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?

 
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,250 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 12, 2017 07:42 |  #61

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18450075 (external link)
...
I think there is a world of difference between birds that share our world and birds of prey that do not. Songbirds are part of everyday life. They will come to our gardens and balconies and we put up feeders to help them but also to attract them and enjoy their company, their beauty, their song. ....

Now that all depends on what part of the world you come from. Around here, bird feeders are exactly that, feeders for raptors. Put up a bird feeder and soon you'll have red-tails, coopers, goshawks, kites, and kestrel in no time, and no more songbirds. :)


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 2 months ago by airfrogusmc.
Sep 12, 2017 07:57 |  #62

-Duck- wrote in post #18449960 (external link)
I wouldn't generalize traditional darkroom techniques as simply being just density, color balance, burning and dodging, etc. There are a lot of very skilled traditional printers that can match anything Photoshop can do.

Yep and it is all about vision and the final image. How does that final print match the photographers vision. If you are working on a documentary project or working as a photojournalist then you need to keep the PP to what i described.

I was specifying the things when doing those types of photography (PJ, some types of street and documentary) that in most cases would be acceptable when using PS. I did custom B&W and color printing for my personal work and for a living so I am fully aware of what can be done in a wet darkroom. PS gives me a lot more control. I can do things like change color balance is small selected areas that I could never do with traditional color printing even with different types of masking. And as you can see by the links to Uelsmanns work I posted in earlier posts manipulation and really good manipulation was done long before digital. These things are all tools and can enable all of us achieve our vision. The most important part is we have to be able to have the ability to truly see.

Extreme manipulation of photographs actually goes back to almost the very beginning of photography.
http://www.pbs.org ...d-we-do-before-photoshop/ (external link)




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,531 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Sep 12, 2017 08:08 |  #63

gjl711 wrote in post #18450096 (external link)
Now that all depends on what part of the world you come from. Around here, bird feeders are exactly that, feeders for raptors. Put up a bird feeder and soon you'll have red-tails, coopers, goshawks, kites, and kestrel in no time, and no more songbirds. :)

Around here, put out your lapdog and you'll have hawks.




LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,250 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 12, 2017 08:24 |  #64

RDKirk wrote in post #18450125 (external link)
Around here, put out your lapdog and you'll have hawks.

Yea, that too. Any pup under 8 pounds needs to be watched carefully.


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
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sep 12, 2017 08:35 |  #65

gjl711 wrote in post #18450096 (external link)
Now that all depends on what part of the world you come from. Around here, bird feeders are exactly that, feeders for raptors. Put up a bird feeder and soon you'll have red-tails, coopers, goshawks, kites, and kestrel in no time, and no more songbirds. :)

But that's hardly baiting those red-tails and coopers and kites; it is a natural result of putting up feeders for songbirds. Apparently these raptors' habitat is where people live and they take advantage of a situation. That's not baiting. Baiting, in my opinion, is going out into a field to find birds of prey and put out mice to deliberately lure a bird for the sole purpose of taking a picture because you don't have the skills or are too lazy to get the picture on your own. Owls are often baited like this. I've seen videos where owls were not just baited but also teased, all to get the picture. That to my mind is very different from a hawk swooping in to get a finch at a feeder.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

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 2 months ago by -Duck-.
Sep 12, 2017 10:24 |  #66

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18450153 (external link)
But that's hardly baiting those red-tails and coopers and kites; it is a natural result of putting up feeders for songbirds. Apparently these raptors' habitat is where people live and they take advantage of a situation. That's not baiting. Baiting, in my opinion, is going out into a field to find birds of prey and put out mice to deliberately lure a bird for the sole purpose of taking a picture because you don't have the skills or are too lazy to get the picture on your own. Owls are often baited like this. I've seen videos where owls were not just baited but also teased, all to get the picture. That to my mind is very different from a hawk swooping in to get a finch at a feeder.

You are arguing levels of baiting here. Baiting is baiting, whether directly (putting out food to attract birds) or indirectly (putting out food to attract bigger bird's food). They are both influenced by an active modification to every bird's "natural" environment. Putting out bird food to attract birds is still a conscious action to influence nature.

Here's a different viewpoint for people to consider...

As a commercial photographer, if I need to give my client a photo of a red tailed hawk and it needs to be done by the week's end you can place a bet that I won't be heading into the woods to find one and then spend days trying to get that one shot. It is not cost effective, too time consuming and unrealistic. My solution would be to hire the hawk and have its trainer put the hawk through its paces in order for me to get the shot my client needs. If that client decides to superimpose that hawk flying over a majestic waterfall to plaster on the outside of some package, so be it. According to past statements here, that would be "cheating" from start to finish. How is this wrong? What are the ethics in this case? What alternatives would you do?


