Is "fixing" photos cheating??

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I've never really bought that "a picture should be what you saw" . Maybe if you're a documentary photojournalist, but most of us aren't. On photo forums, that adage is common, and often uttered by people who then post their desaturated images of things with millimeter wide depths of field. Maybe I'm weird, but I neither see in grayscale, nor have I ever been able to focus my eyes with as shallow a DOF as a f/1.2 or 1.4 lens with a subject a foot and a half away.

A picture should be what you want it to be, period.

Now, maybe if you're loading up photoshop and masking out the background so you can place your friend at the top of the Eiffel tower, that's "cheating." Per pixel manipulation is often a no-no in contests and assignments (the only areas in which rules apply). But color balance, tone curve, sharpness, contrast, etc. are all fair game. Even if you only keep JPEG images straight out of camera, those things have been applied. Hell, even most RAW software packages apply a tone curve by default on a per-camera basis, and it's not linear.

The question is: do you want to be involved in the application of all those things, or do you want to let the software engineers back in japan (or wherever) decide for you?

If you shoot film and make your own prints, you make decisions affecting the look of the print when developing the film, when exposing the paper, and when developing the paper. If you send your film in or drop it off somewhere, it likely ones through an automated process, yet still decisions have been made in post which affect the look of the final print.

To me, post processing is part of the enjoyment. I love printing in a darkroom, and similar love to a certain extent working in Lightroom. I'd say that, short of per-pixel manipulation (adding or subtracting objects), post processing is as much fair play as is pre processing (setting up lights, cameras, lenses, etc).
 
Last edited:
In the "old" days of negatives, cropping, burning in, dodging, touching up with knife and ink, etc. were common.
My theory is this:

If you can do it in a darkroom, I have no problem doing it with Photoshop. Many people would disagree, but I come from the world of 35mm. I'm an amateur photographer, not graphic designer.

---------- Post Merged at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 07:10 PM ----------

I've never really bought that "a picture should be what you saw" . Maybe if you're a documentary photojournalist, but most of us aren't. On photo forums, that adage is common, and often uttered by people who then post their desaturated images of things with millimeter wide depths of field. Maybe I'm weird, but I neither see in grayscale, nor have I ever been able to focus my eyes with as shallow a DOF as a f/1.2 or 1.4 lens with a subject a foot and a half away.

A picture should be what you want it to be, period.

Now, maybe if you're loading up photoshop and masking out the background so you can place your friend at the top of the Eiffel tower, that's "cheating." Per pixel manipulation is often a no-no in contests and assignments (the only areas in which rules apply). But color balance, tone curve, sharpness, contrast, etc. are all fair game. Even if you only keep JPEG images straight out of camera, those things have been applied. Hell, even most RAW software packages apply a tone curve by default on a per-camera basis, and it's not linear.

The question is: do you want to be involved in the application of all those things, or do you want to let the software engineers back in japan (or wherever) decide for you?

If you shoot film and make your own prints, you make decisions affecting the look of the print when developing the film, when exposing the paper, and when developing the paper. If you send your film in or drop it off somewhere, it likely ones through an automated process, yet still decisions have been made in post which affect the look of the final print.

To me, post processing is part of the enjoyment. I love printing in a darkroom, and similar love to a certain extent working in Lightroom. I'd say that, short of per-pixel manipulation (adding or subtracting objects), post processing is as much fair play as is pre processing (setting up lights, cameras, lenses, etc).
Couldn't agree more!
 
My theory is this:

If you can do it in a darkroom, I have no problem doing it with Photoshop.

That begs an interesting question. Most people can dodge and burn in a dark room, and many can mask. Some, however, (Jerry Eulsmann my best example) can do very sophisticated stuff.

So, if I can't do it in a darkroom (lack of skill), but it CAN be DONE in a darkroom, where does that leave us?

These are (scans of) fully analog prints. Film to paper. Most pre-date photoshop. I can't do it in a darkroom. I'm willing to bet nobody on this entire forum can. But it can be done in a darkroom with a large amount of planning (shooting photos with the intent of over or underexposing certain subjects, building complicated and precise masks, etc). Uelsmann routinely uses something like 14 enlargers in his darkroom to build his composite art. Mod request: if the first image is contraband, please delete it and not the whole post

jerry-uelsmann-14.jpg

JU1068.jpg


uelsmann_image.jpg


ju1071.jpg


JU1091.jpg
 
That begs an interesting question. Most people can dodge and burn in a dark room, and many can mask. Some, however, (Jerry Eulsmann my best example) can do very sophisticated stuff.

