What is "cheating" (photographically) to you?

[Brettus]

Been pondering how to phrase this one for a while. Everyone who uses a camera has a set of guidelines that they work to when editing an image, some will do nothing with it (either by lack of interest or personal choice that the camera should do the work) others will take 3 completely different shots (foreground, background and subject perhaps) and merge them into a very compelling image.

Personally, my limit is combining images into one. This is a little tricky as HDR images are comprised of multiple exposures. but they are of the same thing, the way I see it is I'm just overcoming a limitation of the sensor. (in much the same way that taking multiple shots for a panorama is overcoming the viewing angle of your lens)

I wouldn't however take an image and paste a more interesting sky on to it, or add an object/subject into another.

Almost what sums my guidelines up is I'll make any adjustment that lightroom will do (with the exception of combining for HDR/panorama) I'm happy to adjust sliders and show things that were captured by the camera but not necessarily obvious with the cameras default interpretation of the scene.

some of the more advanced ones I'll use are graduated filters, adjustment brushes and very occasionally I'll use a healing tool to remove an errant object. (these don't get used often but I don't draw the line at using them)

Often I'll tweak an image to try and reflect what I saw that made me want to take the picture, often I'll take a picture of something and the resulting image isn't nearly as interesting as what I'd seen. sometimes you can help do it justice by adjusting the shadows\highlights etc, or sometimes it just helps make a more interesting image by toning down the yellow in an image with streetlights etc.

I now open the question to the floor..... :)

[MisterTommyH]

Hands up fit lack of interest.

I'll often rotate if its slightly out of square (either to line it up or exaggerate it).
Try not to mess with shading etc.... My camera doesn't have a bracketing function, so I do tho manually sometimes taking 10 shots with very slight differences in Appeture or exposure, but i do this on the camera and pick after.
Maybe a crop.

I think I want the pictures to be 'real' - I'm just trying to capture what's there rather than be artistic.

[Iantson]

This is a interesting topic. I am no professional photographer just hobbyist the way I see it is the taking of a photograph and the proses of manipulating it in Lightroom / Photoshop are two separate things.

Taking the photograph is about composing and capturing the image that the camera sees using the cameras settings to the best of your ability. Today's cameras are far more technical and loaded with digital aids to help the novice get the best out of the camera with limited knowledge. This is not a bad thing everyone wants the best photo they can get.

The proses of manipulating photos in photo editing software is to me a different thing to photography. I see it a an artistic angle this is a skill on its own even though you are editing a photograph I personally see it as graphic design aid to show the image that the camera saw and manipulate into what I wanted to see.

So is it cheating? Not to me it isn't we all use tools in our everyday jobs to make it easier do you see driving a screw in with a cordless drill as cheating "no" it's a easier way to get the same results as a screwdriver with less effort.

[Stuuk1]

I shoot mainly in RAW and tend only to play around with the white balance, exposure, fill and also clone various stuff out in PS if I don't like it.

Ill post a pic up later of a wedding shot i played with before and after although I never finished it properly..

[mister c]

I mainly shoot JPegs & use the standard image. If I don't like it, I bin it. I've messed with Raw & manipulation in HDR etc, but the way I look at it is this. If a photo has the "Wow" factor, does it matter what's been done to it? a picture is a picture that gives enjoyment mainly to the person that took it, but also to others. I love it when somebody says to me "Ooh, I like that" it gives me a sense of achievement in what I'm trying to do

[Kenzie]

I wouldn't call it cheating, its called processing. This photo (someone else's that I messed around with) was colour but screamed out to be black and white. Now with a bit of imagination and some editing it has a certain look that couldn't be achieved by standard photography.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg268/kenzie2k3/colourpop-1.jpg

[LewSpeight]

I try my best to get what I can with just the camera, and only mess with the sliders to fiddle with lighting and colour a tad.
If I can look at the photo and think 'yeh that looks cool' just after taking it, then I'm happy. But I'll always see something I hate when it's on the big screen. And whilst I'm there if I can make the colours better then why not?
If its really that bad that it requires extensive editing then I'll go out and do it again.
This, for example, has no editing apart from the contrast bar, and obviously the logo (I didn't put the logo on to upload it on here, it just happens to be the version I have on my phone.

