What do you consider "cheating"
Discussion
I was editing the image below of a beetle and it got me thinking about what different photographers considering "cheating" when editing an image.
I think this can be quite a contentious subject and most photographers will consider some types/amount of editing to be too much, at which point it is no longer photography. There is a sliding scale from "anything goes" to "i dont even crop my images." I would consider myself somewhere in the middle. However i'm still happy to "cheat" if i think i get a better end result from it, and the image below is an example where i hope i have achieved that. I would however consider this as cheating and wouldnt try and pass of the natrualness of the edited shot if i was asked ( i picked the bug up with a stick and placed him on a gate )
Edited:
IMG_6882 edited by jimmyb156, on Flickr
As shot in RAW but converted to jpeg:
IMG_6882 unedited by jimmyb156, on Flickr
Here is another example of where i have done more editing then i would normally do. This was a "snap" i took walking down Scaffell Pike in the lake district and therefore didnt have too much time to think about metering and exposure etc as i was already getting left behind by my group. I however don't consider this cheating as the end result would be closer to what i could see. I edited the image twice for highlights and shadows and then merged them in PS by selectivly deleting bits of one layer. I'm not sure i actually like the image too much, it possibly looks a little HDR for me.
Edited:
IMG_6528dueleditfb by jimmyb156, on Flickr
As shot in RAW but converted to jpeg:
IMG_6528 by jimmyb156, on Flickr
So i am interested to gauage people's opinion on this. At what stage do you consider editing to be "cheating" and do you allow yourself to cheat? Would you let on if asked?
I think this can be quite a contentious subject and most photographers will consider some types/amount of editing to be too much, at which point it is no longer photography. There is a sliding scale from "anything goes" to "i dont even crop my images." I would consider myself somewhere in the middle. However i'm still happy to "cheat" if i think i get a better end result from it, and the image below is an example where i hope i have achieved that. I would however consider this as cheating and wouldnt try and pass of the natrualness of the edited shot if i was asked ( i picked the bug up with a stick and placed him on a gate )
Edited:
IMG_6882 edited by jimmyb156, on Flickr
As shot in RAW but converted to jpeg:
IMG_6882 unedited by jimmyb156, on Flickr
Here is another example of where i have done more editing then i would normally do. This was a "snap" i took walking down Scaffell Pike in the lake district and therefore didnt have too much time to think about metering and exposure etc as i was already getting left behind by my group. I however don't consider this cheating as the end result would be closer to what i could see. I edited the image twice for highlights and shadows and then merged them in PS by selectivly deleting bits of one layer. I'm not sure i actually like the image too much, it possibly looks a little HDR for me.
Edited:
IMG_6528dueleditfb by jimmyb156, on Flickr
As shot in RAW but converted to jpeg:
IMG_6528 by jimmyb156, on Flickr
So i am interested to gauage people's opinion on this. At what stage do you consider editing to be "cheating" and do you allow yourself to cheat? Would you let on if asked?
Edited by jimmy156 on Thursday 5th May 15:02
I think you've made both images look better, which is fine by me. You haven't added anything that wasn't there, merely improved and tidied up.
Being picky I can see a problem under the beetle where you haven't filled in perfectly, and the manual 'HDR' shot looks a little overdone (as you say), but you're on course.
Being picky I can see a problem under the beetle where you haven't filled in perfectly, and the manual 'HDR' shot looks a little overdone (as you say), but you're on course.
Simpo Two said:
Being picky I can see a problem under the beetle where you haven't filled in perfectly, and the manual 'HDR' shot looks a little overdone (as you say), but you're on course.
Ah, I can see that too if i tilt the angle of my screen slightly, will tidy it up thanks for pointing that out 
.The "HDR" shot was my first attempt at editing in this way, and was done as more of an exercise then trying to get a really great shot (the original image isn't particularly interesting TBH). But you're right, the more i look at it the more i think its overdone.
ETA: Out if interest, if i'd posted that image in a different context and without the origial below do you think you would have noticed?
I think that personally I draw the line at significant cloning and/or addition/removal of artifacts that were not in the original scene. I also don't like the idea of substituting skies etc to replace dull ones. To me those are processing skills rather than photography skills. I must admit this may be sour grapes partly because I don't know how to do any of it 
In terms of what I do personally. Nearly all my photos need straightening. I have no idea why but my photos are consistently 1-2 degrees on the piss unless I make a real concerted effort to level them by using the guide in the view finder. I often crop images, play with levels, desaturate, sharpen, filters, mono conversions, HDR, Stitching, stacking. I'm sure many will consider some of those taboo but hey ho, each to their own.
