DSLRUsers.com

G'day all,
I realise that I'm probably asking the wrong group as we're all using digital cameras and I dare say a lot of us would enjoy Post Processing our shots to get the "best out of them" so to speak, but I just wanted to ask what is probably a dumb question...

Recently a work colleague who is also interested in photography and I were showing some of the people here at work some shots... The people that were looking at the shots were making some very complimentary comments about some of mine (the shots were: http://www.pixspot.com./thumbnails.php?album=70 ) and my colleague then remarked "yeah, but I don't post process my shots!" and then others thought that was "cheating" and then dismissed the shots as "not real" etc.

The only type of PP I do is some sharpening, a little histogram stuff, nothing that changes the contents of the image etc... I'm not sure if my colleague simply got his "nose out of joint" at the time or not, but once the others then basically said similar things, that got me a thinking... None of these people are in anyway "into photography" as we are here tho...

I just thought it was very interesting that even just using a Circ-Polarizer was considered as "cheating"???

Has anyone else came across this sort of reaction to images that were initially very much liked and then dismissed once the process of producing the shot is discussed?

Bear in mind that the comments were made by people who think photography is taking a snap with their instamatic so I'm not really fussed, but I'd be interested in your thoughts and experiences...

Cheers,
Mudder PS. Sorry for the long post...

I certainly don't think it is cheating on any level, unless you are in a contest which has some restrictions.

I guess there may be some purists who would consider any PP to be cheating, that's fair enough - they can think anything they want.

When we were using film, the printing stage would involve dodging and burning, there would be different grades of paper, there would be different types of film and developer.

In my view, photography is an art form, and you can do anything you want. Some PP is virtually essential, and for the users of PHD cameras, some of it takes place inside the camera - sharpening, colour saturation etc.

(One caveat I guess - if you manipulated a photo to fraudulently misrepresent something or someone, that has obvious negative implications)

Good issue mudder, but I think your work colleagues are misguided

Interesting question... and here's my view.

If an image is altered, that is elements put into the shot that were not there to begin with, it is too much PP, and is art. E.g. If you didn't get the DOF you wanted and removed the subject to blur the background, that is too much. You should get this right at the time of the shot.

Levels, curves, b&w, burning, etc are what can be done in a true darkroom... i.e. with film. I see no problems with this being done, and would class this postprocessing as part of the 'photograph'.


cheers

mudder wrote:...Bear in mind that the comments were made by people who think photography is taking a snap with their instamatic...

Do these people use "AUTO" mode on their camera's? Isn't that cheating?


It's a very good discussion point - one which I grappled with a little until I read a reputed professional (can't remember who it was unfortuanately) compare PP with the darkroom. For years, photographers had to use darkroom techniques to get certain effects. The idea of burning and dodging did not come in when we went digital! In fact, most photography clubs and competitions seem to actually encourage some degree of darkroom manipulation.

I think there is a line with PP which changes the photograph so much it is no longer a photograph, but I haven't seen too many photo's posted on this site that come even close (IMHO).

Go back to the P&S brigade and ask to see one of their film photo's printed at a lab (even one of those 1-hour places). Check the back of the print - are there any marks saying what adjustment has been made? Most labs at least do some small degree of PP. Just because we choose to take control over that aspect doesn't make us cheats - it makes us more artists, and is something to be proud of.

There's now even some digital P&S's that do significant PP in-camera - take for example the ads currently doing the Pay-TV rounds for (I think) some Fuji cameras (?) with 'adaptive lighting'.

Think of the photo being a three step process -
1. "See" the subject
2. "Take" the Photo
3. "Develop" the image

Step 3 has always been there - we simply choose the best tool available to us in our situation. Whether that is the 1-hour shop making the decisions for us, working in our own 'real' darkroom, or making use of the 'digital darkroom', it is still a vital step in sharing that initial view of the subject we saw.

A good shot is a good shot, no matter how you got it (unless of course you stole it from someone else!).


