Photoshop is cheating. Discuss.

[White16valver]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before or not, but IMHO Photoshop is cheating.

I sense that some disagree with me so I thought I'd start a thread and see where it goes... (if anywhere :clown


Why do I think it's cheating?

Because photography is about capturing a moment using skill and knowledge to get the perfect depth of field, composition, and quality of picture as you stand there taking it IMO. To me, photoshopped photographs no longer remain photographs and change instead to Art.


For example (and I mean no disrespect to Sharky by referring to his post, it's just that it's a good example of what I'm trying to say), in this post:
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/show...oshop-thread&p=8527829&viewfull=1#post8527829
Sharky changes what is a half-decent photograph into a picture that could arguably be described as 'better' because it is more interesting, more eye catching, and more pleasing to the eye overall. But is it photography? The first image is, yes. The second image? No, not in my eyes.

Again, with no disrespect to Sharky, to achieve the effect he produced in the second image he could have used a CPL filter to darken the sky on the original, which could also have reduced reflections on the car and windows and made it stand out a bit more. The saturation could have been increased slightly in-camera so that the colours had that bit more vibrancy that he was looking for, and he could have centre-weighted the exposure so the camera metered off the bright car and perhaps reduced the exposure time a little, which may have meant a darker landscape and the car standing out a bit more. If vignetting was the desired result another, a wide circular graduated filter could have been used.


Photoshopping the first image to achieve the second image is still impressive, I couldn't do it, but taking a photograph and getting the second image on-camera is photography to me, whereas processing the first image to get to the second image on a computer is art - the end result is nice, but it's not the same as photography skills.


This is all IMHO of course, and Sharky is just an example and I mean no disrespect to him, and I accept that darkroom operators historically used processing techniques to achieve desired results rather than just printing the straight negative, and that some other images (like Scott's stunning beach images in that thread) would simply not be possible without post-processing, but, personally speaking, I think a photographer that can achieve the second image on-camera is a better photographer than one that can take the first image and transform it into the second image. The latter would be an artist.

Thoughts?

 

[Adam.]

But surely if it's a raw then you've captured the moment

 

[Knuckles]

'Because photography is about capturing a moment using skill and knowledge and an expensive camera, expensive lenses, expensive equipment etc etc to get the perfect depth of field, composition, and quality of picture as you stand there taking it IMO.'

photoshop is cheating in that sense, although it does save you a lot of money (at first at least)

i suppose the more equipment you get and the better at photography you get you wont rely on photoshop as much.

 

[Brazo]

Photography is Art, period. It's also used by countless tourists but don't let that put you off. I agree that digital art isn't photography but tweaking an image in Photoshop simply means that you are expressing the scene as you see it, not how the camera sees it.

If you want the latter become a tourist

 

[unofficialPete]

Using a fancy camera is cheating, using digital is cheating, using in camera processing is cheating, hell using a dark room is cheating.

Here you go..

 

[Andy.]

Photography is Art, period.

This.

It's not cheating at all. Post processing has been around for as long as photography has. It's just more accessible now as it's all done on a computer rather than in a dark room.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Cheating implies breaking rules or dishonesty.

If you claim a picture wasnt photoshopped and it was, then you have cheated the person you are saying that to, if you dont make such a claim then you havent.

 

[Eddie.]

Providing you don't claim them to be not shopped, then you're cheating nobody!

PhotoShop is just post processing, something that has been around as long as cameras themselves. It's only cheating in the same way using a polarising filter is or something like that!

 

[Hixle]

I think using PS is a skill within itself, and only adds to photography.

Personally, I'm not a fan of playing around with saturation in camera (as the example in your post states), would much rather do it in PP. Saves a lot of faffing around for a quick snap.

 

[TimR26]

I don't see the difference between using a filter on your camera and using Photoshop. Both are changing what the eye would have seen just different methods to get the same result.

 

[SharkyUK]

White16valver - No offence taken.

I don't think Photoshop is cheating in the sense of utilising it to modify digital photographs; it's merely a tool to enhance the source image that the photographer captured, or to realise a specific vision. Sadly I don't have a plethora of DSLR components and lenses so I tend to shoot (using the standard kit lens more often than not) in RAW and tweak / enhance in Photoshop afterwards.

In the example above, I was at a driving meet and didn't wish to spend too much time on preparing for the shot as the day was primarily about the drive, the banter and photos (for me at least) were a bonus. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to photography but it gives me enjoyment as can the PP involved afterwards (if I deem the photo to need such edits).