So, if I can't do it in a darkroom (lack of skill), but it CAN be DONE in a darkroom, where does that leave us?

These are (scans of) fully analog prints. Film to paper. Most pre-date photoshop. I can't do it in a darkroom. I'm willing to bet nobody on this entire forum can. But it can be done in a darkroom with a large amount of planning (shooting photos with the intent of over or underexposing certain subjects, building complicated and precise masks, etc). Uelsmann routinely uses something like 14 enlargers in his darkroom to build his composite art. Mod request: if the first image is contraband, please delete it and not the whole post
Touché but I would say that this goes beyond just photography and becomes an art form in itself using film as a method to create.

It's outside my own realm of darkroom skills and I won't even attempt it in Photoshop. Not that I don't find it beautiful, but I find it's an art form beyond photography.
 
I am a former photojournalist, but I now shoot publicity stills above water and underwater in caves and wrecks. I also grew up in the darkroom as my father is a photographer and I went to the University of Florida's journalism college as well as minored in the fine art college when Jerry Uelsmann was there.
So, I appreciated seeing some of his unique images in the previous post.
(Uelsmann once said that Ansel Adams invited him to photograph Yosemite's Half-Dome as he knew Uelsmann could "make it whole.")
We're somewhat talking about two different things here; altering and/or changing the content of a photograph -- something that is definitely unethical in photojournalism circles and will get you fired. Or making minor adjustments to an image like cropping, burning and dodging like we used to do in the darkroom, which is considered okay. (Do a search for the NPPA.)
It does not really matter though with fine art, non-journalistic photos as anything goes. It's art!

Gene Page
 
We're somewhat talking about two different things here; altering and/or changing the content of a photograph -- something that is definitely unethical in photojournalism circles and will get you fired. Or making minor adjustments to an image like cropping, burning and dodging like we used to do in the darkroom, which is considered okay. (Do a search for the NPPA.)
It does not really matter though with fine art, non-journalistic photos as anything goes. It's art!
Agreed again!

It looks like my preference is to capture the world around me beautifully, not create something new.
 
I am a former photojournalist, but I now shoot publicity stills above water and underwater in caves and wrecks. I also grew up in the darkroom as my father is a photographer and I went to the University of Florida's journalism college as well as minored in the fine art college when Jerry Uelsmann was there.
So, I appreciated seeing some of his unique images in the previous post.
(Uelsmann once said that Ansel Adams invited him to photograph Yosemite's Half-Dome as he knew Uelsmann could "make it whole.")

Awesome story.

Agreed again!

It looks like my preference is to capture the world around me beautifully, not create something new.

Me too, mostly. While I'd love to have the ability to do really slick stuff in photoshop (let alone darkroom), it's not my goal so I've never really learned. I use photoshop to stitch panoramas and occasionally to use a neutral layer for dodging and burning, but over 99% of my processing is done in Lightroom (I imagine if I counted the ratio of TIFF to CR2 and DNG files in my library, it would be closer to 99.8 or 99.9%).
 
The one point that has been bothering me about this thread is really the use of the word "fixing". As most are only making minor adjustments to color balance, tone, etc., they are really doing little more than "fine tuning" their photos and few people take issue with the idea of tuning anything to get the best possible results whether it be photographs, a musical instrument, or even a motor car. "Fixing" however makes it sound like the photos have sufficient flaws that rather than spending time repairing the photographs, you might be better served by working on your photo skills.

Sorry, that's just my two cents worth.


F.
 
My goal since I bought my first digital camera 10 years ago was to learn to take better pictures and do less editing on the computer. There is nothing better than getting it right the first time. Editing is not cheating, I tend to think of it more like a finishing process on a woodworking project.
 
Who cares if you fix it up a little, i think a photo is more to capture the moment, so a little tweaking of the white balance, brightness and cropping doesnt change that.

I have a cheap camera too and cant afford a strobe so i have to add the light and colour it would give me afterwards.
 

Back
Top Bottom