the old "Is it cheating?" question again

[ReF]

i know it's been discussed before and the answer to whether post processing is "cheating" or not ultimately depends on the decision of the individual, but i was wondering about a slightly different version of this old question.

recently i've been seeing a few sunsets with very odd colors, which IMO are not natural but are instead a product of inaccurate Auto White Balance settings. now i assume that these fusia color sunsets and bright, extra-blue clouds are not natural because i have seen quite a few sunsets and the sun or the sky directly around it are never fusia. i've also ended up with a few odd colored sunsets myself and i know for sure that the colors/WB were inaccurate because: 1. i was there and the real thing looked different, and 2. the colors vary between photos that are shot seconds apart. i can also see how a camera would be occasionally fooled into selecting an overly blue WB when it is pointed at an orange sunset. now the question is, is there any difference whether the camera selects a wild white balance or if the user alters it afterwards in RAW? is it fair to say that a photo is "unaltered" because the picture is "the way it came out of the camera," or would you still consider it cheating in some way? i'm not asking what is right for me, instead the point of this thread is to see what others think of this.

[JTL]

My feeling is, as should be a surprise to no one, that artists have a right to create art as they see fit as long as they do not plagiarize or or hurt anyone in the process. There is no such thing as "cheating" as far as I'm concerned.

Is a "double exposure" cheating? Now add in every other photographic effect known to humankind and ask the same question...

Are filters cheating? O.K., I'll stop there...this could easily become an OCD-like situation...:D

[jeisner]

I agree with JTL here, it isn't cheating it is your photo do as you wish...

Another example for film would you consider push or pull processing cheating?

[JTL]

Another example for film would you consider push or pull processing cheating?Good one...

[ReF]

i was not intending to restart the same discussion that we've already had. i remember we sort of agreed that crazy changes in color were usually not okay if you were NOT creating original art. so is it any different if the camera implemented these crazy color changes? what if you were buying a picture and found out that the colors were false? would you feel any different if it came out of the camera that way VS. the photographer tweaking the color? i'm not trying to get help in making a decision here, no, i already know how i feel about this. rather, i'm trying to see how the majority of people feel about this.

an example of dramatic color changes straight out of the camera. the ones on the left and the right are correct, the blue in the middle shot seems a bit on the neon side.

[palmbook]

Dodge, burn, cross-process, crop, placing filters in front of the enlarger, etc...

they just find a new home in PS!

[JTL]

so is it okay if the camera implemented these crazy color changes? what if you were buying a picture and found out that the colors were false? Well, let me ask you this...what about the Canon SD series and the "My Color" modes that let you purposely take pictures with altered/swapped colors? Are you suggesting that there might be something inherently "dishonest" about that? It seems to me that it's just another creative tool. When buying a photo, caring about how the photographer achieved the result is, to me, the equivalent of trying to figure out what brushes or pigments an oil paint artist used. What does it matter? You're buying the finished product, not the process that achieved it. Now, if you're studying technique, then it helps to analyze the process...but as an art consumer...I struggle to understand why it would/should matter...

Now, there is a whole other issue if a camera is misrepresenting colors unintentionally...that's not cheating...that's just a bad camera, imho...:D

EDIT: I would just like to add that even the "bad" camera, if used intentionally by the artist for its particular effect, then becomes just another artistic/creative tool...:D

[ReF]

hmmm, i'm not suggesting anything, just trying to gather some opinions. i'm also a bit confused why there seem to be question directed towards me as i'm just trying to gather opinions.

"Now, there is a whole other issue if a camera is misrepresenting colors unintentionally...that's not cheating...that's just a bad camera, imho.."

i'm not sure if that's a joke or not, but i don't see why a camera wouldn't try to set a proper white balance in an enviroment that is soaked in orange light.

anyways, i think this thread has gone down the wrong path

[JTL]

i'm also a bit confused why there seem to be question directed towards me as i'm just trying to gather opinions.Just looking for clarification...is there anything wrong with that? It's hard to give an opinion when you don't fully understand what's really being asked...please forgive my ignorance...

As a artist who has sold work at galleries, your original question struck a chord...hence my hightened curiosity...

[TheObiJuan]

so long as your changes do not add something that was not intitially there, do as you wish. Saturate, desaturate, remove dust spots, reduce lens flare, adjust contrast, etc. Just no photochopping.

[ReF]

Just looking for clarification...is there anything wrong with that? It's hard to give an opinion when you don't fully understand what's really being asked...please forgive my ignorance...

As a artist who has sold work at galleries, your original question struck a chord...hence my hightened curiosity...

ah, understood ;)
actually, i already got your opinion with this statement: "You're buying the finished product, not the process that achieved it" i was just a little confused about the questions.

[jeisner]

I've never actually purchased photogrpahic art. I guess if I was, as JTL said I would be buying the end result, so I don't care how much PP went into making that picture as long as it is his/her own work.... Is that what you were asking?