"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
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Sep 12, 2017 10:51 |  #67

-Duck- wrote in post #18450247 (external link)
You are arguing levels of baiting here. Baiting is baiting, whether directly (putting out food to attract birds) or indirectly (putting out food to attract bigger bird's food). They are both influenced by an active modification to every bird's "natural" environment. Putting out bird food to attract birds is still a conscious action to influence nature.

Here's a different viewpoint for people to consider...

As a commercial photographer, if I need to give my client a photo of a red tailed hawk and it needs to be done by the week's end you can place a bet that I won't be heading into the woods to find one and then spend days trying to get that one shot. It is not cost effective, too time consuming and unrealistic. My solution would be to hire the hawk and have its trainer put the hawk through its paces in order for me to get the shot my client needs. If that client decides to superimpose that hawk flying over a majestic waterfall to plaster on the outside of some package, so be it. According to past statements here, that would be "cheating" from start to finish. How is this wrong? What are the ethics in this case? What alternatives would you do?

That's why I suggested the line isn't set in stone. Our own paradigm determines how we view the topic of baiting. I'm with Levina in this respect. I see a difference between hounding birds of prey (like the owl illustration she mentioned) than putting up a song bird feeder in one's backyard. Why? Because of my own paradigm. Others might feel completely different. I got hooked on bird photography when a barred owl showed up in our backyard... sitting up in the lower branches of a pine tree. It turns out, he/she was attracted to the smaller birds (and the squirrels, I might add) that were frequenting my bird feeder. I wasn't aware of that until after the fact. Anyway, I still have the bird feeders up... haven't seen an owl since.

It seems to me there are also varying circumstances for professional photographers, though I admit, I am an amateur and have no first hand knowledge. Is there a difference between advertising photographs and photos designated as "captured in the wild", for instance? I would guess, if a photo is used for advertising and it part of a composite image, the source of the wildlife portion of the photograph might not matter as much. Again, I don't really know, but am open to learn.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sep 12, 2017 13:07 |  #68

-Duck- wrote in post #18450247 (external link)
You are arguing levels of baiting here. Baiting is baiting, whether directly (putting out food to attract birds) or indirectly (putting out food to attract bigger bird's food). They are both influenced by an active modification to every bird's "natural" environment. Putting out bird food to attract birds is still a conscious action to influence nature.

I disagree. Not all baiting is the same.

Here's a different viewpoint for people to consider...

As a commercial photographer, if I need to give my client a photo of a red tailed hawk and it needs to be done by the week's end you can place a bet that I won't be heading into the woods to find one and then spend days trying to get that one shot. It is not cost effective, too time consuming and unrealistic. My solution would be to hire the hawk and have its trainer put the hawk through its paces in order for me to get the shot my client needs. If that client decides to superimpose that hawk flying over a majestic waterfall to plaster on the outside of some package, so be it. According to past statements here, that would be "cheating" from start to finish. How is this wrong? What are the ethics in this case? What alternatives would you do?

What? That's obviously an entirely different situation! You're talking about a job that needs to be done here, an assignment given by a client. Who cares if the photographed hawk "on the outside of some package" was a captive bird?! But try putting that photo up in a NG competition and it would be disqualified.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Chet
For $20, I'll be your friend.
Chet's Avatar
41,649 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Sep 12, 2017 13:14 |  #69

George said it best ...


Curator of the Bob's Pickle Emporium experience. -As always, One location to serve you better!
~Feel good today and donate to this great forum~ LINK
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Sep 12, 2017 15:37 |  #70

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18450398 (external link)
That's obviously an entirely different situation! You're talking about a job that needs to be done here, an assignment given by a client. Who cares if the photographed hawk "on the outside of some package" was a captive bird?! But try putting that photo up in a NG competition and it would be disqualified.

Yes, I agree, and those types of images are qualified by the use and intent. Which is at the root of this entire thread.

Yes, there are levels, and that is why there is no one single blanket paradigm to the question presented by the OP.


"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
Owain ­ Shaw
Goldmember
Owain Shaw's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
Valencia, Spain.
Sep 13, 2017 10:02 |  #71

Chet wrote in post #18450404 (external link)
George said it best ...

"All good stories are true stories. At least for the person reading them, which is all that counts."
-Spanish author Javier Cercas.

