# Wrong Photography Ethics?



## sanj (May 9, 2013)

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 9, 2013)

I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.


----------



## crasher8 (May 9, 2013)

Do what you want but imho I appreciate you sharing that you did 'shop' it instead of trying to pull it off as an in camera sky.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.



+1 

Nature image competitions generally allow only cropping and 'global' adjustments (contrast, sharpening, etc.), and nothing 'from the hand of man' (fences, airplane contrails in the sky, etc.).


----------



## thepancakeman (May 9, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



Cheating? Photography = "painting with light", so IMHO, that's like asking if Picasso cheated because he used 2 different brush types on the same painting. Compose, create, and modify as much as you like. However, if you tell someone it's out of camera that way, that would be a lie. Still not cheating, though. ;-)

Heck, even "out of camera" can even be a lie these days, with cameras having in-camera HDR and other various effects options. Does it really matter whether the computer is in the camera itself or on your desktop?


----------



## dolina (May 9, 2013)

I personally do not mind it. I do mind people who have double standards on it. It is ok for photographer A to remove this and that and "Photoshop" it to death but photographer B cannot do the same just because.

When posting respect the community standards or contest rules.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.


----------



## lholmes549 (May 9, 2013)

Looks great to me.

Personally I wouldn't photoshop to this extent, mostly because I like to push myself to see what I can get in in camera, but I don't think it goes against photography ethics as long as you don't try to hide the fact it's modified to this degree. 

There will be many opinions on this but IMO as long as you feel comfortable with it and can stand behind it with integrity then run with it.


----------



## Orangutan (May 9, 2013)

To me it's a matter of viewer/customer expectation: if you present this as photojournalism then it's not OK. If you present it as advertising for a vacation package, then it might be OK if the clouds are "native." I.e., if the scene is typical of the area, but you just missed the ideal photo conditions, then it's OK. If it's "art," i.e., exists purely for the aesthetic value of the image then it's a matter of personal taste. Some, like thepancakeman, seem to believe that photography is just like painting, but using different brushes, paint and canvas. Others, like me, think that what makes photography unique is that has an element of "reality" that painting does not have. To me, a photo is less interesting if it is "less real." Cut and paste is easy, but being there to capture the real thing is hard. I generally expect every photo to be essentially real, unless it is obviously not. "Obvious" here means either declared by the photographer, or obviously manipulated to the point that no reasonable person would mistake it for real. For example, I assume that a photo of Sasquatch driving a flying saucer is not real.

If you are fooling your viewer then it's cheating, with minor exceptions where fooling was an important message of the photo


----------



## thepancakeman (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.



I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Most photography has never been about capturing reality--it's always an idealized view of reality to express the perceptions and ideas of the photographer.

Ever use a backdrop? Maybe a flash? Even just move to a different camera angle? That's composing (composite/compose both from the same french root componere) the image, you're just doing it before the fact instead of after.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.
> ...



All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 9, 2013)

it is your images, you can do whatever you want your eyes are pleased right? however, as far as i know, these type of images can not be sell to someone such as national geo.

were you using blend if split and layer mask technique to change the sky? have known this technique for a while but have not had a chance to use it... very nice and clean sky replacement...

+1 to keep those trees. without them, it is kinda little blank

final answer to your question: NO


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.


+1 Bingo... Edit its ok... composite... well...


----------



## Apop (May 9, 2013)

For me nature photography is trying to capture(freeze) a (part of a) moment how you would see it, I don't see the need to try and make it 'better' than how it was. 

Just keep going there until you make a real picture with those clouds if that is what you like so much, if altering reality (or at least how we perceive it) is something you like, then i would definitely shop some stalking lions in the background to add some drama! , sorry for the poor remark.

nature is artistic enough for itself, rather than craving for more I try to be happy with what it has provided.
I had a picture of a fish eagle landing on a branch, but right behind it there was a car, I would love to see the car removed , and i started doing it.... but in the process i thought why shall i fool myself?, better find a landing fish eagle without a car in the background. If i could have cropped it out i would have , but that is easier to justify for myself as i would say well: This is the shot i would have gotten with a 600mm

But to each his own? or how you would say it , if it makes you happy that the trees are gone and there are some nice clouds there, then why not?

If nature doesn't provide the shot that you like, then fabricating it might be good.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles... 

Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.


----------



## distant.star (May 9, 2013)

.
Photography ethics?

Given the history of this genre that's almost oxymoronic.

The only real "ethics" I know in photography relate to serious photojournalism.

The most idealistic of street photographers will usually follow the photojournalistic ethics, but not all.

I think you probably owe it to the creatures you photographed to put them in the most visually pleasing context possible, so do what you will.

As for altering nature -- you alter nature with every breath you take! Human being ARE nature -- we are not somehow apart from it.


----------



## Pixelsign (May 9, 2013)

for me, photography (or a camera) is a "tool" to visualize an idea. sometimes it's not possible to visualize this idea just with photography and the reality. so you have to add another tools like photohop (or flashlights, or graduated filters etc.) to reach your goal.


----------



## akraj (May 9, 2013)

I like what you did 



Krob78 said:


> I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
> 
> Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.


----------



## Wilmark (May 9, 2013)

I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.


If you're referring to my quick edit, I did use some selective sharpening and unsharpening... Think I mentioned that though...


----------



## jcns (May 9, 2013)

it's your work
you were honest about it being photoshopped instead of trying to pass it as a legit photo
I would not call it photo anymore, rather it's photo based artwork.
Looks good


----------



## mm (May 9, 2013)

In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.

Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference. There is no absolute. Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality. Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating. If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.

The idea that great photos are created in the camera is a myth. True, some great photos are created in the camera alone. I won’t argue that. However, Adams was notorious for spending hours in the darkroom in order to push his negatives and prints to replicate what he saw, his interpretation of reality. Take a look at how dark half-dome is in some of his most well-known photos. Take a look at the cemetery stones glowing in moon rise. Then watch a few documentaries or read a few books about him (not by him) and see what people say about the time he spent in the darkroom on those photos alone. The idea that beauty is created when the shutter is pressed isn’t fair, nor is it reality. 

Reflecting reality the way you see it is just that, reflecting reality. It isn’t reality in and of itself. We don’t have to get into a philosophical debate and start citing Kant. But art is, I assume, wildly recognized as reflecting. You can choose to reflect it anyway you want. Some may think that it is bad art, but it is still art.

I’m often reminded of one of my favorite long-running best-friend adversarial relationships. Wordsworth and Coleridge. Wordsworth represented that his poetry was written on the fly, that something struck him and this beautiful complicated language rolled out of his head and on to his page. He even started to name poems in a way to imply this “Lines composed a few miles above Tinturn Abbey”. Excuse my butchering of his title. Coleridge, suffering from addiction and a raft of other social problems tried so hard to replicate Wordsworth’s easy-going technique. He suffered so much trying to let the words just flow. Instead he suffered, he wrote for hours on end, locked himself away for months to get the right rhyme or pattern. He did write some of the best Romantic poetry ever written – Ancient Mariner, Kubla Kahn. But he suffered. Funny thing is Wordsworth was having him on. He worked just as hard. The poetry didn’t spill out of him, he agonized over it, just like Coleridge. Difference is he never let on. 

Long way to say, I think that this type of mentality, that beauty just spills out, particularly when there are dozens of tools in photography, and there always has been, to manipulate the raw negative, is way-of-base.
If Adams, Man Ray and their buddies can manipulate an image to reflect the reality they wanted, then so be it. It’s their art. It’s still a photo. 

I do think that photos will suffer when pushed to far. I do like your image, but if you look at the fur, it just doesn’t look at good in the manipulated version. It suffers from the electronic manipulation. Noise, degradation. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be art though.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.



So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after? What is so magic about closing the shutter?

Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image. If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it. The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris. It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
> 
> Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.



Everyone must find and follow their own ethics, but Krob78's changes sort of summarize mine. I have no problem pulling details out of different layers from the same image, adjusting colors, exposure, etc. To me, that is really just a more sophisticated version of what we used to do in the darkroom with burning and dodging. It's already there in the negative/raw file so it existed when the picture was taken. 

Personally, I'm not all that uncomfortable with some removal of extraneous objects, depending on the image and its use. I'm less comfortable with adding things that were never there or moving objects around.


----------



## gferdinandsen (May 9, 2013)

If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal; adding to or subtracting from the photo I feel are iffy, they take away from the art of photography...that's certainly not to say that I have not photoshopped hundreds of contrails out of beautiful blue sky...but adding objects that do not exist is a no-no in my mind.


----------



## rawbphoto (May 9, 2013)

Wrong ethics? That would depend on the purpose or usage of the photo. As some have pointed out if entered into a competition that clearly stated only crop, colour balance and some sharpening are allowed then of course you couldn't enter the 'enhanced' version.
This would also hold true if you wanted to submit as part of a news or reportage story.
Otherwise anything goes. 
I myself do not hold to the belief that once a photo enters Photoshop it's no longer photography as most of these so-called fantastic edits were being done long before Photoshop ever existed. Photoshop like any camera, or lens filter or artificial light is but a tool, use them as you see fit to get the image you want.


----------



## hsbn (May 9, 2013)

To me, if it was not there at the time of capture, then it's unethical. 
You can argue about composition, putting stuff into the photo, choosing angle, etc... All of those are FINE as long as you do it at the time of capture. At least, it will show that you have some vision. But you don't have to tell anyone what you did with the photo; however, you cannot fool yourself.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 9, 2013)

hsbn said:


> To me, if it was not there at the time of capture, then it's unethical.
> You can argue about composition, putting stuff into the photo, choosing angle, etc... All of those are FINE as long as you do it at the time of capture. At least, it will show that you have some vision. But you don't have to tell anyone what you did with the photo; however, you cannot fool yourself.



Can I use an imaged backdrop? The backdrop is really there at the time of capture, but the image on the backdrop isn't. If no, then what are ethical backdrops and which aren't? If yes, then I can simply make a backdrop of whatever I want composited and then it's okay in your view?


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Well said and agreed. It would be like saying that if in someone else's opinion you take it too far, then perhaps we should ban digital photography all together and simply shoot film. Although as you aptly put, those of us that worked with film, pushed the processing in film as well... 

Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist? Perhaps some are "Artographers". If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?

I'm not offended or dismayed by anyone's vision of what they did with their photos. It's "theirs" not mine, whether I like it or not... :



mm said:


> In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.
> 
> Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference. There is no absolute. Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality. Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating. If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.
> 
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.
> ...



The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.

Compositing Images into a new image is Digital Art. It just as valid and can be more awe-inspiring but it's not photography.

IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


I'll buy that, so it combines both genres, is it Artography?


----------



## RGF (May 9, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



Yes you did alter nature - the sky is part of nature.

Did you do anything wrong? What are you claiming? If you are claiming that is the image you took, yes you are being dishonest. If you present the picture as "art" and you can sleep at night, then you did nothing wrong.

Bottom line - two thing IMO are important. Are you being honest about the image (if you don't claim it was as shown in the 2nd print you are fine) - but you decide where to draw the line? And can you sleep at night?


----------



## rawbphoto (May 9, 2013)

Compositing isn't necessarily 'digital art'...may I present from 1946 http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 9, 2013)

As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.


----------



## Albi86 (May 9, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting question.

The way I see it, *photography is cheating*. By its own definition. It's about offering a fragment of reality from a perspective that you choose, carrying a visual message that you choose. It's not different from fiction, theatre, music, dance etc. If someone expect a pic to be a faithful reproduction of reality it's his problem, because it's like watching Harry Potter and thinking that Hogwarts actually exists.

Retouching is retouching. Making a composite, IMHO, is not ethically different from smoothening someone's skin, removing blemishes, saturating colors, etc. 

You are either a purist that doesn't touch his RAW files (and who would want that?), or when you start compromising and editing then the acceptable limit of that is debatable. It actually becomes a mere matter of making sensible, tasteful retouches.


----------



## sdsr (May 9, 2013)

I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees. Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different. Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place? The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it. For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field. Why do we want them? So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour. The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide. Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all. The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes. Was it music? Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer? Does it matter?


----------



## sdsr (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.



He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical. Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

sdsr said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.
> ...



Their nice artwork to me, but I couldn't consider them photographs anymore. That's just my take on this subject...


----------



## thepancakeman (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
> IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.



Okay, I think I've got it. When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
> ...



_
( ((
\ =\
__\_ `-\ 
(____))( \---- 
(____)) _ 
(____))
(____))____/----
Thumbs Up Man! You got it.

The light went through the lens and hit whatever sensor/film you had.


----------



## Apop (May 9, 2013)

But it will be fabricated , it's quite hard to have 3 cheetah's pose like that in the wild 
I like gerryvanderwalt's view on processing nature images


https://www.youtube.com/user/gerryvanderwalt

Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two ( cannot find link to entire documentary, but : Is seeing believing? is a nice one from BBC horizon!)




thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
> ...


----------



## thedman (May 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.



Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.


----------



## Skulker (May 9, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal; adding to or subtracting from the photo I feel are iffy, they take away from the art of photography...that's certainly not to say that I have not photoshopped hundreds of contrails out of beautiful blue sky...but adding objects that do not exist is a no-no in my mind.



I know a lot of people go with this. But to me it makes no logical sense. What was so special about the wet darkroom that means photography can't progress?

The idea that "because light has gone through a lens to hit a sensor" so its a photograph makes no more sense to me. Whats so special about that?

I'll bet Mr A Adams would be happily photoshopping away if he were here today.

To me its a case of I'm trying to make an artistic image. I'm not saying to anyone that I'm making photographs, I'm an artist using a digital camera and computer to produce images. That way i'm not misleading anyone. 

Some people will think its all computer generated and that makes it fake, and easy. Am I misleading them because most of it is done in camera and the computer part is not easy at all?

Do what you want to produce the image you want. Be honest with people. That might involve telling people how its done in detail, or you could just say I don't disclose details.


----------



## gary (May 9, 2013)

This is the "I remember when......., things were so much better back in the day" argument. We are in today not in the past and today provides the tools to do all sorts of magical things. It amazes me how we torture innovators to desperately cling to the past. Turner, one of the worlds great painters was roundly abused in his day for his vision which was only reality as he saw it, now of course we recognize his genius. Surely photography is art, not just a representation or photocopy of the world around us. Manipulate your photo's however you wish and I for one will judge them purely based upon my own taste and not on others rules of right or wrong.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.


Yes and my quick little global adjustments didn't mean that I didn't like the OP's edit. Just throwing it up for comparison. Personally, I think the clouds added a nice touch... Conversely, I see you don't have to do that if you choose not too, there are other options, ie: global edits...


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

gary said:


> This is the "I remember when......., things were so much better back in the day" argument. We are in today not in the past and today provides the tools to do all sorts of magical things. It amazes me how we torture innovators to desperately cling to the past. Turner, one of the worlds great painters was roundly abused in his day for his vision which was only reality as he saw it, now of course we recognize his genius. Surely photography is art, not just a representation or photocopy of the world around us. Manipulate your photo's however you wish and I for one will judge them purely based upon my own taste and not on others rules of right or wrong.


Perfect! Nuff said!


----------



## kennephoto (May 9, 2013)

This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!





> This is a pretty stupid topic.





> Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!


That was a bit critical, no?  Seems like, "I like his image" would have been more apropos!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

It's easy to get carried away when compositing... :


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...


I think the ambient light is hitting them from the wrong direction... Do you have any skies which would portray the sunset even further to the right? Wait a minute, did you manipulate this image?? LoL! Nice!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...





> ( PS. I think it was Ansel Adams that said '50% of photography is done in the darkroom"


 Shhh, He was thinking it, he didn't really say it!


----------



## Jules (May 9, 2013)

My take is that it is OK to remove a few stuff when they were not supposed to be there, but not so much OK to add ... For example i hated that when Stockholm was full of contruction cranes all over the place and i couldn't take a pict without them ...


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.



+10^99999

If I were to buy a print to hang on my wall, I would have chosen #2. Whoop-de-do, he played with the sky, but the essence of the shot remains the same.... three big wild cats. If you want to carry the logic through, people should not sharpen images, or color balance, or crop.... Even the act of pointing the camera or zooming in/out is to modify what is being represented. 

Put things in perspective, it's not like Godzilla is walking along the skyline...It's a nice image. I like it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 9, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



No, you have not. It looks better. It's not as if you added an extra cheetah. I don't even particularly think you need to disclose it. It looks natural. 

There is a common theme on photo forums, with certain people suggesting that a photo should be what the photographer saw. Maybe if one takes that statement metaphysically (as in: saw in his mind's eye type of thing), I agree. Literally? I do not, and I find it funny when those same people then post desaturated images of their dinner at f/1.2 with the camera held at MFD. This isn't that theme, but it's kinda like it.

To me, the end product has always been about what I want it to be. I'm not a photojournalist; there are rules in that realm for good reason. When it comes to art, do what you want to do. Your image is art.


----------



## Rocguy (May 9, 2013)

This is an interesting discussion. I was looking at some beautiful macro photos (of insects) recently. And trying to figure out how they got the whole image to be in perfect focus led me to reading about focus stacking. And my first reaction was "well that's cheating!!!".  

I certainly wouldn't call it unethical though. As long as they (the "photographer") are not trying to imply the end "photo" is a one take shot. When it really was 20 photographs blended together through digital manipulation. The end results are still beautiful. But I am not as impressed with them as photographs. Really. What they really show is great skill in digital manipulation. Or maybe not even great skill? For all I know it's super easy to load up 20 images in photoshop and boom you have 1 great focus stacked image. 

I'm not sure where you draw the line and where something crosses from being a photograph into being a work of digital art. But there's a line somewhere. It may be a thick, wavy, grey line but there's a line. Personally I'm more interested in the photography side of it and less in the digital manipulation as art side...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 9, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal



You might not be able to do it in the darkroom, but if someone else with a different skillset can, does it become legal?

Was it illegal when Jerry Uelsmann shot all the requisite film, built the appropriate masks, and then used a series of enlargers along with consummate skill to print this image in a darkroom in 1976?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal
> ...



That's great Artwork than involved good photography but the final product would be classified by me as Artwork.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's great Artwork than involved good photography but the final product would be classified by me as Artwork.



I'd say it's good artwork that involved great photography.

Think about how you'd have to shoot. Intentionally under or overexposing certain areas to result in thin or thick negatives to aid in composting, printing and printing and printing to find placement and build masks, then going through an elaborate sequence (I think I read once he uses a dozen or so enlargers for some of his more elaborate works) of printing in the dark with no indication what's been exposed until you drop it in the developer.

It boggles my mind, regardless of what one calls the final product.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 9, 2013)

Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ... photography for me is a passionate hobby and an art form ... I'm no good at drawing or painting or sculpting ... the closest I can hope to get to any decent art form is making images and manipulating them the way I like ... I am happy to manipulate and change images so they are pleasing and/or compelling to look at ... even if it mans adding a lighting bolt or removing an ugly wire or add an extra cheetah or make a fat person look a little slimmer (in fact I routinely use liquify tool to make people, with a big paunch, look a little slimmer) and as a photographer it gives me great joy to see people feel good about themselves when they look at the images I've manipulated ... I don't give a damn if the so called "purists" think it is unethical ... I thank God everyday that photography is my hobby and that it gives me a chance to look for beauty in the world around me and if I can't see it, I'll just manipulate that scene in photoshop, and I don't need to worry about being unethical coz I am not a forensic photographer shooting crime scenes and dead bodies.


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ...



Funny you should mention that as an example of photo purity..... It's also a great example of extreme image manipulation...

I am not a forensic photographer, but I do take a number of inspection and verification photos. Sometimes it takes a lot of image manipulation to be able to see serial numbers and scratches in metal.... Highly doctored can be a good thing.....


----------



## unfocused (May 10, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I believe even "photographers" in the film era would combine more attractive skies (with clouds) to enhance landscapes. No photoshop. It's still photography high and mighty people.



Well, as a matter of fact, 19th century photographers like Timothy O'Sullivan did combine clouds and foregrounds on prints made from glass plates. In part, because the plates were not able to capture the full spectrum of light, so to recreate the scene they had to merge images.

But, keep in mind that in the early days of photography, documentary ethics were not well-defined. Roger Fenton's famous image of cannonballs on the road in Crimea being a classic example. Remember that photography was viewed as a substitute for newspaper illustrators and, of course, artists took great liberties with scenes when they were drawing images for the press in the 19th century, so photographers thought little or nothing of recomposing a scene to make it more interesting. (For example, Alexander Gardner's "Rebel Sharpshooter" who was most likely moved to the spot where Gardner took the photo).

Of course, just because something was done in the past doesn't make it right and today, no respectable news photographer would dream of re-arranging a scene. It's a career ending move. 

Still, we are not talking about news photos here. These are grey areas and one must determine what one is comfortable with. I think the only deadly sin would be to intentionally deceive. (See the discussion a year or so ago about the "art" photographer who claimed to have gotten a picture of the moon rising over the desert that was clearly debunked by dozens of people on this site and others)


----------



## eml58 (May 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ... photography for me is a passionate hobby and an art form ... I'm no good at drawing or painting or sculpting ... the closest I can hope to get to any decent art form is making images and manipulating them the way I like ... I am happy to manipulate and change images so they are pleasing and/or compelling to look at ... even if it mans adding a lighting bolt or removing an ugly wire or add an extra cheetah or make a fat person look a little slimmer (in fact I routinely use liquify tool to make people, with a big paunch, look a little slimmer) and as a photographer it gives me great joy to see people feel good about themselves when they look at the images I've manipulated ... I don't give a damn if the so called "purists" think it is unethical ... I thank God everyday that photography is my hobby and that it gives me a chance to look for beauty in the world around me and if I can't see it, I'll just manipulate that scene in photoshop, and I don't need to worry about being unethical coz I am not a forensic photographer shooting crime scenes and dead bodies.



Pretty well what I feel as well, well said.

Hi Sanj, the "African" Dilemma in June July, no Clouds. Photography to me is a form of Art, as mentioned above by 'Rienzphtoz', it gives some of us the opportunity to create something from what's around us, something hopefully that will give pleasure to others. Manipulation has pretty well always been part of Photography, the Wet Darkroom in todays digital world has simply been replaced with the likes of Photoshop, On One, Nik etc, every Photo I take goes into LR4 on to Photoshop and often into On One or Nik etc, I don't believe by doing this you are changing the Image to a degree where it is no longer the scene you originally Photographed by working elements within the original Image by developing the Image through Layers to a final Image, my view.

I do feel there is a difference though between Photography and Graphic Art, someone produced a Photo earlier of a chap with a Black Moustache, it's a good not to subtle view of the difference between the two, Photography/Graphic Art. 

Essentially it's your Photo, you should NEVER feel poorly or confused about your own Photography, do with it what you will so long as the end product is first & foremost, what makes YOU feel good. I would offer only one caveat to that view, If your entering a competition you should offer up the fact that you have "added""subtracted" components into the Photograph (By this I don't mean removing sensor dust spots), then people will judge the Image on that Basis, not on the basis that the Image is anything else.

Personally I like the changed Cheetah Image, except for the lack of the Tree line, to me it looks more pleasing, but I still wish we could get lovely Cloud formations in Africa in June, unfortunately we need to go in December for the Clouds, and Africa in December is a bitch.

And Sanj, great choice of Thread for the morning, don't think I've seen a thread grow as fast as this for some time, and some insightful views from everyone.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2013)

Thank you everyone for taking time to comment. I learnt a lot.
Appreciate.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 10, 2013)

sanj said:


> Thank you everyone for taking time to comment. I learnt a lot.
> Appreciate.


Hi Sanj, as always you bring something interesting to this forum. It made for an interesting discussion without too much polarization. 

Pretty much all my photos goes into LR4 where I will work more or less with them depending on what I will use them for. I do some work for my children's school, for website, promotion material etc, then I shoot medium JPEG and only adjust some WB and little bit of exposure sometimes. I am now preparing for my first exhibition and of course for those I spend alot more time on each photo. 

I am originally from Sweden. I think it was last year or so, a wildlife photographer won the wildlife photograph of the year or something, the subject was a lynx. There are plenty of them in Sweden, but you rarely see them. People started to question the picture and finally the guy came out and admitted that he had taken the picture of a lynx at a zoo and then pasted it into a regular winter landscape. I guess his career as a wildlife photographer came to an abrupt end.

Having said that, I think we are allowed to do whatever we want with our pictures as long as it's clear what we've done, depending on the purpose of the picture, art, documenting a scene, publishing etc. 

Sometimes though, I just accept that the sky was white that day.

thanks
J


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 10, 2013)

On the other hand, one could have cropped it so that the cheetahs was down in the left corner watching an army of sasquatches fighting Nazi tanks.


----------



## kennephoto (May 10, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> kennephoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!
> ...




I did say I like his photo! And I truely do, ethics shouldn't apply to this. If that's what he wanted the photo to look like or how he saw it and he's got the ability to make it so then by all means do it.


----------



## kennephoto (May 10, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> On the other hand, one could have cropped it so that the cheetahs was down in the left corner watching an army of sasquatches fighting Nazi tanks.



And even then that's not extreme manipulation because I bet that can be done in a matter of minutes. It's just clouds, and the already existed in the photo why not change the clouds to fit the feel and complete the image. Bah humbug. Time to go look at photos for inspiration as I fall asleep. Oh and someone add the nazis tanks that would be fun to see them driving on the horizon.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 10, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ...
> ...


Interesting point, I think I understand what you are saying... in fact I too photograph a lot of drill pipes and other equipment related to onshore/offshore drilling rigs which have serial numbers that are really hard to see (due to rust, wear & tear etc) and most of the time I have to mess with the exposure and contrast sliders to make those serial numbers visible in the final image (but for the last 1 year or so I've been using Matt Kloswkowski's HDR presets in lightroom for those kind of images ... it really works well for difficult to see serial numbers, with just 1 click on the preset) ... having said that, when I say "manipulation" I meant adding a new element/subject to the image which wasn't even there in the first place e.g. adding a lightning bolt, rainbow, tree, few extra clouds etc in PP, in fact I use green screen quite a bit for our rig models and composite them with images of the sea ... those images are used on our company brochure, newsletters, presentations etc ... whereas for a forensic photographer that would be a punishable crime, let alone unethical ... but as a hobbyist photographer, I would have no qualms in introducing a new subject (which wasn't in the original photo) into my post processed image.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 10, 2013)

mm said:


> In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.
> 
> Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference. There is no absolute. Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality. Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating. If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.


I think this is a very logical argument. I don't particularly "like" the idea of images being photoshopped and changed beyond just lightroom style editing, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening constantly everywhere around us. In this day and age, I think we should all just expect editing and it is difficult to draw the line on what is acceptable and what isn't. Unless this is being used for some reason and besides just to entertain then I really don't see an issue with it at all


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 10, 2013)

Without hijacking your thread further, this week I visited one of the poorer provinces here in Cambodia. We stayed overnight at a friend's house, went for local BBQ, took some pictures and enjoyed ourselves. Out motorbiking we passed a house with a group of ladies hanging back not doing much. They had a small stand set up there where you could buy water, cigarettes and stuff. We bought some water and started talking to them, then took some photos. I didn't bother much about setup and all as it was a bit cramped there. However, we promised to get them some prints which I have now tended to so they are on their way to them and will arrive tmrw. OK, long story leading up to why I would have liked to have Photoshop, the picture below is of one of the children there, it's a very pleasant shot, she went after me to get several pictures taken of her. This was the best hadn't it been for her older sister or cousin just moving into the background wearing a red shirt. The background was all nice and green but this just ruined the picture. I did lower the red saturation in LR so it wouldn't be too visible, but still.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 10, 2013)

i was recently on safari and two american tourists were treating the locals like part of the trip. elephants.lions...african children. i found it very uncomfortable. would you drive around your home town taking photos of young girls? or the guy who works in the local shop? i find the whole photography tourist thing very odd sometimes, and god knows what they think of us.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 10, 2013)

to add to the original discussion, i went to a talk by one of the worlds top wildlife photogrpahers, and he has a famous photo of a polar bear close up. he disclosed it was actually a stuffed polar bear that was in storage in the local area,he took a tight wide angle close up of his face!!! it went on to be one of his best selling images.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2013)

I so want to comment and discuss so many of the posts in this thread but currently struggling with time. Shooting a feature and it requires 15 hours of my time. The heat is killing. But I will do when I can. 

Will quickly say now: Image manipulation is part of the game - done in camera or in post.

Am attaching a photo I took on vacation with my 12 year old. There is no post and it was done in-camera. When I showed it to my 12 it daughter on the lcd of the camera, she said "All photographers are LIARS." 

Even a kid can see that. Yes, I am slowly but surely getting convinced that ALL photographs are MANIPULATION. Perhaps I am being too quick in thinking like that...?


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2013)

Hobbyshooter: Nothing like this being MY thread. It is for all of us to learn and express. 
Regards!


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 10, 2013)

isnt exposure time, or aperture just a manipulation of the to be recorded image? a traditional school dark room is just a basic form of photoshop! 

a jpeg is also just a manipulated image aswell! a true purist will do those old school trad victorian type photos where the image is done once and once only, and these are usually awesome and a lot more interesting than a converted raw digitial picture.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

I find nothing wrong with these before and afters here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/10/aesthetics-versus-truth

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.


----------



## gferdinandsen (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.



I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable. Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 10, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.
> ...



So I can take a nice portrait shot and delete the everything but the eyes, it's okay? Or do I have to run that by the edit police to determine what is deletable and what isn't?

BTW, by deleting ANYTHING you are adding as well--you are adding space or order or isolation, etc. Like the construction crane behind the building example--that's not reflecting reality, it's portraying an enhanced reality that is meets the photographer's tastes. 

Even just enhancing contrast is a change to reality, yet so many of you are saying "deviations from reality that meet my arbitrary criteria are okay, but everything else is taboo." That's a bit egotistical, don't ya think? ???


----------



## sdsr (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I find nothing wrong with these before and afters here.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/10/aesthetics-versus-truth
> 
> It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.



If you're going to take that view, then I guess the question becomes "what's an element?" It seems to me that a heck of a lot has been added to the first photo, including colors and perceived light. Why aren't they elements?


----------



## sdsr (May 10, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.
> ...



On the off-chance your comments aren't tongue-in-cheek, what's the (relevant) difference between adding a flying bird and subtracting a flying bird? (They're both additions anyway.) And why is it obvious that the ethics of all of this are defined by what can be done in a wet darkroom?


----------



## woollybear (May 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ... photography for me is a passionate hobby and an art form ... I'm no good at drawing or painting or sculpting ... the closest I can hope to get to any decent art form is making images and manipulating them the way I like ... I am happy to manipulate and change images so they are pleasing and/or compelling to look at ... even if it mans adding a lighting bolt or removing an ugly wire or add an extra cheetah or make a fat person look a little slimmer (in fact I routinely use liquify tool to make people, with a big paunch, look a little slimmer) and as a photographer it gives me great joy to see people feel good about themselves when they look at the images I've manipulated ... I don't give a damn if the so called "purists" think it is unethical ... I thank God everyday that photography is my hobby and that it gives me a chance to look for beauty in the world around me and if I can't see it, I'll just manipulate that scene in photoshop, and I don't need to worry about being unethical coz I am not a forensic photographer shooting crime scenes and dead bodies.



Couldn't agree more...only thing I would add to crime scenes and dead bodies is news.


----------



## awinphoto (May 10, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Good lord... photography is an art form... altered or non altered, it's an art form... In the film days did you not think they spliced film? overlapped film? Added density filters, dodge, burn, enhance, multiple exposure... I would hate to hear someone say ansel adams work wasn't photography because of all the manipulation he did in the darkroom... It is what it is... No one is going to look at a print ANY LESS if it was heavily manipulated vs OOC. Then you have photographers like Sal Cincotta and Dave Cross shoot some pictures just for post production if needed. I doubt any of their clients who are spending thousands for his services think his work isn't art/photography.


----------



## Mick (May 10, 2013)

My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 11, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i was recently on safari and two american tourists were treating the locals like part of the trip. elephants.lions...african children. i found it very uncomfortable. would you drive around your home town taking photos of young girls? or the guy who works in the local shop? i find the whole photography tourist thing very odd sometimes, and god knows what they think of us.


That is a side track, but a very good one. It's not only about photography but ethics in general. I live in a very poor country and it's really painful to see sometimes the way tourists treat the locals here. They will sometimes actually feed poor street children while taking pictures of them. It's repulsive. There is a big difference in taking pictures of locals and exploit locals.


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i was recently on safari and two american tourists were treating the locals like part of the trip. elephants.lions...african children. i found it very uncomfortable. would you drive around your home town taking photos of young girls? or the guy who works in the local shop? i find the whole photography tourist thing very odd sometimes, and god knows what they think of us.



Interesting insight.... Treat the locals with respect, talk to them, and both have a far better experience.... and who knows what will come of it.... including photographic oportunities that only the locals know about....


----------



## jdramirez (May 11, 2013)

I'm ok with it. It's your image... and sometimes bumping saturation and contrast make for a better image. You didn't remarkably change the context of the image, putting a tornado in the background or a jet plane about to crash...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 11, 2013)

sanj said:


> Hobbyshooter: Nothing like this being MY thread. It is for all of us to learn and express.
> Regards!


Thanks Sanj


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 11, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Mick said:
> 
> 
> > My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
> ...


Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?


----------



## Krob78 (May 11, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > Mick said:
> ...


Good question, because that simply isn't true.


----------



## Krob78 (May 11, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > kennephoto said:
> ...


Sorry Kenne, you did say you liked his photo. I was just pointing out the bit of irony that you were criticizing the thread about people criticizing each other in the thread... More appropriately, I should have said; "Seems like, "I like this thread" would have been more apropos! Just trying to lighten things up, I did however misstate my thought and I apologize. No hard feelings I hope! All the best!


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images..... National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.


----------



## Krob78 (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...


I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



My favourite is the February 1982 issue where they moved the pyramids closer together on the cover shot.....but that was done in a darkroom so it must be ok......


----------



## Krob78 (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Lol! Yes, perfectly acceptable in that case...


----------



## expatinasia (May 11, 2013)

Interesting thread and I think the worse thing about it is the choice or words in the title. I do not see this as having anything to do with ethics (unless you try to cheat, fraud or break laws etc) and more to do with where the boundaries between art, digital art and photography lie.

I agree with those that say that as soon as you add elements (or take away elements) from a photograph then you are entering the world of make believe, and consequently art. You are creating something that did not exist, but that your mind wanted to see. 

One example of this, would be the CR forum member Gary Samples who posted a picture of two eagles fighting. The one on top was pushing the other into a stream. It is an amazing picture, and I would bet money on the fact that Gary changed very, very little and most definitely did not add or subtract anything from the shot (which is in the 1D X image gallery section. I suggested at the time that he enter it into a competition as I had never seen anything like it. That is photography. If he had added a fish to the beak of one and possible added a bear in the background then it becomes digital art. Incidentally if someone were to paint that moment on canvas, I am sure it would make for an amazing painting too. That would be art.

HDR is on the very verge of this, and possibly on the verge of video too, but as it does not actually add, or subtract, elements that did not exist I still see it as photography.

I am quite possibly the worse artist in the world, and that is saying something considering some of the c**p that sells for millions. The camera allows me, and possibly many of us here to be better artists. We recognise the beauty of something, but if you give us paint, canvas and a brush, then it just is not going to come out the way we would like. I admire anyone like Banksie (is that the right spelling?) and I adore his art. I make the best of my limited talents and try to capture moments with a tool which allows me to do so, but I am a billion miles away from ever being an artist. Even digital art is absolutely amazing and requires some very special people to create what they do. Me, I just point and shoot.


----------



## AprilForever (May 11, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



Read the birdsasart-blog.com, and Alain Briot's articles on luminous-landscape.com...


----------



## mb66energy (May 11, 2013)

Just my 2 ct.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Adjusting an image before exposure by using the right focal lenth, position, composition, exposure values, film/sensor, LIGHT is photography.
Adjusting what the negative/RAW contains to adapt it to what you have seen in a wet/digital darkroom is photography.
HDR and focus stacking is sth. that recreates what we perceive - by our highly dynamic biological sensors (retina + brain) and adjusting focus by our eyes. So it is too photography.
[*]Everything else is no longer photography - in german language I would say "Montage" or composite. And I think it should be referenced as "*Composite:* Photogs Name" instead of "*Photo:* Photgs Name"[/list].
I would count each removal and addition of components to the category "Composite".
[/list]

Both are valuable contributions to art (at least in some cases - I produce a lot of non-art photos for the trash).

To sanj: Thanks for the thread, it was a good starting point to think about what photography is ... or might be.


----------



## pharp (May 11, 2013)

I wouldn't even consider this an ethical issue. Maybe, if you were to sell it under false pretenses or entered it into a contest that prohibits such manipulation. What you do with your images is your own business. I assume that ALL advertising "photography" is heavily manipulated and I don't consider that unethical. Then you have things like 'fine art photography'- ethical? http://www.lik.com/thework/clouds-skies-stars/bella-luna.html


----------



## J.R. (May 11, 2013)

pharp said:


> I wouldn't even consider this an ethical issue. Maybe, if you were to sell it under false pretenses or entered it into a contest that prohibits such manipulation. What you do with your images is your own business. I assume that ALL advertising "photography" is heavily manipulated and I don't consider that unethical. Then you have things like 'fine art photography'- ethical? http://www.lik.com/thework/clouds-skies-stars/bella-luna.html



I was just wondering when Peter Lik would be brought into this debate ... Moon inside the earth's atmosphere ... Shooting with a 2000mm lens (or equivalent) and having massive DOF with outrageous claims ... Sheesh 

Thse links are deep inside CR vault ... Threads which ultimately convinced me to sign up at CR ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3156.0


----------



## infared (May 11, 2013)

I like to leave reality behind..and create something...some like it, some don't...oh well...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8255/8649648621_3b1df8baf7_b.jpg

If you are a photojournalist, content should stay but you can definitely run image enhancing software on it to give it some snap etc.. as far as I am concerned. I know everyone does not feel that way. MOST images (even Nat. Geo) are heavily worked on...not photo comp. per say...but they are ALL run thru software. I think that probably 90% of "pro" images are today, generally you cannot compete if you just use the "in-camera" image. It's just the reality of the photography industry in 2013.
Whatever that is???? 
A little bit of ethics can go a long way tho!


----------



## Mick (May 11, 2013)

If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo. 

They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.

Dont believe me? Then give it a try.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 11, 2013)

Mick said:


> If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.
> 
> They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.
> 
> Dont believe me? Then give it a try.



so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok? 

that makes no sense to me whatsoever !


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 12, 2013)

Mick said:


> If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.
> 
> They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.
> 
> Dont believe me? Then give it a try.


Im not good enough and Im not interested in landscapes or animal photography.


----------



## eml58 (May 12, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > Mick said:
> ...



Hi Mick, sorry, but your basically wrong.

The attached Photo is the front cover of the February 1982 National Geographic Magazine, it became quite famous due to the fact that the Nat Geo Photographer, Gordon Gahan, moved the Pyramids closer together in Post (Photoshop) to achieve a more "aesthetically" pleasing photo. His other Photos taken during this shoot were all either staged (he paid Camel drivers to ride backwards & forwards in front of the Pyramids to achieve his aims, or they were adjusted in Post for colour, saturation, crop etc.

I personally know 3 Photographers that frequently Provide Photographs & Articles for National Geographic Magazine, all provide both the RAW image & the Final Image to the editors, but Image manipulation is part and parcel of todays Photography, even at Nat Geo, They (Nat Geo) clearly do have more stringent rules regards the Images, but Mick, to think every Image you see in a Nat Geo Magazine in the year 2013 is a RAW Image, when at least since 1982 manipulation has been going on, is a little naive.

And Mick, to blanket statement that no one posting images on CR is in the same Ball Park as anyone that provides Images to National Geographic is simply a Blanket Insult, I dont remember ever seeing anyone on this Forum compare themselves to a Nat Geo Photographer, but I've certainly seen Images on this site that would be a shoe In for a Nat Geo Magazine.


----------



## eml58 (May 12, 2013)

For Mick

These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.

Have you ever seen a B&W Image in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated.

Have you ever seen a Stitched Panorama in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that employs stacked focussing in a Nat geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that's been cropped etc Saturation levels increased etc

You get the Picture I'm sure.


----------



## bycostello (May 12, 2013)

the problem is actually your original composition... as you say boring sky, so why have so much in the image


----------



## Don Haines (May 12, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> Mick said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.
> ...



Bang on again.....

If I set up everything before the shot, then the out-of-camera jpg is acceptable.
If I take that RAW file and apply the exact same settings, it is evil.
And strangely enough, If I take that RAW file and make a B/W jpg out of it.... that's OK ?!?!?!?!?!
And all this from the magazine that publishes photos of "Bart the Bear" from Wasatch Rocky Mountain Animals as wildlife? That's like me heading of to the Papanac Zoo and shooting pictures of the wild animals.

As Spock would say.... "Highly illogical"


----------



## serendipidy (May 12, 2013)

pharp said:


> I wouldn't even consider this an ethical issue. Maybe, if you were to sell it under false pretenses or entered it into a contest that prohibits such manipulation. What you do with your images is your own business. I assume that ALL advertising "photography" is heavily manipulated and I don't consider that unethical. Then you have things like 'fine art photography'- ethical? http://www.lik.com/thework/clouds-skies-stars/bella-luna.html



I never heard of Peter Lik until I watched a number of episodes about him on TV ("From the Edge With Peter Lik - The Weather Channel"). I really liked the show and his photography. Of course he did heavy PP but I still liked most of his work. A lot better than any of my photos!


----------



## agierke (May 12, 2013)

if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?

i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen? 

art and photography are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 12, 2013)

agierke said:


> if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?
> 
> i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen?
> 
> art and photography are not mutually exclusive.


I enjoy this thread, it's a perfectly valid question from Sanj to the forum members and I think the discussion has developed nicely. It's fun to try to define this and also to some extent important. At least that's my view.


----------



## eml58 (May 12, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?
> ...



I agree, totally.

And it's a CR Forum thread, you don't "listen" you read.

Plus if the thread & comments/advice contained within don't meet with your particular brand of principals, then just move on to a thread/topic you do enjoy, and feel free to comment.

The Op asked for advise/Comments, with one or two exceptions the majority of Posters have done their best to assist the Op in what he asked and done so in a Positive manner, for you to define all the Posters here as absurd, is absurd.

And yes, at times these Threads drift off topic, but it's the nature of the beast when your dealing with individuals that have different views on how to answer the original query.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Hello!
Finally I have some time to comment on what I learnt in this thread. 
I have read all thoughts very carefully and repeatedly on my cell while working but did not reply as I find it very difficult to do so on the phone.

I have concluded:
1. The moment we pick up the camera to take a photograph we CERTAINLY manipulate reality by:
Framing: We decide what we capture. This can never be what our eyes see. We select what we photograph. An am so glad we do this or else there would not be a point of view in a photograph. 
2. Exposure: We decide what goes black and what goes white. We do not represent things exactly as they were. We create our own drama. 
3. F stop: We throw background out of focus to isolate our subjects.
4. Shutter speed: We create subject or camera blur and enhance motion. Or we freeze it. Reality is rarely represented here.
5. External light source: We using lighting to enhance textures, create mood or simply lighten up darkness. M a n i p u l a t i o n!
6. We enhance our photos in post: We add/subtract colors, we re-frame, we blur, we sharpen, we remove sensor dust.
(This list is incomplete and you all know that.)

SO FAR THERE ARE NO CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING INCLUDING ETHICS MY MOST. 

BUT..

The moment we add something to the frame or remove it (even if it could have been there) MANY find that wrong. In my case the clouds very well could have been there but since I added them I did a bad thing.

To ME, since photography is manipulation of reality in ALL cases, adding the clouds (after reading comments on this thread) is not something wrong as I just made the photo look better.

Thx. Now let me try to address some comments individually....


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.



I tried keeping the trees but found it technically difficult to mask them out. My limitations. And yes, I will not enter it into contests, do not think it is that great even with the added clouds.  Thx!


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Do what you want but imho I appreciate you sharing that you did 'shop' it instead of trying to pull it off as an in camera sky.



Thank you. But I am not sure if someone ever wanted to buy this (doubt that) I may not have the heart to say that the clouds are added as would not want to spoil my first sale ever... lol.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.
> ...



Yes sir will not. However I feel that photography, by it's very nature, is 'from the hand of man'. Thank you John.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



After giving it lots of thought, I totally totally agree with you.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

dolina said:


> I personally do not mind it. I do mind people who have double standards on it. It is ok for photographer A to remove this and that and "Photoshop" it to death but photographer B cannot do the same just because.
> 
> When posting respect the community standards or contest rules.



Yes Dolina entering it into a competition where compositing is not accepted would indeed in unethical!


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.



I politely disagree. It certainly is photography, but it may just be misrepresenting things. But that is the fundamental core of photography - no matter what kind.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

lholmes549 said:


> Looks great to me.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't photoshop to this extent, mostly because I like to push myself to see what I can get in in camera, but I don't think it goes against photography ethics as long as you don't try to hide the fact it's modified to this degree.
> 
> There will be many opinions on this but IMO as long as you feel comfortable with it and can stand behind it with integrity then run with it.



