Cheating

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm learning to use elements 2.0. Sometimes I feel like I'm cheating because I'm doctoring the original photo that I took. When I do a fix, it's not the exact same photo that I originally took. However, I realize that in my quest for the perfect photo, the lighting conditions might not be ideal and software can help me fix it.

It's a weird feeling IMO.

Question for the old 35mm film experts. When you went to the dark room and developed your pics from film, did you have the ability to doctor them to some degree like you can with digital cameras and computer software?

[Mr. Peabody]

Maybe a better way to explain my feeling of cheating.

First of all, I'm not in the photography business. I just bought an expensive camera to take photos of my kid playing sports. However, once in a while, I take pics of other kids and give them to their parents for free.

However, say I take a pic of someones kid. I realize that elements 2.0 can make it better with some corrections. I fix it and give it to the parents. They comment to me about how great of a picture it is and how good of a photographer I am.

Well, the picture that I gave them was not actually the picture that I took. So their comment in a way is false. I kinda cheated and gave them a better picture than the actual one that I shot because I fixed it with software.

[Norm in Fujino]

I don't know why people are so concerned about this, unless they're using the photos as evidence in a lawsuit or something. Photography is about creating images from light, not reproducing some ostensible "reality" out there. I once took a photo of my daughter with a group of friends; the photo turned out great except one of the girls had her eyes closed. So I cloned the eyes from another girl and "transplanted" them to the one whose eyes were closed. Everything looked "natural" (the same way it would have looked if the girl had actually had her eyes open); the parents were pleased, and no one was the wiser. I didn't tell anyone specifically what I'd done, but I always admit "manipulating" images.
When I use PS to enhance the color of the sky in a shot because I "remember" it differently, is that cheating? What if I just don't like the algorithm selected by the camera's manufacturer to render its colors? After all, each camera reproduces colors, sharpness, contrasts, etc., differently--and none are "natural" (or all are equally natural).

Back when I was doing B/W photography, obviously I adjusted exposure times and developing times, burned and dodged during enlargement and so on, all in order to create an image I was pleased with. Nothing "natural" about it (and if you think about it, only color-blind people see in black&white anyway, so monochrome photography is as "unnatural" as it comes).

[dwig]

If the photo is to be used for news and/or documentary reporting, its cheating, to the point of being reprehensible, to do any manipulation beyond fixing/adjusting exposure and color balance, removing mechanical flaws (dust spots or film or sensor, stuck pixels, ...), and cropping. I would usually be acceptable to also obscure trademarked advertising and product labels, but only if the obscuring it obvious (the common large pixelation method).

If the image is "art", anything goes. Photographers have _always_ used various methods of creating images that diverge from what was actually in the scene. "Trick" photography was born during photography's infancy, within just a very few years of the public announcements of the first "permanant" photographic processes.

[Norm in Fujino]

If the photo is to be used for news and/or documentary reporting, its cheating, to the point of being reprehensible, to do any manipulation beyond fixing/adjusting exposure and color balance, removing mechanical flaws (dust spots or film or sensor, stuck pixels, ...), and cropping.

Exactly; basically the issue is not to represent your work as being something other than what it is.

[Digideb]

I feel this is an interesting issue & I can see both sides of it, but, even though I'm a newbie, I have an old-fashioned attitude about digital photo "tricks".
For me, capturing the image as close to reality as possible, with the camera is the ultimate challenge & achievement. My favorite subjects are wildlife, scenery, local sights, etc. & realistic representation is the main point of my photography. Altering the image afterwards is "cheating" for my use.
Here's a good example of how this issue can affect one's attitude towards picture taking; I shoot alot of seascapes & I was getting alot of crooked horizons. It was pointed out to me that it's an easy fix with cropping,etc. & nothing to worry about. That wasn't an acceptable solution to me. I felt the answer was addressing my sloppy camera handling & training myself to be more aware of the horizon angle. It took some effort & practice, but now I take much better seascapes right out of the camera, untouched.
I think there is a place for photo manipulation. We've all enjoyed the amusing wacky pix people make & impressive art images, but I prefer to see obvious photo tricks, not so much the subtle "fixes" to mask mistakes. I'd rather be proud of my camera talents than my Photoshop abilities. But, that's just my opinion, of course. :)

[Rhys]

Personally, I tend to apply overall changes only. I can't be bothered to do too much messing with photos.

[Manstein]

In the days of 'wet' darkrooms manipulation was a necessary technique especially with monochrome. 'Fiddles' bits of plastacine or card on wires were used to hold back the exposure from the enlarger on specific parts of the print and neat or warm developer was applied to parts of the print to bring it on. Retouching with various tonal grades of fliuid was used to get rid of dust spots etc the latter was applied to any commercial print going out to a customer in fact full time 'retouchers' were employed by pro darkrooms and highly skilled they were.

[Mr. Peabody]

I appreciate the replies.

Now that I'm attempting to learn Elements 2.0, I've got addicted to enhancing and playing around with my photos. Of course you can do it automatically with Elements or you can attempt to tackle it manually which gives you greater control.

Before I do anything with a photo, I make a copy first. That is the one I play around with.

I don't quite understand the manual controls when using the histograph and using the 3 arrows etc. That one is really confusing. Usually I just press auto.

Anyway, it's fun experimenting with the software.

[kornhauser]

I feel like I'm cheating because I'm doctoring the original photo that I took. When I do a fix, it's not the exact same photo that I originally took. However, I realize that in my quest for the perfect photo

Ever see the poster of the gray wolf hiding behind a tree? Was one of my favorites and my inspiration. Until I found out that the photographer was rehabilitating the wolf in his fenced yard. Is that cheating?

On one of the satellite programs, there's a program called "Runway Models" (or something like that!) that's like a survivor program for modeling. I watched in one episode all the photo editing they do via "before and after" shots. Those photographers get paid the big bucks and I'm sure they don't think twice to enhancing a photograph.

I have no hesitation using photo editing software.

[eastcoastjoe]

Mr. Peabody,

I too have wrestled with your dilemma. What I finally realized is that no matter what you do, you are tinkering with the original image or scene. How much of the corporeal world is actually in a rectangular frame? How much of that same world is simply pixels?

I think that the problem, philosophically, is that we assume that the camera does nothing and that the original capture is somehow pure. Neither is true in any sense. As an example, camera "A" might be better at delivering a sharp picture but perhaps at the expense of digital noise; camera "B" might be less noisey but give up some sharpness to compensate. Which is unadulterated? Neither, I feel. Think of all of the other processes that are handled and controlled by a camera; was it "cheating" to choose ISO 64 film vs. ISO 400 film? Neither one was exactly reality and I propose that the same is true in digital photography as well. Don't get the wrong impression; in film days the folks at the photolab made plenty of decisons that altered what you captured to produce a pleasing and often color corrected image.

So your camera makes one set of decisions and you realize later that you wanted another set; so what? Chances are some of the original "decisions" (or perhaps "settings" if you choose) were made at a factory where you don't live, by people you don't know and based on criteria other than the picture you would like to take today that couldn't have even existed (in time anyway) when the camera was designed and manufactured.

Is is "cheating" to use a flash? That lighting doesn't exist in reality and doesn't correspond to what was in the room when the image was captured. Would it then be "cheating" if you realized that one part of the flash assisted image needed some lightening and another needed to be darkend?

I own a Panasonic, which I love, but it is a bit noisey. When I was first learning to use it I took a flash pic of my (very lovely) wife at ISO 400 which is very grainy and noisey on most cameras and especially so on Panas. The shot was one of the best pics I have of her but was very noisey (unlike my wife). Forty bucks later, I buy a copy of NeatImage and POOF, my wife is no longer noisey and the adjusted pic looks far more like the original scene than the orginal pic did. Did I cheat at the beiginning, before I knew as much about the camera; or did I cheat at the end, when I realized I should have used stronger flash and lower ISO?

Your goal should be to get the pictures you like and want. This may require you to do some work, your camera to do some work and your image editing software to do some work. If, for insatnce, you use whatever software that was bundled with your camera, don't think for a second that it's not "cheating" or making "decisions" about your image. If you choose to print borderless on a 4x6 sheet of photo paper, your software will crop your image to fit (a 4x6 sheet of paper is of a different proportion than the 4:3 image most digicams use).

Ultimately to achieve the above goal, aren't you better off by making your own decsions rather than relying on those made by someone else? the "cheating" process began with the first silver prints 150 (or so) years ago and continued through your purchase of a camera.

OK; so I apologize for being long winded; but I'm mostly with you - I don't like to fiddle with my pics more than I have to and I don't want to change much of anything relative to the orginal scene. Sometimes, though, to do that means a little adjusting in Photoshop. Hey, enjoy it; make some nice prints and be happy that your kids don't really have red devil eyes...

[JTL]

I think the real bottom line is as the artist, you are free to express your artistic vision however you please. Heck, before there was software, I took photos, cut them up and took photos of the cut-up photos. Was that cheating? When artists posterize 35mm film prints is that cheating? Why does software make it any different?

There is no such thing as cheating in art. There is only art.

[Mr. Peabody]

Great replies guys.

[emalvick]

There is no such thing as cheating in art. There is only art.

Unless you are plagiarizing or violating copyright laws somehow. That is the only time you could call it cheating.

[JTL]

Unless you are plagiarizing or violating copyright laws somehow. That is the only time you could call it cheating.Argreed. I would also add the violating of ANY laws or anyone else's rights in the process of creating "art". Criminal acts aren't art. They're crimes! :D