While I'm translating Spanish author quotes, here's one from a poet, vaguely relevant to the topic at large.
"Not everything you have read here is true. Not everything you read in any anthology is true. Not everything you see in a film is true. Sometimes, nothing is really true. And? Is it important? Think about how things make you feel, not whether they are true or not. As the Italians say 'Se non è vero, e ben trovato' - if it isn't true, then it's well told. Nothing else matters, only what we feel, what we think, what we change. Think. Feel. Change."
Carlos Miguel Cortes


| Photographic for the People - New website coming soon. |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,719 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Sep 13, 2017 10:21 |  #72

Clearly late to this thread at several pages already, but in a previous discussion I came up with this;

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #4057947 (external link)
How I have witnessed so many of these similar discussions for so long and not seen this fundamental truth before I can not explain,.


...it is so obvious.


Why is it that no one questions or argues why we chose not to let our cameras do all the thinking at the time the photo is taken, but so many chose to question our need to take control after the photo is taken. What is different here?

When shooting, I do not use the "green Box".. I know better than the camera what aperture to chose, what shutter speed, what focus point, what ISO, what overall exposure, be it set manually or with AV/TV and EC,. so naturally I make these decisions.
Truthfully, any photographer worthy of the name would do the same.
Yet all of this stuff can be automated by the camera, we can set it to green and shoot and let the camera decide Aperture, Exposure, Shutter speed, ISO (in some cases) etc..

Yet we rarely if ever see threads knocking us for eschewing these auto controls.
When we do, it's a post of complete and utter naivety, one that comes from ignorance (in the real meaning, not to be insulting) of the benefits of taking control of your shooting situation and equipment.

And yet when it comes to the very next step of the same photography process, that of processing the image, so many can not grasp the need/desire for the same sense of control, for the same total hands on approach to the creative process involved with making the image.

Every step we take from the moment we put the camera into our hands is a step that we take to give ourselves the potential for doing a better job, making a better image than either the automated can, or we could last year, or even "the next guy" can. We strive for perfection.

In my mind, questioning the need/desire for us to have total control of the post processing workflow and adjustments, is just as naive and (sorry again) ignorant as questioning why I would not just allow the camera to shoot a portrait in Green box at f/8 instead of manually shooting open @ f/2

Of course I'm going to set the aperture to get the DOF I want, and would never trust the camera to make a better decision automatically.

Likewise, of course I am going to shoot in RAW and post process the image to my standards, and never trust the camera to make better decisions automatically.

Why does the Macro shooter use manual focus or rails when the lens is an autofocus lens? Because the Macro shooter knows they can set the focus more precisely when set manually. The Macro shooter can do it better.

Just as the Camera is simply NOT CAPABLE of bettering me with it's auto settings, it is likewise NOT CAPABLE of processing an image as well as I can with the tools I have at hand.

None of this should be surprising.
We will never likely see a camera with a green box mode that is superior in it's auto choices to those choices a photographer would make when setting up the shoot.

We will never see a camera with an automatically output file that is superior to the choices made by a studied photographer working on there own images in post.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
kjonnnn
Goldmember
1,179 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Chicago, Illinois
Sep 13, 2017 11:16 as a reply to post 18449481 |  #73

Adjusting the scene means changing the scene from the original capture in any words. My words weren't that difficult.




LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Sep 13, 2017 11:38 |  #74

Here's a point to consider...
An inexperienced photographer makes an exposure of a beautiful sunset. On getting the image home and opened in (insert program here) the photo looks gray and washed out, nothing like how it looked to the eye. Exposure is off, color balance is off and saturation is off. Is correcting for these flaws considered cheating? After all, once changed it will no longer be what the camera saw and/or captured.


"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
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Sep 13, 2017 11:47 |  #75

-Duck- wrote in post #18451276 (external link)
Here's a point to consider...
An inexperienced photographer makes an exposure of a beautiful sunset. On getting the image home and opened in (insert program here) the photo looks gray and washed out, nothing like how it looked to the eye. Exposure is off, color balance is off and saturation is off. Is correcting for these flaws considered cheating? After all, once changed it will no longer be what the camera saw and/or captured.

Another option: the inexperienced photographer can buy a few books, look at some youtube tutorials, read his camera manual, chat on POTN with some more experienced people.... and figure out how to get better. ;)

But in the mean time.... he or she can learn some post processing skills as well.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

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

19,129 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 0.00096 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Desser
888 guests, 446 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016