Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 10 Sep 2017 (Sunday) 19:13
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

is processing cheating?

 
inspectoring
Member
207 posts
Joined Sep 2011
Sep 10, 2017 19:13 |  #1

I am sorry but this has been bugging me for the past couple of years.

I understand taking pictures is an art and I respect the effort one has to put into getting the shutter speed f stop etc right.
BUT I feel that by using adobe photoshop/or any other photoshop processing, I am essentially cheating.

Is it reasonable to have an area/dedicated subform where only unprocessed pictures are posted ?

I know most of the people here are professionals and I mean no disrespect to them. I take 30 pictures one day and then don't touch the camera for the next couple of weeks. I don't mean to minimize the amount of effort that goes into processing.


Gear: 7D, Canon 70-200 f8 MK II, 70-200 f4 IS, 24-70 f2.8 and Sigmalux 50 f1.4 Flash: 580EXii

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
banquetbear
Goldmember
banquetbear's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
Wellington, New Zealand
Sep 10, 2017 20:05 |  #2

inspectoring wrote in post #18448913 (external link)
is processing cheating?

...no.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Cream of the Crop
RDKirk's Avatar
12,492 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by RDKirk.
Sep 10, 2017 20:08 |  #3

inspectoring wrote in post #18448913 (external link)
I am sorry but this has been bugging me for the past couple of years.

I understand taking pictures is an art and I respect the effort one has to put into getting the shutter speed f stop etc right.
BUT I feel that by using adobe photoshop/or any other photoshop processing, I am essentially cheating.

Is it reasonable to have an area/dedicated subform where only unprocessed pictures are posted ?

I know most of the people here are professionals and I mean no disrespect to them. I take 30 pictures one day and then don't touch the camera for the next couple of weeks. I don't mean to minimize the amount of effort that goes into processing.

The ironic thing about that statement is that over 100 years ago, the argument against photography as art was that it was nothing but a mechanically accurate reproduction of the natural scene that lacks artistic input.

Thus, from nearly its very beginning, photographers have introduced their own artistic input in post-processing. Some of my photo heroes of yesteryear like W. Eugene Smith spent hours, even days in post-processing to perfect a print to their mind's eye beyond the capabilities of the camera.

Now people are saying it's not art unless if it is anything but a mechanically accurate reproduction of the natural scene that lacks input.




LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by -Duck-.
Sep 10, 2017 20:09 |  #4

This is definitely a topic that is one for the digital age, and one that many people have contemplate over, both artistically and technically. As with any argument, there are multiple sides and it all depends on your personal opinion about what constitutes processing of a digital image. Of course, the term processing has changed when we left chemical processing (a mechanical process) for digital processing.

First, realize that in film days ALL photographs were processed. You could not make a print without processing the negative. The precursor of today's digital processing, or digital editing, primarily occurred during the printing process. That's when images were blended, dodged, burned, cropped and what have you. This allowed the photographer to get creative with his vision for his image. In those days one could distinguish between the act of processing with that of image manipulation.

Keeping that separation in mind we can therefore think of a digital photograph as being processed (in camera) by the camera's onboard digital processor that converts the raw data from the sensor into a visual image. That digital image is processed according to predetermined settings you apply during your initial camera setup (color space, image style, aspect ratio, etc.)

Then, if the image isn't to your liking, you can bring it into Photoshop in order to manipulate (post-process) the photograph to closer resemble your artistic vision. What level of manipulation you give the image is dependant on what you want the image to say to your audience. Is it a quick snapshot? Is it a representation closer to what you initially saw? Perhaps it's an enhanced portrayal that brings out more of the beauty than what was there. Maybe it's a combination of multiple images in order to create something that wasn't there but rather something that was in your mind.

On a basic level, most photographers will argue that every image that comes out of a camera should be processed, sometimes called normalizing or balancing an image. In this case the manipulation is kept to a minimum and is looked upon as correcting issues in the image due to the limitation of the camera (after all it is a machine and will never capture what our eyes see.) These modifications usually consist of exposure fixes due to either human error or lack of dynamic range of the camera, cropping, straightening, color correction and lens perspective correction.

So, in short, your question should read, "is photo manipulation cheating?", rather than processing because, by default, all cameras must "process" an image.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photoraphy (external link)Meetup (external link)Blog (external link)Facebook (external link)Flickr (external link)500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Sep 10, 2017 20:29 |  #5

RDKirk wrote in post #18448943 (external link)
The ironic thing about that statement is that over 100 years ago, the argument against photography as art was that it was nothing but a mechanically accurate reproduction of the natural scene that lacks artistic input.

Thus, from nearly its very beginning, photographers have introduced their own artistic input in post-processing. Some of my photo heroes of yesteryear like W. Eugene Smith spent hours, even days in post-processing to perfect a print to their mind's eye beyond the capabilities of the camera.

Now people are saying it's not art unless if it is anything but a mechanically accurate reproduction of the natural scene that lacks input.

Yup.

I'm sure I'm not alone here, but I used to cut specific shapes out of paper to dodge and burn in the darkroom. Sometimes making masks so I could make multiple exposures for a print.

Of course there is the possibility of manipulating the scene or subject too, is that cheating? Using a light on your subject, is that cheating?