Thank you! Trust me Iholmes I do my very best I push myself VERY hard. But if I can enhance a photo later (I certainly do not want to make compositing a habit) I will not miss a chance.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> To me it's a matter of viewer/customer expectation: if you present this as photojournalism then it's not OK. If you present it as advertising for a vacation package, then it might be OK if the clouds are "native." I.e., if the scene is typical of the area, but you just missed the ideal photo conditions, then it's OK. If it's "art," i.e., exists purely for the aesthetic value of the image then it's a matter of personal taste. Some, like thepancakeman, seem to believe that photography is just like painting, but using different brushes, paint and canvas. Others, like me, think that what makes photography unique is that has an element of "reality" that painting does not have. To me, a photo is less interesting if it is "less real." Cut and paste is easy, but being there to capture the real thing is hard. I generally expect every photo to be essentially real, unless it is obviously not. "Obvious" here means either declared by the photographer, or obviously manipulated to the point that no reasonable person would mistake it for real. For example, I assume that a photo of Sasquatch driving a flying saucer is not real.
> 
> If you are fooling your viewer then it's cheating, with minor exceptions where fooling was an important message of the photo



The clouds are native. Hmmmm. Since we cheat in various ways from the moment we pick up the camera, I am not sure if this enhancement is a cheat. 

I respect your opinion.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> it is your images, you can do whatever you want your eyes are pleased right? however, as far as i know, these type of images can not be sell to someone such as national geo.
> 
> were you using blend if split and layer mask technique to change the sky? have known this technique for a while but have not had a chance to use it... very nice and clean sky replacement...
> 
> ...



Thank you for the endorsement. Really.

Yes, layer mask.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Cptn Rigo said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.
> ...



Why? Regards..


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Apop said:


> For me nature photography is trying to capture(freeze) a (part of a) moment how you would see it, I don't see the need to try and make it 'better' than how it was.
> 
> Just keep going there until you make a real picture with those clouds if that is what you like so much, if altering reality (or at least how we perceive it) is something you like, then i would definitely shop some stalking lions in the background to add some drama! , sorry for the poor remark.
> 
> ...



I agree. I did not get it perfect while trying my very best and enhanced it later. 
Btw if I were you, depending upon the size of the car, I would not hesitate to clone it out. My logic: The car was there just that split second and could not have been there.

However, I do bow down to your honesty to your principles.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
> 
> Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.



I like it! Thank you.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Photography ethics?
> 
> Given the history of this genre that's almost oxymoronic.
> ...



  Thank you...


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Pixelsign said:


> for me, photography (or a camera) is a "tool" to visualize an idea. sometimes it's not possible to visualize this idea just with photography and the reality. so you have to add another tools like photohop (or flashlights, or graduated filters etc.) to reach your goal.



Yessss!


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.



Yes Wilmark the horizon does have a problem and I will find time to fix it.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

jcns said:


> it's your work
> you were honest about it being photoshopped instead of trying to pass it as a legit photo
> I would not call it photo anymore, rather it's photo based artwork.
> Looks good



Artwork? Must humbly disagree with this. It would be 'photography based artwork' ONLY if any artwork was involved. And thank you for the compliment.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

mm said:


> In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.
> 
> Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference. There is no absolute. Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality. Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating. If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.
> 
> ...



Enjoyed reading your story. Agree agree that 'great photos are only created in camera'.
I will reedit the photo and fix the fur. Thanks for pointing that out....!!


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Well said and agreed. It would be like saying that if in someone else's opinion you take it too far, then perhaps we should ban digital photography all together and simply shoot film. Although as you aptly put, those of us that worked with film, pushed the processing in film as well...
> 
> Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist? Perhaps some are "Artographers". If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?
> 
> ...



Krob all this manipulation is available even if we shoot film as we can scan and photoshop.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.
> ...



Would we not reserve the term 'graphic arts' to something that involved graphics? And ALL SORTS of effects are possible in the negative. 

I am a motion picture cameraman and before computer animations evolved we would easily add clouds by MANY techniques including mattes, glass painting etc.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

RGF said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



After giving this a long hard look now I can sleep easily...


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

rawbphoto said:


> Compositing isn't necessarily 'digital art'...may I present from 1946 http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching



So true!!! I hope all who claim otherwise see this... Thank you..


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.



Appreciate the encouragement.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 13, 2013)

so what about staged shoots? where people are placed and things moved around in the scene, a famous one of these is the milkman doing his round during the blitz in london,a completely staged shot. forgetting the war propaganda for a moment, i wouldnt call that unethical, just a good picture.

the key here is subject matter, if your a photojournalist, no its not that ethical to photoshop aside from the basic levels, sharpness etc but if your an artist, hell, there are no rules.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.



1. I'm rather late to this thread (but it hasn't reached the flamewar stage yet ), but I agree with the "adding elements" argument from RLPhoto.

The reverse means that any _global adjustments_ and even _local adjustments via ACR_ are ok, so if the sky from the original image of the op would have been overexposed it'd been ok to pull it down with a grad filter in LR. 

One thing I'm note sure about is _"repairing" small flaws in the background_ with ACR, it really depends on how large the impact on the general picture is - and even _small layer operations_ like removing closed eyes of one person from a group shot with the equal part of another shot directly afterwards might be ok.

2. One argument I didn't find here is from an ad with Julia Roberts that was forced to be withdrawn because it was so heavily "beautified" that it wasn't Julia Roberts anymore, and I think in France it was feared that this is what shifts the view of what a woman is supposed to look like to an unhealthy stage.

Imho the same applies images: *If everybody does it, even near-perfect "conventional" photos will look crappy* - so personally I never do masks in photoshop or add foreign elements, or I wouldn't consider it an old-school "photo" anymore.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



I think you are saying it better than me. Photography IS cheating. AGREE.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

sdsr said:


> I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees. Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination.
> 
> Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.
> 
> Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different. Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place? The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it. For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field. Why do we want them? So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour. The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide. Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.



Yes....!!! As photographer I want to present everything the best it can be. Regards.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all. The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes. Was it music? Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer? Does it matter?



Its true, it does not matter as long as it is music to the ears.


----------



## J.R. (May 13, 2013)

This is an interesting article from Bryan Peterson on this issue. Thought I'd share 

http://bryanfpeterson.blogspot.in/2010/06/every-photograph-is-lie-yet-within-that.html


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

Apop said:


> But it will be fabricated , it's quite hard to have 3 cheetah's pose like that in the wild
> I like gerryvanderwalt's view on processing nature images
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links - very nice! And I also enjoyed your website.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

sdsr said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.
> ...


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
> ...



??? I will never ever believe that BW is not photography. NEVER.


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

thedman said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
> ...



Point superbly made...!


----------



## iMagic (May 13, 2013)

Some further discussion on the faked 2013 world press photo of the year......

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop


----------



## comsense (May 15, 2013)

iMagic said:


> Some further discussion on the faked 2013 world press photo of the year......
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop


I don't want to prolong the life of this thread. Just wanted to clear the tarnished name of poor photographer! 
Before you rush to judge, there is always more to than meets your eye.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/14/183983184/photographer-defends-prize-winning-photo-of-gaza-funeral

I just happened to see this by chance and remembered a post here. Most of the time we never bother to dig deeper before passing the muck around....


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

Skulker said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal; adding to or subtracting from the photo I feel are iffy, they take away from the art of photography...that's certainly not to say that I have not photoshopped hundreds of contrails out of beautiful blue sky...but adding objects that do not exist is a no-no in my mind.
> ...



I too fail to see why doing something in darkroom is legit and doing it digitally not! Yes, I like the idea about not disclosing facts, the lesser said about a photo, the better. A photo should speak for itself.
Thank you!


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

gary said:


> This is the "I remember when......., things were so much better back in the day" argument. We are in today not in the past and today provides the tools to do all sorts of magical things. It amazes me how we torture innovators to desperately cling to the past. Turner, one of the worlds great painters was roundly abused in his day for his vision which was only reality as he saw it, now of course we recognize his genius. Surely photography is art, not just a representation or photocopy of the world around us. Manipulate your photo's however you wish and I for one will judge them purely based upon my own taste and not on others rules of right or wrong.



Thank you Gary. 
One day when there is technology greater than photoshop people might say 'its ok what can be done in photoshop and not in ....'.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

Jules said:


> My take is that it is OK to remove a few stuff when they were not supposed to be there, but not so much OK to add ... For example i hated that when Stockholm was full of contruction cranes all over the place and i couldn't take a pict without them ...



I doubt anyone would disapprove of what you have done. Not even RPL. Or at least not disapprove the way my photo has been disapproved by some.

I think you did the right thing to enhance the photo.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
> ...



Lol. Kitty kitty...


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



Thank you sir! Yes, all photography is LYING.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > gferdinandsen said:
> ...



This is meant to be artwork.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ... photography for me is a passionate hobby and an art form ... I'm no good at drawing or painting or sculpting ... the closest I can hope to get to any decent art form is making images and manipulating them the way I like ... I am happy to manipulate and change images so they are pleasing and/or compelling to look at ... even if it mans adding a lighting bolt or removing an ugly wire or add an extra cheetah or make a fat person look a little slimmer (in fact I routinely use liquify tool to make people, with a big paunch, look a little slimmer) and as a photographer it gives me great joy to see people feel good about themselves when they look at the images I've manipulated ... I don't give a damn if the so called "purists" think it is unethical ... I thank God everyday that photography is my hobby and that it gives me a chance to look for beauty in the world around me and if I can't see it, I'll just manipulate that scene in photoshop, and I don't need to worry about being unethical coz I am not a forensic photographer shooting crime scenes and dead bodies.



