distincation, however saying the two are not joined in one seems to be a seperation of two essential elements of the same craft?
Both aspects of proper composition, exposure and other elements related directly to capturing an image w/ camera as intended & the ability to optimize the final output w/ your original artistic vision (and I'm not talking about cutting up photos and making collages) seem to be both equally important.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
true, but what people do these days with computers has nothing to do with photography.
The photograph itself is nowhere to be seen in the result, the manipulation becomes the true purpose of the image and the priginal photograph only a necessary evil so it can be passed off as photography.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
And you believe this is true with all digital photographs?
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/3/2006
|
Also...I think there needs to be a distinction between fine art/hobby photographers and pros working for PAYING clients - when there is no room for anything but the absolute best reproduction possible.
You try telling someone who just paid you $2000 that their photos look washed out and unsaturated because you "don't believe" in post-processing and see how far you get.
The people who are interested in achieving the best results, within the confines of a standard workflow, will of course go for minimal post work, as it degrades image quality the further you push a scan or digital file.
The goal should always be to get the image perfect with one single exposure... but when you're receiving money to give people the best possible image, then within a standard digital workflow, whether considered a "photograph" in the eyes of a purist or not, the photos have to be adjusted to achieve the best possible reproduction.
I do however understand the bitterness of some long time film users towards digital, as it took the years and volumes of information that was necessary to create good photos and just erased it, putting the capability in the camera instead of with the photographer. Now, anyone with a dSLR and PS can squeeze by ang get acceptable results without much training and deeper understanding of what theyre doing.
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
I use PS in the same way you do dd - levels/curves/desat. Are we talking crop too? Because I do that as well. Hell, now I can even fix motion and lens blur in CS2! Oh and then there's always sharpening on resize...
While I try to do my best to get an image right in the first place (am still very new to photography), for the most part I'm pleased with my results and yet under no illusion that I'm ready to open a gallery. I make mistakes because I'm still learning. Why is it so wrong to get a little help from software until my in-camera skills improve? And wasn't Photoshop around before digital cameras took off? What is it for then??
I guess it doesn't really matter, I see I'm always going to be pre-judged as just another monkey with a dSLR and PS. No matter how good I may become, my work will always be worthless because it was taken with a digital camera. Bumber. May as well grab my coat now.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
"I see I'm always going to be pre-judged as just another monkey with a dSLR and PS"
Hi Rina, I hope you didn't take what I said above personally about dSLRs and PS...cause I would count myself as in the same group :)
Chris
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
"You try telling someone who just paid you $2000 that their photos look washed out and unsaturated because you "don't believe" in post-processing and see how far you get."
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about people who go overboard with PS just because they can.
People who leave little or nothing of the original that could be recognised as a photo.
People who think creating an image containing random shapes made up of primary colours overlaid on a coloured background that was created by putting a semi transparent colour layer over a highly manipulated (including swirl filters, heavy embossing, and things like that all on top of each other), desaturated photograph is "art".
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
Nah Chris, It's fine. I keep seeing the whole 'film vs digital' thing pop up in a lot of discussions and it's driving me a little nuts is all. Can't help thinking, what's the point in spending the next few years developing skills when at the end, die-hard (and possibly bitter) film photographers who've paid their dues over the last 20/30/40 years will look at my digital work and say, "This is not Fujichromeblardyblardyblah?? Oh and you've dabbled in PS???? Cr*p. NEXT!"
What Jeroen now talks about is Photoart. That, in my opinion, is not cheating. It is clearly obvious that the work has been manipulated greatly and so can no longer be called a photograph, but again, it is NOT "cheating". (mitchell miller rocks)
However, I've seen some work on this sight where I believe the photographer has not been forthright in disclosing ALL post-processing. The sky may be an impossible colour or there's light where there shouldn't be. Although some of these images make your jaw drop in amazement because they're so beautiful, THAT could be considered cheating.... isn't this what dd is asking about?
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/4/2006
|
I agree Rina, and there are three distinctions...
1. Standard darkroom adjutsments, in which we're talking color correction, setting highlights & shadows, USM, etc.
2. Complete photoart where there is little to no resembelence to a traditional photograph, however it is ovbious to all that it's not and their intention is not to misrepresent,
3. What looks like a "normal" photo, but has had extreme post work, for example the sky has been turned a brownish-orange-red & there is a heavenly beam of light illuminating one single tree, but no statement or post-manipulation
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/5/2006
|
correct.
Case 1 I have nothing against (except insofar that I personally won't go far in anything, just a touch here and there).
Case 2 I don't consider to have any relation to photography at all and most certainly most isn't artistic. Same as someone with a paintbrush or watercolours taking a photo and using it as an example from which to work, that's not photography either. The entire term "photoart" doesn't apply IMHO.
Case 3 is tricky. Very skilled darkroom magicians can often produce some of those effects, some of the others can be done in-camera by a skilled photographer using filters and multiple exposures. Personally I'm no fan of it, but then I'm a purist.
