Is it "cheating"?

[dewmuw]

I just bought a book called Untamed by Steve Bloom. He is a renowned wildlife photographer. The book is glossy, massive too and contains some wonderful images from across the world.

However, on closer inspection it is clear that some of the pictures are montages of work. In one, for example, snow has been added to add drama to two polar bears fighting.

It left me wondering how many of the photos were genuine and how many were true depictions of a real life scene and how many creations from PSCS! The book contains a caveat (which I didn't spot before I bought it) that the photos represent the true nature of animals.

I bought the book believing that I was buying photos of animals in the wild but now feel that the book may or may not contain accurate representations. If I'd have known in advance I wouldn't have bought it.

What do you think?

[Ranger187]

Just about every photograph is "touched up" in one way or the other. Sometimes the picture is a hair off and you have to manipulate it to your liking and then you are branding it an "edited" image.

I don't think this is cheating. I think it's correcting what they personally perceive as the perfect picture.

But that's my opinion.

[dewmuw]

Just about every photograph is "touched up" in one way or the other. Sometimes the picture is a hair off and you have to manipulate it to your liking and then you are branding it an "edited" image.

I don't think this is cheating. I think it's correcting what they personally perceive as the perfect picture.

But that's my opinion.
Well there is touching up and then there is adding in snow that didn't exist or even adding in animlas that were photographed elsewhere. I would call this photographic art and sell it as such - rather than as true wildlife photography.

[Radtech1]

Interesting short essay on the subject on LL.

(Kind of funny that the example you gave has polar bears!)

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml

Rad

[dewmuw]

Interesting short essay on the subject on LL.

(Kind of funny that the example you gave has polar bears!)

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml

Rad
Nice link, thanks. It is coincidence about the polar bear!

[aam1234]

If it is as you discribes it Damian then it's definitely cheating in my book. To touch up / enhance a photo is one thing, adding things to it is another.

[dewmuw]

If it is as you discribes it Damian then it's definitely cheating in my book. To touch up / enhance a photo is one thing, adding things to it is another.
For me it undermined my appreciation of the book. I started to look at every photo and think "is that dolphin really there" and "is that chimp really doing that". Don't get me wrong, the images are fantastic, but tarnished in my view.

[Scottes]

Yeah, aam, but at what point does "touch up" become "cheat" ? Michael has some very good points in his article.

Mind you, I like to think of myself as one who would never ever do such a thing. I don't even like to crop if I can help it, and very rarely do. But it's a matter of degree here, too. If I have to crop 50 pixels from an edge that's OK, but 500 pixels is a failed photograph in my opinion. Yeah, sometimes this seems silly as hell, but other times it's just a lie and I won't do it. (Or if I do, I certainly mention it when sharing the image.)

Yet I have no issue at all when adjusting contrast or exposure.

Go figure.


I'll have to say, I don't like the "enhancements" in Damian's example with the polar bears. If I bought that book I'd be upset. But I guess that if it was obvious or stated I might not have so much to complain about.

[dewmuw]

I'll have to say, I don't like the "enhancements" in Damian's example with the polar bears. If I bought that book I'd be upset. But I guess that if it was obvious or stated I might not have so much to complain about.
I should point out that the book is wrapped in plastic when purchased, so I couldn't even flip through. I bought it because of the guys reputation! :(

[sGu]

That's wrong for sure, if he can place snow background on an image, why should people bother go travelling thousands of miles to capture wildlife? They might as well go to nearest zoo take a few shots and manipulate it at home, save time and money.

There were similar affairs happened a while back with National Geographics, photographers manipulated supplied image and lied about it, later on, NG had to send out apologies to the public and ensure similar events would never happen again. I'll post link if I can dig them up.

[aam1234]

What I understood from Damian is that the author of the book did option no. 10 in Michael's article. Adding things to a photo that didn't exist is still cheating to me.

[IndyJeff]

It is not cheating.....it is unethical, plain and simple. It is one thing to enhance color, sharpness or contrast in order to make an image more true to life but, when you add something that doesn't exist in the original scene then it can no longer be called a photograph but a compilation of such. As I understand it, there is a disclaimer in the book which states that such practices are applied in this book.
If you were to submit a photo for editorial purposes and it was published only later to be discovered that you added something to it to make it more life like or interesting, you would be lucky to sell a postage stamp to that editor if he were standing at a mailbox and needed one, let alone another photo for publication. The photo must represent a true depiction of a situation as it existed when the photo was taken.

Cropping is a whole different issue tho Scott. Take a look at a newspaper or magazine, almost evey image is cropped. It doesn't alter the original subject, only zeros in on it. Cuts out background which has nothing to do with the subject, reduces the amount of space needed for the picture in the paper/mag and gives the reader a good view of what they want to see.
Now not everything you see in a paper is cropped, sometimes it can be shot tight enough that cropping isn't needed.

[Scottes]

Cropping is a whole different issue tho Scott.

Oh, I agree. It's just one of my hang-ups. I want the contents of the image to be as close as possible to what hit the sensor. I will certainly process/enhance those contents, but I just don't like to crop.

Strangely enough, if I swapped my 20D for a 1DsMkII and cropped out 8 megapixels I'd still consider it cheating. I'm not sure why I think this way, but it might be the medication... :)

[IndyJeff]

LOL Ok Scott it has now become my life's mission to convince you that cropping is acceptable.

