Are we cheating?

[twoaussies]

Instead of admiring my photographs, a friend told me I was 'cheating' by manipulating photographs. According to him I should be a good enough photographer to compose photographs and accept what appears. My contention is that if I dont get a sunny day, then I can make the sky blue; or if there is someone in a picture I dont want, then presto magic, the person has gone.
I know what everyone on this board will say, but I need a smart come back to such criticism.
Jean

[CarolLHB]

Hi Jean,

My first response to your friend wouldn't be polite, so let me share what I hope is a somewhat more intelligent one. Even Ansel Adams and the rest of the greatest film photogs ever did plenty of manipulating in the dark room, such as burning, dodging and color corrections. Does your friend think that the photos he/she sees in Time and Life and all the other mags come right from the camera to the page? No way-even before digicams. And why in the world would anyone, ever, want to put limits on their own talent and creativity. Digital imaging opens a whole new frontier of possibilities to those of us who choose to keep spreading our wings.

PS-personally, I think your friend is just jealous...
:evil:

[twoaussies]

Hi Carol: Love the jealousy idea. I shall use that. Actually I asked him if he thought all the heads on people in the Intruder newspapers belonged to the bodies.

[willpresley]

Cheating is defined as breaking rules to gain something.

We are not breaking rules, we are helping ourselves to a better understanding and more worthwile result from our initial shot with the camera.

[CarolLHB]

Good one :twisted: ...I never though of that!

You are so right, Will.

[drummermom]

I would argue that one enhances the other. Here's an example: Last night I took 100 or so photos at a football game. Knowing that my options were to either get the lighting right in the camera or have to edit those photos in PS Elements to adjust the levels on them, I spent about 20 minutes ahead of time working with my camera settings to get the best lighting conditions I could. If I had been using film, I would have done the same, however....the lighting was just pretty much difficult and sometimes impossible to balance well, so I settled for what I could and plan to make enhancements to the best photos in Elements before uploading to the web.

Had I been shooting film, I would have had to do some extensive dodging, burning and developing manipulations in spite of the careful attention to lighting as well.

This debate is an old one -- it gets thrown around about digital vs. film photos as well, but I see that most die-hard professional film photogs have at least one decent digital camera in their equipment bag now...

Besides, who says film photographers don't use Photoshop? LOL.....Photoshop was around long before digital cameras were ubiquitous...can you say...SCANNER????

Tell him it's those film cheaters that drove the invention in the first place.

:D :lol:

[Jodi Frye]

Honestly, comments like that generally tend to come from jealousy. Let it go. It's too bad your friend chooses to be negative instead of supportive...don't worry...i know all to well that it';s a personality like any other...love him and forget it.

[GaryK]

Jean

What did you cheat at???
You created an image YOU like..a work of art if you will.
Who cares how.

[Wendy]

Jean,

Just take no notice .. he probably is jealous.

Enhancing of images has been done all throughout the history of photography so take no notice.

I would, however, take some images of him and use them for your Christmas Card ... with maybe some slight enhancement added to the images .... like a new body :shock: :shock:


Wendy

[GaryK]

I am prolly more ticked about this than Jean :lol:

I don't know why :? :? :D :D

I have never even had anybody say it to me :evil: :evil:

I am sitting here laughing at myself for getting so worked up about it.

HELP ME :lol: :lol: :lol: I think I'm losing it :lol: :lol: :lol:

[willpresley]

Oh Wendy -- what I could do with that advice :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[virgo1]

Jean,

Enhance and bring out your minds eye.

Wendy... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Eva

[Wendy]

Ummmm ...

Revenge by Elements :lol: :lol: :lol:


Wendy

[willpresley]

Well now that would be thread of an ominous sort. :cry:

[GaryK]

A whole gaggle of Jodi's elements addicts, swarming down on everybody :lol: :lol:

[willpresley]

Gary -- ROTFLMAO -- what a mental picture that created.

[Pauline]

The way I see it the big difference now is that the "average Joe" can now do what only the professional could do. Also, no one was aware that the professional was doing it!

I must say I prefer my digital camera and elements to all the rolls of film I took to get a few half decent pictures.

There are many ways to manipulate a picture. To make it look better, to add something, delete something, be creative with it......I think it's wonderful. The world is moving ahead, it's about time your friend realized that! The nice thing is now we can fix our own photos up to remove blemishes, wrinkles and whatever else we want. The only people who should be upset by this are the professionals who charged big money for the kinds of things we do for fun!

Tell your friend it's ART!! And it truly is. The manipulating to make it look real and believeable takes talent. Maybe he should give it a go.

[Wendy]

Pauline ...

... I agree with you :)


Wendy

[CarolLHB]

Not a gaggle, an ARMY!

How would your friend look with Chewbacca's head??? :lol:

[GaryK]

Carol

I was trying to come up with an "Elements" type of word, but I was having a brain freeze, and gaggle was what popped in. :lol: :lol:

[Al]

Cheating, huh, hmm, :? how about that ND filter that he used so half the scene was not blown out? How about the polarizer he used to get that blue sky. Is that cheating?

Point is, you both have information you should be sharing with each other. You two should be helping one another, not looking for ways to be little each other.

I am going to guess that this is a good friend of yours that is not going to go away anytime soon. With this in mind, as you dis-agree with him, listen to what he has to say, try to learn something from him, he might appreciate it and return the favor. If not, well than thats his loss not yours, as I said, you both can learn from each other.

[Grant]

Jean

Cheating ... hummm a very interesting idea. I had never thought of this as a problem before as all photographs are an illusion.

George N. Barnard, One of Mathew B. Brady's boys, combined Civil War shot with photographs of clouds where his images cheating? Julia Margaret Cameron had her staff pose in reenactment of fairy tales, cheating? Man Ray almost invented solarization and he is called and artist not a cheat. Dorthea Lange once moved a cows skull thee feet for better composition and it was accused of being fraudulent. How much did she bend the truth of the plight of dirty thirties ... heck it wasn't like she move it from the land of plenty to a dust bowl. Yousuf Karsh pulled a cigar out of Winston Churchill's mouth to make him look angry, although at the time he wasn't, but that image is now a classic not a cheat.

When we approach a subject we come with preconceived ideas, we select our view of the composition, choose what is to be the exposure pick aperture and shutter , and focusing and end up with a flat representation of a three dimensional world that has little to do with reality. Now after we have done all this "cheating" we may elect to "cheat "yet again using Elements to get something we like. We start with reality and end up with an illusion, so where is the cheating.

We all set rules, consciously or unconsciously, upon what we want to do in creating images. If your friend has a different set of rules than you do be glad for him but keep to your own rules. After all if you like sunny blue skies who is to say you are wrong.

Grant

[mrdonb]

Hum
And you call that a friend?

[MikeH]

This is subject gets debated quite regularly and always generates some interesting views, although here (not surprisingly) we've got strong pro Photoshop lobby!!

I have discussed this with someone who is a very serious amateur photographer; actually I'd call him semi pro (he makes some money from it). He shoots in both digital & film and uses Photoshop to retouch and process his pictures, so he claims to have a “balanced view”… His comments relate to pure photography, not art work or photo montages.

Firstly, he believes there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed… that line separates using Photoshop to retouch, edit and process photos from manipulation to create an “illicit image” – a photo allegedly taken with the camera but where it wasn’t possible to achieve that image. He enters photography competitions regularly and it frustrates him that the advent of digital means his photography skills are more and more competing with others’ ability to use Photoshop.

He also believes that Photoshop is deskilling photography… that what takes time and skill out there in the field can too easily be replicated on a PC. An extreme example he gives is that he can take care to get the right depth of field when taking the picture, but a complete novice can walk up, take a snap shot, then go home and achieve the same thing with a layer mask and some Gaussian Blur… (good job he hasn’t seen too many of my pictures then :lol: ).

I obviously use PSE3 to do all sorts of things to my photos... but I am starting to see his point about photography skills vs ability in Photoshop. Looking through photography magazines I find myself asking more often – was that taken on the day or has it been photoshopped?

What bought this home recently was looking through Photography Monthly's "Photographer Of The Year 2005" round one top 20 entries. There are some stunning photos... but at least four of them have been blatantly photoshopped - if you lived there every day for 12 months you wouldn't see that image... (well one of them may be induced by copious amounts of alcohol :lol:)

Mike

[Brenda]

I just have to ask how is it cheating? you are taking a picture and making it how you want it look, like every day you change your hair,makeup e t c is cheating when a woman puts on makeup to change her look no cause she is still the same person just prettier,
And thats what were doing to pictures making the more than what they look like. :)

[druhl]

'Cheating' to me conjurs images of taking credit for something you haven't done. Taking someone else's photo and claiming it's yours - THAT'S cheating.

I hope my photographs convey something. Writing is work to me, my painting is woefully inadequate and I can barely play the radio. When I look at a block of granite all I see is how heavy it is. I believe those artists (writers, painter, musicians, sculptors etc) also hope to convey something. Is it cheating to embellish the story? Was that really Mona Lisa's smile? Who was Major Tom and were his circuits really dead (Space Oddity / David Bowie)? Does your acquaintance believe those artists were cheating as well? What about movies? Don't get me started on the nightly news! Give me a break - we're not testifying, we're expressing ourselves.

It's not CHEATING it's CREATING!

Granted, this is just one person's opinion. Your acquaintance is entitled to his as well (regardless of how narrow minded it may be)

Donn

[Wendy]

Well I don't consider using Photoshop to change images to be cheating BUT I do think that entering heavily "photoshopped" images in photography competitions shouldn't be allowed. Thats against the spirit of that type of competition ... my view is that its just wrong


Wendy

[tfry]

Stick a dropshadow on your friend, then pin him to a scrapbooking page....

He'll look good and be outa your hair. :wink:

I don't feel that striving to make the best possible presentation, whether it be a photograph, a movie or commerical cheating.

To me that's going the extra mile instead of just saying "Here, this is what you get since you insisted I shoot your wedding facing into the Flordia sun at high noon...."

[Pauline]

Mike, I can see your friend's point regarding entering photo contests with untouched photographs vs photoshopped. In a way, they really are two different things I think. I am a very amature photographer. Don't know anything about shutter speeds, aperature, etc. Have never developed film, so I don't know about that process. BUT I do know that I am enjoying photoshop and it's just another way of making a photo look better.

I think as an artist who perfects their work there can be problems. An example is that I do decorative painting on wood. Painstaking time is spent with the details. I go to a craft show, and have people look at a hand painted trunk and comment on how expensive it is while they are holding their $45 trunk with WALL PAPER glued to it. That person couldn't tell the difference between a piece of wall paper and something labourously hand painted. They would never be my customer. I had to get over the insult of those who couldn't see that there was a difference.

How many masters do their own work COMPLETELY. Many famous well known artists had apprentices working under them and they did the painting and sculpting, and the artists got all the credit. That to me is more like cheating, because they aren't even doing the work but they are getting the credit for it.

[twoaussies]

Hi Everyone: I sure opened a great subject. Love the phrase "I am CREATING not cheating".
My friend is anxious to receive his Christmas card and wonders what head I shall put on him. Without argumentative friends life would be boring, we can have serious disagreements on subjects but leave each other with a hug.
Great comments from all. Jean - an Aussie now living in Florida.

[Wendy]

Jean,

So glad that you and your friend can have friendly disagreements ... and liquify can do a wonderful job on distorting faces :) :)

http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1922&highlight=fun+faces


Wendy

[twoaussies]

Wendy: Great thought. I was going to give him a devil's head - but then thought the Devil might have copyrighted his image!!! Now friend shall be liquified. Your instructions went into my file box.

[Wendy]

Jean ...

Wjen you have "liquified" him ... do let us see the result :)


Wendy

[mrod]

Wendy :eek: :eek: :eek: :)

I would, however, take some images of him and use them for your Christmas Card ... with maybe some slight enhancement added to the images .... like a new body :shock: :shock:

[Karin Sue]

According to him I should be a good enough photographer to compose photographs and accept what appears.
Actually what appears depends an awful lot on who develops & prints the photo. And you can't avoid cropping since so often your paper will have a different aspect ration than the original.

Photoshopping is only cheating if you represent it as an unretouched shot. We who use this forum are more likely to boast about how we used PSE to fix a bad photo or enhance a good photo so I doubt there are any cheaters here.

I would consider it equally cheating if someone were to represent an excellent unretouched photo as having been restored from a damaged or poor original.

[Antonio]

:rolleyes: Photography should not have been invented! People have become lazy about developing artistic skills.

But, actually, it's color pigments that shouldn't have been invented. Scratching out pictures with a piece of charcoal should be enough for anyone.

Anyone lazy that is ... If carving images into rock was good enough for our ancesters...

Hold it! Why images at all ... aren't the discriptive powers of our languages enough?

Or we could just point!:o