Hi
I bought this month's Digital Camera magazine as they had a section on fixing common problems and was hoping to pick up some tips. I was expecting something on composition, exposure, etc. But the author explained how he applied 18 different steps in Photoshop to improve a photo.
I can understand cropping and straightening but selective mid-tone tweaks, boosting saturation and Chromatic aberration took the article more into IT than what I thought as "photography".
Am I being an old fart thinking that photography is about being artistic with a camera rather than spending time on a PC trying to turn a bad photo into a perfect one?
Is using Photoshop/GIMP/etc for every photo cheating?
Common debate on here. Many threads on this. Depends what you want to achieve. I personaly think there is space in the world for both. I love nailing a shot sooc but also really enjoy post production.
No, it's not cheating. Although there is a line between photography and digital artistry which is rather blurred.
The problem is is that many these days never learn how to use the camera and get it right there before resorting to photoshop. Too many are told, or hear, or think, that it doesn't matter how it looks to begin - photoshop will fix it. But I would much rather spend 5minutes getting a good picture in camera than half an hour making a bad picture better in photoshop. I just feel that no matter how hard you try you can only make a bad picture better with photoshop, but you can make a good picture amazing.
@brav I would agree with Richard. I don't agree with using pictures just as a sort of paint in Photoshop. On the other hand you can be a lot more creative and not just settle for what the lab sends you.
Hi Richard, I did have a search but couldn't find any, discussions. Sorry if I've resurrected an old debate!
I was just interested to see if others on 365 extensively use editors or try and post unaltered photos.
David
I was recently listening to a discussion given by photography judges on this subject. It seems that processing is acceptable, as long as it's not on a 'natural' shot for example wildlife.
Ansel Adams did post-processing. All the film labs post processed 100% of the consumer film they developed. The sensor in your camera does its own processing unless you shoot RAW. So no, it is not cheating.
I started years ago in film only and we "cheated" in the darkroom, dodging burning etc. That was at college with great tutors who helped you make the most out of an image. I would say do whatever you need to make the most out of an image - but no amount of photoshopping can make poor composition good. I think there's a lot to be said for both same as @brav
Danny @soboy5 makes a valid point about film labs post-processing. In this digital photoshopping age people tend to forget that film negatives were (and probably still are) often processed in different ways to achieve different results on the final print.
Changing the white balance, shutter speed, ISO etc is all processing as well - sure, this takes more understanding of the camera settings than altering them in software after the event, but it still takes trial and error while learning to get the required result.
So no, it's not cheating unless one says 'yes, of course this hippo was photographed on the moon' (or something!) It all boils down to how much editing you want to do pre-shutter, during shutter, or post-shutter.
I really don't know how to use Photoshop to "change" a photo - like insert a person that is not there But I do work in Lightroom to make what I captured meet my expectations. I don't think that is cheating - but I also love a SOOC. But, as Danny says, even my camera cheats for me. Interesting line of thought as I am hoping to learn more about Photoshop this winter.
My experience is getting 100% familiar with your camera functions takes time and the time spent photo editing can take even longer if you don't fully understand your camera in the first place. You have to get the best from your camera and equipment first. It also depends what you want to do with your photography. Also post editing software can cost nothing up to £600 which could be spent on better kit.
I think it's OK to a point. But I also think that it won't make you a better photographer... it'll just make you better at using Photoshop! :). Better to spend the time learning to use your camera than rely on editing to fix it for you
All my photos for the last almost 2 years have been SOOC. For ME, right now, at this point in my photography, I'd rather make myself take the time and intention to compose and get a good shot, rather than rushing, knowing i can go in later and "correct' it (NOT saying people are half-assing their work - - - -just saying in know ME enough to know that i would get lazy if i gave myself that option). I am leaving myself open to post-processing in the future...but for ME, for now I get more satisfaction from not doing it.
I think being able to claim SOOC is a badge of honour but there is nothing wrong with making good better.
To me here is the key point. As @soboy5 pointed out, unless you are shooting in RAW your camera manufacturer is doing a bunch of post processing in camera. You can control that to some limited extent but the camera is making a lot of decisions for you. I only shoot in RAW so when I load up the pics I have taken, I decide how the finished product looks.
What you saw in the magazine is teaching you how to micromanage image processing yourself and it's a skill you need to have to take your photography to the next level IF that's what you want to do.
Note: I say this as someone on a journey not as one who has arrived. I know I have a lot to learn but this is why I don't see it as cheating..
I do a little bit of editing on most of my shots, usually just cropping or upping the contrast, which I also used to do in the darkroom in the 'old days'. I don't know why many of my digital photos look so flat and lacking in contrast and I have to admit I don't know how to address this in camera.
