Is it cheating?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I had this image in my mind for some time, I went out last night and

took it. Thing is that although the picture conveys the mood I was

working for, I have to admit that it was set up and posed. Does that

detract from the image, or does it still work?<div></div>

[smooch]

You've got other issues. Composition for one. Lighting for another. Real or not? ??

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

totally ambient light

[mike dixon]

There's no such thing as cheating in photography. Anything goes.

 

Unless you're bound by some journalistic ethics (which is a seperate issue), do whatever you want.

[sabrina_h.]

It happens in documentary photography often. I think it's cheating.

[Spearhead]

I've never seen any "rules of photography." Without them, there is no cheating, as Mike points out.

 

Cheating might occur if you've claimed something that is untrue. But presenting a visual image and allowing it to make its own statement can't be called cheating.

[melresnick]

I might consider cropping the left side at the end of the stairs. I might also burn in the top four or five steps. The overexposure of the bottom steps doesn't bother me at all; it adds to the stark reality of the scene.

 

The image works for me. The lights represent the depths of urban life and the bad choices the street holds. The subject doesn't know where to turn or how to get away from it all.

 

Ben didn't say that he was trying to document anything, only that he was working to convey a mood. I don't see any validity here to photojournalism arguments. They are like telling the nature photographer not to use Velvia because it is highly saturated and exaggerates colors.

 

The intense night lighting looks like Weegee's work. Good photo!

[eugene_scherba]

Why don't you get closer to your subject? You aren't conveying any moods from that distance, but reflecting viewer's ignorance.

[randall ellis]

I suppose that it is only cheating if you attempt to pass off the image as un-staged or as 'reality'. Some people feel that cropping is cheating while others have no problem doing massive editing in PS to get the image they wanted. It's a matter of personal taste, except in documentary photography or journalism, where 'reality' is required for credibility.

 

- Randy

[terribletomterrific]

Hi,

 

It's a tough call. Whether or not it is photojournalism, it is certainly in the style of

photojournalism: someone mentioned WeeGee earlier in the thread, to wit. And this does

bring up some issues.

 

Many good commercial photograhers can ape various styles, and they can certainly ape

photojournalism. How do we react when someone uses the credibility of

photojournalism--for which photojournalists have worked very hard to establish and

maintain-- to sell a product?

 

Picture this: a commercially produced photograph--deliberately in the style of

photojournalism--of a father playing in the backyard with his children, is used in

an ad deliberately designed to look like a newspaper article, for the purpose of selling life

insurance.

 

How do we feel about that in terms of integrity?

 

Tom

[marbing]

So, you had a particular image in mind and you went out and took it. You are telling a story and you are not ashamed to say that it is a posed shot...I can't see anywhere that you have tried to make the shot out to be anything other than what it is. There is no cheating there!

 

If you made up some story about just finding this fellow looking so upset and decided to take his picture...that would be something else. You would have told a lie about how the picture was created.

 

As it stands, you wanted to communicate something that you had in mind and you made artistic decisions about how to produce that image...hoping that it would communicate similar feelings to the viewers...I can't see any cheating.

 

The image stands on its own.

[Spearhead]

BTW, I set up shots sometimes. This one, for example:<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/z2.jpg"><br><I>Don't Look Now, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Thanks Mel, I like the cropping, the feel of the area makes it more poignant, as does the contrast. Everyone to their own though...

[sabrina_h.]

There are many different areas of photography. Photojournalism, documentary, editorial,

portraits and street photography to name a few.

 

It seems to me that "staging" or telling to "do over" is generally accepted in documentary

work. I think the mood is to convey the overall feel of what is happening. It could be

truth or slanting the truth to tell the complete story in one photograph. Telling someone

to "please stand over there and put your hand on the table" in my opinion is editorial.

 

Photojournalism is suppose to be un-altered truth (hence the word suppose). To direct a

scene is not accepted. I've known a few photojournalist who've won prizes on photos that

were to reflect the truth. When the truth came out they "staged" them, the prizes were

revoked and some even fired.

 

I stage a lot in my portraits and document un-alterd truths when documenting. What you

have there is a portrait.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I'm not claiming that it is PJ Sabrina, so it goes with your point. I'm trying to express the emotion that this photo hopefully conveys,

therefore is it any different to a painting, and therefore should it be classified as art, or does the fact that it _looks_ PJ make it seem false? I think it's an interesting point.

[beeman458]

Personally, I find it a form of, not so much cheating but, I find it to be a bit disingenuous in photographic nature.<p>

 

Why?<p>

 

I find the created act or created body to be the art in-of-itself and the effort to photograph the created idea to be a form of photojournalism.<p>

 

But!<p>

 

How else to share an idea with the general public other then to photograph (photojournalism) the created idea, much like one needs to photograph scenery one might see on vacation so as to be able to share the visual experience with others; "I was here and this is what I saw."<p>

 

Is this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3209863&size=lg">image</a> the art or is the created scene photographed the art? Did I cheat by photographing an obviously created scene? Or was it necessary for me to photograph the created scene (photojournalism) so as to be able to share the created idea/art with others?<p>

 

As you explore the works of Mapplethorpe, Weston, Serrano, Imogen Cunningham, Diane Arbus and Cindy Sherman, a short list of some well known photographic personalities known for staging and photographing their staged efforts, you'll get a feel for the nature or act of staging a scene and the legitimacy/need of photographing these staged efforts.<p>

 

Staging one's efforts goes all the way back to the beginning of time where folks staged a scene (models) or later, the camera lucida/camera obscura and then painted these staged scenes; same difference when compared to the act of photographing a staged scene.<p>

 

It's just that in "my" mind, to me, the staged scene is the art and the act of painting, sculpturing or photographing the scene is the equivalent of a photojournalistic effort to record this staged event; a necessary part of the overall process so as to be able to share the staged art in perpetuity with future generations.<p>

 

The point of all the above? Don't worry, you're in good company as to the act of staging a scene and then photographing it so as to be able to share your efforts with others:)<p>

 

Hope the above gives some insight to your question.<p>

[Spearhead]

Sabrina's use of the word "truth" points out the real issue here. "Cheating" cannot exist if there are no rules. One could cheat in a photographic competition, for example, but one cannot really cheat taking a photo.

 

"Lying" is entirely different. One can lie about what a photo depicts, thereby misrepresenting it. This is important in photojournalism, where there is an expectation that a photo is what someone says it is. Elsewhere...

[kent_tolley2]

"We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth." Pablo Picasso

[eugene_scherba]

"Truth" has nothing to do with art. Deceitful people can create great art.

[terribletomterrific]

Hi,

 

"Art" is the root word of artificial.

 

Tom

[john_macpherson]

And the Collins English Dictionary definition of 'artless' is (amongst others).....

 

"free from deceit"

[bacsa]

It's not cheating. It's just realizing an image you had in your mind for some time.

<p>

I had one myself:<br>

<center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2940792-md.jpg">

</center>

[ellis_vener_photography]

It looks very self-consciously posed to me, so I don't think it is cheating. BUT because I

don't believe it for a second it just doesn't work for me at all.

[david_fields1]

Mike Dixon says "There's no such thing as cheating in photography. Anything goes....."

Good going mike - what a way to mediocretise photography even more by saying and thinking such rubbish. 'Seems like that's the prevailing mentality in alot of other aspects of our society today...

[beeman458]

"Seems like that's the prevailing mentality in alot of other aspects of our society today..."

 

Okay. Color me dumb. How does the fluid nature of contemporary morality, (which I feel is in the toilet of sectarianism,) in your above, apply to capturing or writing (photography) with light?

 

Outside of photojournalism (truth in capture), where/when did it become a rule that one couldn't legitimately fuss with their images, pretty much in anyway that they like? Was Matthew Brady out of line for rearranging battle field casualties (the dead) for his image making, cheating? If you get a group of individuals together, at your behest, is that cheating? Is the unnatural saturated nature of Velvia cheating? Is an image which is closer in life size (macro) then your eyes are capable in focusing on, out of the realm of real? Does unnatural high speed photography, break out of the bounds of real and move into the distorted realm of the surreal? Is burning and dodging a negative print wrong cause it doesn't represent the legitimate capabilities of film? I mean come on, you have to admit, the act of stopping a bullet, photographically, in mid flight, a thousandth of a second, after blowing through a watermelon, is not comparatively realistic to any rational human experience:)

 

Am I cheating by mixing equal parts of Johnny Walker Red Label Blended Scotch Whiskey with Bailey's Original Irish Cream? It must be illegal/immoral, because it taste sooooo good:)

 

The point of my above? Is there a line which you've created, for what ever reason and if so, could you define what that line is so we can all understand your above comment? What's acceptable and what's not, according to your aesthetics?

 

Myself, I submit that juicing one's self with "illegal" performance enhancing steroids is cheating in the matters of "any" competitive sports but juicing your images in the process of creating art is neither immoral or illegal.

 

Personally, I'm turned off by the overly saturated color of velvia (a personal choice) but I readily add saturation adjustments of +25~+35 back into an image that I stripped the saturation out of the image with a -2 camera setting in regard to in camera parameters. When is it a tool of the trade (softboxes or studio lights), a technique (over development/noise reduction software) or cheating (cut and paste graphics or removing a trash can?) Is stitching a valid art form of detail enhancement? :)

 

I'll look forward to your comments as I feel this is an issue only because there aren't any defined categories in which to pigeon hole one's efforts; basic, slight, midline, jacked up and gross (graphic art).

 

Thanks! I'll look forward to you fleshing out you comments.