I'd like to introduce case 4 (really a subset of 3), where things were added or removed on the computer to make the depicted scene into something it never was with the intent of passing it off as unmanipulated. While this too is possible to a degree in the darkroom it took great skill while on a PC it's almost trivial. I've seen enough pictures where the sky was a complete fabrication for example to make me sick, and that's just people trying to make a pretty picture. Far more insidious are "journalists" creating something out of nothing in order to sway political opinions.
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/6/2006
|
So I guess we're all in agreement that the first distinction is not considered cheating.
The second distinction, however we may feel about it's place in photography, is also not cheating because the "artist's" intent is obvious.
While the third (and Jeroen's fourth/subset) distinction, is where the line should seriously be drawn. Whatever the skill or method used, it IS cheating if the photographer deliberately omits a statement on post manipulation with the specific intent to fool the viewer.
I wonder what would happen if UF introduced a rule whereby a photographer must submit the original (with EXIF) to the judges upon receiving an award....
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/6/2006
|
that would prevent anyone not using a digital camera from ever getting an award...
It would also increase the workload of the staff a lot, having to check everything.
But it's often pretty easy to spot manipulation that's over the top, as most people who do such things are not as good by far as they think they are and tend to forget rather obvious things.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 4/6/2006
|
I agree it's all about intention, but it's also a gray area... how far is too far?
Is compositing multiple exposures of the same scene (something I do regulary) into a single high dynamic range image still a true photograph? Is it any different than using graduated ND filters?
Does it depend if you tell the viewer how it was created?
Would analog methods of dramtically altering an exposure not be considered cheating?
Say I stack a grad. tabocco filter on top of a graduated ND filter to produce a dark, orange-brown sky but don't mention that? I didn't use Photoshop or any digital means of altering the image after it was recorded, so is it still "cheating"?
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 4/6/2006
|
Most of the time I only change the color of the photo slighty or just adjust the size a bit. When I think a composition needs that little bit extra I combine two photos (mostly by cutting & pasting in Photoshop). Therefore the original photograph stays as much intact as possible. A photo becomes digital art only if u use PS filters and all kinds of graphic adjustments (new layers).
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/6/2006
|
"that would prevent anyone not using a digital camera from ever getting an award..."
Doh... of course, you're right Jeroen. That was a really dumb suggestion.
Chris, I don't think there's anything sneaky about HDR and I don't necessarily believe that "going over the top" is a bad thing either. Let's face it, results can sometimes be amazingly beautiful and believable. We're all after the 'perfect' image here and it can be very hard to get the camera to capture a scene/mood exactly as we see it through our own eyes.
I guess it comes down to disclosure. Not saying that one has to go into lengthy detail, but this is a learning site afterall too. What's the point in including aperture and shutter only, if your image looks the way it does because of filters and/or darkroom techniques?
For example: I once commented on a sunset shot where the photographer had included aperture and shutter info. At the time, I had been shooting a lot of sunsets and was keen to understand how this guy managed to produce an emmaculate exposure of the sun with those settings. Having done the same plus the aid of an ND filter, still resulted in blowout for me. But when I queried if he'd used filters, his reply was (paraphrasing)"No, nothing, straight from camera" and then went on with some BS about the Earth and atmospheric conditions...
At the end of the day, if you're not open and honest or at least willing to disclose if challenged, then I believe that's cheating.
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Photo Veritas feels that any digital manipulation, no matter how small, distorts the reality of the original image. We feel that the truth of the moment is captured in the original photograph, and any subsequent alterations adds a layer of unreality to the final output.
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
..."any digital manipulation, no matter how small, distorts the reality of the original image"...
Sure, but if the reality of original image is already distorted because camera exposure settings were incorrect, then that reality is not reality. Meaning, reality is distorted in the first instance and therefore not an accurate reflection of that moment in time.
Aaron, is that you...?
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Rina:
We did not offer our opinion as a stated truth, but merely as an opinion our small group shares. We are fully aware in the obvious contradiction in seeking truth through a flawed medium, but we still make the attempt nevertheless.
Many people the world over believe in various religions, despite the glaring contradictions in the various religious texts these religions are based upon-- but people still believe. This is how we feel about seeking truth through photography and why we argue all the time about our rules.
You are now the second person to call us by this name and we find this confusing. Should we be offended by this reference or is this a compliment?
Yours in photography,
PV
|
|
|
|
Caterina Berimballi
(K=27299) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Ok, so we go back to the original question asked by dd: "when is digital manipulation cheating?". Given your statement about the flawed medium, you would agree then, that it is NOT 'cheating' to manipulate an original image to accurately reflect reality at that captured moment. But (and I tend to agree with you, unless it's photoart) it IS 'cheating' to manipulate an original image for the purpose of distorting the reality of that captured moment. Do I understand your position on this question correctly?
Just quickly, I believe it's only fair to keep discussions and opinions on topic, so if you're here to inform Usefilm members about your new club and it's rules, you're more than welcome to begin a forum thread of your own. I'm certain your values will be met with keen interest.
Regarding the name, I do apologise for any confusion. It was neither intended to offend nor compliment. Merely a question about your personal identity. Obviously, there's more than one person at your keyboard, so please disregard the question :)
Rina.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
"accurately reflect reality" is a dangerous statement, as in many instances reality is itself subjective.
More correct would be to say "correct for imperfections in the recording medium" which would account for things like sharpening and (light) colour correction but not for massive colour shifts or filtering to distort that which the camera records beyond recognition to bring out some perceived "deeper truth".
Any such larger manipulation IMO should always be described in detail to give the viewer an understanding of what was done to achieve the effect as well as to make sure the viewer understands that what he's looking at is not what the eye (or camera) would see when looking at the scene in question.
In that it's no different from a photographer being courteous when mentioning he used a filter on his lens/camera to produce a specific effect.
Cropping I personally don't consider cheating either, as it doesn't add or distort anything in the resulting image.
Using a camera with a smaller (and possibly differently shaped) recording medium could have produced the same effect.
|
|
|
|
Akite Mienten
(K=150) - Comment Date 4/19/2006
|
I guess I'm not understanding the goals of the "collective." Reading your posts and blog site it all seems so cold and mechanical I almost expect to read "resistance is futile" somewhere! Sorry, just a joke :-)
To me, photography is an art form, to be approached with passion and feeling, and intended to evoke an emotion, a memory, a smile, a tear, a thought! Is yours a journalistic endeavor? Is "truth," in your view, just an unvarnished record of what the eye has seen? If so, what is the intended reaction from the viewer? With all due respect, the photos you have posted lack interest to me (and I emphasize *to me*) Surely there must be some goal other than adherence to the tenants of Photo Veritas?
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/20/2006
|
You must understand that we are trying to remove the influence of the photographer from the perception of their work by not adding titles or descriptions to what we upload here or display in gallery showings.
Usefilm is a wonderful site filled with great talents, but we have noticed the critical infrastructure is somewhat flawed. There are some people who through the sheer dint of their effervescent personalities manage to overcome serious flaws in the quality of their work, while truly gifted photographers who don't want to allow interaction with the community to color the reviews they are given are generally ignored.
We have started posting here as an experiment to see how much the personality of the photographer influences the perception of their work; hence the "cold" persona we collectively offer here.
|
|
|
|
Danie van Jaarsveld
(K=148) - Comment Date 4/25/2006
|
Dear dd
If you want to use the CCD in your D70 like you would have transparancy film, you would shoot in RAW mode. When you convert the raw files to whatever human useable format you choose, you could "push" or "pull" your batch of images just as we used to do with film.
To my mind one cheats with digital manipulation when you are pretending to have mastered a difficult photographic technique, such as pull-zooms or slow shutter speed pan shots with lots of movement or any of the other techniques that had to be mastered in the good old days.
|
|
|
|
dd dd
(K=74) - Comment Date 4/25/2006
|
Yes that's exactly how I feel. That's my philosophy on the subject of digital.
I was shooting with my d70 in jpg high trying to work straight from camera. However, I've gotten used to ACR in Element 3.0. I just tweak in RAW,save to psd, check levels...usually just stick with auto levels. Slight unsharp mask if necessary, then save a jpg from it.
I've been spending most of my time at flickr lately ...sorry :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/synesthesia/
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
I should say that I agree totally with Jeroen.
If you look at the original macro image I took, you would see so bland. Then I use PS7 for putting more colors, more spices and then I made an end products that competely different from original imge.
Now, I am not sure I call it photography. Perhaps it would be suitable to call it artistic manipulted photography (if I am correct with my English Language).
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1075452
|
|
Bird's Eye View (Original Image)
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
|
|
Bird's Eye View (Spiced !!!)
|
|
Chelsea Burke
(K=5750) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
"We feel that the truth of the moment is captured in the original photograph, and any subsequent alterations adds a layer of unreality to the final output."
I'm curious. If I line up some cameras...one a digital slr, one an old fashioned antique that uses glass plates...another medium format using velvia slide film...couple of of slr's with bw film and kodachrome some other cheapy drugstore print film...which image are you going to consider as "the truth"? I know for a fact that you are going to have slightly different results. You can alter "the truth" by altering the exposure, taking a bright sunny day and making it appear as dark and gloomy. Exactly what is your "truth?"
Having taken all these different results and comparing them side by side, which image is "cheating"?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
It's one thing to play with exposure and lighting, quite another to go overboard as Kambiz has shown and completely replace colours with others, use all kinds of filters like pastel filters, and the miriad of other things that make something into something that never existed.
Especially damning is then trying to pass off that complete fabrication as reality rather than a figment of your own imagination.
I years ago decided I won't do anything in postprocessing I could not achieve in camera by choosing a specific emulsion and deciding on my lighting conditions.
The only filters I ever use are a skylight (mainly to slightly warm overly cool emulsions like Sensia and Provia) and polariser, and a green, yellow, and red for black and white. And when using those I always mention it.
I've played with others over time, but never liked them and have now given up on them completely.
Truth is not fabricating things. Truth is conveying reality in such a way that someone else arriving at the scene can witness the same thing if he's lucky enough to have the same conditions.
