I cheat in Photoshop, is that OK?

[smilodon]

Like every other digital photographer I cheat on almost every image I take both professionally and privately. I have no problem with editing commercial work as the job is to provide an image that meets the clients needs. No one is going to hang it on a wall or award me a prize for it. It's going to sell a product or concept. It's a picture of a widget or a flange or some other equally uninteresting object (unless you're in the market for a widget or a flange, in which case it's probably quite interesting.)

But what about private work? These are pictures that I am judged on as a creative person. looking at these images you decide if I'm a good, average or poor photographer. Can I manipulate those images on a computer and still look you all in the eye?

I took this image about a year ago and I'm quite proud of it.



However it's a cheat. I photographed it on a dull overcast day, through a wire mesh fence and got the shot mostly out of focus. But a bit of judicious hacking about in Adobe's finest allowed me to rescue it and create an image of something that I didn't really photograph.

This was the original image as it came out of the camera



It's cold, out of focus, you cannot see the leopard's eye, the beast needs some serious dental hygiene work and the whole shot is a stop under exposed. All fixed in Photoshop.

Now you might not like either image, which is fine, but I suspect you like the second shot less than the first. And you might have considered me a better photographer had  I never revealed the second shot at all. So is photography, that used to be honest in the days of film (or at least a lot more honest), now corrupt as an artistic medium. Should people like myself be judged as photographer/graphic artists rather than as proper photographers? Or is a nice picture just a nice picture regardless of how it was created?

[DrunkenZombiee]

I don't edit my photographs in Photoshop currently, but I don't see professionals and amateurs as cheats if you do. IMO there is just as much skill in post processing as taking the shot. All of the physics and maths behind it is the same in terms of colour manipulation in terms of gamuts and Bayer array RGBG manipulations with the added advantage of being able to manipulate a smaller area independently of the rest of the shot (which you would struggle to do with lighting even in a studio). In the real world (particualrly with photos of animals and people) you have a very small time window to get the shot you want and cant afford to take numerous test shots as the moment would be gone.

You need firm subject knowledge to know how to rescue a photo in post processing by understanding why the shot is poor e.g. underexposed, wrong light balance, composition of the shot wrong and drawing the eye to a different place etc.

People that say Photoshop is cheating don't have the time and skills to learn to use the software properly. As for myself, I would love to learn to use Photoshop to enhance my photos as I am still learning my way round a Digital SLR and getting any type of shot at all =).

On the other hand there are some very "false" photos that people spend hours completely overhauling the image. This I disagree with as the shot needs to remain true to the medium which you are shooting. Experimental stuff is fine as "Artwork" but sometimes people go too far with some pretty hardcore things that you can do with photoshop these days.

P.S. If anyone has any decent Photoshop tutorials I would be very interested as I would love to learn my way around photoshop if I have some time as I would love to become more rounded in my knowledge.

[Lameduck]

P.S. If anyone has any decent Photoshop tutorials I would be very interested as I would love to learn my way around photoshop if I have some time as I would love to become more rounded in my knowledge.

I use http://psd.tutsplus.com to improve what little skill I have with PS.
I certainly dont consider you a cheat for editing with PS, as its a fantastic tool and using it is no different to using any other post-production facility, both images are equally valid.
PS. Its the best LAN pic of Ninja I've seen

[T-Bag]

It all depends if the aim of your project is to create a photograph that people will enjoy for what it is, or to capture a moment exactly as it is. If you intend to capture the moment then photoshop can only be used to remove blemishes a similar. If the aim is for the art then it doesn't matter if there was even a photograph to begin with. Personally the end result i more important to me than the authenticity, and amount of touching up is acceptable.

Holiday photos on the other hand...

[Penfold]

Wow that's a great shot Smilo - superb.

Have to say I was a little crushed at...

........ It's a picture of a widget or a flange or some other equally uninteresting object (unless you're in the market for a widget or a flange, in which case it's probably quite interesting.)

but hey ho :flirty:

Besides, you're the one who seems to have a strange fascination for Swansea Bus Station  :narnar:

[T-Bag]

Besides, you're the one who seems to have a strange fascination for Swansea Bus Station  :narnar:

Swansea bus station is all posh now. It would be wrong not to be a little bit fascinated...though I don't use public transport so I haven't been yet.