What's your take on digital post processing, is it art or cheating?
By brady2moss
@brady2moss (700)
Singapore
January 1, 2009 7:22am CST
When I started out in photography a couple of years ago, I was so against using photo editors, as I view it as cheating. I've maintained that philosophy until I enrolled at a photography class where one of the topics to be discussed is digital post processing using Adobe photoshop. So when the time came for the lecturer to discuss post processing, he maintained that ALL professional digital photographers use post processing in one form or another, and that it is akin to film photography's dark room processing, only this time a person only uses a computer and a software to do this.
I was so shocked to hear it coming from a pro himself, he even added that the portfolios he submitted to gain a "fellow" from a prestigious photographic society were all "photoshoped". He was granted a fellow at that photographic society, so I guess these organizations do accept photoshoped photos. Since then photoshop has been part of my life.
Which now begs the question, is digital post processing art or cheating? What's your take on this?
3 people like this
10 responses
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
1 Jan 09
I would've thought it cheating to but now that you bring it up,it takes talent to know what is beautiful and how to present it.I guess it is kind of an art in itself.If you can take a picture..just an everyday run of the mill photo and present to me the beauty you see in it.Then yep..it's art.I'm a painter and no matter my technique,if I can make you see what I see..then I've expressed myself through my art.
1 person likes this
@brady2moss (700)
• Singapore
2 Jan 09
Those are pretty good points coming from an artist. Thanks for that.
@sunil_008 (1269)
• India
2 Jan 09
all the softwares that are in market or been developed is to help people in their respective field. photoshop is also one of them where the processsing for digital photos take place. when you know the pros and cons of the software then why to use it in the way . so why complain it when someones using it in the otheray. its just the day when he will understand the facts and ethics he will learn something. otherwise there is other people in this world that they get affected by it.
@brady2moss (700)
• Singapore
3 Jan 09
Well if someone abuses these softwares and came away clean, then the very ethics of photography is in obvious violation here.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Jan 09
You can't take a poor photo and make it a great photo in Photoshop. You have to start with a good photo and you can enhance it with Photoshop. Pros have been doing enhancing photos for years. It is done with film by using different chemical mixtures or the time you leave the picture in the chemicals. They have done double exposures and adjusting lighting and contrast. It is now done on the computer rather than in the dark room. Using photoshop can be art or not.
@brady2moss (700)
• Singapore
2 Jan 09
My point exactly. If it was just adjusting contrast and enhancing the photo as it is, then it's just a digital darkroom as I've mentioned. But what about if a photographer starts "CLEANING UP" his photo, like removing unwanted objects, or moving a subject to meet the "rule of thirds", or worst placing a new subject in a given background? Personally I think that is cheating.
@bournecaindelta (2477)
• India
1 Jan 09
I'm not really into photography yet, but for all I know, using the PS also needs some really good skills. You can import a bad photo, but you must know what you are doing or the output can be worse. Worse than the original photo. I have this friend. Who makes some superb photos on the PS from the scratch. I don't really know which one is easy.
Coming to your question though, if the examiner has no problem with it, then it cannot be cheating ain't it. As I said earlier, using the PS also needs good skill. So using the PS, enhancing the quality of art is no crime. But yes, the pure skill of photographer is in the way they shoot, rather than the way in which they edit it.
bourne
@brady2moss (700)
• Singapore
2 Jan 09
Yeah it takes considerable skill to do some extreme make over in PS. Pros will tell you to shoot photos the best you can, then clean it up later in PS. Which is why in the past, I often wondered why I don't get to see the vibrant colors and those amazing contrast of sunsets and sunrises I see in travel magazines in my shots. However when I learned how to use PS, it was a piece of cake.
@mimico (3617)
• Philippines
2 Jan 09
I guess if you've taken professional photography lessons, you'd view digitally manipulated images as cheating. But I think it's easy to tell the difference between actual shots and digitally manipulated images, right? The most you can do is change the light, and that's not a big thing for me. It's not cheating. But when you change the textures use special effects then it's already cheating. :O
@brady2moss (700)
• Singapore
2 Jan 09
If it was done properly, you will NEVER notice that it's been PS'd. I'm not talking about the contrast and brightness here, I'm talking about some unwanted objects that were removed, or even the subject itself was moved to make it more appealing. I can do those things is PS, I'm just not sure if it's clean enough for everyone not to notice.
@shwanks (145)
• United States
4 Jan 09
i dont think its art, but i wouldnt label it as "cheating". id just lable it as "fake". im not a fan. if i do touch up a pic in photoshop i only do as much as needed.
i do admit that some of the effects are pretty neat such as a b&w photo with color accent! i play around with the effects every now and then. but overall i hate any effects that you can tell are changes to the original photo.
the editing that i usually do is what can be done in a dark room anyway though. like you can burn and dodge and crop and adjust the contrast with conventional photography. so its not really "cheating" when you do it in a photo editing software too.
@AmandaBarnhart (671)
• Canada
2 Jan 09
I don't see it as cheating at all. I see it as enhancing. Any major magazine you look at where you see models ALL of them are fixed up to some extent. Be it removing blemishes, giving a softer skin tone, or making the photo 'pop' a bit more. I see Photo post processing as art and I see it as something that is very useful. I am an avid fan of photoshop and have found it to be a saving grace for many of my clients who are looking to get rid of those blemishes just for one take. You should see their reactions. especially for those who get a pesky pimple on the day of the shoot. no problem easy fix.
By your theory are you saying that most artists (painters) shouldn't be able to 'fix' up their paintings after they are done? We have taken the original photo no harm in trying to bring out the best in it. Your teacher was right you'd be hard pressed to find ANY professional photographer who doesn't use some sort of post processing even in brightness and contrast.
@KatieDidit (989)
• United States
2 Jan 09
I think that it's cheating if you try to pass off a photo as untouched when it has had digital post processing done.
It would also be cheating even if you admit that it's been processed but you have made the photograph lie for you. For example if you took a newsworthy photograph and you added or deleted something that will change the whole way people see the event and you turn the truth of what happened into a lie people believe because of what you changed.
Otherwise what you do to it is art. Just be up front about it.