A great photographer is a great photographer. Period. You still need a good eye, spatial / contextual awareness, experience and skilled execution to get a good photo. And - yes - it takes the 'right' sort of person to achieve that. Not everyone is destined to be a great photographer. Getting back on subject... I strongly believe that Photoshop is not cheating and simply provides the photographer with an additional set of tools and capabilities. Whether or not they use it - I guess - is personal preference. I expect an awful lot of photographers do use it (to varying degrees) as it's very much part of a digital darkroom workflow.

 

[Hixle]

It also give photographers the opportunity to shoot things that would be near enough impossible without photoshop.

For example:

Now, I'm not a massive fan of the above picture (too much going on) but it's a decent enough example.

I wanted a picture of the car with the sunset in the background. The correct exposure for car detail completely, as expected, blew out the sky and the correct exposure for the sky completely underexposed the car. Two shots had to be taken, and without photoshop, I wouldn't have been able to merge the two and get the shot I wanted. Also, the bottom floor of the building had some horrible, yellowy artificial light going on, so I retouched the colour of the glass.

Simple and subtle, and I think the most important thing is that I, along with many others, really enjoy editing photos. Just adds a whole new dimention to photography.

 

[Jamie_182]

All depends what you use it for, i'm a freelance designer who specilizes in branding and advertising. when producing work for a client the images they want in the final product may need editing so photoshop is perfect for this.

I simply don't have the skill or time to go out and re take photo.

i do believe that if you are a photographer then trying to not use photoshop is better beacuse it pushes you to master the art of photography.

I think photoshop is a great programme for people who just want to do a bit of tidying up to photos and designers who arent photographers.

 

[Martin!]

I don't use it a lot in my photos, for me, getting it right "in camera" is what it's all about. I do shoot raw, and I do use Lightroom to process, but I don't then export to photoshop and mess about with the scene, or vibrancy and saturation.....

So is shooting straight to jpeg also "cheating"? As that's the camera doing the processing rather than yourself.....

It's always going to be an argumentative topic though, but personally I feel it's no different to altering photos in the darkroom when shooting film.

 

[Wick]

I accept that darkroom operators historically used processing techniques to achieve desired results rather than just printing the straight negative, and that some other images

For me, this is the exact reason why it is not cheating lol!

I think a photographer that can achieve the second image on-camera is a better photographer than one that can take the first image and transform it into the second image.

I agree with this in the sense that if you have that much skill with a camera then you are certainly a better photographer (or maybe just know your way around the camera better). That said, anyone who can produce perfect images with zero processing is literally 1 in a million, and even then 9 times out of 10 you can always identify something that could have been touched up in photoshop.

Sharkey, Luke and Martin all raise very good points imo...

 

[Scott™]

I agree with the majority that it is not cheating.

Getting it 'right on the camera' is not always possible. For example when I shoot images of the tide coming in and out, getting it 'right on the camera' with the light constantly changing as the sunsets is near impossible.

Photoshop is just a tool to process that image how you want it.

I don't however 100% percent agree with changing that image completely like TheKid has done with his fake rig effect. No offence.

 

[bully]

I don't use Photoshop but still tweak in Aperture.

I think to get rid of things in pictures that you can't retake is OK or if you are specifically doing a rig shot.

It is a skill and not cheating, you can usually see shopped pictures anyway.

 

[ukaskew]

Photoshopping/editing is my worst enemy (mainly because I find it incredibly boring). That's why I always enjoyed motorsport photography more than any other area, 99% of the shot is down to skill and it's very difficult to create something from nothing or hide poor technique. Months and months of practice out in the field experimenting with very 'hands-on' elements such as shutter speed and camera handling is pretty much the only way at getting good at it (even with reasonably basic equipment)...and as I have a circuit 15 miles up the road I took advantage of that and practised my arse off for many years.

I feel like I've fallen behind in many 'popular' areas of photography because I have no interest in sitting at a PC editing (stacking seems very 'in' at the moment, it's the new HDR), if I want a photography fix I pop down to Castle Combe.

 

[SamP]

Photoshop might not be cheating, but it is IMO a waste of time. I'd rather do everything physically right to get it correct in camera, so I have to spend less time fixing stuff in post.

 

[The Fatty]

Photoshop isnt cheating lol its a tool for mordern digital photography. Super-imposed images existed in its various forms before digital and photoshop, and thats not classed as cheating. Sounds to me like you dont know how to use photoshop so your having a stab at it...