when is it cheating?

Peter: 'Correctly' viewable? That means the way the photographer means you to see it. Nothing to do with editing or not editing.<p><p>

 

Is, for example,<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10149792"> this image</a> 'correctly viewable'?

<p>Mike, thanks for clarifying the context and history of the checkbox, of which I was not aware. Also, apologies since I meant "Elves" (senior moment!) Further, I probably made my final paragraph rather too brief for clarity.</p>

<p>One of the things said (for the benefit of other readers) is that viewers wishing to emulate the "look" of posted photos where the manipulated box <em>has</em> been checked might find it useful to work more on their PS skills rather than on their camera skills to achieve the desired result (again, I'm not quoting verbatim). This is what I was originally trying to communicate, alas rather clumsily.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter: 'Correctly' viewable? That means the way the photographer means you to see it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly - most photographers would probably wish to sharpen a digital image, for example, or maybe adjust the levels. When it's up on their monitor, it's their call: edit or not. All I meant is that the unprocessed image might not represent what they were expecting or desiring and so to post this unchanged (just for the sake of "not editing") would not <em>correctly</em> represent what they wanted to visually convey.</p>

<p>"This image" is an old Velvia scan. When I did some PN housekeeping recently, I used this image to have a play with an editing package I'd recently acquired, just to try it out. I rather liked this result and so reposted it in the obviously "manipulated" form to which you've linked. So, from my point of view, this <em>is</em> "correct". YMMV, as may mine in the future, once I'm over my new toys.</p>

<p>By definition, it's cheating when you break the rules. What are the rules?</p>

My method of editing was to throw out the bad photos and only show people the keepers.

<p>I may say that in the good old film days, the only non-edited images <em>ever</em> were slides when viewed in a projector. All others were edited in the process of printing, by choosing gradation (for BW), color correction (for color) etc.. The only difference was that then the photographer had much less control over it. If you are that strict, even a polarizing filter is in some sense "editing", isn't it?</p>

<p>As many have pointed out...it is not a matter of makeing the photo "viewable", but rather making it what I feel is its very best. I don't normally set white balance, color, saturation, or anything else on the camera. It is what ever was default at the factory. That is why I shoot RAW as no one set of setting will fit every need, and there is no way to use the LCD to set that stuff. I like to think of it as "finishing" as rather than "editing" them. However to be honest I do need to edit every so often.</p>

<p>I don't like to show my images until they are finished either. I think it goes back to only showing your best work. In my work flow, the image is not complete until I process it. And to be clear, I also shoot, develop, and print film in my own home.</p>

<p>Jason </p>

<p>Here's a (rather long) thread on this very subject:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Sw80 with some additional insights...<br>

The thread was eventually closed without any tangible resolution.</p>

 

<p>Is it cheating not serving you a cake until it's been baked?<br>

where the eggs not quite "good enough"?<br />Is it cheating not showing you the secret recipe for Coke?<br>

was Coca-Cola's wish to make a profit not to your liking? <br />Is it cheating not showing you the rough draft of "1984"?<br>

Was the idea not good enough?<br />Is it cheating to use filters?<br>

Was your camera not good enough?<br />Is it cheating not having pictures uploaded on photo.net when you post a question?<br>

Are your photos not "that good to begin with"?</p>

<p>You mean "when is it misinterpreting the rules". That is the american way of saying it.</p>

<p>Its cheating when you photo your girlfriend and you wife finds it.</p>

<p>

<p>When it is cheating depends a lot on what the photograph is going to be used for. For example if I am sending a photograph to the local news paper for a sport shot I greatly limit my edits, adjusting color saturation, contrast and in some cases balancing brightness across the photo. If the photo is just going to be looked at and enjoyed I will sometime clone out distracting elements. For example I have shot a number of group photos on the beach, it is hard to get just the group in the photo without also catching some other people, I have no problem at all cloning out the other people and I don’t thing the people getting their group photo would have any problem knowing that I do this.</p>

<p>I draw that line at things like adding elements from different photos, such as adding in a nice looking sky on a day when the sky did not look so good, or making the moon look just a bit bigger then it really was, or making someone look a bit thinner then they really are.</p>

</p>

<p>No, it's not cheating Andrea and yes, you're being too hard on yourself :). I never give anyone photos without going through them, throwing away the crap and doing my adjustments. I think it's called being professional (even if you aren't' a pro) to deliver your best work that's print ready.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Its cheating when you photo your girlfriend and you wife finds it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That hits the nail on the head.</p>

 

<p>Years ago, when I shot only black & white film, I thought that having someone else make the prints was cheating. If I didn't do the final cropping, dodging and burning the image was not truly mine.</p>

<p>I still feel the need to "finish" a picture, even if the raw image is very good. I think that putting an image out into the world without first loading it into an editing program and trying to present it at its very best is to abdicate an important responsibility. It's as far as one can get from "cheating."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Richard Avedon apparently "cheated" then</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/041005.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/041005.htm</a></p>

<p>i also have books with printer instructions from Robert Frank, Louis Faurer, and Ansel Adams in them. Louis Faurer use to drive his printer insane with the detailed printing instructions....much like the Avedon one shown in the Washington Post article linked above.</p>

<p>I have a DVD on Avedon where he gave explicit printing instructions, and when it didn't come back to his expectation, he had it redone. And this was like a 6x10 FOOT print.</p>

<p>As many have said above, it is part of the photographic process, always has been, and always will be. Those of you who insist on "in camera or nothing" have a LOT to learn. </p>

<p><< several photographer friends won't share photos til they're edited...if i HAVE to edit to make a photo viewable, maybe the photo wasn't that good to begin with...>></p>

<p>In these digital days, I think that's a smart thing to do.</p>

<p>I have yet to recover from the embarrassment of showing all the shots of the day (RAW+JPG) to two photo buddies when I was at the Canadian Rockies in October. First of all, there were so many shots (especially the wildlife), that I am sure I bored them to death; and then there were some that I would never have shown if I saw them first. LOL!</p>

OP! Andrea! Are you still here?

 

Are you the Andrea Kerbusch who posts to Gardenfork? If so, and by your permission, I would like to show edited and unedited versions of one or two of your images? If you would like to see this, but would not like it public, email me.

<blockquote>

<p>by your permission, I would like to show edited and unedited versions of one or two of your images?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't do that on photo.net, even with permission. The Terms of Use are very clear on this.</p>

I can if she posts them, no?

<p>In the context of a critique request, it's okay to post an edited version of another user's photo (for which they've requested a critique) as a follow-up to illustrate your critique.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can if she posts them, no?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Only in the situation that Mike says. If the point is to have the picture here, have her post here. You can't post it unless, as Mike says, it's in the context of a critique request.</p>

 

<p>hi, i posted 2 photos but am new to this site and am not sure where they are...<br>

the first photo i took when i first got the camera and hadn't taken interior action yet ... i was having trouble (this is my first digital) and the dancer actually came out and told me to mess around with a high iso so this was my result. the second photo is unretouched with an iso of 400...i was so much more comfortable with my analog nikon...any help will be appreciated.<br>

les, feel free to give me examples from garden fork...<br>

thank you alll</p>

<p>It's cheating if you decide that for your needs, it is. All other opinions will vary...widely.</p>

<p>To me, and probably a few more people, an image is viewable only when it achieves the vision the photographer had set out to achieve in the first place. If this requires editing to get the final work, such as W. Eugene Smith's absolutely masterful darkroom printing did, then so be it and there's nothing wrong with that.</p>