is processing cheating?

Image hosted by forum (879081) © -Duck- [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Here is an infographic of what an image goes through in a typical process (more or less).
As you can see, had this been presented straight out of camera it would not have the same emotional impact of the finished piece.
Of course, comments are welcomed.

Using the word 'cheating' (as opposed to unethical, illegal etc..) suggest you are playing some kind of 'game'. I think what some people struggle with is that we are all playing our own, slightly different, game. Some rules such as lying about what you did are pretty common, but others are not at all.

i'll add this, its cheating or unethical if you attempt to pass a substantially edited image as authentic. otherwise, just enjoy the hobby.

RDKirk wrote in post #18448943
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.
.

.
I have never seen anyone say that.

Where have you seen this being said?

.

I know that this topic has been discussed to death - and still: This is a relevant question that everybody should have a personal answer to. I personally don't care if somebody created a cool picture from scratch in PS or is simply showing the unadulterated jpeg straight out the camera. However, I have clear rules how far I go with my own pictures. E.g. everything stays in the picture - if I can not crop it then it might get toned down, but I do not clone it out. This is what photography is all about for me, depicting part of what I see - and there might be elements in life that I do not like - tough luck. Your mileage will vary - but being conscious about your choice of tools is an important part of photography.

It is being said that art has to be an unadulterated image in this very thread. Replace the word "people" with "forum member(s)" and all becomes clear.

Now that the thread has been revived from two years ago, the trend will now unfortunately continue.

As to cloning things out, if there are unfortunate objects in the distance "sticking" out of ones head, or other inconsequential "adds nothing to the photo" but is distracting, I don't mind editing to soften or remove those. However adding more buildings to a horizon, a celebrity that wasn't really there, or more animals to the field seems like a problem.

All art is processed one way or another.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18943429
It is being said that art has to be an unadulterated image in this very thread. Replace the word "people" with "forum member(s)" and all becomes clear.

.
Cary, I just read every post in this thread - all 11 pages worth - and I did not see that stated anywhere.

Are you really sure that anyone said that in this thread, or did you just assume that it had probably been said by someone at some point?

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18943429
As to cloning things out, if there are unfortunate objects in the distance "sticking" out of ones head, or other inconsequential "adds nothing to the photo" but is distracting, I don't mind editing to soften or remove those. However adding more buildings to a horizon, a celebrity that wasn't really there, or more animals to the field seems like a problem.

I think much depends on the purpose of the image. If a tourist bureau displays a photo under the headline "Come visit our beautiful city" but the sky was replaced to remove smog and contrails, and a few ugly people and delivery trucks with their distracting logos were removed from the streets, then no. You can hang the same edited photo on your wall because you like it, though; you're not defrauding anyone.

I also believe that PP purism would be counterproductive in commissioned portraits but appropriate in news photos.

OhLook wrote in post #18943591
I think much depends on the purpose of the image. If a tourist bureau displays a photo under the headline "Come visit our beautiful city" but the sky was replaced to remove smog and contrails, and a few ugly people and delivery trucks with their distracting logos were removed from the streets, then no. You can hang the same edited photo on your wall because you like it, though; you're not defrauding anyone.

I also believe that PP purism would be counterproductive in commissioned portraits but appropriate in news photos.

I would think that tourist bureaus fall under the same category as advertisers. There are few bigger cheaters and liars than advertisers. After all, how else are you going to convince a world that a McDonald's hamburger is actually food if you don't lie through your a$$. I would love to see advertisers held to the same standard as say a photo journalist. Can you imagine if fast food restaurants had to actually put a picture of what you really get on their adds? no one would eat there.

"If your not willing to do the extra work to make the image better/yours, then it ain't art, and you might as well put your P&S into green box and be done with it."

Me, Today.

Photography is the expression of an experience as perceived by the photographer. My style is to post process to the point it is what I remember and enjoyed by the experience of being there at the time.. This may include enhancements made by my brain such as ignoring/removing telephone lines, trash, etc. Generally I will enhance an image and subtract from it as appropriate, but not add what was not there. On the other hand I know several photographers who know Photoshop quite well and their photography becomes the expression of an "imagined" experience. Adding to the image with fake skies, colors, animals, etc.

It's all good and it's all art. I consider photography to include two processes - Image Capture & Image Processing/Development - both of equal importance.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18943268
.
I have never seen anyone say that.

Where have you seen this being said?

.

The SOOC people.

I'm left thinking that my farts smell different to me than to others. They are however my farts. If more or fewer IPAs make them that much more special, who's to say if that's cheating?

RDKirk wrote in post #18943831
.
The SOOC people.
.

.
I have never seen any SOOC people, or anyone else, say it isn't art if it isn't a realistic reproduction of the real life scene.

I have seen them say that it isn't pure photography.

I have seen them say that it isn't real photography.

But I have never seen ANYONE say that it isn't art. . In fact, they often say the exact opposite of what you claim they say, by saying things like, "when an image is manipulated, the creator is moving away from photography and into the realm of art".

I still wonder why you think they are saying things that they have never said. . You seem to have gotten your signals crossed somewhere.


.