Truth is NOT a yellow sky at midday in Wyoming, or purple water in the Snake River Valley.
|
|
|
|
George Tam
(K=416) - Comment Date 5/13/2006
|
Whoever says art is about conveying reality?
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 5/13/2006
|
George, exactly, if it is art who cares how it was made. The end result is all that matters. The only way it would matter if an image is digitally enhanced is if it is a photojournalism image which is supposed to actually convey reality, or an evidence photo which also has to record that actual reality of the situation, or some other competition image in which the rules of competition rule out the use of manipulation such as nature competition where there is supposedly a rule that there can be no hand of man in the image. Other then those few instances I would say go for it, if you want to add something that wasnt there and it makes for a better image, isnt that the idea, A better Image!
Phil
|
|
|
|
Fabio Giorgi
(K=1874) - Comment Date 5/22/2006
|
I agree with George and Phil. If you don't have to record the exact situation, go ahead. When a painter distorts an image or uses diferent colours, what is he doing other than applying his "inner filters" to show us how he sees the world.
|
|
|
|
Fabio Giorgi
(K=1874) - Comment Date 5/22/2006
|
Let me add just a pinch more of spice to this discussion.
Can it be considered cheating when someone uses a macro, a tele or a zoom lens? If we are to record the exact reality, we should stick only to the normal 50/55 mm.
|
|
|
|
Wouter van Noort
(K=4369) - Comment Date 5/23/2006
|
In a sense, every photograph is a cheat. Neither tradional film nor the digital CCD are able to capture the full dynamic range our eyes are able to see. And for really accurate color rendition we still have a long way to go (try blue or purple flowers).
As i see it, photography is like telling a story. And like storytelling there is a whole continuum between documentary work (non-fiction) and photoshop-art (fiction). In many cases we don't want to hear the reality, we only want the fun and the exciting parts, and we want it to be told well. That's what this site is about: learning from each other to speak in color, shapes, in light and space.
Now back to the macro or telezoom... If i want to tell the exact reality, i can use all kinds of focal lengths. It is just like saying the same in different words.
|
|
|
|
Fabio Giorgi
(K=1874) - Comment Date 5/24/2006
|
Wouter,
I used the example of macro and telezoom just to stress the point of the exact reproduction. As my eyes cannot have various focal lengths, the use of such things could, in an extreme purist point of view, be considered as cheating.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
Wouter van Noort
(K=4369) - Comment Date 5/24/2006
|
Fabio, you expressed it right. Demanding that only a standard lens is used to capture reality is an extreme purist viewpoint. Exact reproduction is impossible: Photography is 2D, reality is 3D. Even in areas that demand an accurate image like science, it is completely acceptable to use macro- or zoomlenses.
This dicussion can go on forever. We can debate about B&W, about the use of a polarization filter, and so on...
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 5/27/2006
|
Hmm, strange I recieved an email about answer to my post?
But since I read through these I might as well throw in my 2cens worth. Ski had a saying about the reality of a photo, he spent a mint getting high quality lens, only to shell out more to defocus them?
People want to see themselves not as they are but as they wish they looked. Like most of you I seek to get the best photograph I can but tend to see the scanner as an extension (form/function) of an enlarger. Being one of those olde cron's whose experiences are with film I tend to lean heavily upon those experiences and relate digital to them. To me digital is as much photography as film.
In film, each type has its characteristic which provide that I use the best availiable medium & format. I will normally go out with a couple of chromes & negative film (both colour & b&w) for the 4 x 5 as well as carry a 35mm with various lens for both. You never know when you will stubble upon a great shot. The 35mm is a good general purpose format providing adequate coverage for most uses but I could shoot digital with similiar results. There is no magical form or format that is going to do it better than the others.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 5/27/2006
|
There is no magical form or format that is going to do it all, better than the others. Excuse my omiision of a word in that statement. Back to the original question . . . a bad shot is a bad shot, I screwwed up & shot a roll of T-Max 100 at 400 ASA? I will probably develope it with Accufine which will give it a stop of light & push a stop to get to the rated ASA which is different from my knowingly over-exposing so I can use Microdol-X which produces a fine grain but lower the ASA by a stop or using ice to lower the processing temperature to slow reaction rate & therefore a more selective reaction.
|
|
|
|
Jacob French
(K=6315) - Comment Date 7/12/2006
|
I apologize for bringing up an old post and possibly kicking a dead horse, but since I've just "discovered" the forums on UF I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
I honestly believe that when we start to question what is "cheating" in any artistic process, that we nullify the original purpose of art. To me, the means to get to the end does not quantify my judgment of the final piece. Art (and I view photography as an art) has always had different approaches. The realists of the 19th century tried their hardest to represent exactly what they saw with their brushes and oils. Artists like Van Gogh or Picasso also chose to show what they saw using their own artistic bents. To me, the moment we start questioning whether it's "right" or "wrong" to interpret our pictures as we see fit, I think we're spitting in the face of the very purpose of art.