[ReF]

I've never actually purchased photogrpahic art. I guess if I was, as JTL said I would be buying the end result, so I don't care how much PP went into making that picture as long as it is his/her own work.... Is that what you were asking?

yup, that's what i was looking for. thanks!

[palmbook]

I have heard a quote from a great photographer (but cannot remember the name). The quote is something like

"Only your final products tell how artistic you are."

Even Adams Ansel spent a whole day in his darkroom with merely one photo :)

[TheObiJuan]

I have noticed with my good lenses the colors, sharpness, and contrast are far superior and make me do less PS work. There is a user on fred miranda, Lars Johnson, who does no PS work, but just exposes correctly and uses lenses (L glass) that are superb. He has stunning shots and is a photographic inspiration.

[erichlund]

There are ways to cheat with a photograph. If you misrepresent the truth by indicating that the fuschia colors and blue clouds were actually there, in order to somehow increase the value (rarity) of your work, that could be considered cheating. However, correcting a photo to match the reality could hardly be considered cheating. In fact, it's exceedingly honest.

Don't get me wrong. If you present the photo with the inaccurate colors, and say nothing about how they were achieved, you have not misrepresented your photo. Some would say "how artistic". Others might say "what a crummy photo, it doesn't look real". It's only when you misrepresent to achieve gain that you could be considered to be cheating. Otherwise, do all the post processing you want. What you deliver on paper (or electronically) is the sum of your effort to display your interpretation of a scene. A camera is merely one tool in the production of a final product.

This last statement can be emphasized with the following example. Let's say you used two different cameras to take the same picture, and they naturally give different results, but only one matches the real view. You post process to achieve an accurate rendition in both. This clearly shows that the camera is just part of the process of producing an output. It is just a tool, and sometimes you have to correct inadequacies in either the tool or your use of it.

Consider another example. I write software for a living. I use Rational Rose to design my product. I use Microsoft Word to write documents and test procedures. I use a different editor to write my program and a compiler to make it readable by the machine. I use a debugger to find and correct mistakes. All these tools are part of the process of creating software. Your camera is only one tool in the process of producing photos. Your computer, your printer, and the software you use to edit your photos to your liking are other tools.

Cheers,
Eric

[ReF]

There are ways to cheat with a photograph. If you misrepresent the truth by indicating that the fuschia colors and blue clouds were actually there, in order to somehow increase the value (rarity) of your work, that could be considered cheating. However, correcting a photo to match the reality could hardly be considered cheating. In fact, it's exceedingly honest.

Don't get me wrong. If you present the photo with the inaccurate colors, and say nothing about how they were achieved, you have not misrepresented your photo. Some would say "how artistic". Others might say "what a crummy photo, it doesn't look real". It's only when you misrepresent to achieve gain that you could be considered to be cheating. Otherwise, do all the post processing you want. What you deliver on paper (or electronically) is the sum of your effort to display your interpretation of a scene. A camera is merely one tool in the production of a final product.

This last statement can be emphasized with the following example. Let's say you used two different cameras to take the same picture, and they naturally give different results, but only one matches the real view. You post process to achieve an accurate rendition in both. This clearly shows that the camera is just part of the process of producing an output. It is just a tool, and sometimes you have to correct inadequacies in either the tool or your use of it.

Consider another example. I write software for a living. I use Rational Rose to design my product. I use Microsoft Word to write documents and test procedures. I use a different editor to write my program and a compiler to make it readable by the machine. I use a debugger to find and correct mistakes. All these tools are part of the process of creating software. Your camera is only one tool in the process of producing photos. Your computer, your printer, and the software you use to edit your photos to your liking are other tools.

Cheers,
Eric

thanks for taking the time to answer. you bring up some good points.

[cwphoto]

The less time I spend using Photoshop (or any other app) the better. I try and do as much as possible in camera the first time.

[palmbook]

Well, everyone has a good point (or points).

I won't say anything much, but will bring up some quotes, which might remind you something.

"Art is the expression of imagination, not the reproduction of reality." Sculptor Henry Moore

"Through the lens, I see the composition. Through the composition, I see my imagination" I can't remember who said this, sorry.

[sarcazmo]

I don't think it's cheating at all as long as you are working with your original photo.

Now if you add elements to it that weren't orignally there then yes, that's cheating IMO.

[Balrog]

Putting it briefly - it makes no difference to me if the camera picked an incorrect WB and it comes out looking weird, or you did it yourself in RAW processing. I wouldn't consider either to be cheating.
Simple reason: If the camera picks an incorrect WB and you consider it cheating, are you then obliged to go and fix it in photoshop? That'd just be weird... considering the fact that if you thought incorrect WB was cheating, you'd probably think photoshopping is cheating too...