...Just my fifty cents worth

Gerg,

I second that

In my opinion, it is only cheating when you deliberately change or add something that wasn't there in the first place and go out of your way to hide the fact. For example if you display a landscape with great cloud formation but the clouds were photoshopped in.
You can understand why someone who gets up really early to get a beautiful sunrise can see it as cheating if someone else comes up with a similar effect in the comfort of their home at 11.00am.
In the end though, you do what you want and as long as the end result pleases you, who gives a damm what everyone else thinks.
Personally, when I manage to do something in photoshop that I'm proud of I tend to show that part off more then the overall photo. (doesn't happen very often though )

Incidently, I see nothing in the pics you referenced as being PP'd to a point I would deem art rather than photography

Nice pics

Hi mudder
You have posed a really interesting question (IMHO).

I have had the same experience. Sometimes people even say "Yes, well your photos should be better than mine, seeing you are using such an expensive camera." This lets them off the hook in terms of producing better pix.

As all good photographers know, it's what is between the photographer's ears that is the most important tool in the kit.

Anyone with the simplest P&S camera can take better photos, providing they are prepared to learn some basic principles and apply them. That includes PP, in my view.

For the purpose of comparison, we all know that the great film photographers also used PP. Many goood photographers felt that work in the darkroom was at least as important as work behind the camera. (Cartier-Bresson, with his "decisive moment" mantra, may have been an exception.)

As we all should be aware "it ain't rocket science!" I was always really pleased in my days in camera clubs when a new member would "see the light" (pardon the poor cliche) and realise that making a good photograph is mostly about the 5 Ps (Proper Preparation Prevents P*ss-Poor Performance).

Many times I have been asked by clients to change the colour of a product or remove a date from a bottle of wine so that another can be added, etc. To me this is the art side of photography (be it commercial) where my experience in changing things must be used.

On a more personal subject such as family photos etc I try to make as little adjustment as possible.

Then there is the fun stuff where you look at a photo and see beyond the image to another world where skies are green and plants are blue - photography can be an extension of the individuals imagination when it comes to PP.

Chris

cricketfan wrote: I was always really pleased in my days in camera clubs when a new member would "see the light" (pardon the poor cliche) and realise that making a good photograph is mostly about the 5 Ps (Proper Preparation Prevents P*ss-Poor Performance).

Is Piss Poor one word or two? I didn't want to start another thread on this issue, but I felt that some reflection was appropriate. If it is two, then it would be mostly about the 6 Ps. Interesting.

Aside from that, good post cricketfan.

I think PP is OK unless it adds or removes elements from the picture, to change its meaning (I'm thinking journalism here I guess)

Having said that, I remember one occasion when I was "commissioned" to take a portait of the in-laws who were getting on a bit, sitting on a garden bench. I took about ten shots, but when the film came back, on no one shot were they both looking good! Solution was to scan a couple of photos, then make one good one from two. Everybody was happy with this outcome, I made no secret of it, and shortly after the portrait was produced, it became apparent that the opportunity would never occur again.

So I guess there are sometimes exceptions.

Cheers

Greg B wrote:

cricketfan wrote: I was always really pleased in my days in camera clubs when a new member would "see the light" (pardon the poor cliche) and realise that making a good photograph is mostly about the 5 Ps (Proper Preparation Prevents P*ss-Poor Performance).

Is Piss Poor one word or two? I didn't want to start another thread on this issue, but I felt that some reflection was appropriate. If it is two, then it would be mostly about the 6 Ps. Interesting.

Aside from that, good post cricketfan.

Good question!

I actually think that the 5 Ps refers to Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance, and may have been coined by one of those American management consultants. (Sorry to anyone employed in that field )

I just Australianised it!

Very interesting subject.

A minilab printer has the ability with a few buttons on the printing machine to adjust the brightness, contrast and colour of the image .... and they do frequently. The person that took the photo just sees the end result. Sometimes some dramatic post processing has taken place but the photographer in this case has no idea the lab has saved their print.

Ignorance is bliss - let them think its cheating

Well, I think it depends on what they mean by cheating. Do they mean anything that is not an exact replica as it was seen with the naked eye is not real? Well, then only a shot with a pinhole camear would be real, and not even pure because it would depend on the film, developer, paper etc. To label pics as cheating because you adjust the mechanical devices used to view the pictures is pretty elitist and ignorant. Photography is an art...plain and simple. Yes there is the photojournalistic side that says print as shot....fine.

Just remember, ithey are YOUR photos, and they should represent our style. Anyone can pick up a p&s and click away.

If you have the time, pick up Ansel Adams set of books The Camera, The Negative, The Print. They are incredible. They have helped me understand the hotographers roll greatly.

Why am I ranting....I should be shooting, and Post-Processing!!!!!!!

A btw, I propose that using anothers digital AUTO workflow to PP your pics may be a little bit of a cheat. But who cares, eh?

well, an amateur purist friend of mine who thinks he's an expert with his 300D. (i owned a 300D too, now d70.)

anyways, I was telling him about a particular day that I shot RAW, then sucked raw images into CS adjusted levels, saturation, and ran my "d70 defog unsharp mask" action (as i do to all digital images which are soft due to the AA filter.) ... basically just a small cleanup. He accused this of being "cheating" and "photoshopping" my images.

So i asked him how he shoots ... "JPEG always mate" ... explained to him that the onboard processing to get that jpeg, and the relevent curves, and settings associated with the onboard jpegging is basically the same as photoshopping in any case, its all being done in camera, and not quite as well. (Though its still awesome when you consider what the camera does in a split second.). I found it amusing that he thinks he's "pure", yet shoots jpeg.

The act of pulling your digital negative (RAW, or even jpeg, whatever you prefer.) and then cleaning it up in photoshop is not different really to choosing different film types for different colour rendition, or using different chemicals, darkrooms , techniques when dealing with film, in order to change the net result. IMHO, sharpening (non intrusively.) is a complete necessity.

The most pure form would be to shoot RAW, and convert with zero post processing, straight to TIFF, but its a bit like not sanding and polishing a woodwork sculpture.

Admittedly one can push the envelope a lot further with photoshop, and i often fiddle with actions, dynamic range tools etc ... but generally speaking most images are just "cleaned up". I think a general cleanup, subtle changes are "OK" Obviously full blown photoshopping and blending images and this and that could be considered cheating, fair enough. (wont stop me.)

Anyone who thinks photoshop has no place in a purists role, has rocks in their head and doesnt understand digital photography.

As a long term denizen of the old-time "wet" darkroom, let me vehemently deny that any post processing of initial camera work is "cheating".

My personal hero in the Light Art, Ansel Adams, went to great lengths in all his publications to make the point that the events after the shutter opened were at least as important as anything that happened before.

just ignore the ill-informed and produce great pictures knowing that there is a history of outstanding photographers that support your actions

Regards

Joe

I think people can be quite funny.

I can just imagine the people at my work arguing the same thing and I'd imagine they would come to the same conclusion, just for the sake of it! "ooh, you did more that just snap the shutter on the camera, no good really"

When in fact even their digital cameras probably do some sort of in-camera optimisations and the like. They also would probably not even consider the images they see day to day, in the newspapers, magazines and behind frames, a lot have been post processed in some way.

It seems to be some people’s way to look for the wrong in things instead of just admiring things for what they are and being constructive. I know some of us like to be perfectionists but I'd hope that you don't sacrifice opportunities in the process.

from a guy who self prescribed "my pics are nowhere near as good as yours, but ..."

He basically was of the opinion that the use of CPL, graduated ND's ANY filter whatsoever, and ANY photoshopping whatsoever, is wrong ... now my take on it is that I DO use filters and often i prefer slightly exxagerated effects (rich colours, or very darkened skies etc.) but also use of UV filter / CPL can certainly be used to make a photo as "natural / real" as possible ... likewise with indoor filters to stop cameras getting tricked by flouro lighting, etc.

No camera can match the DOF and Dynamic Range of our eyes ... so i put it to him that use of a grad ND for a very bright sky would infact produce a photo closer to the eye's truth, than not ... but nope, stubborn as hell, would prefer a very dark subject against a harsh sky, or a normal subject against a totally blown white sky, than an evenly balanced and evenly coloured (as possible.) photo of the situation.

*shakes head*

Not post processing is like not getting your negatives processed into film!

ive got no problem with being anti-photoshop in terms of modifing the content of the image ... but to deny it or disregard an image because its had basic photoshop PP done to it is just plain stupid, and most likely baited.

I mean if you wanted black and white images, what do we have to do, stick our D70 into a chemical bath and hope the CF card loses its colour?

Do any of these people ever use flash?
How much more "unnatural" can you get.

G'day all,
Wow... Thanks for the replies and feedback, has been very enlightening going through your experiences from the various aspects and backgrounds... Tis much appreciated...

I'll not change the way I approach things, the viewpoints of the group concerned simply showed either ignorance of the same things happening to their "happy-snaps" at the lab they're unaware of, or were trying to justify the way their's came out. Strewth, the amount of PP the camera does is nothing short of amazing from a technical aspect... Nothing wrong with using their P&S cameras, it was the operator who took an uninteresting image viewpoint. All it would take would be to take the shot using the exact same cheap instamatic P&S but simply think for only a moment about how to take the shot (angle, lighting, composition etc.) to make it interesting.

I've really enjoyed reading your feedback, thanks all for your input...

Cheers,
Mudder

Just say to them "basically if you shoot jpeg on your digital, then youre having the PP done for you, personally i like to shoot raw or conservatively and PP the images later. If you still use film, then this post processing is done for you, without your interaction, at the film processing lab. If you shoot raw digital and convert straight to tiff, then youre getting close to being pedantically pure, but youre denying your photography its full course." They might aswell go back to film, and get their negatives processed with battery acid, no?

its just either a) ignorance or b) idiots! ... some people love to be negative on things that they dont even know about, its like they think it makes them appear worldly, or elite, a cut above the rest, eccentric, i dont know. They hear someone else say something, so they take it on as their opinion ... yes most annoying, but a couple of minutes with some well placed points and usually they stand there looking highly embarrassed.

They dont realise theres a difference between the true need to "clean up" digital images, and the fullblown modification of images in PS ... so they hear of photoshop being involved and immediately label the latter.

It depends on what the experiential joy of the principal of photography refers to. Is the virtue of photography strictly between the photographer and the scene? Is it between the viewer and the photo (subject), is it between the viewer and photographer? Somewhere in the middle is where most people place the virtue of photography. IE: certain photos no one would admire no matter how many hours they were post processed. A crappy photo is a crappy photo regardless of the photographical virtues imposed. Some photos (many of our dogs) are terrific to those that know the dog (subject viewer relationship). Perhaps some think that since a photographer has gone to great lengths, the photo should be admired even though it's mediocre. I'm confusing myself now. Is it the experience of snapping the scene, or is it the experience of viewing the masterpiece afterwards? Why does a viewer judge a photo based on the artist's method. That's like me saying I like one piece of wood sculpture because it was made with a 19th century saw, using no electricity (though we're always sold on something that's "handcrafted").

It sounds like what happened here is that the person was looking for an excuse for not so great composition, and the people he told about PP consider PP to be some extreme manipulation of images, like, "oh anyone can do anything with Post processing"...

I look at movies. Cheap special effects ruins a picture. Old style puppeting effects are retro and campy and can be fun, really good special effects like Lord of the Rings, or The Day after Tomorrow can almost salvage an otherwise hopless movie so the line is never easily drawn.

My bottom line, whatever you can do to get the image on paper that you imagine. If it is too much, then people won't like it because it looks like too much has been done to it. But if people don't like something because of how it came to be in my opinion shows a lack of the ability to judge good art.

PP isn't just cheating, you're cheating yourself if you don't.

phillipb wrote:Do any of these people ever use flash?
How much more "unnatural" can you get.

golden point, ill raise that next time someone says the use of a filter is unnatural. (even when using the filter helps tame the dynamic range so an image can actually BE more natural.)

dooda : i think its a matter of balance, personal choice and context.

But basically to say that ANY post processing, even non intrusive post processing, is cheating ... is flawed & ignorant, especially when the persona saying it shoots JPEG !!

Just to add another spoke to this wheel, many of us in this thread have said things like "basic PP is OK" or "just a cleanup in PS".

Take a look at this image:


If I were to present this in a body of my work as a photographer (with no commentary about PP or EXIF for that matter; purely as "my art"), is it OK or not?

not sure i understand your point, but id say it depends who youre "presenting" it to ... if it were to me, then i couldnt care less... I would be interested all the same though, to know.

If it is a hot air baloon transposed onto a sky from a different photo, then I wouldnt respect the image as much, because its true (bit like looking at a waxworks of a person than the real thing.)... BUT that is only my opinion, so go for it.

I do modify my own images beyond the status quo of "just levels, saturation, sharpening" sometimes, like a fake grad ND ... but never the actual content changed. (well, except to blur a vehicle number plate.)

I think theres nothing wrong with people being oposed to heavy photoshopping, such as fake grad ND's, inverting colours, changing the content around etc ... im not opposed myself, but i can understand why others are.

Being opposed to "post processing" for subtle and necessary things (levels, saturation, sharpening of raw digital.) however is a different thing altogether, its crazy!

I have two comments:

1. I have heard many rumblings from the film devotees about digital - the basic gist is that it can't be compared to 'real' film photography because whatever your mistakes you can fix them up later on you computer whereas film and slide film takes 'real skill'.

I don't take this too much to heart but I often wonder what the pioneer photographers with glass plates and bulky equipment and one flash bulbs and tricky long exposures (I am not up on a lot of photo history but you get the idea) would think of modern film photographers with their exposure readers, lightweight 35mm cameras, variety of film and portable flash systems. Perhaps they would accuse them of not being 'real photographers'.

The point is that technology moves on and whatever tools you employ it is the artist using those tools who makes a difference.

2. Of course PP has been happening long before digital and not just minor dodging and burning - I have read about darkroom methodologies including exposing through translucent material to get 'diffusion', ' glow' and 'texture' effects, multiple exposures, using 'masks' (that is the old fashioned piece of black card) to create composite pictures. Polaroid film I understand can be treated so that it can be pushed and pulled like the liquify tool in PS. Would people accuse such darkroom practices as 'cheating'? I don't think so.

Perhaps they may feel that PP in PS or similar software is too easy and takes no skill but that myth can be easy dispelled by placing a computer literate non photographer in front of the screen and asking them PP an image. There is no magic 'make my photo great' button. There is plenty of pixel junk around which serves as evidence that you do need skills to produce truely wonderful digital photographs, or digital art for that matter.

darb wrote:If it is a hot air baloon transposed onto a sky from a different photo, then I wouldnt respect the image as much, because its true (bit like looking at a waxworks of a person than the real thing.)... BUT that is only my opinion, so go for it.

Thanx for your reply darb. Please don't take any offence as I express my point of view. In my world, everyone has a right to express their opinion, even when they're wrong!

I am just interested in furthering this debate, 'cos I think it is fairly important.

Nowhere in my camera manual is it written "Thou shalt not make any photos of things that are not real". I'd probably ignore it if it did.

Would you stop an artist from creating something imaginary with a paintbrush?

People portray their dreams in Poetry, Painting why not Photography? (Those Ps again )

I'd love to be able to interpret my dreams photographically. Not sure that people would want to see them, but I s'pose that's another story.

cricket fan : i think you might have misread me ... im not offended, and im pretty much on your side mate ... i dont think *anything* is offlimts basically, its art, but others disagree. I personally dont really like "doctored" photos (ie, where something is added.) but by the same token i dont advocate that others shouldnt like or do it.

I DO like exaggeration and my own arty additions to the photo, in terms of technique ... and I've been knocked for it, which is fair call (sort of.) ... but if someone says "you sharpened your image, youre a cheat" then pffft, they have no clue

Ps i dont knock anyone who criticises or disagrees with massive doctoring either, thats opinion ... but i DO knock them if they criticise minimilistic processing such as levels, sharpening ... because those particular processes are fundamental to digital imaging and the logic that its "cheating" is totally flawed, and unfair.

a bit off topic, but this image i have had some "purists" get angry about ... because they didnt like the non realsitic arty farty approach i took. (cokin grad ND backed onto to a Circ polariser.) ... its not photoshopped apart from sharpening, i did my special effects with actual equipment, which throws even more meat onto the debate bbq.

darb wrote: i dont think *anything* is offlimts basically, its art, but others disagree.

a bit off topic, but this image i have had some "purists" get angry about ... because they didnt like the non realsitic arty farty approach i took. (cokin grad ND backed onto to a Circ polariser.) ... its not photoshopped apart from sharpening, i did my special effects with actual equipment, which throws even more meat onto the debate bbq.

Seems like we're both walkin' the talk. I guess we are all different after all, and some will like what others will not.

I'd hate to think that the only valid point in owning a camera would be to act as a photojournalist (Not that there is anything wrong with that fine occupation, I hasten to add ), and only record reality.

It would be a boring world indeed.

G'day,

Wow, Darb, I really like the mood or "feeling" of the end result, very nice indeed... I very much enjoy "country" or rural setting shots... Reminds me of our heritage and history that seems so easily lost and fogotten... Hence my fetish with old farm sites and old run-down huts, railway stations and things... Could have worse fetishes!!!

Also, I hope I haven't caused too much of a hornets nest here guys... Twas only meant as a simple, genuine question to learn of your experiences, backgrounds and thoughts from you more experienced photog's etc. Hope I haven't caused too much of a stir here... Spose it's a bit like the ol' favorite, should you use a UV filter for lens protection.....

Cheers,
Mudder

cricketfan : yeh that was my thinking ... how boring if all photos are to be simple "as natural as possible"

For me, photography is about expressing someting ... and photos will never match our eyes and memory, so a bit of exxageration, for me, goes a long way in explaining a scene / sending a message.

Mudder : noones angry or anything here mate, its just a healthy discussion (so far, we're all in the same camp ... noone is actually disagreeing on anything really, different takes on it perhaps.) .. no need to apologise, this is normal calm chat

mudder
I think it was a valid question, and a good one to debate.

This is a forum - there will not be consensus on every issue - that would be Blandsville.

I think it is good to think about these issues from time to time.

Once again we have seen that, in this forum, controversy and debate don't develop into flame wars.

What's your next question?

cricketfan : i dont think anyone is actually disagreeing with each other anyway, are they? I havent taken issue with anything you've said ... other than to say i dont personally like doctored photo, but its only opinion. (i dont like the colour brown much either, but who cares ! )

darb
Sorry - meant to say before that I liked your treatment of the tree.

One tiny point that might improve it even more would be to burn in or crop out those slightly blown-out areas of grass in the bottom right.

The bare limbs of the tree look great against that sky though.

yeah its a bit blown down there ... might try the crop, cheers.

what about this crop ;

I think the pic needs the grass at the bottom for balance, so I prefer the original to this one.

How about either: a vertical crop at the RHS of the tree branches, all the way down the length of the photo? would cut out the lightest area of grass.
or
Try burning in the grass in PS to make it slightly darker, or use the smudge tool to darken slightly.

This PP is good fun, isn't it?

yah i'll fiddle more later

just got a copy of curve surgery, goign to have a play with it now.

Great question mudder!!!!!

My first part of the answer is NO to a degree.......
I will post a bit more to that later when I have a little more time to think about it.
This is a great thread for all to read & learn from

Cheers
Ray

Mudder,

As others have said, this is a great question; thanx for raising it.

As others have already posted, I too like to make the compariison between film and digital processing. But I'm going to take it just a tad further than the other comments I've seen thus far: what, exactly, is meant by the term "post processing"?

Is it not any processing that takes place subsequent to the making of the image?

If we take that definition (prove me wrong) then even the simplest and most basic D&P done at any minilab is surely PP. Putting it another way, the only images that have had no PP applied, are the undeveloped exposures on a roll of film. Ask your colleagues at work to show you their images that have not yet had any PP applied, and watch them blanche as you unroll their exposed but unprocessed (anyone remember that term from film days?) from its can, thus fogging it beyond retrieval.

So, no, it's not cheating. Even manipulation of the image isn't cheating, per se; the question is what do you want to achieve? I've made some images of Leigh's mum climbing out of a kid's sneaker. I've had an image published of the turret on Sydney Tower halfway up the tower.

Neither of those events actually occurred, although the images representing them did exist. Was it cheating, or was it simply processing the images to the point where I had the image I desired?

WOW! What a thread. Everyone has obviously put a lot of thought into this one.

I believe that PP is necessary, whether it be film at a photolab, within a digital camera, or in a PC using PS. To me it is all same. The PS method just gives more control. Someone shooting jpegs in a P&S cannot tell me that no PP has been done. The in camera PP of jpegs is comprehensive. Film does not become a photograph without PP.

There comes a point though, where I believe that a photograph becomes art. That point, for me, is when the photograph is no longer representative of what I would have seen if I was standing at that point where the photo was taken. To replace the sky in a ballon shot is OK with me. Same for blurring a background.

There have been many famous "photographs" that have been displayed as art. Did PP take place? You can bet on it. Is the shot representative. In many cases (I am thinking Ansell Adams) the answer is yes.
The work of the great film photographers (such as Ansell Adams) does beg the question. "Art or photography"? I would say in many cases there work is photography, and their art is photography, or is it that their photography is a form of art??? More questions.

Cheers

Matt

This is a fascinating thread and thanks for starting it mudder.

OK, although this example is not exactly related to photography, was Andy Warhol "cheating" when he took existing images of things such as Marylin Monroe and Campbell soup tins and "reinterpreted" them? Yes, what he created went beyond photography into the realms of art, but if people found them asthetically pleasing, so what!!

As an amateur who has neither the talent nor the time to make photography a career, I'm not at all fussed about taking whatever image I manage to capture and try and turn the proverbial "sows ear into a silk purse". Like all of us, I want that perfect pic that I can blow up and hang with pride in my loungeroom and if I get it, I'm damm sure I'll PP it for days until I'm perfectly happy.

If that makes me a cheat, I'll be a happy cheat because I'll have an original piece of art on my wall that I enjoy

johndec wrote: Yes, what he created went beyond photography into the realms of art, but if people found them asthetically pleasing, so what!!:D

Why are photography and art two completely different life forms?

When does poetry become literature? When does composing a song become music?

More questions!

I don't really know where the line is.

For myself, I have certain views about where I feel that changing some of my photos reaches cheating, this can change with the shot and its purpose - eg if I'm deliberately shooting to achieve a particular effect and miss it, but then I put it in using photoshop, I feel as if I'd cheated and should keep trying until I do achieve the effect "naturally". On the other hand, if I'm simply trying to achieve an artistic result, then I think anything goes. If I'm trying to rescue an important moment that I didn't capture very will I take somewhat of a middle view about what's acceptable before the outcome is not a true reflection of what I was trying to capture.

I do know that the one thing I really like about the photographers on this site is that they don't seem to treat photography as a competition (unless of course, we're talking about the competition itself - although even there the desire to win doesn't seem to overshadow the desire to be part of a community that raises the standard of work of all its members).

Regarding mudder's original post, if two people showed me photos they were clearly proud of and looked great, I'd be more interested in the individual merits of each photo rather than a comparison of their relative worth.

As to how the photos came to look the way they did, I'd be interested in that only from the point of view of how I might be able to achieve a certain effect as well.

I think the concept of cheating only arises if someone feels they are in competition with you. So it's valid for a me to feel that I've cheated in my own post processing, because the attempts to improve my technique are comparable to a competition with myself. I don't, however, think it's valid for another person to decide when any sort of post processing is cheating (unless the post processing breached the rules of a particular competition). For me, the scenario mudder described said more about his colleague than it did about mudder's photos.

ru32day wrote:I think the concept of cheating only arises if someone feels they are in competition with you.

Interesting comment.

Ultimately, you're saying it comes down to ego, perhaps? I can accept that, and it helps explain why others might call (the use of) PP cheating. They either can't or don't know how to do it, or they're too lazy or jealous.

Or just plain ignorant of the fact that photographic image that's in a viewable format has undergone at least some minimal form of PP.

My personal viewpoint is similar to what other people have already stated, and that is anything that can be performed in a darkroom with film does not cross the line when the same techniques are used in a digital darkroom.

I put my foot down on the removal of anything from the scene, except with the use of cropping.

But that is my viewpoint, I would not what to prevent people from expressing their artistic flaire by making sweeping changes to an images as long at this is stated from the outset.

The keyword that has been used over and over is "Art". The function of art is more to elisit a emotional responce. The responce may be just to better remember a captured moment in time or the feeling you had when your first saw a beautiful scene or flower. If you don't use all the tools at your disposal that is a betrayal of the "art" you want.
I will gladly punch up color or clone a dead leaf out of a shot if I get the feeling I want
I can see 2 cavemen looking at a cave drawing 1 to the other "Yes his is better but he cheated he used a burnt stick I am a purest and only used my fingers"
Again talking art not using the camera to record a historic moment in time that has to be true to the moment but even then if PP is used to bring out details and features is that cheating
If the end results are what you want does it matter if it was "Out of the box" I don't think so

I guess the reason why we are even discussing this is because photography is unique in that it can serve both as art and as a means to record a moment in time. May be if we could distinguish between the two, it would be easier to judge a photo as say yes this is realistic or no this is cheating, but unfortunately there is no such distinction with the exception of photojournalism so you will always get differences of opinion.