Which picture do you prefer? Both the same image one worked on the other original, and is it cheating to enhance a photo to such an extent????

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Edited 26 January, 200917 yr by postmanpat

IMHO yes it is cheating.

Photoshop has its uses, don't get me wrong, for minor touch ups etc.

But a colleague of mine uses it loads and for me it is not photography. I am no expert by any means. But i would rather get out with my camera and try to take a better photo than sit in front of a computer for ages trying to artificially create something that bears no relation to the original. Just my 2p worth.

No i don't think it is. It's just a fact of life that these days most professional images you see have been altered slightly to improve their final appearance.

I've used photoshop a few times to alter how images look.

Cheers

Dave.

Don't think its cheating, its commonly used in the photography world now. I think you should darken the slopes on the side of the picture, and keep the valley lightened. Because i do like how your made to focus away in the distance with the photoshopped one, rather than looking at all the wee rocks on the ground.

No it isn't cheating, it's art

Take a look in any magazine - I doubt you will find one picture that hasn't been edited.

It is cheating but if your not happy with a picture - I see no means why you shouldn't change it.

It's not cheating, it's just not 'pure' photography.

Nothing wrong with that.

/ot: where is the pic of? mdg?

/ot: where is the pic of? mdg?

Pasterze Glacier, Austria.

IMHO yes it is cheating.

Photoshop has its uses, don't get me wrong, for minor touch ups etc.

But a colleague of mine uses it loads and for me it is not photography. I am no expert by any means. But i would rather get out with my camera and try to take a better photo than sit in front of a computer for ages trying to artificially create something that bears no relation to the original. Just my 2p worth.

Spot on commentary IMHO, especially if photos are to be used in competitions etc. Photos are photos. 'Butchered' photos might be classed as 'art', but should not be allowed to win photographic competitions.

The skill of the photographer is seeing an image and getting his camera settings right, not, as stated, by using artificial enhancements.

The skill of the photographer is seeing an image and getting his camera settings right, not, as stated, by using artificial enhancements.

So where do you place the difference between using a graduated filter to make the sky moody 'on-camera', and using an adjustment layer in Photoshop to achieve the same effect in post-production? Apart from cost?

1 or 2 depending on mood, but doing 2 in post by Fotochop rather than by knowing to stop down a bit and/or using a graduated filter is cheating.

I think we've all been in the situation where the eye sees a panorama quite differently to the camera. We see a landscape and think WOW! I've got to get a shot of that only to find that the photo looks 'washed out' and not quite how we remember. This is because the eye makes compensations where the camera doesn't and merely sees it in varying shades of dark or light. So I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the photo to make it look like the real thing, either with filters, etc. on the camera or later in the photolab. That's what professionals do anyway.

I don't think it's cheating - used to spend hours in the darkroom 'improving' pictures particulary for adverts, not to mention pre-press airbrushing,

I wish that digital imaging and photoshop existed then at an affordable level (talking less than 15 years ago)

I also used to do a lot of monochrome work for myself and used different grades of paper, different chemicals, filters and dodging/burning techniques to get what I wanted. Never thought of that as cheating, more like being creative and isn't that the same as using photoshop?

No matter how good the image software or the camera it still needs the skill and creative input to get a good result.

FWIW I lke image 2 best, but would go totally monochrome and loose that hint of colour.

I think it depends whether you want to claim to be a photographer or a graphic designer tbh. I love photoshop for certain things, but if you can't produce a good photo without using photoshop then you shouldn't have a camera, that is my opinion. I made sure I knew how a camera worked and what everything does and means. I find much more satisfaction from producing a good shot straight off than having to play with it to make it right. I enjoy photoshop immensely, but unless you declare you have used it then it is "cheating". Unless, of course, you are after being a graphic designer

I think we've all been in the situation where the eye sees a panorama quite differently to the camera. We see a landscape and think WOW! I've got to get a shot of that only to find that the photo looks 'washed out' and not quite how we remember. This is because the eye makes compensations where the camera doesn't and merely sees it in varying shades of dark or light. So I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the photo to make it look like the real thing, either with filters, etc. on the camera or later in the photolab. That's what professionals do anyway.

Use a graduated ND filter No excuse!!!

Interesting and varied responses I too was under the impression it was cheating, and what was the point of having a camera?? Or at least I did when I only owned a SLR, After, like Loz says, reading everything (and learning somethings) there is about the DSLR then my attitude as changed slightly, especially when you consider the amount of processing the camera does automatically (if you shoot in JPG) and the amount you should do if you shoot RAW.

For what its worth image 1 is the 'original' and was taken by a 4 year old P&S Sony P200 so no opportunity to use filters etc

Get a film camera then. No cheating then! Gonna run a film through the Contax again once the sun comes back. Loads of Zeiss lenses to play with teehee! DSLR lenses feel like cheap plastic toys in comparison.

Get a film camera then. .

I still have but you waste so many exposures changing films over to change iso, then you can't view the results to see if you need to make an adjustment, so you adjust in anycase and waste more exposures, then there is the wait and expense of processing ( no darkroom:() Hence buying a DSLR

I'm not suggesting digital isn't easier, just that to every now and then take a film camera out....well, it proves you're not cheating if they come out right! And technically they should be even better quality.

I spent far more time tweaking a Black and White photo in the darkroom than I have ever spent Photoshopping an image from my dSLR (if you don't count cloning out/removing items in the frame that you don't want (and can't physically remove from the scene at exposure time))

But; as you say. I'm a graphic designer. I see a photograph as an image, not just a 'photograph'. So to hone the original photo into the image I want is second nature. But to me that's still 'photography', it only becomes something else when you start compositing or creating in PS rather than 'tweaking' (imo).

So where do you place the difference between using a graduated filter to make the sky moody 'on-camera', and using an adjustment layer in Photoshop to achieve the same effect in post-production? Apart from cost?

Can't answer that I'm afraid, as I don't use filters since going digital.

The only filter I ever used on my film camera was a polariser if shooting into water etc.

I still prefer image 1, which, as stated by the original poster, was taken with a Sony P200 without filters. To me that shows the greatest amount of detail. Image 2 is too dark at the front which obliterates the detail, and image 3 looks totally unnatural.

I also own a Sony P200 due it's compact size, 7.2mp resolution, and superb quality lens. Even though it is limited with a 3x optical zoom, the clarity of the image is plenty good enough to get a good size print, without having to resort to additional processing.

Other than not having used a digital camera to comment on its handling, I totally agree with Loz.

Based on Andy's comments, image 1 proves that a rubbish camera gives you rubbish pictures! "Saving" a rubbish picture with Fotochop is graphic design, not photography. With a decent camera, a graduated ND or grey would get you from (1) to (2) without under-exposing the foreground!

With a decent camera, a graduated ND or grey would get you from (1) to (2) without under-exposing the foreground!

A graduated adjustment layer in Photoshop would do the exact same thing. But then it's Graphic Design? Simply because it wasn't done at the time of exposure? Even if the final image was identical?

The first Image , to me looks a little washed out and urghh, i didn't want to overexpose the foreground in pp and end up with a HDR image, and leaving the foreground exposed (as pic 1 ) I thought drew the eye from the Glacier which is the subject of the picture. So I underexposed it which in turn makes the highlights in the mid ground more dramatic. That was my reasoning in anycase :P

And after a little bit of vignetteing (sic) added to lower the 'big block of black ' this is the final image that I am fairly pleased with.

Never thought I would be opening such a can of worms though :P

Edited 29 January, 200917 yr by postmanpat