Images must be processed in some form. Always have, always will.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Goldmember
2,774 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Sep 10, 2017 20:33 |  #6

As stated, in the world of photography, some sort of processing has always been done. Today, it's the camera and then how much post processing you do with software. With film, there was exposure and processing of film negative. And then you could spend a lot of time in the darkroom adjusting contrast in specific areas (with burning/ dodging). Even if you were striving for technically "accurate" photos: you'd be adjusting the inherently better DR of negative to that of print. Ansel Adams probably spent more time in the darkroom then the time he spent hiking/walking the perfect moment to take the photo. When I was developing film, I felt the lure of spending more time in the darkroom. Apart from darkroom techniques, you could also "cheat" and take out imperfections in the actual print. If there were stray dust or hair specks that showed up in the print, you could paint those out with inks.

When it comes to photography as Art...I think the best of photography does show the same aspects of other visual arts. I have a background in painting, and have seen how pertinent photography classes do go over the same compositional techniques as other fine arts. Painting is the closest cousin to photography: painters like Vermeer used the camera obscura, and photographers have coined one light setup as being Rembrandt lighting.


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,298 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Bassat.
Sep 10, 2017 20:48 |  #7

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18448949 (external link)
Yup.

I'm sure I'm not alone here, but I used to cut specific shapes out of paper to dodge and burn in the darkroom. Sometimes making masks so I could make multiple exposures for a print.

Of course there is the possibility of manipulating the scene or subject too, is that cheating? Using a light on your subject, is that cheating?

Images must be processed in some form. Always have, always will.

Mathew Brady is probably the most famous 'manipulator'. Ansel Adams took the easy way out. He set up his gear and waited for God to manipulate the scene to his liking. Cheaters! Both of 'em.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
sjones's Avatar
2,190 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Chicago
Sep 10, 2017 20:52 |  #8

No, it's not cheating, as folks have explained above. My link below on Photoshop expands on this issue, although I can't remember all of the stuff I yapped about...a few years back, this was actually a frequent discussion topic on POTN, but it seems greater acclimation to the realities of digital processing has calmed the debate.


Asheville to Chicago 2016-2017 (external link)
Eggleston's photography is superb. Deal with it!
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,679 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Sep 10, 2017 21:01 |  #9

It is your photography. If you feel like processing is cheating that's understandable. If you are happy with your results and you think your images are good just go ahead and share them. I'm not sure why they would have to be separated in their own sub-forum.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
14,960 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Sep 10, 2017 21:19 |  #10

inspectoring wrote in post #18448913 (external link)
Is it reasonable to have an area/dedicated subform where only unprocessed pictures are posted ?

There's a thread for that: http://photography-on-the.net .../showthread.php?t=1​351318

I know most of the people here are professionals

It isn't certain. Another thread asked members what they do. Many listed other occupations.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
Sep 10, 2017 21:30 |  #11

Does processing include choosing a picture profile in camera?


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Goldmember
2,774 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Sep 10, 2017 21:49 |  #12

Bassat wrote in post #18448964 (external link)
Mathew Brady is probably the most famous 'manipulator'. Ansel Adams took the easy way out. He set up his gear and waited for God to manipulate the scene to his liking. Cheaters! Both of 'em.

LOL...well when it comes to compositional manipulation, no one did it better then Teddy Roosevelt (and his Rough Rider persona, with Brooks Bros clothing and sets in NYC). One of the most famous stories of Adams was his shot of Moonrise, Hernandez. It's a perfect example of an experienced photographer determining exposure before even taking the shot. So it was still Adams that had the eye and foresight in determining what could be captured in film (and revealed in post processing).

Ansel Anecdotes: Moonrise, Hernandez (external link)


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
teekay
Goldmember
teekay's Avatar
2,549 posts
Joined Apr 2001
British Columbia, Canada
Post has been edited 1 month ago by teekay.
Sep 10, 2017 22:34 |  #13

inspectoring wrote in post #18448913 (external link)
/.. BUT I feel that by using adobe photoshop/or any other photoshop processing, I am essentially cheating...

Of course you aren't cheating. One definition of cheating is: "To act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination."

In processing a photo you are creating something that didn't exist before and not lying unless you represent it as being SOOC.

Was Ansel Adams cheating? I understand that he had highly skilled people doing a lot of his darkroom processing for him. Does that make him any less of an artist? Do famous authors cheat because their editors and proofreaders tidy up and amend their work before publishing? Of course not.

Processing is part of the creative process.




LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,021 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 10, 2017 22:44 |  #14

It's only cheating if you claim it's real. For instance, Peter Lik claiming that he sat there for months waiting for that perfect photo when suddenly, it was there. He presses the shutter and captures his masterpiece Bella Luna (external link).


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
8,964 posts
Joined Apr 2006
North Carolina
Sep 11, 2017 08:13 |  #15

Yes, processing is cheating. If you shoot raw you should leave the images as they come out of camera: boring, lacking saturation, needing contrast, and lacking sharpening.


Website (external link) |

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

11,612 views & 110 likes for this thread
is processing cheating?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00117 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is Ipanemaguy
921 guests, 388 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016