In terms of what I do personally. Nearly all my photos need straightening. I have no idea why but my photos are consistently 1-2 degrees on the piss unless I make a real concerted effort to level them by using the guide in the view finder. I often crop images, play with levels, desaturate, sharpen, filters, mono conversions, HDR, Stitching, stacking. I'm sure many will consider some of those taboo but hey ho, each to their own.
jimmy156 said:
The "HDR" shot was my first attempt at editing in this way, and was done as more of an exercise then trying to get a really great shot (the original image isn't particularly interesting TBH). But you're right, the more i look at it the more i think its overdone.
I use this technique a lot. Rather than erase through at 100%, try 30-50% and a soft edge. By adjusting the brush size and 'painting' you can get a more subtle effect.jimmy156 said:
ETA: Out if interest, if i'd posted that image in a different context and without the origial below do you think you would have noticed?
The grass in the foreground looked a bit overdone and there's a halo on the edge. Impressive shadow recovery, but a bit too much. If there's too much difference between the 'light' and 'dark' images it can be hard to blend them together convincingly. Sometimes I use three versions, but it's easy to get confused later juggling bits of three images in PS.Gad-Westy said:
I also don't like the idea of substituting skies etc to replace dull ones.
Actually that's one of the oldest tricks in the book, dating well back into the age of film. But like all these stunts, the key is to do it so it's not obvious.I crop, dodge, burn, tilt, add filters, masks ... oh hold on, that was with film and in a darkroom.
I do *almost* exactly what I did 35 years ago (damn I'm old)... it's just a lot easier these days.
Two phrases I HATE are 'Straight out of the camera' (WHY? Do some bloody work chap!) and 'Is that real or is it doctored?'... drives me mad.
Then again we have the monster OTT HDR fans that ruin perfectly good images.... etc
It'll run and run.
BTW, ALL recorded music is 'doctored', take it from me. Why would I not make it sound as good as possible?
I do *almost* exactly what I did 35 years ago (damn I'm old)... it's just a lot easier these days.
Two phrases I HATE are 'Straight out of the camera' (WHY? Do some bloody work chap!) and 'Is that real or is it doctored?'... drives me mad.
Then again we have the monster OTT HDR fans that ruin perfectly good images.... etc
It'll run and run.
BTW, ALL recorded music is 'doctored', take it from me. Why would I not make it sound as good as possible?
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 5th May 16:19
Thanks Simpo, i'll try reducing the eraser and see what results it gives 
Heskey - I'm trying, but i just dont get it
y2blade, i agree, you see it in all the adverts for specialist portrait software and plug-ins, the before shot always looks better then the massivly softened/featureless after shot!
Heskey - I'm trying, but i just dont get it
y2blade, i agree, you see it in all the adverts for specialist portrait software and plug-ins, the before shot always looks better then the massivly softened/featureless after shot!
Whitefly Swatter said:
yep..and we'll go there again I'm sure 
y2blade said:
the only thing that grinds my gears are "photographers" who insist on messing the skin tone about so much they make the picture and subject look completely false
learn when to stop "improving" your shot
I have to admit that I always cringe at those ads on camera magazines for portrait enhancement software. I always think that the 'after' photo looks like a plastic model of the real thing. learn when to stop "improving" your shot
From a commercial point of view, we edit photographers shots every day. It's not that the shots are sub standard, far from it. We get to see some stunning stuff, but what a lot of these guys understand is that the stuff they shoot can only be controlled in camera to a certain degree so in effect, they shoot an image "toolkit"
For example, we are waiting on a new campaign for Subaru North America to come in next week which will involve retouching a final image pool of 80 - 90 images. I can tell you now from last years project, that each shot will be built from around at least half a dozen images where the guy has shot a background, base car, and then exposures for grille, tyres, windows, badges etc. It's all in pro', so it's just overlayed and layer masks will eliminate the unwanted data.
At the end of the day so to speak, it's the final image that goes in their portfolio or on their website, not the raw shots.
For example, we are waiting on a new campaign for Subaru North America to come in next week which will involve retouching a final image pool of 80 - 90 images. I can tell you now from last years project, that each shot will be built from around at least half a dozen images where the guy has shot a background, base car, and then exposures for grille, tyres, windows, badges etc. It's all in pro', so it's just overlayed and layer masks will eliminate the unwanted data.
At the end of the day so to speak, it's the final image that goes in their portfolio or on their website, not the raw shots.
GetCarter said:
...and will be again.
A good example of cheating:
I'm trying but i cant see it! Unless something is going on in the top left, but i'm not sure!A good example of cheating:
Whiteflyswatter - sorry i must have missed that, but as this is a discussion forum i dont see any harm in discussing something that was last talked about 8 months ago
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff