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?

 
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,529 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Sep 17, 2017 01:37 |  #121

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18453587 (external link)
There are people who offer their services digitally enhancing photographs they didn't take, they would be the people I'm referring to. They didn't take the photograph, so in that context have to be referred to by a title other than 'photographer'.

I would assert that anyone who is an expert at "digitally enhancing photographs" is also a photographer, and whether he took the images he's working on at the moment, his photography informs his editing. There isn't a line to be drawn between the two facets of photography, except at the casual dilettante level.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
1,237 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Southampton Hampshire UK
Sep 17, 2017 04:55 |  #122

As a comparison, as someone who knows a few people who program games but don't play them, people who tie fishing flies but don't go fishing, or do the digital background work on films but don't film anything, I would assert otherwise, these disciplines can be easily separately defined.

For example, If I wanted someone to edit photographs, I wouldn't go online looking for a photographer.

Isn't this exactly the same as a professional printer, one skill may well inform the other, yet he has a clearly different job in the finished workflow, completely different skills, and indeed, has a different title?


5DIII, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Sep 17, 2017 06:08 |  #123

I have to agree with WelshWizard1971 on this one. I have a friend who identifies himself as a professional photo retoucher even though he owns a camera and occasionally takes pictures himself. He knows, and acknowledges, his limitations as a photographer but understands his strengths are in post processing images. To himself, he is not a professional photographer and doesn't claim to be more than a guy with a camera.

Likewise, I know many photographers who attempt to do their own post processing and struggle with it. Many of them send their important work out to a professional retoucher simply because they don't have the necessary skillset to do their work justice. None of the guys call themselves retouchers. While they can navigate around Lightroom and Photoshop, they distance themselves from the idea of retouching on any sort of serious level. Me included.


"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
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Sep 17, 2017 09:37 |  #124

Back in the olden days of film many years ago (ha ha) there were people that only worked at labs and sone were and some were not photographers. But today as was then as I pointed out in a previous post the only way a photographer could fully realize his/her vision was if they controlled the process from start to finish. All parts are equally important. It is still that way today.




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,529 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Sep 17, 2017 10:55 |  #125

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18454128 (external link)
Back in the olden days of film many years ago (ha ha) there were people that only worked at labs and sone were and some were not photographers. But today as was then as I pointed out in a previous post the only way a photographer could fully realize his/her vision was if they controlled the process from start to finish. All parts are equally important. It is still that way today.

We're actually talking about three different things, we can see as we reflect back to film:

Photographing
Procecssing and printing
Retouching

The "retoucher" back in the days of film, worked on the final print or transparency (beyond even any compositing). That essentially was a different kind of skill, and separate enough from the front end of photography that it did not inform it at all.




LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Sep 17, 2017 11:00 |  #126

RDKirk wrote in post #18454174 (external link)
We're actually talking about three different things, we can see as we reflect back to film:

Photographing
Procecssing and printing
Retouching

The "retoucher" back in the days of film, worked on the final print or transparency (beyond even any compositing). That essentially was a different kind of skill, and separate enough from the front end of photography that it did not inform it at all.

Or some actually retouched negatives. Processing, printing and retouching were actually more items of commercial work (I put all pro work under that umbrella). But if a photographer wants to get exactly what they need as an end result they need to be skilled enough to do that in all the disciplines need to be mastered in order for them to see that process through.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Sep 17, 2017 11:55 |  #127

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18454180 (external link)
Or some actually retouched negatives. Processing, printing and retouching were actually more items of commercial work (I put all pro work under that umbrella). But if a photographer wants to get exactly what they need as an end result they need to be skilled enough to do that in all the disciplines need to be mastered in order for them to see that process through.

To me, it's all a mystery when it comes to film. I've read enough about it to be dangerous but never processed my own film. Of course, back then, I was just shooting snapshots of our kids. Some of them really did come out well, in spite of my lack of knowledge. To be honest, the old Minolta I had was easy to use. I only had a 50mm f/1.4 lens for it. You buy the film, do some light metering with your desired f stop... Viola... that was it.

I can't imagine the time it would take and the financial investment to learn to process film. Digital sort of speeds up the whole learning curve, plus the expense is minor compared to film, I would think. I pay $10 a month for my post processing software. I think that's about two rolls of film, give or take.


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
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,529 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Sep 17, 2017 12:08 |  #128

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18454180 (external link)
Or some actually retouched negatives.

Ah, yes. It is said that Joan Crawford's negatives carried more graphite than silver.




LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Sep 17, 2017 18:30 |  #129

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18454223 (external link)
To me, it's all a mystery when it comes to film. I've read enough about it to be dangerous but never processed my own film. Of course, back then, I was just shooting snapshots of our kids. Some of them really did come out well, in spite of my lack of knowledge. To be honest, the old Minolta I had was easy to use. I only had a 50mm f/1.4 lens for it. You buy the film, do some light metering with your desired f stop... Viola... that was it.

I can't imagine the time it would take and the financial investment to learn to process film. Digital sort of speeds up the whole learning curve, plus the expense is minor compared to film, I would think. I pay $10 a month for my post processing software. I think that's about two rolls of film, give or take.