That makes two of us! But in my case I must not enhance nature pictures to much that it is a total lie. In other words if I photograph a running cheetah, I cannot put a lion behind it to create a false story. 
Regards and thanks.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

dilbert said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



I have concluded by now that from the moment a photographer picks up the camera, reality in its true sense fails to exist.


----------



## sanj (May 20, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you everyone for taking time to comment. I learnt a lot.
> ...



I understand what you saying. I looked at the photo a long time and the bland sky kept irritating me so I added the cloud. But the moment I did that I got bit unsure of myself and posted here to get advice from experts.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> I understand what you saying. I looked at the photo a long time and the bland sky kept irritating me so I added the cloud. But the moment I did that I got bit unsure of myself and posted here to get advice from experts.



If by "experts" you mean expert photographers, forget everything I said. If you mean expert at having opinions, then mine are still valid. :

FWIW, my local camera shop has a fairly regular contest (not sure if monthly or quarterly) and for the current one they are _encouraging_ Photoshop manipulation.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 21, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I understand what you saying. I looked at the photo a long time and the bland sky kept irritating me so I added the cloud. But the moment I did that I got bit unsure of myself and posted here to get advice from experts.
> ...


+1 on that regarding myself also.

As said, it comes down to what you will use the picture for. To hang on your wall or sell prints, then no problems at all. Even for publishing I would say, depending on which context.

Again Sanj, thanks for starting this thread it's important to have a philosophical discussion about what we do also.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2013)

So many opinions on this subject and all of them are equally valid. 11 Pages worth...


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> So many opinions on this subject and all of them are equally valid. 11 Pages worth...



Yes RLP. Agree!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 21, 2013)

To the Original Poster, I personally wouldn't try to make something out of nothing. Much of photography is about the quality of the light and background and not the target subject. It's the difference between a record shot and something of stature. Personally, I limit my post production to what ever I can efficiently do in Lightroom. But there always are exceptions, If I had a paying client who needed a specific shot to be taken on a day with poor quality of light and they had a lot of need and expectation....then yes I would pull a rabit out of the hat for them. If it was a photograph for stock or personal use....no, I would return on on a day where there was better light and a more interesting composition. I like to get as much as I can in camera.

There are other more "arty" types who say..."hey! Anything goes" and that's fine too...it's just not the path I choose to walk. 







I would post a nice piccy here...but Flickr has made a mess with my account and I can't seem to view anything!


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> This is an interesting article from Bryan Peterson on this issue. Thought I'd share
> 
> http://bryanfpeterson.blogspot.in/2010/06/every-photograph-is-lie-yet-within-that.html



He says: "Personally, I have NO problem with any image that has been dramatically altered, as long as it is 'believable' OR so obviously altered that it's not even a question e.g. fantasy, dream-like photographs. I don't mind the 'lie' that is created from a dramatically altered image, since I have felt for years that every photograph is a 'lie' anyway, but my problem with the dramatically altered 'lie' is that it can lead one to believe that a given landscape or cityscape really does "look like that" when, as it turns out, there is no such place on earth."

Thanks for the share! In my photo, such clouds do exist in that part of the world.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> Thanks for the share! In my photo, such clouds do exist in that part of the world.



What about the bushes you removed, are there bush-less areas up to the horizon so you could theoretically have gotten this shot around the corner at another time w/o editing? Aren't these cats often around bushes to get cover before attacking their prey?

These things decide if it's more of a "photo" to me than cleaning up distracting objects just for the sake of "a "clean" and perfect shot. I'm often unsure if I should "clean" up my own pictures in the background, it's really a hard decision if this alters it just a bit to avoid distraction or if it's already my personal "this doesn't feel right anymore" category.


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2013)

You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.
> ...



Sir if you are serious, I do not understand your logic. Regards.


----------



## dstppy (May 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You have to look at the intent.
> 
> The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.
> 
> ...



Darned straight it's unbelievable. That's obviously a sound-stage at Area 51.

;D *Ducks*


----------



## awinphoto (May 21, 2013)

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)


----------



## CarlTN (May 21, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)



Disagree, I think both pixel peeping _and_ photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors). 12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?

I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age. 

However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap! "The end justifies the means..."


----------



## agierke (May 21, 2013)

> yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)



i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's. 

the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.

it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.

so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.

oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.


----------



## CarlTN (May 21, 2013)

agierke said:


> > yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is "truth"? If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?


----------



## Sporgon (May 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > > yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
> ...




We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42 ;D


----------



## CarlTN (May 21, 2013)

Haha, good one, I forget which movie that is from...Monty Python's "meaning of life" I assume?

So, the meaning of life...is Jackie Robinson? Ok


----------



## Marsu42 (May 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Disagree, I think both pixel peeping _and_ photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum



+1 ... I cannot get my head around it that people read a thread they're not interested in, this one or technical "pixel peeping" and waste their time even more commenting how useless and boring it is and that they couldn't care less.



CarlTN said:


> or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap! "The end justifies the means..."



Personally I find a discussion about this informative and wouldn't subscribe to a relativistic and "there are no ethics" point of view - the latter has prominent protagonists in history who thought that reality is what you make it


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

thedman said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
> ...



Loving this topic, it's one of those topics I try real hard to read everything before replying, but, well, I guess I am breaking that rule..

As shown here - HDR - is it still photography? Others say that even just a composite isn't photography. If this set of bracketed images where taken as layers in photoshop and manually combined - is it less or more of a 'photograph' than the hdr? ANd yes, as pointed out below, this is pretty much the poor mans way of preserving dynamic range in the image because yes - you could create a very similar effect grad ND filters and polarizers..

Given the tools we have to push and pull images..when is the line crossed? reading through this link that was brought up earlier - http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching, a lot of what we're doing is really been there done that - new tools and tech make it easier, but I do remember back in the days of the darkroom - in my first photography classes in 1992 being instructed on how to take a print and use markers to add color (yes, the dreaded selective color!!!!). 

Getting it in camera ---yeah, its an awesome and amazing feeling - I love using external lighting to create images - I show my clients what things are looking like on the camera back and they say - that looks more like a painting. But, sometimes like on a wedding you just don't have the time to set all that lighting up. Your also not picking the time of day to shoot, and its generally in high sun, 2-5 PM, worst time of the day for shooting. So you end up with a shot that has the people exposed right but the sky overblown. I will often take a single image (depending of course on how overexposed the sky is), duplicate it, process one for sky and one for the people the people, then export to PS and merge/composite. 

We toss around these words - manipulation, graphic art, digital art, true photography...where is the line? Unless we back track and make cameras that lock images so what you see at the time of exposure is what you get ---it's all manipulation. So you used a grad filter in lightroom...it's still manipulating the image.. Like in the process above - duplicating then pushing one and pulling another -- it is something that can be done in camera, with the use of external tools (lights). I'm attaching an unedited image here, showing a scene that uses external lighting to balance the sky and the people - camera exposing for wonderful sky, lighting for the people or they'd just be dark shadows, part of the landscape, not the subject. what would happen here if I did not have those extra lights (or a reflector/multiple reflectors)? You'd be stuck exposing for the family at the expense of the surrounding environment. The only way around that is to be creative in post, or go the other way of shooting on a tripod, and using 2 images (one exposed for sky, one exposed for people) - or the quick and dirty way of pushing and pulling duplicate images and merging... selective brushing, digital grad filters, or snagging a purely landscape shot and using that sky ....or just sucking it up and saying bye bye sky!

this is only scratching the surface of this --- when you consider all that can be done in post...I'd say doing a composite to preserve the DR of a scene is a much more true photograph than one where you remove every facial blemish, remove the double chin, wrinkles gone....poof, you look 20 years younger...or wow, I just puppet warped you and now your 20 pounds lighter! Where is the line? I often struggle with this for portrait/wedding clients --where you want them to be beautiful, but, if you take it too far, yes they look wonderful but then you get people saying ---I didn't even realize that was you!

yes, landscape/.nature work is different than portrait/wedding work...I do both ! And you know what, one of my fav things to do is night time work, long exposures (I'd love to do day time ones, just don't have enough ND filters to slow things down enough) - and more times than not right out of camera the image is surreal. With both of these kinds of shots (externally lit and long exposures) most assume it's all photoshop trickery. 

So again, where is that line in the sand? Is it as simple as ---if you can pull it off in lightroom it's real, but the moment it hits photoshop it isn't? Oh wait, there's that spot removal tool in lightroom...

Really now, why do we shoot in RAW at all if we aren't going to push and pull our images????? If a real photo is a non processed image - then why don't we all just shoot in jpeg and save our $$$ by not buying software, what comes out of the camera is real and that's that????


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.
> ...



LOL!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood.



I personally wouldn't buy a print like this, just not my thing...but...if it were, and the image drew my eye enough to want it, why would I care about what was done to it...whatever was done obviously just made me want it more, hence why I have it on the wall. If I were that person and I found out after buying that the clouds were added in, would I really take it off the wall and burn it then send nasty letters to the artist?... I wouldn't...but then again...what do I know - when this sells for 1.9 million...maybe none of us know anything...lol - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/nude-bea-arthur-painting-by-john-currin-sells-christies-auction_n_3284898.html?utm_hp_ref=arts


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> I so want to comment and discuss so many of the posts in this thread but currently struggling with time. Shooting a feature and it requires 15 hours of my time. The heat is killing. But I will do when I can.
> 
> Will quickly say now: Image manipulation is part of the game - done in camera or in post.
> 
> ...



