Hi all,
With the advice from my previous post I have started working through my RAW files, deleting the rubbish, filing and labelling etc.
Anyway, I'm at a stage where I feel like I might be cheating and so was wondering where everyone else stood on this (if you are honest).
In RAW developement I have the option to alter the exposure a couple of stops. Not cheating in my opinion as the lab/darkroom could do this.
I can also change the saturation and contrast, although this feels a bit like cheating when doing this in the software. When I change the settings in the camera as I would select a film for these properties it feels ok, but changing it afterwards seems kind of wrong.
Cropping images in the software is great, saves getting the old knife out later and allows me to experiment with several different prints from the same image, views that I may not have considered in the field. Wonderful, and to me the purest form of editing.
Changing to B&W in the software is cool too as I had imagined the image in B&W before taking it but couldn't set this in the camera (otherwise I would).
"Lassooing" an area of the image that is over exposed and bringing it down a stop or half, cheating? I'm not sure, it's no different to dodging in the darkroom I guess, except far more accurate. But it doesn't feel right.
But then where does it stop? I know people who edit out people, drop people in etc. I think that this is very much cheating.
I don't consider the artistic effects/filters etc to be cheating, they are producing a different type of image, creative art perhaps, so use every trick in the book if it works.
But for photography, and for prints that will be displayed in a photographic exhebition for example, how far is too far?
I'm just curious, not trying to get anyones back up or start an argument! I am amazed by the tools available to photographers now and think it's great that I can edit an image EXACTLY how I want to, quickly and cheaply, before heading down to the printers.
In my opinion the only thing that's cheating - or more accurately, outright fraud - is manipulation of photojournalism shots to portray or exaggerate something that isn't really happening.
As for "normal" photos, there so such thing as cheating. Every single photo published has been manipulated all to hell, and certainly everyone in this day and age of course realizes this. Right? ;-)
Cheers,
Terry
"... When you turn a image into something it wasn't..."
There isn't one single pixel that hasn't been manipulated on every single photo of every single fashion magazine published today.
Where do you draw the line? When you removed a single pimple?
Or when you arched an eyebrow, narrowed a jaw line, or gave her better cleavage?...
Cheers,
Terry
Well I think that is the main problem with photos...they don't tell a story. The famous Eddie Adams picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie<u>Adams</u>(photographer)</a> is a case in point.
There's no hard and fast rule; outside photojournalism/forensics at least. It's a matter of where your personal limits are.
For my own shots I draw the line at adding elements, or removing significant elements. i.e. might clone out a chewing gum wrapper I didn't spot, but I wouldn't add/move/remove a building. Any wires and such will stay in the shot as I deem them an integral part of the location.
I don't see boosting saturation as an issue, as we could do that by choosing Velvia in the olden days. We now have the option to switch from Velvia to Portra after we take the shot; and this is a good thing™ IMO.
You can't write-off the entire art form because of a few mistakes or manipulations.
Photojournalism has done way more good than bad in bringing important slivers of human history to the masses.
Cheers,
Terry
One of the publications I shoot for demands a folder of all of the job's RAW files, along with a folder of "selects", images which may have been cropped or slightly adjusted. We are also required to set the time and date on our cameras. This is a direct result of some unethical practices that have been exposed (no pun) the last few years. In the days of film, editors could always check out our negatives if they felt uneasy about an image. I like the idea of having RAW files available, since I have nothing to hide.
It really depends on the purpose of the image. With news, it's about the truth and ethics with very little, to no wiggle room. Advertising is obviously another beast, where anything goes. A photographer knows inside when he/she has crossed the line.
smoke: The irony is, if you want to fake up RAW files and/or negs, it's not that hard. I'm sure I could knock togther a Canon (or any other brand) RAW file showing whatever you want to see, from data... Not sure how the Canon Data Verification Kit changes things though, but I suppose I could still create an image, dump it on an LFR and shoot the slide with the camera - et voila, instant fake RAW. Where there's a will, there's a way.
trusted partner