Darkroom work wasn't really very expensive to get into, as you don't actually need a lot of kit, even for processing colour slide film using the E6 process. All you need is a developing tank, with a couple of film spirals, plus some graduated cylinders for mixing the chemicals. A basic, but fine enlarger for black and white enlargements was also pretty cheap. Cheaper still if you could find one secondhand. I guess I was lucky because a friend of my dad was a keen photographer, and when he knew I was interested in taking photos with my dad's camera he gave me an old Johnsons Wray enlarger and a developing tank to get me going. The enlarger was probably getting on for 25 years old when I got it. I used it for many years as I was great for printing up to about 10×8. I did end up with a lot more kit, since I eventually got into printing CibaChromes, which did demand the use of advanced techniques and equipment.

So for me all of the stages from choosing the appropriate film stock, making the exposure, through to developing and printing the image has been something I have always done. So now that I'm doing it digitally it really feels no different. I'm so glad that I was able to go through the rituals of processing the film, then printing it. There is something magical when you see the image starting to form in the dish of that very first test strip you exposed under the enlarger. From a negative you processed, after taking the photo. Especially when you are only nine or ten years old.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
RPCrowe's Avatar
7,587 posts
Joined Nov 2005
San Diego County, California, USA
Sep 17, 2017 18:52 |  #130

You are always "CHEATING:-D" when making a photograph.

First, you decide how to include parts of the area and not include other parts (in-camera cropping)...

You the decide the technical details such as ISO, Focus, Focal Length, shutter speed etc. Which could be considered "cheating"

Finally, even if you shoot JPEG and do no post processing, the camera system has processed your JPEGs to your specifications..

The last thing that I worry about is "AM I CHEATING?vmad" Unless, i am offering the image as documentation... As an example: I won't present an image shot in a zoo as one shot in the field.:twisted:

Photojournalism has its own codes of ethics regarding post processing but, I do not do photojournalism...


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Sep 17, 2017 22:09 |  #131

I have to echo the fact that developing and printing film was not an overly expensive endeavor. I used to do my film developing in my parent's bathroom when I was a kid then send the developed film to be printed. Only because I did not have the money or room to keep an enlarger and paper stock on top of everything else I was involved with back then. The interesting thing was that at that time I was simply developing my film much like following a recipe. Had I been doing my own printing I would have done the same, followed the mixing and timing instructions on the chemicals to get a print. No artistic intent. Granted at that time I was new to photography and was struggling to learn the photography end of things. I left the printing to the experts (yep, those unknown fotomat workers who took my bathroom sink endeavors and converted them to a paper print) who fed the negatives on one end of a machine and paper and chemicals in the other then pressed a button.

This illustrates a couple of things; you don't need to have hands on through the entire process to be called a photographer. There are levels of skill in all aspects of the photographic process. The entire photographic process can easily be handled by amateurs, with success, both analog and digitally.The whole photographic process can be handled automatically with very little human interaction, from taking a photo to developing and printing. Human interaction impacts the artistic level of a photograph, not the technical aspect. I'm sure there are more points but I'm tired and going to bed...


"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
teekay
Goldmember
teekay's Avatar
2,594 posts
Joined Apr 2001
British Columbia, Canada
Sep 17, 2017 22:26 |  #132

banquetbear wrote in post #18448940 (external link)
...no.

I think the the original simple question was answered correctly and concisely in this second post, and that may explain the OP's subsequent absence.




LOG IN TO REPLY
BG03
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Sep 18, 2017 14:29 |  #133

banquetbear wrote in post #18448940 (external link)
...no.


I have to agree. It all depends on what you are doing to the original picture




LOG IN TO REPLY
photosbytw
Goldmember
photosbytw's Avatar
Joined Jan 2015
Blue Ridge Mountains
Sep 18, 2017 17:05 |  #134

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18453134 (external link)
Which begs the question, how many times have you complained about the repetitiveness of complaining about repetitiveness. :)

#Mind Blown!

Damn........I just snorted hot tea through my nose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Don't even begin to think I'm criticizing your images.
Just a natural curiosity.
tw
www.photosbytw.net (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
photosbytw
Goldmember
photosbytw's Avatar
Joined Jan 2015
Blue Ridge Mountains
Sep 18, 2017 17:10 |  #135

davesrose wrote in post #18451629 (external link)
Reminds me of 19th century "spirit photographs". Those who were especially susceptible from losing a loved one, would be duped into believing in spirit photographers like William Mumler (external link). Mary Todd Lincoln was especially susceptible after the deaths of her children and husband. What I find interesting is that even though PT Barnum brought Mumler to court, and showed lay people what double exposure was, there was still a majority of people who believed in spirit photographs. Heck, today there's a market of viewers who like shows like Ghost Adventures...which I find boring since they just listen and watch digital noise (only some of the interesting notes are the historic landmarks they shoot).

Most photographers that blend exposures are being honest that it's a sequence exposed in camera and blended afterward. Your example has definite signs of different composites, and you state your intention. IMO, perhaps the main "dishonest" digital photography is the fashion industry: where it's accepted practice to reshape the model who was photographed.

Ironically, it's still happening. We had a visitor to the camera club trying to get us to believe that images she had taken with lens flare were of the recently deceased who were trying to communicate with their loved ones...............she got very upset when we suggested she not point the camera towards the sun.


Don't even begin to think I'm criticizing your images.
Just a natural curiosity.
tw
www.photosbytw.net (external link)

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

18,976 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 0.0012 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is collneu
877 guests, 454 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016