'Cheating' in Comps !!

[William]

Thought that would get your attention


Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

[dieselpower]

I don't really care as long as the final product is representative of the actual scene (which is difficult to know unless you were there) and is pleasing to the eye. I don't agree with adding in things that weren't there or 'artistic' looks such as OTT HDR. Just my personal preference, though - but I'll use whatever means necessary to reproduce what I saw as accurately as possible.

[Chris C]

Personally, I couldn't care less. A modern camera is already a machine built expressly to allow us to cheat as much as possible.

I do care if an image looks 'over-processed' to my eye - as many on the internet do - but that's a personal thing. If somebody spent ten hours working on something to make it look more pleasing - and it works for me - then good luck to them. As it's impossible to effectively restrict, why bother about it anyway? I prefer to limit my own work to cropping and minor cosmetic work, but as I come to grips with learning the software tools I confidently expect to change my attitude.

Cheers,

Chris

[geoffsta]

Sure did get my attention. Thought you were finally going to fess up.

I certainly don't go overboard with processing. Apart from the fact that I'm no expert, I just don't have the time to play around with them that much.
Exposure adjustment, sharpening, maybe a quick go with the adjustment brush in Camera Raw, and thats about it. If it's needs noise reduction I'll use that.
But adding layer, upon layer, upon layer seems like a waste of time to me.

[MarkChap]

I don't see how the amount of processing could be considered cheating ??

As long as the final image is of a high quality and appeals to me that is all that matters

[William]

Not cheating "Per say" Mark, Just more than is real in a normal one shot image , BTW , I'm not at all into heavy processing , Well not Multiples

[CAP]

99.9% about the end result for me, appeal is everything, well at least with the initial x/10 vote.
When it comes time for the final vote I often take a bit more time to consider what went into taking the photo any PP etc, esspecially if it comes down to chosing between a final two.

[ricktas]

I will vote a well processed natural shot over an over-cooked one any day. I tend to look at each one for overall impact, connection and technical. For example a good natural portrait will win my vote over a skin smoothed, not a wrinkle to be seen post processed one. Same with a landscape, something that looks like it really could exist in nature, will get my vote over one that shows signs of obviously significant editing.

Personally, If I cannot edit a photo to where I want it to be, in less than 5 minutes, I give up on that image.

I suppose I look for overall quality, across the entire photo.

[Kym]

Not cheating, but, when does it stop being photography and become graphic arts?

I prefer natural, some processing is ok.

I guess its like Ansel Adams in the dark room, he worked the print but kept the scene true.

[outstar79]

For competitions, especially considering that this is a photography forum, should be more about the photographer's composition and use of light etc etc as opposed to creating something that just isn't there or didn't exist in the first place.

[JayR]

As long as its not purporting to be a 'film only' or 'unprocessed' then digital manipulation should be considered a tool for use. Using more of it isnt any better than using nothing, the final image is what counts.

This debate was long held in music circles with electronic music and DJing with vinyl vs laptops - use whatever you have to its best advantage.

[old dog]

good thread Bill. For me...I just try to get the scene etc to look like it did when I shot it. I dont have ND grads etc so I sometimes do a fake HDR from a single shot...just to balance the sky with the land etc. Have to agree with Rick , Kym and DP here...there must be impact and technical merit for an image to grab you.

[Wayne63]

I think a small amount of processing is ok providing the finished photo still looks "real", as for me well I only know how to crop, resize and sharpen so am a bit limited anyway

[rowdy23]

pic of the year , last year was iffy in my book.... 2 different shots
i feel there were alot of other worthy images that should of won. based on alot of the comments above

[Steve Axford]

It depends.
On what type of image you present. If it is a scene of a tiger in the wilds of the Bengali swamps, then I expect there to be very little processing - or the photo becomes a lie. If it is a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge, then you can do what you like because we all know what it looks like and so can judge your processing.
It really does depend on what the subject matter is and if people will see this as art or document. Of course this can vary greatly from person to person and from subject to subject. The consensus here may be quite different to that of the general population, or of the art community, or of the photojournalist community.

[sunny6teen]

when does it stop being photography and become graphic arts?

a question I ask myself a lot these days. especially with advertising.
with regards to landscapes, Duncan has referred to Eastway as a 'photographic illustrator' (or something akin to that) due to Eastway's habit of removing/including elements in a scene to improve composition. Duncan's complaint was that he preferred to recognise the scene should he ever visit it.

no one's disputing Eastway's abilities as a photographer. he had the runs on the board many moons ago but I do wonder if he's more of a graphic artist these days.
or does he just recognise the current market better than others? with several publications that all lean towards the post-processing side of photography...is it just a case of the tail wagging the dog?

[ricktas]

going back to the thread title 'Cheating in comps'. I do not believe it is cheating, as such, but certainly, I do wonder sometimes how an entry has managed to get so many high votes to win, but in the end, the competitions on AP are setup to be voted for by members, and that is what determines the result, not my personal views. However, if asked, (and I have been), I will say if I disagree with the results. But this thing we do, called photography, is ART, and as such we are each entitled to a view and a vote, so ultimately, the majority determines the winner.

[Xenedis]

Does anybody give any thought to how much processing goes into some shots , Do you care ! Or is it just the finished product that matters , EG : Blending, HDR , Etc . Compared to a single shot processed RAW image ?

I don't care one iota about competitions and I'm not the least bit interested in them; but as far as processing goes, when it comes to photography as an art form I'm not fussed how much or how little processing goes into the image (or images), as long as the final result looks realistic.

If HDR is done well, then I'm all for it. I dislike anything that looks over-processed, esp. when HDR techniques are used and the result has radioactive colours, horrible halos, more noise than a heavy metal concert and excessive contrast.

I process all of my images -- some a little, and some a lot. The final result is what counts, and as long as it looks realistic and pleasing, that's all I want.

This comes from the viewpoint of a fine-art photographer, not a digital artist.

[Milbs1]

Got my attention, thought you were going to tell me how to cheat!

I don't care a bit how much editing has been done, for me it's all about the end product. Some of the most natural looking images may well have been processed for hours, who's to know......

[mongo]

Mongo can never see modern digital photography as “cheating” or somehow illegitimate. In the old days, what you shot on slide film was what you got ! The results from that were perhaps a better measure of how good you were at photography. The next step was the darkroom for B&W which permitted a serious degree of manipulation including sandwiching images, removing elements or adding them etc etc - much like today’s digital darkroom but not as fancy or powerful.


The digital darkroom (which is built into every camera and PP program) is today not really about photography as much as it is about an expressive art form with incredibly big parameters thanks to science and engineering. Today, it is more about what you can “create” with a camera and computer and not so much what you can “capture” or record with them except for journalist, scientists etc. Of course, It is not everyone’s intention to do that and it may not have started off that way but the greatly enhanced abilities to “create” have drawn photography in that direction to a great extent and legitimately so.


All is fair in love , war and photography unless the rules of the game/competition expressly state otherwise e.g no manipulation except cropping and some sharpening or other specific parameters are set. Only if one violates any set parameters do they "cheat". So, if it looks great and really works - who cares how you got to that - just appreciate the finished product (which often takes considerable skill in any event to produce). Having said all of that, it would be a very foolish person who, used inappropriate and difficult digital PP just to show off but in the end produced a crappy image that no one likes. So, you see, all this broad latitude that the digital darkroom has given us is really self regulating as to when and how much of it we should be using in each image or face the disapproval of your audience.