Neoseeker.com Forum Thread: Photo editing = cheating? - page 1

reprinted from http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/
original thread: http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/30896/t882812-photo-editing-cheating/


Author:   dandy01
Date:   May 01, 07 at 4:29pm (PST)
Subject:   Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
I took a wonderful photo of my friends horse the other day. It's downfall was that it had disgusting swarms of flies around it's eyes, so I edited them out. My sister remarked that it was cheating, but isn't photo editing all part of photography? Your views.



Author:   Tuscan
Date:   May 01, 07 at 6:10pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
You did a good job.

But yeah, I did a whole project on it this year, I think photo editing is part of photography now. I don't think it should be classed as cheating, it depends what type of photography you're talking about. Some kind of advertisement for a house which has been edited to become unrecognisable isn't right. But in terms of art photography, (like the horse is?), I think editing is perfectly acceptable to an extent. I mean, in the end what is art? Personally I think it's just something which appeals to your senses, and as editing techniques have got more advanced and easier to use, photography's just become closer to painting in terms of the end product being exactly what the photography wants it to look like, which is in effect what a painter does. And painting is art. So no, who's to say editing a photo is 'cheating'? what are you cheating at?
And anyway, photo editing has been a massive part of dark room photography for decades now.



Author:   Iscariot
Date:   May 02, 07 at 1:07am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
It's not 'cheating' by any means, but it's not 'purist photography', either. There are old-school photographers out there who will never accept the age of photo manipulation as art.
By definition, though, it really is. Doing that right requires talent, attention to detail, and programs like Adobe Photoshop cost thousands of dollars for a reason.
Kick your sister in the balls and laugh at her; you win.




Author:   Colusx
Date:   Feb 08, 10 at 11:27pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
I don't you can cheat in photography. It's just enhancing the image to get rid of flaws that no one wants to see.



Author:   nightsky
Date:   Feb 11, 10 at 4:08am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
For really serious photographers and those what they call 'old school', I think they are not impressed with it because it loses the natural essence. But I don't think it's appropriate to call photo editing as cheating because adobe photoshop for example truly requires great skill in order for you to have a wonderful output.



Edit Note: Removed advertising links from false signature.



Author:   Tec 9
Date:   Feb 11, 10 at 10:55am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
The fact is photomanipulation has been around since photography's invention, photographers would change the negative by drawing on it the same way someone would Photoshop an image today. It could also be argued that taking a photo in the first place is already idealising reality, you're cropping out elements and choosing what to include, that's a manipulation of reality in itself.

And as for creating the 'perfect reality', the most expensive photograph in the world is a constructed one, so if that's not proof of the acceptance of photomanipulation then I don't know what is.



Author:   Kryth
Date:   Feb 11, 10 at 12:10pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
I do agree with the comments above but I think that there should still be a limit to manipulation, in that, if you're significantly altering the color scheme, or say, putting in stars on an otherwise cloudy night is a bit deceptive in my opinion. I don't think that kind of manipulation does justice to the creativity of the art.



Author:   Capn Droid
Date:   Feb 11, 10 at 5:14pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
In my opinion, if you can manage beautiful, captivating shots with proper art elements and properties integrated, and it's purist, then you should be revered over a photo manipulator. However, just because you edit photos doesn't mean you should be discredited. Sometimes you can see a wonderful image, but it's blanketed behind something ugly. When that happens, you just need to shed the blanket.



Author:   Chekkaa
Date:   Feb 12, 10 at 7:31am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating? - Photography
-------------------------------------------
Digital photo editing is the same as film editing, IMO, and that's not cheating. However, I do agree with Capn that it's better to have it unedited, even though editing isn't bad anyway.



Author:   Euphoric
Date:   Feb 12, 10 at 7:41am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating? - Photography
-------------------------------------------
Why is it better to have it unedited? It's still art if it's edited or not. I see no issue with it at all. The artist should be allowed to get their art to portray their vision in any way they desire.



Author:   Chekkaa
Date:   Feb 13, 10 at 12:21am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating? - Photography
-------------------------------------------
quote Euphoric
It's still art if it's edited or not. The artist should be allowed to get their art to portray their vision in any way they desire.
I never said that wasn't true. I said just it's better if it's unedited, albeit only by a little. Just like climbing a mountain without gear is more respectable than climbing with ropes and picks and harnesses, taking a good picture to begin with is more respectable than having to fix your mistakes.



Author:   Euphoric
Date:   Feb 13, 10 at 1:03am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating? - Photography
-------------------------------------------
See that's where I disagree. You are insinuating that all editing is to fix mistakes and errors in the photo. It is possible that it is being edited to distort certain features, or to change the photo in some way that isn't considered normal, and hence can't be called "fixing". Experimental photography and editing is creating a different form of art that isn't directly comparable to purist photography. Saying one is "better" than the other isn't a just comparison.



Author:   Ryancola
Date:   Feb 13, 10 at 5:14pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
I'm a purist. I love photos that weren't brushed up or edited at all and still have a way at amazing you.


The people who edit things and do all of these effects to their photos definitely deserve to be recognized for their talent (as Raz pointed out, it still takes skill and effort), but to me it falls under a different genre.



Author:   Capn Droid
Date:   Feb 13, 10 at 7:03pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating?
-------------------------------------------
Euphoric, of course I don't find that true. Sometimes editing a photo can make it look infinitely better, even when it was just fine as it was before. Actually, I just edited a photo to give to my girlfriend tomorrow. Nothing was wrong with it, but it looks far better now. However, if you can manage to make an amazing picture with just the shot, no manipulation involved, I would consider that to have taken more skill than tweaking the results later.



Author:   Euphoric
Date:   Feb 14, 10 at 2:06am (PST)
Subject:   re: Photo editing = cheating? - Photography
-------------------------------------------
Again though you guys are confusing editing to improve and editing to change. Not all photo editing is to "fix" a shot. Does it take more skill with a camera to take an amazing shot than an average shot that looks amazing after editing? Of course it does. Does it take more skill to take that same amazing shot twice and edit one so that the end result is something from left field and not much like the original at all? I don't think so at all.


Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2014.
All Rights Reserved.