Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forgive me if the question's been asked but is it "cheating" if one takes photos and ends up photoshopping them later? I've always taken photos and my pictures are 'as is' taken straight out of the camera; it gives me pride and accomplishment to know that I nailed the shot when sharing with buddies.
I understand that the camera 'processes' the picture when taken--think of it as an automatic built-in camera photoshop depending on your settings--but knowing that you didn't edit it later still shows that you nailed it. The rush of euphoria and excitement when you view the picture in the playback mode... ahhh, gotta love it!
What I'm trying to say is that when I use photoshop, the feeling of "Oh...I-didn't-take-that-shot-correctly-and-now-I'm-going-to-fix-it" guilt comes over me and I don't know whether doing so is acceptable, especially when you're sharing your work with the community.
I'm aware that minor adjustments like white balance, levels, etc. are usually acceptable but how do you guys go your way? Do you try to nail the shot or just snap snap only to edit it later?
Thanks for your opinions!
Here's a sample of some of my unedited work (aside from the copyrighted texts!):
Nope, it isn't cheating at all if you are doing some post processing. Even with film there was a fair amount you could do in the darkroom as you were developing the film. The only difference is that now anyone with a digital camera and a computer can do it themselves. Several of the tools in Photoshop retain the name of procedures done in the darkroom (dodging, burning, etc....) A sensor on a digital camera cannot capture the range of color or contrast that the human eye can see, so a bit of post processing is necessary to bring the image closer to what the photographer actually saw in real life. Sometimes it is very, very little work... other times it can be a bit more involved. I generally keep the post processing on the light side and don't do a lot to am image. I grew up shooting film, and even a little darkroom time, so I don't see the difference in what was done in the darkroom and what is done on a computer.
Even if all a person did was take a roll of photos and drop it off to the lab, then picked up the prints; that doesn't mean developing work wasn't done. It just means they didn't have the control over what was done to their images and left it in the hands of whomever was developing their film, or running the machine.
On the other hand, if you are adding elements into the shot that are not there originally (like putting a different sky, or background) then it may be a "cheat" if you try to pass it off as an unedited shot.
Nope, it isn't cheating at all if you are doing some post processing. Even with film there was a fair amount you could do in the darkroom as you were developing the film. The only difference is that now anyone with a digital camera and a computer can do it themselves. Several of the tools in Photoshop retain the name of procedures done in the darkroom (dodging, burning, etc....) A sensor on a digital camera cannot capture the range of color or contrast that the human eye can see, so a bit of post processing is necessary to bring the image closer to what the photographer actually saw in real life. Sometimes it is very, very little work... other times it can be a bit more involved. I generally keep the post processing on the light side and don't do a lot to am image. I grew up shooting film, and even a little darkroom time, so I don't see the difference in what was done in the darkroom and what is done on a computer.
Even if all a person did was take a roll of photos and drop it off to the lab, then picked up the prints; that doesn't mean developing work wasn't done. It just means they didn't have the control over what was done to their images and left it in the hands of whomever was developing their film, or running the machine.
On the other hand, if you are adding elements into the shot that are not there originally (like putting a different sky, or background) then it may be a "cheat" if you try to pass it off as an unedited shot.
That's exactly how I see it. Photos have been manipulated (sometimes drastically) in the darkroom since the early days of photography. The basic tools in Photoshop aren't much different that what is often done in the darkroom, although you can take things a lot further in Photoshop if you want. I, too, don't see it as "cheating" unless a person is claiming a manipulated image is not. I always heard that the early DSLRs were designed assuming the user would be doing all the post processing, so the pictures straight out of the camera could be quite understated and dull. I'm not sure how true that was, but my first DSLR (digital Rebel) came factory preset that way, although you could set it to increase sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc in camera. Almost every photo I made with that camera required some post processing, but the Olympus point and shoot I had before it often required none, because it (apparently) automatically edited the photos a certain way, whether I wanted it to or not. Handy for your average consumer, but not necessarily for the hobbyist. And so when I'm running my images through Photoshop, I simply consider it the modern equivalent to developing my own film in the darkroom.
I always strive for the best original shot possible. It makes it a lot easier to edit. Your pics are nice, but I would have taken that pole out of the first one. Just an thought.
I guess I won't have to feel awfully bad when I play with the white balance. My friends and I were on top of a dark mountain overlooking city lights with the Milky Way and I used slow flash to take my pictures with us posing together--err, didn't come out well. Camera flash is about 6500K and my camera used this as white, causing all the streetlamps and the city glow burning far below 6500K to become awfully red. Wasn't how my eye saw it on the top.
I could've used a lower kelvin range but I'm moving in a few days so that's not possible to hike back up and take another Guess Photoshop saves the day here. In photojournalism, I've heard that post-processing is typically frowned upon though.
I do agree with adding something in the shot that wasn't originally there as cheating. I've seen some photographers do this with the moon (like moving it into place rather than simply fix the HDR range) and it makes me twitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WFW&P
Byand & Lamplight covered it IMO.
Like the OP I strive for the best shot possible.
Me too! Doesn't it feel good when you snap that perfect shot?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by builder24car
I always strive for the best original shot possible. It makes it a lot easier to edit. Your pics are nice, but I would have taken that pole out of the first one. Just an thought.
Thank you! I took that one in Odaiba in Tokyo. Yeah I agree, that would've been ideal if I removed the pole as it takes attention away from the chain of hearts...
Photoshop simply does what the light room did in the past. I don't know how familiar you are with light room work, but even in black and white you can do an awful lot to get the desired result and "look", I don't see what I do in photoshop as any different.
In any case, I only shoot in .raw, so my camera doesn't really do all that much "in house" and I can't print/display the pictures without running them through photoshop anyway.
In any case, there's only so much you can do with a bad shot, getting things right in the camera means it comes out a lot better in processing.
I also agree that it's a good thing to try to make the shot as close to your vision of "perfect" right off the bat, directly from the camera. But of course that's not always possible. And I've found that nearly all of my photos, even ones that I'm fairly happy with right out of the camera, pretty much always look better with some tweaking, whether it's a contrast adjustment, slight color changes, more or less saturation, etc. And it seems almost none of my photos are as sharp as I would like straight from the camera, no matter which lens I use. So even if I do nothing else, I always adjust the sharpness slightly.
I like to play with Photoshop to create some poster for some songs or poems that I post online
Here an example (view at your own risk )
Spoiler
Original pic:
Resize, edit and add text:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your pics are nice, but I would have taken that pole out of the first one. Just an thought. 
)
