How far can you manipulate an image without "cheating"
Discussion
Not really sure if that was the correct wording, but what I mean is. If you take a picture and manipulate it too far, is it not "cheating".
Reason for the question is, got chatting to a couple of photographers at Goodwood (pro's. afaik) and one of them took a couple of shots of the empty track, in case he could not get the shots he wanted, so he could "shop" the cars in later.
Reason for the question is, got chatting to a couple of photographers at Goodwood (pro's. afaik) and one of them took a couple of shots of the empty track, in case he could not get the shots he wanted, so he could "shop" the cars in later.
Unless you're a press photographer or something like that I think anything goes.
For me, whether it be a simple phone snapshot that captures an interesting moment in time or a multi layered photoshopped composite, it's the ability of the final photo to stir a reaction in the viewer that matters not how it was created.
For me, whether it be a simple phone snapshot that captures an interesting moment in time or a multi layered photoshopped composite, it's the ability of the final photo to stir a reaction in the viewer that matters not how it was created.
JustinMinns said:
For me, whether it be a simple phone snapshot that captures an interesting moment in time or a multi layered photoshopped composite, it's the ability of the final photo to stir a reaction in the viewer that matters not how it was created.
Whilst I get that view point, for me there's a purity of taking a good photo that needs no correction. Not to say I haven't been really pleased with the results of messing about with RAW, but I always feel like I'm cheating a bit - sticking plasters over the holes when I should really sort out what caused the hole in the first place.Don't really see how raw is cheating: the camera takes raw (12bits maybe more), then the onboard stuff decides what to throw away to fit it into an 8 bit jpg. Shoot raw you just leave that decision to you.
You'd also (probably) be surprised how many photoshop techniques originated in the darkroom.
That said, for me 'shopping cars in is definitely cheating. If I had to draw a line, I'd say a photo is only ever a representation of reality, how you represent that is up to you. Alter the reality substantially, and it may be art, but not a 'proper' photo
You'd also (probably) be surprised how many photoshop techniques originated in the darkroom.
That said, for me 'shopping cars in is definitely cheating. If I had to draw a line, I'd say a photo is only ever a representation of reality, how you represent that is up to you. Alter the reality substantially, and it may be art, but not a 'proper' photo
RenesisEvo said:
JustinMinns said:
For me, whether it be a simple phone snapshot that captures an interesting moment in time or a multi layered photoshopped composite, it's the ability of the final photo to stir a reaction in the viewer that matters not how it was created.
Whilst I get that view point, for me there's a purity of taking a good photo that needs no correction. Not to say I haven't been really pleased with the results of messing about with RAW, but I always feel like I'm cheating a bit - sticking plasters over the holes when I should really sort out what caused the hole in the first place.Start needing to ask some slightly ethereal questions like - did the camera see what you saw?
Cameras are pretty stupid, they don't have the dynamic range of human vision so is editing a picture to replicate what you actually saw ok?
Personally, I'm not a fan of straight-out-of-the-camera images as they aren't imo the 'unedited' images they might appear to be. The camera has still made decisions about contrast, brightness, etc. As for RAWs, well they are sensor data, no actual image until it has been processed. So do you want the camera making decisions about your image or make them for yourself?
A lot of these same choices were around when film was the only option. Eg. what film did you use (it's response to light, colour, etc). Do you want to do the printing yourself or let someone in a shop decide for you? And so on...
The likes of Lightroom and Photoshop have just made these decisions much more approachable and accessible to all imo
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Saturday 27th July 02:06
Also it depends on what you need the photo for.
The filenames of my processed finished images always have mod or no mod appended so I can remember if I took anything out of them, the aforementioned powerlines, a bit of rubbish I'd not seen when composing the shot etc.
The modified shots are fine for sale, exhibition, promotion etc.
Some competitions, LPoTY for example, famously don't allow heavy manipulation, so I wouldn't enter an image that had been modified like that.
At one end of the scale press work requires absolute accuracy and no manipulation, Getty famously sacked one of their photographers for 'shopping a caddy out of a golf shot. http://petapixel.com/2010/07/19/getty-photographer...
At the other most advertising shots are judged purely on the end result rather than how true to life the shot is, look at GFW's work, it is very heavily manipulated, with smoke, lens flare, flames, all added to complete the shot, to the point of almost being CGI, but that is what his clients want.