And then sometimes the only shot I have to upload that day is really pants, so I have a lot of fun ETSOOI (editing the shit out of it) -ing it. And learning about a whole different creative process of post production. There's a time and place for editing and I don't like to be too precious about it, personally.
My personal goal is to try not to edit, but that's a personal thing as I try to hone my skills with my DSLR. I do up the saturation a bit in my camera settings though, kind of a pre-edit, I suppose. But then there is my crazy hipstamatic side, so I guess that it depends on my mood and what I'm shooting
What Paul and Ingrid said. They darkened mid tones in the printing lab on the enlarger? I do it when I'm shooting film. Its the same argument as the horse riding community of the 1880s saying at car drivers gosh if god had wanted us to go that fast he'd have given us wheels, being that this is where technology has got us there's no reason to back paddle. Photography is - in 2013 all of these things, at the end of the day pick what you love and drop what you hate but don't let anyone say one is valid and one is not cos that will exclude some people.
I could say digital is already removing you completely from the science and mystery of photography and all digital togs have took an easy route, I think digital togs who bad mouth software are right off the mark. Shoot film and develop it yourself then pick on the whole digital movement for watering photography down. And don't start me on mobile phone photography and in phone editing....pah. I shoot both, but in my mind once you're using a sensor you're already distanced from the heritage and chemistry which makes the magic. @ingrid2101
No amount of editing can take a poor photo to something great and amazing. Learning to use you camera properly is essential...something I am still working on! I use Lightroom to enhance my photos...most I only adjust exposure and contrast a bit and then I'm happier with my photo. There are times I am not happy with a photo but want to save it (my husband has no idea how to use my camera properly and doesn't try to learn however he sometimes picks it up to snap a photo of our son...often times they are a great perspective but too dark, too light, etc....I love being able to save those photos). I also think it depends on the type of photography...I mainly shoot my son and I don't like over-processed portraits. I always strive to get it right in camera...there is no other joy that compares to knowing I don't have to fix anything. l cameras process and "edit" jpgs...One of the reasons I shoot in raw because I prefer to have all the control over my photos post processing rather than allow my camera to do it.
I think both matter in this day and age. No longer are we bound, creativity is here to stay. I am all for getting the best shot i can, I wish I knew more about editing. I do like to know how much someone has done with processing, I like to acknowledge a shot for what it is and what someone has painstakingly done to it. Taking all the shots and editing to produce an artwork is a lot of work.
Even the 19th century photography Gustave Le Grey did HDR -- or multiple images overlaid-- to get tones from dark to light, and that was in 1855. He did it with large format paper negatives, now people can do that in their cameras or in Photoshop. I say do what you have to do to get an image you like. A lot of overly Photoshopped pictures I don't like, then again some of it I do like.
The image you wish to create is your own, as are the methods you use to achieve them. The one and only badge of honour one can self-apply is "I created exactly what I wished to."
Discover what you wish to do and learn whatever methods help you achieve that end.
It's interesting how there are two types of photographers taking part in this debate. The first believe that the scene, the image, the subject, or whatever caught their eye is simply there for them to do what they want with it. It's their creation, their art, etc. The second type use reasoning that seems to stem from a belief that they almost owe something to the photo (the scene, the image, the subject...). If a photographer thinks that any of his actions can be considered "cheating" then he's essentially saying he's answerable to something else besides himself. Who/what are you cheating? The viewer? The light? The purpose/intention?
Anyway, this discussion could go on for eternity since everyone takes photos or paints pictures or writes poetry for their own reasons. For me, when I take a picture because I want to say "I saw this and it affected me," I do my best to stay true to whatever it was that caught my eye and communicate it to the viewer (because then I feel responsible, or answerable, to something other than myself). But if I think "I want to communicate this abstract concept that entered my head," then the materials I use for the photo/painting/poem are nothing more than tools to create an end result; I'd be cheating myself if I didn't use all the means I had (including the computer) to communicate the concept.
The fact that I can edit my own pictures is a huge improvement over taking negatives to the drugstore. HUGE! I can't tell you how many of my pictures were ruined due to the limitations of a piece of equipment. Aside from doing darkroom work myself, I was hugely disappointed with many of the pictures that came back after processing. Was is my fault? Sometimes but sometimes not. I'd look at the photo and think I wish I could just do this myself. Well, now I can and so can anybody willing to learn an editing program or two.
Taking a great photo is only one step in the photography process. Editing is very important to the final product. Tweeking is preferable but if the artist in us looks for something more then we are able to act on that ourselves. Cheating? I don't think so at all. The intention of what we show of our work speaks for itself. My only exception would be editorial pieces, like for news. If those photos are not honest than the whole news station is suspect of telling the truth. Only basic tweeking should ever be allowed. Beyond that it's art and anything goes.
as I have said on other similar threads if you actually study the history of photography you will see it littered with photo editing, its just now adays you can do it on a computer rather than in a darkroom, if you go along that path you may find that the use of a digital camera is also photographically speaking cheating. Editing in itself is a skill that should enhance a good photo to make it great if you have a bad photo no amount of editing will make it good in the same way over editing will make a good photo bad, both editing and photography are equally valid photographic techniques that create beautiful images and if you dont believe me about historical photo editing check these out
@dac David I agree with you, it should be about the moment you capture, I was just talking about this yesterday. How often to you see a photo and say wow, only to realise it has been photo shopped?? kind of misleading and to me dishonest.
My dad worked for a photo lab. All film is post processed. They color correct, correct white balance, sharpen, alter hues, color saturation, and even crop. So if you take your photos with film and have a lab develop your film, are you cheating? If you are using a digital camera, do you use the settings programmed in the camera for things like contrast, sharpness, and saturation or do you change them in camera every time you shoot? If you aren't altering EVERYTHING in camera, your camera does a lot of post processing when storing the data. Is that cheating? If you and I stand side by side and look at the exact same sunset, do we see the exact same hues in the sky? No. Neither does your camera. There are so many things that affect how our brains interpret things like hues. No matter how "perfect" you get your settings in camera, you will never do justice to billowing clouds without post processing, because the camera is incapable of seeing all the layers and texture and dimensions that your eye sees. Sometimes, the only way to be true to nature, is through post processing. The masters like Ansel Adams knew this.
If you leave aside photograms, slide film and paper positives, the idea of "straight out of the camera" is a new one in the history of photography. Highly skilled printers have an arsenal of techniques for altering the aesthetic of the final product, starting with choice of paper, and including retouching the negative with pencil, dodging and burning, double printing of clouds, use of ferricyanide to get rid of excess silver, and finally direct retouching with paint or a knife. So I really don't understand why this purist attitude has arisen with the arrival of digital photography.
For me, wholesale cloning out of large unwanted elements is a step too far (and usually a considerable pain in the neck to do), but I wouldn't dream of belittling anyone who can do it well and is up front about it. Getting the picture as right as possible in camera has to be the easiest route, but everyone has the right to make their own decisions from there on in the pursuit of artistic expression.
@minimum do you feel Ansel Adams was dishonest? Just because his tricks of the trade were in a darkroom doesn't make someone using Lightroom, Photoshop, GIMP, Aperture, etc. to do the same thing he did "dishonest" As I mentioned above, no matter how perfect you get your settings in a camera, it is incapable of seeing as much dimension as your naked eye can see. It does not differentiate hues as well as your eyes. If post processing is dishonest, then so is using a macro lens.
Well I agree with you people who said it isn't cheating. But I have to say I don't like over processed stuff much. I tend to do more cropping than anything and sometimes tweak the colors or light. But I think you need to have an EYE for it, if you don't have an eye for your shots you aren't going to get anything worth fooling around with in photo shop. I don't have photoshop but I still use a few things on Pic monkey but I refused to pay for the upgrade. Call me cheap. It takes up too much time to do all sorts of things to the photos, i like the natural SOOC ones best.
The only software I use for post-processing is iPhoto and Picasa. It's good enough for touch ups. The only time I tend to post-process more is for iPhone shots because of the low quality.
It can only be cheating if you think its cheating. This is your project and you choose how you run it, fillers or not, editing or not, DSLR, point & shoot or iPhone, collages or not - your choice.
To quote a highly respected photographer 'there are no photographic police'. So there are no rules (except maybe for wildlife comps. and the like), so there is no cheating. Why would a sooc image be somehow OK and yet not OK after it has been edited. Every image we take is an interpretation of reality. IMO the artistry is in the interpretation. If I shoot JPEGs the camera makes a lot of adjustments to what the camera sees which are out of my control.
I always take RAW images so that the adjustments I make in Lightroom are of my choosing and the result is my interpretation. If it pleases the viewer, job done! Ironically, the most heavily edited image I have posted on 365 so far is the one that attracted most favs.
A RAW file is not processed as long as it only exists as a file on a memory card. The moment you want to have a look at it it is converted from digital data to analogue signals and your computer, your editing/viewing software and even your monitor are all having their turn in interpreting and processing the raw data.