Lets take for example a shot of a batter in softball. Which one of these images do you think is the best? Which one is mom more likely to buy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/IndyJeff/IMG_1465.jpg


Or the cropped version which shows a better more clearly defined expression of the batter. Lost is a lot of the background clutter and more attention is drawn to the ball, the bat and the face.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/IndyJeff/IMG_1465c.jpg

Now if I would have shot a sequence instead of firing one frame I probably would have had ball on bat and could have cropped this shot even more, gotten a tighter look at the face and still had the ball and bat in the shot and had a better image all together.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am all for PS work in ohotos...

To me it has to do with the intended purpose of the image.. any photo that is a "fine art" for instance,.. the skys the limit as far as manipulation IMHO...

But .. anything with a sense of journalism.. needs limitations on the post processing.

In this case.. I find wildlife photography to be "semi-journalism"... ie: we are attempting to capture a scene in nature.. not a scene created in PS,..

[Lisard]

Lets take for example a shot of a batter in softball. Which one of these images do you think is the best? Which one is mom more likely to buy?


I wouldn't rely on mom's opinion of the image.:) They tend to drool over "Anne Gedes-like" photos with wings and tailes attached to their children in PhotoShop. I am quite tired of mothers who come to me with a cheap print out from mall photo where kid looks like a bug or a kitten asking to to the same thing on my photos. Grrrrrrr.....

This is off-top though..

I agree that ading the object to the photo that originally weren't there is cheating. Except wings or angel halo to the baby, of course.. :)

[Jon]

I agree that ading the object to the photo that originally weren't where is cheating. Except wings or angel holo to the baby, of course.. :)
or horns? >;{)#

[Scottes]

LOL Ok Scott it has now become my life's mission to convince you that cropping is acceptable.

Good luck. I can be stubborn.


Lets take for example a shot of a batter in softball. Which one of these images do you think is the best? Which one is mom more likely to buy?

Who cares? Who cares? You cropped for gawd's sake...

:-)

Seriously, though, it's a hang-up of *mine* and not one that I press on other people. If I crop, it's just about always because I...

...failed to get close enough (wildlife, ya know).
...failed to notice the tree in the corner.
...failed to create a decent composition.
...failed to utilize my equipment to the best of it's abilities.
...failed to... well, something. But I failed it.

Ya know, I usually fail in one of those ways regardless of what I do, so why exacerbate the failure by cropping? It's just another nail in the coffin, really.

Given ultimate perfection in every photographic endeavor there is no reason to crop.
Ever.

But reality does have a way of creeping into my day, so I understand it, I just don't *like* it.

I will crop sometimes, but usually not much if anyone ever sees it. I'd say that 5% of my images have had an 'extensive" crop (more than 20% of the pixels removed). Perhaps 10% have less than that. Leaving about 85% of my images crop-free.

But that's just me. If you want to crop, go for it. You will not hear me say that it's wrong to do, and I will not like the shot any less because it's cropped. All you'll hear me say is that *I* don't like to crop *my* images.

[IndyJeff]

Who cares? Who cares? You cropped for gawd's sake...



My name is Jeff and I crop

<crowd> Hello Jeff </crowd>



Really when you think about what is done in the cropping, it is not to add anything or make a photo that does not represent a reality, it is if anything to purge objects that have no relevance to the actual photo. It is not always possible to get in postion of where you can shoot tight on everything so, just like adjusting light, dark, and color saturation cropping is another editting tool.


Come on Scott, say it....I can crop and not feel guilty.

[aam1234]

I'm a noob so my opinion doesn't carry much weight, but I understand what Scottes mean.

[IndyJeff]

I wouldn't rely on mom's opinion of the image.:)


Sorry Lisard but I do worry about what mom thinks of the photo. If mom can see her lil darlings face and expression clearly she will buy that shot. Now if she can see her darling but the expression isn't clearly visable because the shot is too loose then she won't buy.

In reality, my opinion of the shots don't count. I don't buy my own shots, the moms and dads do and it is their opinion that brings out the checkbook or credit card

[Scottes]

Come on Scott, say it....I can crop and not feel guilty.
"I can crop and not feel guilty."
My fingers are crossed, though. Does it still count?

Some day... When I'm desperate because I shot all day and all I produced was mediocre images... Then I'll crop...

[nosquare2003]

I would call this photographic art and sell it as such - rather than as true wildlife photography.

Agreed.

Before digital photography, people use multiple exposures to add things in a photo. Many great photographers use multiple exposures as a tool for expression -- but not for the purpose to cheat.

Similarly, I don't object the "adding" or "removal" of something from a photo from the points of view of art. Sometimes the "strange" combination of subjects will help readers to think. But I would "hate" to see such act with the intention of cheating.

[Steven M. Anthony]

It all boils down to what you look for in photographic art--your own or someone else's. If you are looking to admire a found scene and the skill and creativity it takes to find one worth shooting and to shoot it well, chances are you aren't going to like the PS add-ins, cropping, etc. If you are looking for a work of art that speaks to you (period), chances are you don't care how it was made. My guess is that most people who buy photos--and who are not artists themselves--don't really care HOW a picture was made. As I've heard/seen people lament here on other threads, "people just don't get how hard it is to take a well-composed photo..." Well, that's right--they don't get it and they usually don't really care. No one who as ever bought one of my images has ever asked wherther it was manipulated/photoshopped. My personal approach to PS is kind of "the middle path." I adjust exposure, contrast, use a few layers here and there and clone out wires or trash... I don't add elements (like snow!). But I crop as necessary and sleep well at night just the same. I produce nature/landscapes that I hope will inspire people with the awesome beauty of nature.... I produce photos of people in everyday situations that I hope get people to think how similar we all are in what we experience... I'm not that concerned with what I have to do to get my message across--the point is to get the message across (at least for me).