I had an interesting conversation with one of my architectural clients, the shots I was doing were for a Design Awards, I asked if they wanted true record shots or prettied up more artistic stuff. The reply was resoundingly for the prettied up artistic shots.
The filenames of my processed finished images always have mod or no mod appended so I can remember if I took anything out of them, the aforementioned powerlines, a bit of rubbish I'd not seen when composing the shot etc.
The modified shots are fine for sale, exhibition, promotion etc.
Some competitions, LPoTY for example, famously don't allow heavy manipulation, so I wouldn't enter an image that had been modified like that.
At one end of the scale press work requires absolute accuracy and no manipulation, Getty famously sacked one of their photographers for 'shopping a caddy out of a golf shot. http://petapixel.com/2010/07/19/getty-photographer...
At the other most advertising shots are judged purely on the end result rather than how true to life the shot is, look at GFW's work, it is very heavily manipulated, with smoke, lens flare, flames, all added to complete the shot, to the point of almost being CGI, but that is what his clients want.
I had an interesting conversation with one of my architectural clients, the shots I was doing were for a Design Awards, I asked if they wanted true record shots or prettied up more artistic stuff. The reply was resoundingly for the prettied up artistic shots.
upsidedownmark said:
Don't really see how raw is cheating: the camera takes raw (12bits maybe more), then the onboard stuff decides what to throw away to fit it into an 8 bit jpg. Shoot raw you just leave that decision to you.
You'd also (probably) be surprised how many photoshop techniques originated in the darkroom.
That said, for me 'shopping cars in is definitely cheating. If I had to draw a line, I'd say a photo is only ever a representation of reality, how you represent that is up to you. Alter the reality substantially, and it may be art, but not a 'proper' photo
This!You'd also (probably) be surprised how many photoshop techniques originated in the darkroom.
That said, for me 'shopping cars in is definitely cheating. If I had to draw a line, I'd say a photo is only ever a representation of reality, how you represent that is up to you. Alter the reality substantially, and it may be art, but not a 'proper' photo
I recently wrote an essay based around "lies" in photography which delved into the realms of manipulation ranging back to a portrait photo of Abraham Lincoln and possibly before.
It depends on your interpretation really. I mean there are people that make a damn good living from multi layered composite architectural photography and, to me there is no lie in that (so to speak).
markmullen said:
Also it depends on what you need the photo for.
The filenames of my processed finished images always have mod or no mod appended so I can remember if I took anything out of them, the aforementioned powerlines, a bit of rubbish I'd not seen when composing the shot etc.
The modified shots are fine for sale, exhibition, promotion etc.
Some competitions, LPoTY for example, famously don't allow heavy manipulation, so I wouldn't enter an image that had been modified like that.
At one end of the scale press work requires absolute accuracy and no manipulation, Getty famously sacked one of their photographers for 'shopping a caddy out of a golf shot. http://petapixel.com/2010/07/19/getty-photographer...
At the other most advertising shots are judged purely on the end result rather than how true to life the shot is, look at GFW's work, it is very heavily manipulated, with smoke, lens flare, flames, all added to complete the shot, to the point of almost being CGI, but that is what his clients want.
I had an interesting conversation with one of my architectural clients, the shots I was doing were for a Design Awards, I asked if they wanted true record shots or prettied up more artistic stuff. The reply was resoundingly for the prettied up artistic shots.
^^The filenames of my processed finished images always have mod or no mod appended so I can remember if I took anything out of them, the aforementioned powerlines, a bit of rubbish I'd not seen when composing the shot etc.
The modified shots are fine for sale, exhibition, promotion etc.
Some competitions, LPoTY for example, famously don't allow heavy manipulation, so I wouldn't enter an image that had been modified like that.
At one end of the scale press work requires absolute accuracy and no manipulation, Getty famously sacked one of their photographers for 'shopping a caddy out of a golf shot. http://petapixel.com/2010/07/19/getty-photographer...
At the other most advertising shots are judged purely on the end result rather than how true to life the shot is, look at GFW's work, it is very heavily manipulated, with smoke, lens flare, flames, all added to complete the shot, to the point of almost being CGI, but that is what his clients want.
I had an interesting conversation with one of my architectural clients, the shots I was doing were for a Design Awards, I asked if they wanted true record shots or prettied up more artistic stuff. The reply was resoundingly for the prettied up artistic shots.
This.
It basically depends on everything - the purpose of the image, the audience who will see/use it, the artistic intent (if any), etc.
The only practical approach is to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff