is processing cheating?

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18453122
Obviously, but that's not my point, you don't see the irony of multiple posts saying the same thing complaining about something being unoriginal and repetative?

I think you've been the only one complaining about "unoriginal and repetitive."

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18453160
That's why I prefer "discussions" as opposed to debates. In a debate, someone wins and someone loses. In a discussion, all participants can learn, if they so desire.

The downside to a forum based discussion is that it relies on the written word, thereby losing intent of the author one would infer from tonal inflections in the voice. Three different people can read this post and three different people will get three different meanings from it based on the perceived emotion overlain by the readers. An author may write something rather innocuous and a reader, depending on their mood or feelings towards the conversation to that point, may read it as an attack.

The problem isn't in the reading, but in the responding. If a member is reading a thread and they feel it's contrived, they have options to change the course of that conversation with something positive. If not, simply ignore the thread. Why subject yourself to something you don't agree with? To me, saying you don't agree with a line of thinking and then explaining why is much more constructive than simply saying you don't agree and then lambasting everyone who is participating in the thread.

But we are going way off topic here.

I may have to agree with an earlier comment stating they thought the OP simply started this thread baiting this type of discussion. The OP hasn't chimed in on this conversation since creating this thread so it leads me to suspect this.

Anyway, I stand by my position that this is too open a question to have a single answer. Anyone trying to pigeonhole their philosophy into a single line of thinking isn't doing their due diligence in analysing the problem.

RDKirk wrote in post #18453213
I think you've been the only one complaining about "unoriginal and repetitive."

I guess that makes him original and unrepetitive.

DreDaze wrote in post #18453207
What amazes me most about the thread is that there is no interaction from the op aside from the first post...

Pretty standard once the heavy hitters start to weigh in,. I think the OPs run scared

-Duck- wrote in post #18453214
...

But we are going way off topic here.

....

Today three people told me I need to see "IT".

Wonder Woman was more my speed.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18453335
Pretty standard once the heavy hitters start to weigh in,. I think the OPs run scared

i actually should've looked at their activity beforehand...but surprisingly there hasn't been any activity since they posted...don't think they'll be expecting this when they check back in

RDKirk wrote in post #18453213
I think you've been the only one complaining about "unoriginal and repetitive."

Someone has to be the first to voice an opinion, I'm not complaining I clearly said I was confused, and this shows it's a 'forum discussion not a Q&A session' as you pointed out earlier....

-Duck- wrote in post #18453139
I don't know... I thought I was adding something different. At least I tried to add something different.
Perhaps, WelshWizard1971, you can help the situation by adding something different in this case. Something that will take this conversation out of being repetitive complaining and add something new and/or useful. After all, that's what these discussions are supposed to be.

I did, I answered the OP's question and explained how I feel photography and processing have developed into two distinct skilled disciplines each worthy of merit.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18453377
I did, I answered the OP's question and explained how I feel photography and processing have developed into two distinct skilled disciplines each worthy of merit.

I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure there have been any "fully developed" photographers who have not had to gain an understanding of what processing even when they did not do their own processing and even when the processing was tightly constrained (such as with Kodachrome).

The excellent photographer has needed to understand too much about processing to excel as a photographer and the excellent processing technician has had to know too much about camera operation to excel as a processing technician to assert that they are distinctly separate skilled disciplines.

At the casual dilettante level, possibly so, but then we're not talking about "skilled disciplines."

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'.

Back around 2005-2006, I was just getting into photography on a serious basis. At the time, I plowed through a number of magazines, with Bangkok offering numerous publications from the US, UK, and Australia. One in particular, the UK’s Black & White Photography, when Ailsa McWhinnie was editor, proved one of the more influential and certainly best of the lot.

As a newcomer, one of the most enlightening regular features was ‘The Printer’s Art’, in which a film negative was printed by the original photographer and separately by another noted printer. They eventually included digital files as well, but the overall message was the same for both mediums; photography operates within an interpretative paradigm, one shaped by needs, wants, and whims.

One source, but two different printers, two different prints; and neither printer was as honest or deceitful as the other. More importantly, even slight differences in tonality, contrast, or cropping could impact the distinct feel or mood of each photo. That is, major manipulation was not required to produce notably unique differences. Or in other words, the controls that one has in camera, never mind Photoshop, are more than enough to significantly vary output. So someone tell me, at what point are these variations, in and of themselves, pure or duplicitous?

I believe someone earlier mentioned Ansel Adam’s “Moonrise, Hernandez” photo, and I would urge folks to look how Adam’s processed this photo through the decades, from the initial straight shot to his most recent reinterpretations. And Adams was as technically proficient in camera as any other human ever was…actually, more than most humans ever. But if we’re going to get all semantically arbitrary and argue that he was “cheating,” because it’s all just opinion, then I fully support cheating in photography, as it can inarguably serve as the most integral and creative component of the overall SINGULAR photographic process.

To be sure, the OP left some things open, and clarification is warranted. But I feel it’s pretty fair to assume that he viewed any and all post processing as cheating. After all, wanting a forum that involves absolutely no post processing (at least by his definition of something done outside the camera) is pretty damn definitive. Of course, if I am wrong, and I do entertain this possibility, he has the opportunity to refine, revise, or redact parts or all of his post.

In any event, what we know is that the OP didn’t mention adding or deleting objects; transforming photos into graphic art; or baiting critters to force ‘natural’ shots. He did not suggest that he was solely speaking about manipulation for deceptive, criminal, mendacious, propagandistic, or inveigling purposes. And for that matter, he pretty much insinuated that post processing was just a corrective crutch, or at least something deserving pejorative commentary.

So if the OP still perceives any and all post processing as ‘cheating,’ than that is his prerogative; I can’t change that. He can also think that he is the Second Coming if he wants. I actually sympathize as I felt the same way (about post, not self-deification) when I got my Canon G3 many years back, refusing to ‘fraudulently’ process my annoyingly soft RAW shots. I subsequently learned that, objectively, I was wrong.

Now, as for what is deceitful, deceptive, immoral, and such, yes, this can all get a bit subjective, particularly in this day and age of false moral equivalencies flying all over the place.

Anyway, said my bit; I’m out.

If you give 5 very good photographers that are also very good printers the same negative I would bet there would be 5 completely different interpretations of the same negative. Thus I believe for anyone to get exactly what they envision they need control of the entire process, And post is no more or no less important as making good exposure so you can then have the controls to complete the vision in post. Nobody else knows what the final is supposed to look like except the person that saw the photograph before they pushed the shutter.

As sjones pointed out Adams printed moonrise much different late in his life than he did when he first printed and it looked much different in the early prints than ht e actual scene looked. He used the zone system and his insane memory (recalling how many foot candle of light the moon put out when it was 3/4 full) so he could expose and not loose detail in the moon and then processed the negative to hold all the information he would later need when he made his print. And the interpretation changed over the years. He is the one that compared the negative and how it was processed was like composing the score and the printing was performing the piece of music. If you let some else perform your piece it is likely be very different from what was intended.

inspectoring wrote in post #18448913
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.

Ansel Adams was a master at what was called dodging and burning, a technique in which some areas of a print (being processed) receive more or less light.

Was Adams a cheat?

He was also a master at the zone system which was a way to pre visualize a scene and consistently create a negative that matches that vision by first placing shadows where he wanted them to be and controlling the highlights through altered development times. Thus getting a negative that he could then print what he saw in his minds eye when he push the shutter. That was usually a much different interpretation from what was actually in front of the camera.

processing has been done since the dawn of time

https://petapixel.com …c-prints-edited-darkroom/