Is Photo Editing Cheating?

[wonton]

I don't know why but I feel like I am cheating when I edit photos. Am I wrong? Can someone reassure me?

[dwig]

Photo editing is, or can be, cheating when the photo proports to be a factual documentation of a subject or slice in time. The types of photos where editing should be restricted to removing of technical flaws (density, color balance, contrast, ...) include news photos, documentary photos (National Geographic, ...), legal evidence, and examples of the quality and attributes of an item for sale (no retouching out that dented fender in a pic of the car you're selling...).

Photo editing is fine and good when the image is pure art. With art, anything goes if you don't lie about an image when selling it. You don't promote an image as evidence of your camera handling skill when in fact you corrected a crooked horizon and bad exposure after the fact. With expressive art, the technique is meaningless, except to students studying technique. What matters is whether the final image is good or not; does it express what you, the artist, ment to express.

[judge9847]

If by "editing" you mean adjustments for contrast, brightness, hue, saturation, sharpness etc., and perhaps adding some sort of mask for effect than that would be seen as absolutely OK. It's been done in one form or another since light was first captured on something that could be viewed at a later date!!

Anything else might be seen as a no-no but as has already been said, it would depend on what the purpose of the image was. However, it's a technique which you should at least be familiar with.

Here's a wonderful piece of software (free!) that emulates the tricks that film photographers have been doing for years! It's an Adobe Photoshop compatible plugin - enjoy!

Virtual Photographer (http://www.optikvervelabs.com/default.asp)

[wonton]

I agree. Thanks for your input!

[erichlund]

Photo editing is, or can be, cheating when the photo proports to be a factual documentation of a subject or slice in time. The types of photos where editing should be restricted to removing of technical flaws (density, color balance, contrast, ...) include news photos, documentary photos (National Geographic, ...), legal evidence, and examples of the quality and attributes of an item for sale (no retouching out that dented fender in a pic of the car you're selling...).


A perfect example of this. In today's paper, they really should have edited out the red eye in the picture of the Pope (Orange County Register). That is a photographic error that did not exist in real life that could have a significant impact on those who don't understand that it's just an artifact of flash photography.

Cheers,
Eric

[ReF]

most points have already been covered, but let me add that techniques for "editing" and altering film photographs were fully exploited and many times it wasn't considered "cheating." double exposures were okay on film but it's not if you cut and paste in photoshop? how about when two negatives are laid on top of each other? and let's not forget that Unsharp Masking originated during the film era. you don't have to limit yourself to rules that applied to film because you're not shooting with film anymore. you no longer have those limits so why stay under them? even if you are shooting with film and scanning it to a digital format for editing, what's the difference in between doing it in a darkroom and doing it in the "digital darkroom," besides increased ease of use and control?
if you are a purist then that is a different story and you set your own limits.

[gary_hendricks]

I don't know why but I feel like I am cheating when I edit photos. Am I wrong? Can someone reassure me?

I guess simple edits like red-eye removal, sharpening, brightness, coloring is fine. However, if you begin to do outrageous stuff like change the color of the sky, or remove an object from the scene - that's cheating.

I know it's hard to draw the line sometimes. :)

[ReF]

hmmm? i thought i added a post to this thread yesterday :confused:
well, all i said was that i feel you can do whatever you want with your photos as long as you don't lie about them. if you replace a lousy sky with a nice one from a different scene, well good for you - sometimes it can prove difficult, and you end up with a nice picture. if you change a boring drab sunrise into something spectacular and made it look believeable, then wow, be proud. but don't lie about it and pretend that's what it really looked like. i always like to point out any major changes i've made when i show pictures to people. i also like to point out when a spectacular photo is taken in a ho-hum place as it is usually quite surprising.

[gary_hendricks]

I guess when you're editing, you know best whether you're cheating or not.
For me, there's a little voice inside that tells me whether I'm betraying my conscience when doing too much editing. :)

[gary_hendricks]

I have done a few products of mysteria where i have used 3d studio max to render scenes and drop people into them them mask the image to make it all seem 1, they are really psycodelick. and i find i have quite an audience.

[palmbook]

I don't know why but I feel like I am cheating when I edit photos. Am I wrong? Can someone reassure me?
you know that film developing machine adjust colors in your images, is that cheating? (There is a slot-in color chart for each film, so the machine knows what color tone "this film should give".)

when you are in a darkroom, you dodge, burn, cross-process, etc..., is that cheating?

When you print/develop images, you have many grades of paper and chemical (sure, the result is not the same with different paper/chem.), is this cheating?

We have image-editting for a long time, PS just puts everything into your computer.

I think if you apply something to whole image, not partial, it's fine to do so.

[ReF]

I guess when you're editing, you know best whether you're cheating or not.
For me, there's a little voice inside that tells me whether I'm betraying my conscience when doing too much editing. :)

i really like that quote. of course, i still feel that anything goes for "special effects."

[EAP]

If you're just using the photos for your own enjoyment, what difference does it make? As long as you're not trying to sell your photos, use them for journalism or misrepresent yourself, I don't see what harm it does to enhance your photos to make them look as good as possible.

[SamuraiJack]

Is photo editing cheating?

No

[kornhauser]

Certainly not. Photo editing is cleaning up mistakes and flubs that otherwise would distract the viewer from the original subject.

One guy I spoke with made this comment...

"I no more think that photo editing is cheating than Bill Clinton whom thought oral sex was okay too..."

My conscience allows me to live with myself with NO problems if I edit a picture. :cool:

[gary_hendricks]

Agree - if photo editing is for 'cleaning up mistakes and flubs', then that is never cheating. :)

[emalvick]

Photo editing is not cheating... Remember that photography is art. When you edit a photo you are making the photo and image yours. It is your interpretation. How far the editor takes it is a matter of preference or desired results... You can get very technical or what not, but I don't think anyone looks at an artist such as Monet or Picasso as cheaters because their paintings didn't look exactly like the subjects they painted from.

The only thing that would make editing cheating has been stated before; if you try to pass of the photo as not being edited or being the "truth" or "reality" of something when it isn't, then you are cheating.

[kornhauser]

that photography is art. When you edit a photo you are making the photo and image yours. It is your interpretation.


Well said! :rolleyes: :cool:

[erichlund]

Cheating is acting in a dishonest way to get something in return. You are not cheating as long as you are honest. Editing is not dishonest unless you misrepresent the result. If you take a poorly done photo and make it look like what was really there, then that could be said to be more honest than leaving the photo poor. After all, a photo is supposed to be an accurate representation of a view, and a poorly exposed photo is itself a misrepresentation of fact.

Now, if you take a photo of some anonymous person, cut the head off and put a celebrity head in its place, and try to sell it as a paparazzi shot, that would qualify as cheating.

I can cut and paste photos all day, substantially altering the photo. I can even misrepresent them. That's dishonest, but not cheating. It only becomes cheating if I want something in return for the dishonest effort. I'm not saying that being just dishonest is necessarily right, just that cheating requires two elements, dishonesty and desire to gain from it.

Finally, lets be honest. This is for anyone that's worked and/or had their own darkroom. Can everyone say that what came out of the can is exactly what went on the paper? If nothing else, there's basic perception in the development process. Who here that's done a substantial amount of work in the darkroom has never pushed an underexposed shot? Even the automatic machines do that.

Cheers,
Eric