Nice --- in one of my replies to this I brought up how often the surreal nature of night long exposure works makes people say ---that's not real.. or that's a painting...and I get similar comments when I shoot sunset portraits with external lighting...


----------



## CarlTN (May 21, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> kennephoto said:
> 
> 
> > If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood.
> ...



Excellent point! And those breasts are decidedly below average in quality, and the rendition of her face is just plain off. Whoever bought this, even if they just paid $50...would have to be utterly possessed of more funds than taste! I can see why they're remaining anonymous...perhaps it was someone who wanted to purchase it so they could burn it?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 21, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> So again, where is that line in the sand? Is it as simple as ---if you can pull it off in lightroom it's real, but the moment it hits photoshop it isn't? Oh wait, there's that spot removal tool in lightroom...



I think we all could agree on that with digital there is no binary "line in the sand", but for me it's good to get an awareness where the grey area is for me and other people - and one point certainly is adding information that wasn't in the original shot, while heavy lr postprocessing or single-scene compositing (hdr, blending) and some spot "cleaning" imho is ok and qualifies as (digital) photography. 

Syl Arena writes (I can't remember the exact quote): "I'm a photographer, not a postprocessing artist" and that's why he tries to get it right in camera and not in photoshop.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Mick said:


> My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?



The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)... I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic???? I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope. Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be. They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out. They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation. Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene. LOL... in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > Mick said:
> ...



Step further....grad ND filters ----OK
But don't you dare take 3 bracketed images and composite them together (which is essentially the same thing...)


----------



## awinphoto (May 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
> ...



Pictures with the intent to deceive... Golly... then any photograph with green screen, any movie with CGI or green screen or stunt actors or..... It's not like we are forensic photographers trying to cover our butts from defense attorneys who may blow up your photo in court and try to discredit your photos... with the rare exception of scientific photography, photography is an art form, it is what you want the viewer to look at, i just think this is a topic that has beaten to death... just let it be.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You have to look at the intent.
> 
> The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.
> 
> ...




[email protected]!!!!! I knew it...Cats do live on the moon......


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image? For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself... I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)
> ...



Agree wit hte former here...how many pages worth of endless debate are here regarding Dynamic range???? This is a nice change of pace actually


----------



## Sporgon (May 21, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You have to look at the intent.
> ...




Yea, and that particular cat doesn't 'arf get around - last week it was on safari ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > agierke said:
> ...



 Kudos!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

wow...so I'm gonna go ahead and add this wrinkle to the debate ---http://www.slrlounge.com/flickr-steps-towards-improvement-and-leaps-towards-stupidity

So apparently all this talk of ethics and what a true photograph is doesn't matter at all....truly disturbing...


----------



## K-amps (May 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.



+1

Times are changing. What was doctoring in the past is post processing now. The workflow has changed for the better...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 21, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Mick said:
> 
> 
> > My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
> ...


Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.

But I agree on your point.


----------



## Mick (May 21, 2013)

In essance this is a pointless debate. Times are changing and whatever any one feels Photoshop is here to stay, adjustment is here to stay and whatever people such as me think, its a fact and wont go away.

Therefore the debate is a differant one, whos the better photographer, the one who captures the image in camera or the one who doesnt with the end point being more important." I can do what the photoshoppers can do, but can they do what I do?" I dont mean me but i hope you know what I mean. Its a general point.

A comment made on here alluded to the idea that those who ant that good with computer software are only a bit jealous as they arnt that good with the computer. Maybe they may not be good with a computer but are you any good with a camera? If you are such a great photographer, why do you need to spend days on your image? Is it really that bad, are you really so poor you need to spend so long adjusting it? Or is the new world of photography one where the end is more important than the original image do the dinosaurs need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise its a whole new world out there?

Its a debate with no answer. Technology has changed and computer adjustments are here to stay. I may not like the fact someone cant take a decent picture and needs a computer to to do a decent image, but i have a nice warm feeling that im a photographer but also realise im a worse graphic artist.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Mick said:
> ...



Ok...so as you can see there...never been to cambodia to know it's not epic...lol...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Haha, good one, I forget which movie that is from...Monty Python's "meaning of life" I assume?
> 
> So, the meaning of life...is Jackie Robinson? Ok



Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 21, 2013)

lol...sorry...but lucky looked lonely in the one edit.. I think he's happier now with his family...LOL


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 21, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


Well now you know ;D


----------



## TeenTog (May 22, 2013)

[quote I have made changes but not altered nature][/quote]

Although last time I checked changing the sky is altering nature, If that's what you mean......


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Mick said:
> ...



Steve McCurry's Afgan Girl (the most famous portrait / Nat Geo shot ever) was originally shot in a landscape orientation. It was an over the shoulder shot which he gave no thought to. When his editor saw it he "converted" it to portrait by re-shooting the difference using a model and a room set up....and merged the two together. Most of his images are tweeked in some way (vignetting, dodge burn etc) by his editor. So don't think that all Nat Geo shots are a perfect in cam shots....some are quite convoluted and anything goes to get the shot.
Even the late great Ansel Adams used to do extensive post production to each photograph. So I don't see what the problem is here. How can we ask about purity and subject integrity where we are photographing a 2D representation of a 3D world. It's all representation of some sorts.


----------



## AprilForever (May 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Even the choice of focal length and aperture are distortions of nature. You never "in real life" actually see what a 600mm lens sees, nor what a 10mm lens would see. The eye cannot replicate f22, nor can it replicate f1.0. Thus, photography reality is not as black and white a line as people would often indicate. We make edits long before photoshop.


----------



## dstppy (May 23, 2013)

Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.

If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.

There. I said it. Zooms are flat-out cheating, and have no place in the art.

;D ;D ;D


----------



## J.R. (May 23, 2013)

Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard 



> "John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."


 (Copied from a book) 


Every photograph is a lie and basically a representation of how the photographer wants to depict a scene. Does it really matter that the clouds have been photo-shopped? 

Photography is an art form and with the continuous improvement in tech, the only ethics you have in this discipline are those which you choose for yourself.


----------



## RGF (May 23, 2013)

sanj said:


> I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> 
> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> ...



After all the comments what have you decided? Are you a sinner  or a saint ?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 23, 2013)

sanj said:


> Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
> 
> Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?
> 
> Thx



The OP used the terms "cheating" and "wrong". Those concepts only apply when applied against a set of rules/regulations/standards/laws. None of which exist universally in photography.

Now, a specific competition, website, organization... may have their own rules and they can be as restrictive or as liberal as they choose. You can only cheat/do something wrong when you try to break these rules. 

Absent of any such rules or standards you are incapable of cheating or doing something wrong. People may disagree or dislike what you choose to do to that photograph and that's ok. They have a right to their opinion. 

You remember what they say about the worth of an opinion -- when you put in your two cents, people will only give you a penny for your thoughts. 

However, this topic raises an interesting and perhaps unanswerable question: At what point does an image cease being a photograph and become graphic art?

Identifying the extremes is pretty easy. We can all identify a picture taken with a camera with basic processing as a "photograph". We can all identify graphic art from many examples on the Internets Tubes of some pretty wild stuff. But where is the dividing line? At what point, when I am dickin (technical term) with my image in PS/LR do I cross the line from having a photograph and start creating graphic art?

Well, there is no line, or more accurately, there is no universally accepted line between photographs and graphic art. Everyone has their own internal definition of the difference between photography and graphic art. Even if people seem in agreement, it is then only a collective opinion not a standard. 

So the point of my ramblings is that you were not cheating nor doing something wrong unless you were submitting this image to some entity that has some sort of rules. Of course that opens up a can o worms about implied or assumed standards, but we all know what happens when you assume something.


----------



## Mick (May 31, 2013)

Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 1, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You have to look at the intent.
> ...



Only on the dark side. That's why you can't see them. They went there due to an unlimited supply of green cheese ;D


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

Mick said:


> Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?



I see your point totally. 
Am not saying that I cant take amazing photos. Some of my other photos have been liked by some people.
BUT this photo seemed to look better with the clouds. I had the option of leaving it just as is or adding the clouds. I choose the latter.


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

RGF said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
> ...



Hahahaha. Neither! I am a photographer!


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.
> 
> If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.
> 
> ...



hahahahaa


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard
> 
> Brilliant!


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

eml58 said:


> For Mick
> 
> These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.
> 
> ...



Why on earth are fish eye lenses not acceptable when telephoto lenses are??? Sounds biased to me!


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2013)

bycostello said:


> the problem is actually your original composition... as you say boring sky, so why have so much in the image



Good point. Perhaps.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 2, 2013)

From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion


----------



## RGF (Jun 2, 2013)

sanj said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > For Mick
> ...



But hiring fixers, traps, harden case, advanced electronics, $10,000 (or higher) budgets are allowed, .. seems that anything goes in the field (as long as us mere mortals don't have access to it) but accessible to the common folks, then it is off limits.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 3, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion



Awesome--thanks for sharing!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion



This is great.


----------



## woollybear (Jun 4, 2013)

Seemed like this belonged here somehow...

http://slideshow.today.com/slideshow/today/teen-photographer-creates-tiny-portraits-52083634


----------