The vignetting appearance is only there because of where I placed the bike in terms of the car parks lighting http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/20/pu4ypu5y.jpg

[keith_d]

Not an easy question, since in part it depends on whether you regard photography as art or science.

From an artistic perspective, it's up to the artist to produce an image that best expresses their intent. Whether that means tweaking the colour balance in Photoshop or pasting the prime minister's head onto a pig, it's all the same. But, from a technical perspective, the photographer should understand the limitations of his equipment and use it to capture the moment as accurately as possible. You can't beat good technique.

FWIW, I've posted two images on the forum today. One straight from the camera (only resized), and the other significantly edited (changed colour balance). So I'm guilty of belonging to both camps.

I'm uncomfortable with manipulated images which are 'sold' as a realistic representation of their subject. But where a picture is being exhibited as something decorative I have no concerns about fidelity. So, I guess for me it's down to the photographer's intent and how the image is used.

Keith.

[Brettus]

Stuuk1 raises an interesting idea, the before and after.
my first example is a lacklustre shot that I personally think I salvaged:
http://www.brettnet.co.uk/temp/tweakcomparison.jpg

I've cropped it since but wanted the before and after just to show the colour tweaks.

[Littlepeahead]

I am currently undertaking two City and Guilds. 'Image capture' and 'Digital image manipulation' and that sums it up for me.

Photography for me is all about seeing something striking or beautiful and capturing the image. I might use Photoshop afterwards to crop the image, straighten my wonky angle and slightly adjust the sliders so that it more closely resembles what I saw with my eyes.

Anything beyond that is image manipulation. I'm creating a wholly new image if I start changing what was there when I pressed the shutter. Now I am not saying that this is wrong, but it is a different skill from photography.

So this month I have had a bit of fun with the second image I entered for the Landmarks competition - very obviously so.

http://forums.sv650.org/picture.php?albumid=983&pictureid=6674

But the first image was just a glorious day - I haven't Photoshopped in that blue sky and all the amazing plane trails.

http://forums.sv650.org/picture.php?albumid=983&pictureid=6667

Each week at college we have the 'One Shot Challenge' - one image on a theme. Last week I objected to a photo submitted by a fellow student as for the third week in a row he had entered an image that was actually several elements from different photos merged together. On this occasion on the theme of transport he'd been to Stansted at different times of day and then put together a nice sky then overlayered the runway lights on a longer exposure at sunset, then added the moon and then Photoshopped in a plane taken elsewhere. I said this wasn't one shot it was 4! It didn't so much show off his photography skills as his Photoshop skills - which are good - but the point about 'One Shot Challenge' is that it is supposed to show what we can do with one exposure so we learn better composition.

Of course if the Head of Marketing at work asks me to get rid of his wrinkles and scars, make his teeth whiter and his eyes greener then who am I to argue...

http://forums.sv650.org/picture.php?albumid=983&pictureid=6675

But I loath Instagram - take a dull photo and then get your camera to add a funny tint and frame and think you have created a masterpiece to rival Ansel Adams. Or as Lucy Tobin, in the Evening Standard summed it up: “OMG my driveway looks SO pretty I MUST snap a photo (marred by window reflection), then give it a brownish hue on Instagram and add it to the mass already hurling around the socialnetosphere.”

[Richie]

I've been cheating today :0)

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6703/twg933s.jpg

[Stuuk1]

Well finally managed to upload a picture! My Internet connection is pants...

Not sure how good this is going to look as I have uploaded this to photobucket on the ipad and probably taken a 6mb photo to something like 40kb, anyway...

I was just messing about with the picture and forgot to make layers so couldn't turn back once I went too far.. It was a bit difficult to clone the dress etc and it ended up way too soft and ghostly looking. Also alot more work would be needed for detail on the shadows. I should really have another go when I get a chance

Here is the before and after:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/stuuk1/1248aa15becd722a9d6b4d54212930f5.jpg




http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/stuuk1/225f1debb5476498d63969b6f14b83e4.jpg