Was it cheating for VanGogh to use such a painterly syle and distort his "starry night?" Was he not still a "painter?" Aren't people who use photographs as their artistic medium, photographers? Take this image of mine for instance.
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1143618
I took this photo. I captured it with my camera and it was my eye that saw the opportunity. I obviously added some effects afterwards. it may not be to everyone's taste, but that's the marvelous thing about taste... Did this moment happen? Yes. Did it happen for anyone else? Possibly. Did I cheat?
Did Van Gogh paint "Starry Night?"
Did anyone else see the sky that night?
Would it have looked the same if Picasso saw it?
...Michaelangelo?
...you/me/anyone?
This is a great thread and I'm glad to have added my opinion to the collective.
Keep posting fantastic art,
J
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 7/13/2006
|
Well spoken Jacob . . .
As a twist . . . what about http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1143716?
This image has NO manipulation but was NOT what we saw that night. Thanks to a slow shutter speed . . . Is IT 'cheating'??
I'm reminded of something I read long ago . . . "What is right and what is not right . . . and need we ask others to tell us these things?" -Phaedrus (Pirsig)
I note Jeroen decided long ago for himself NOT to manipulate but to be true as possible to his images (paraphrasing) . . . no problem.
I believe that Journalism and Science need to be very cautious of manipulation.
I have used film . . . developed and printed it and, eventually, converted to digital. What I believe is that judging the work of others using terms like "Cheating" can do no good. Set your own standards . . . and comply with them. A dust speck on the lens is cloned out and a person is then subjected to other people's conception of right and wrong? I see people drawing all their own "lines in the sand" about what's too much and the whole thread of this was 'when is it cheating'. Jacob is right . . . it's all about the image. Tell Ansel Adams photography wasn't an art form . . . even before digital came along and provided so many tools to so many so inexpensively.
When is it cheating? When you can't take pride in your own work! And then you've cheated only yourself.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 7/13/2006
|
"Did Van Gogh paint "Starry Night?"
Did anyone else see the sky that night?
Would it have looked the same if Picasso saw it?
...Michaelangelo?
...you/me/anyone?
"
They were however NOT into photography. Photography is recording what's there, not making some "artistic" (whatever that may mean to you) interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Jacob French
(K=6315) - Comment Date 7/13/2006
|
But I think we're muddling what photography is--an ARTISTIC medium. I view the camera as my creative tool, just as I'm sure Michaelangelo viewed his hammer and chisel or Picasso his paintbrush. Much like the painters, I think photographers are obviously broken up into camps...realists, surrealists...I don't know of any pointillists, but who knows?
To answer the question about whether it is CHEATING to have your own "artistic" interpretation of the medium, I say no. I wouldn't tell musician he's wrong for playing a Forte instead of a Sforzando, and I won't tell a photographer he/she's wrong for making a scene appear to be night when it's really noon.
IMO, do with the medium what you see fit. It's ALL art. :-D
Thanks,
J
|
|
|
|
Chad Parish
(K=6440) - Comment Date 9/4/2006
|
[Photography is recording what's there, not making some "artistic" (whatever that may mean to you) interpretation.]
This would seem a very narrow interpretation of photography. It's like saying fictional prose or poetry do not deserve to be considered writing. Photography is many things to many people; shooting Aunt Martha at the picnic, getting your passport ID, showing the horror of war and of course creating a visually moving image. It really depends on what you are using photography for. Whether you are using photography as a medium for creating a realistic capture of the world or as a starting point into something more abstract, your still engaging in photography, your just choosing to pursue a particular sub-path of the medium. It's wrong and arrogant to discount all but your own area of photography as legitimate, art just doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 9/6/2006
|
Not to mention that b&w is basically seeing the world 'in shades of grey' is truly an abstract perception? http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1173474 Like this one?
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 3/1/2007
|
"Was it cheating for VanGogh to use such a painterly syle"
Cheating is kind of a useless word. The OP was searching for the word - fraud - instead. And a photo is a fraud even if it is not manipulated, but is represented to be something it is not. In one case, the fraud could be a joke, or even art. But it could also be embarrassing if it is represented as photojournalism, and the image was doctored. This was recently in the news when 'stringers' who favored the Iranian or Palestinian side sent in unmoderated photos through a 'system' to outlets like AP. In other cases, the photos may not have been altered, but were represented to be something that they were not.
Other than that, a) misrepresenting the subject or scene, b) compositing, I can't see that a photo would be a fraud because any photo is a 'lie' in the sense that two photographers can both shoot very different photographs of the same scene, at the same time. If not a 'lie', then a alias. It's a true view. But it doesn't have to be the only one. That doesn't even begin to allow for dodging, burning, and other retouching.
|
|
|
|
Patrick Ziegler
(K=21797) - Comment Date 3/3/2007
|
Oh what juicy thread, almost as much fun as the Film Vs. Digital debate.
Firstly, if you are an A.P. photographer and you clone in extra plumes of smoke or stage scenes then you should not only be fired and have all your images removed from the archives but you should be jailed for violating the public trust.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=A.P.+fauxtography&spell=1
“Photography is recording what's there, not making some "artistic" (whatever that may mean to you) interpretation.”
I have to throw the BS Flag at that one Jeroen. That might be your view and approach to photography but it is certainly not everyone’s. I ask you this, if one records a black and white image is he not distorting reality and recording a lie?
As far as I am concerned, if you are a PJ then you are held to a very high standard, your career depends on it for if you are caught manipulating you will never survive the fallout. However, even PJ’s shoot RAW and can tweak exposure, white balance and touch up the curves a bit.
If your camera can shoot RAW and you avoid it out of some purest-occult belief, you are just being silly. Shooting RAW gives you the ability to develop your images and not depend on some pre-programmed algorithm to squish your RAW data into jpg’s BTW, manipulative human beings write those pre-programmed algorithms.
As for anything else, your heart and or conscience will tell you if you have gone too far. If you work in advertising or fashion you will probably manipulate just about every image work with. If your an artist, then it doesn’t matter what anybody says on this issue, you will have to find your own way. Study the masters and educate yourself on the history of photography. I recommend PBS’s American Photography, 100 years of images and Alfred Stieglitz - The Eloquent Eye.
Personally, When If first started with Photoshop I overdid every thing; Nothing wrong with that, all part of learning. As I learned I became more subtle. I found a workflow I like and know what the essentials are and know what other techniques to use and when to use them and when not to.
Now, have al look at this guy’s stuff. Make sure to scroll to the right. A great deal of manipulation going on here but it works; he’s not trying to fool anybody and I would guess he is not covering up a lack of knowledge.
http://www.faustyle.com/propaganda.php
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 3/7/2007
|
Among my recent uploads is Wood & Shank in which I have removed the power lines. Honestly what do ya think, is this digital manipulation cheating?
|
|
Cracker Box
|
|
Patrick Ziegler
(K=21797) - Comment Date 3/7/2007
|
Clay, it’s your photo, the only one possibly cheated is you. How does it make you feel when you look at it? Do you feel like you cheated? If so then you have your answer.
The fact that you removed power lines form this image disqualifies it from being used as part of the historical record. In the PJ world, it is no longer a photograph it is now a photo illustration.
The photo should not be printed in a newspaper our used as evidence in a court of law. You certainly can hang it on your wall if you like it that much. You can even sell it to someone else who appreciates it. Now, if you do sell it, I would tell the buyer that it has been digitally manipulated and the power lines have been removed.
If an image is obviously manipulated, then you should feel no need to explain that to a buyer. This is where the waters get grey, what is obvious and what is not. But hey, most of life happens in the grey areas…
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 3/10/2007
|
Well to be absolutely truthful I did more than that . . . while the power line may be cosmetic, I also removed a false highlight in the window. It appeared to be a highlight or scratched emulsion due to irregular shape but the rear door was open which is the source of white reflection in the glass.
Note I uploaded section to show this area.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 3/10/2007
|
good point as stated otherwise, White & others used their knowledge to manipulate exposure values. The very heart of the Zone system is the manipulation of perceptional values which would imply that their art is not photography?
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 3/10/2007
|
To be fair to PV & others who seek to present what is seen as the scene (purest?) It is a good habit to form . . for either digital or film formats.
While perhaps not the origin of using the screen to form the scene (end results) the aspect was boasted in popular thinking by the advent & use of chrome. Primary to viewing was the slide projector . . . therefore composition dictated inclusion of only the elements that developed the central aspect of the photograph. with a negative one could crop the scene to desired aspects during printing but with slides, wyswyg! I snap picture with the 35mm, I take a photograph with the 4x5.
|
|
|
|
Ian Bock
(K=10) - Comment Date 3/24/2007
|
What is truth? what you see in front of your eyes? not when like me - astigmatic, short-sighted, scare tissure on one eye. Let me have the distortions produced by my spectacles that would never work on a camera.
I have been 'distorting' photographs for over 50 years - red filters, colour posterisations, tone drop-outs, line, lith, cyanotype, you name it (no I pass on dagereoutypes) - all distortions, even B&W is.
Distortion/manipulation has always been a part of photography since Rejlander made his "Two ways of life", contact printed from 30 glass plates in 1857, 18 years after the disclosure of photography. What about Sam Haskins, manipulations made in the camera with half-silvered mirrors; Pete Turner (NY) who copied Kodachromes onto Kodachromes for increased saturation; or Jerry Uelsman who uses 6 enlargers to make his "collages".
What matters is the image as viewed on the wall or screen, and the message you receive.
If you want a literal/historic/scientific image then "manipulation" is out.
But then I enjoy novels as well as non-fiction (if there is such an animal) and they are both "books".
|
|
|
|
Andy Taylor
(K=155) - Comment Date 3/29/2007
|
Just to add a couple of thoughts here y'all. Cheatin' is cheatin'. But purty is purty!! Look at www.Juza.com for a thought or too. He's an acclaimed, award winning photographer published in nature magazines and very successful - a lot of his amazing work is on his site.
But kin y'all guess what else he has? Tips on noise reduction, cloning and retouching. The first example alone has the complete and total removal of a bird. Yep. That's right, a bird! It was a big ol bird too.
So, some o y'all can call whatever cheatin' - but - purty is purty. scuse me now, this is where I came in. Y'all carry on.
Ang
|
|
|
|
miguel candela
(K=30) - Comment Date 1/10/2008
|
I dont think digital manipulation is cheating. We used to do the same (at least in some degree) in the darkroom. But I dont like is the unnatural effects people create in the photographs. At least I wouldnt use it for my photographs. A photographer should capture what is seeing and interpreting it with the camera....but not changing everything around until it seems a different place or person.
>>
|
|
|
|
can ce
(K=15) - Comment Date 10/2/2008
|
|
|
|
|
david turnbull
(K=94) - Comment Date 5/28/2009
|
The cry: 'ah Photoshop again' and the assertion that images worked on in the digital darkroom are in someway cheating fail to understand that this is just technology advancing.
Frank Hurley an Australian WW1 photographer MANIPULATED [burning , dodging and cropping] his images to create some of the most dramatic photographs of the Australian war experience. Some years ago a picture of the Catholic nun "Mother Teresa" won an award for "Best Photo/Journalism". This image had also been 'manipulated' through many 'dark room' stages.
Is the use of slow film, fast film, lens filters, depth of field cheating? or more a matter of using technology to create a PICTURE THAT IS WORTH 1000 WORDS?
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 5/29/2009
|
Exactly David. The use of light to record an image...and using new tools to make it better...is nothing less than what others did and do to make images better using old tools in a dark room. Black and white images vary when a color filter is applied...
I think the entire argument is silly since the image is manipulated from the moment a lens is selected.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 5/29/2009
|
I worked with my father in his I worked with my father in his dark room for years and so my late brother, never had things like photo shop or any other software, he did all sort of manipulations while film processing or while printing, he was doing pencil dodging and all sort.
Creative photograph been there all of the time, the method changed today by having the PC and programs like photo shop while the basic prince able remains there.
I understand many people would like and other wouldn’t but at all times, those who like and those who wouldn’t like creative photograph both practically out of the camera/dark room or with PC’s and software, both should have some photographic capabilities and understanding when they talk about this matter, not just talk, like some people here, and I am so sorry to mention this and by no means I am trying to be hard anyone but, I feel when some people do a lot of talk and they are even less than snap shooters by looking to their images here, like Jeroen Wenting, well their talk will never impress me at all.
I do not need master in talking to learn from, those who pinch things from the internet and post it here but I need to learn from those who practically knows what they are talking about and their images are the guide to their understanding and knowledge of this media ( photography ).
Many people will be so UN happy about what I write here, this is my personnel feelings and has nothing to do with how the others feel.
Most of the people on this thread, they have no photographs on this site and some only 2 or 3 photos on this site , while the 2 moderators here are no impressing me with their technical knowhow at all.
Why when someone like to have such a big mouth to talk about something, why don’t the show others what he can do?
There are so many nice photographers on this UF, I will be impressed when they write something here, because they are within what they write and capable of showing in real life what they talk about and I admir them at all times, others who show nothing to the community here, they should by all means shut their mouths and keep away from this community, because they contribute nothing good for any one.
For My all friends here, please do not look at me as being a trouble maker, there should always be some one who should not let cheap people go around with their big empty heads.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 6/2/2009
|
"The cry: 'ah Photoshop again' and the assertion that images worked on in the digital darkroom are in someway cheating fail to understand that this is just technology advancing. "
Nothing wrong with doing on the computer what you'd otherwise have done in the darkroom, as long as you're honest about it.
Where it gets wrong is when you try to pass off a computer creation (possibly made up out of parts of photographs) as a photograph.
Think of the images the LA Times created in 2003/2004 in order to seed anger at the US government over the Iraq campaign. Or the images created by the AP and Hezbollah in 2006 to "show" Israeli atrocities.
Those images (and others like them, the Soviets were quite adept at it as were the Germans in WW2 and no doubt the allies as well) were frauds passed off to an unsuspecting (largely) public as reports of real world events for political purposes.
That goes way beyond using a computer to change the way an existing image looks for artistic purposes and being honest about it.
It's also wrong no matter how they are created, be it using computer software or the retouching brush in a darkroom.
|
|
|
|
Kurt Driver
(K=65) - Comment Date 7/1/2009
|
Putting a filter on a lens, not just colour filters but UV or skylight filters, stops the image from being what was in front of the camera.
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 7/3/2009
|
Ok...B&W isn't what was there either...the world is in color. Jeroen mentions extremes (I think) and out and out fraud. There IS that, although I have no comment about his examples since I'm not sure about them personally, but I think the problem is that people refer to ANY use of PS as "cheating"...whatever THAT means, and it's stupid to do so. Selecting aperture changes an image for goodness sake! So does a slow shutter speed on water...
"Cheating" is a very poor choice of terms. ALL images are manipulated...and to be honest...it's a matter of extent and the fact is the moment a lens is selected...a shutter speed...an aperture...EVEN if the camera selects it for you...the image is manipulated. If it were NOT...then all photos would be similar and there would be NO creative, artistic input. Photography from good photogs is an art form. It IS so for one reason. A good photographer chooses from his or her options and selects his or her unique way to present an image of reality based entirely on what he or she wants to show and how he or she wants to show it.
Cheating is for sports and games. There is no cheating. There MAY be dishonesty...there may be manipulation of images for disreputable purposes...but that has always been there. Even before photography, molding of images to influence the public was around. Photography is nothing more than another tool in that arsenal.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Dave Knode
(K=4) - Comment Date 7/6/2009
|
I'm new to photography over the last year n really concentrated on learning the technical aspects of photography and had no clue about photoshop. im a passionate person whose goal in photography is evoke the same passion in others that early film photographers evoked in me with stunning images. i also spent time learning the artistic aspects of photography like the lead in on a stream or landscape photo that was not technical but seemed to be a standard with those types...as well as bohka in portraits which i feel is as much compositional art as technical having nothing to do with exposure but more to do with perspective. my images still lacked compared to the old greats so i researched some and found that these masters had tools to actually make a photo reflect what they truly saw.tools that made a "PHOTOGRAPH" vivid and sharp! i then bought photoshop n i now shoot and develope raw digital images in photoshop using the darkroom tools of old like exposure, minor color saturation, dodging, burning. i stop there because that is what i feel can help produce an acurate stunning image while preserving it as a digital photograph.i try to express the artistic side of photography through composition because even at its purest form...photography is a subjective art form. anything else to me is digital art but i still don't think its cheating if it is allowed n honestly disclosed as such...i think the frustration comes when we try to compare the two on the same level...photography has changed alot since i was a kid but what makes a great photo hasn't...n even before digital, photographers were producing artistic wonderment with filters, fisheyes, n creative techniques yet no one questioned there work as cheating. they had respect for one another n worried more about pursuing the perfection of their work. I'm going to buy a film camera just because it still has some advantages n i grew up with it, but times r changing n digital has giving us some great advantages, n while now everyone has a camera n thinks there a photographer i think, like myself, that when they try to reproduce the stunning photos that they see that they will learn a new respect for photography n take the time to learn true photography skills cuz ps can't fix bad photography, which can only be good for photography...unless ur one of those people who is bitter towards other photographers or up n comers. i personally love to talk n share knowledge, technique, and such!i am getting rid of ps n all it's digital fluff...lol and getting adobie lightroom 2 which seems to be more based towards raw digital image development without all the clutter of ps that i never use anyway! good luck all!
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 7/8/2009
|
"...ps can't fix bad photography..."
EXACTLY! Done poorly, it can do the reverse!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Anthony Lound
(K=6661) - Comment Date 7/10/2009
|
Absolutely fascinating! This discussion is what I love about UF. I'm currently dead busy, but I'll post more on this at the weekend. Doyle and Dave: congratulations on your eloquent insights! For the moment, goodnight.
Warm regards,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 7/10/2009
|
Thank you and good night Anthony. This weekend my baby boy and I will be out mountain climbing (with my camera)...but THAT'S what it's all about. Getting out and shooting.  )
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 7/10/2009
|
Incidentally, my baby, the youngest of five...is 18 now. Where does the time go?
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Turi cg
(K=27715) - Comment Date 2/25/2010
|
Hola! estimados compañeros de UF, no suelo entrar en los foros, entre otras cosas porque mi ingles no suficiente para entender correctamente los escritos, y los traductores realmente son malos. Bueno una vez aclarado esto, y dándome un paseo por aquí, me he encontrado con esta conversación tan interesante y me gustaría dejaros mi opinión.
Creo que como todo medio de expresión, si se toma la fototografía como un medio de expresión artística, es evidente que la manipulacion que se le quiera hacer a una imagen, ya sea en un cuarto oscuro, o en un ordenador es valida para ejecución de una obra.
Desde luego el manejo de la técnica fotográfica, para buscar algo perfecto, como si lo puro y verdadero fuese únicamente aquello que la técnica , basada en la cámara es lo real, lo bueno, no me parece acertada, la técnica fotográfica siempre ha necesitado de la manipulación, por eso puede ser arte, mientras mas posibilidades de manipulación, mas capacidad de expresión tendremos a través de este medio, y mas posibilidades de hacer mejores fotografias, y mas artisticas cada vez, si es lo que pretendemos, y mas capacidad de hacer una buena fotografia comercial, periodistica, etc...
No creo que utilizar los medios que te permitan hacer cada vez mejor y mas fácil las cosas, para poder llegar a hacer lo que realmente lo que deseas sea engañar, ni desvalore las obras, si eres capaz de hacer algo realmente bueno, sera mejor si tienes mas posibilidades de manipulacion y dominio de la técnica, ¿ nos olvidamos que una camara ya de por sí es una maquina?.
Un saludo a todos ;)
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 6/8/2010
|
When it changes the history the original picture tells.
|
|
|
|