There is no such thing as an unprocessed image ;-)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The problem is is that many these days never learn how to use the camera and get it right there before resorting to photoshop. Too many are told, or hear, or think, that it doesn't matter how it looks to begin - photoshop will fix it. But I would much rather spend 5minutes getting a good picture in camera than half an hour making a bad picture better in photoshop. I just feel that no matter how hard you try you can only make a bad picture better with photoshop, but you can make a good picture amazing.
I was just interested to see if others on 365 extensively use editors or try and post unaltered photos.
David
http://thephotographerblog.com/1957/what-is-photography-post-processing-and-is-it-cheating/
Changing the white balance, shutter speed, ISO etc is all processing as well - sure, this takes more understanding of the camera settings than altering them in software after the event, but it still takes trial and error while learning to get the required result.
So no, it's not cheating unless one says 'yes, of course this hippo was photographed on the moon' (or something!) It all boils down to how much editing you want to do pre-shutter, during shutter, or post-shutter.
To me here is the key point. As @soboy5 pointed out, unless you are shooting in RAW your camera manufacturer is doing a bunch of post processing in camera. You can control that to some limited extent but the camera is making a lot of decisions for you. I only shoot in RAW so when I load up the pics I have taken, I decide how the finished product looks.
What you saw in the magazine is teaching you how to micromanage image processing yourself and it's a skill you need to have to take your photography to the next level IF that's what you want to do.
Note: I say this as someone on a journey not as one who has arrived. I know I have a lot to learn but this is why I don't see it as cheating..
And then sometimes the only shot I have to upload that day is really pants, so I have a lot of fun ETSOOI (editing the shit out of it) -ing it. And learning about a whole different creative process of post production. There's a time and place for editing and I don't like to be too precious about it, personally.
What Paul and Ingrid said. They darkened mid tones in the printing lab on the enlarger? I do it when I'm shooting film. Its the same argument as the horse riding community of the 1880s saying at car drivers gosh if god had wanted us to go that fast he'd have given us wheels, being that this is where technology has got us there's no reason to back paddle. Photography is - in 2013 all of these things, at the end of the day pick what you love and drop what you hate but don't let anyone say one is valid and one is not cos that will exclude some people.
I could say digital is already removing you completely from the science and mystery of photography and all digital togs have took an easy route, I think digital togs who bad mouth software are right off the mark. Shoot film and develop it yourself then pick on the whole digital movement for watering photography down. And don't start me on mobile phone photography and in phone editing....pah. I shoot both, but in my mind once you're using a sensor you're already distanced from the heritage and chemistry which makes the magic.
@ingrid2101
Discover what you wish to do and learn whatever methods help you achieve that end.
We have progressed from using darkrooms to using lightrooms and from the first photo was taken we have been changing them.
It is just that now we can do it with the stroke of a mouse.
I know for a fact no-one could get images to look like this if you didnt use post processing techniques.
Take control of your images and embrace the tools at hand and you will come up with your own images and own ideas if post is right for you.
Remember it all starts with good foundation so the original shot has to be on the money.
Good luck.
Anyway, this discussion could go on for eternity since everyone takes photos or paints pictures or writes poetry for their own reasons. For me, when I take a picture because I want to say "I saw this and it affected me," I do my best to stay true to whatever it was that caught my eye and communicate it to the viewer (because then I feel responsible, or answerable, to something other than myself). But if I think "I want to communicate this abstract concept that entered my head," then the materials I use for the photo/painting/poem are nothing more than tools to create an end result; I'd be cheating myself if I didn't use all the means I had (including the computer) to communicate the concept.
Taking a great photo is only one step in the photography process. Editing is very important to the final product. Tweeking is preferable but if the artist in us looks for something more then we are able to act on that ourselves. Cheating? I don't think so at all. The intention of what we show of our work speaks for itself. My only exception would be editorial pieces, like for news. If those photos are not honest than the whole news station is suspect of telling the truth. Only basic tweeking should ever be allowed. Beyond that it's art and anything goes.
Cheating? I think so.
http://www.flavorwire.com/330197/amazing-manipulated-photographs-from-a-pre-photoshop-world
For me, wholesale cloning out of large unwanted elements is a step too far (and usually a considerable pain in the neck to do), but I wouldn't dream of belittling anyone who can do it well and is up front about it. Getting the picture as right as possible in camera has to be the easiest route, but everyone has the right to make their own decisions from there on in the pursuit of artistic expression.
Just my tuppence worth. :-)
I always take RAW images so that the adjustments I make in Lightroom are of my choosing and the result is my interpretation. If it pleases the viewer, job done! Ironically, the most heavily edited image I have posted on 365 so far is the one that attracted most favs.
There is no such thing as an unprocessed image ;-)