Is editing photographs cheating?

[Compaq]

I went out to take a few shots of the sunset. I was too early, though, and it was too much light out. It turned out like this.

I edited it a little, and I think it's better, though the dark places are almost completely black + perhaps overkill on the colours. Anyway, edited version:

What are your views? Is editing cheating? Should a good photograph be able to capture the moment "in the field"?

-Compaq-

 

[Village Idiot]

This thread...again...

No, editing is not cheating.

 

[KmH]

Every photograph ever taken, has been edited.

Real life has 3 dimensions, photographs only have 2.

Digital cameras are linear and don't 'see' the way our eyes do, which is not linear.

 

[Buckster]

Yes, it's cheating! Don't ever do it again! EVER!

Just kidding. Of course it's not cheating.

 

[Mecal]

nope, not cheating. As mentioned the camera doesnt see what we see (although sometimes it does better!)

I think you went overboard with the editing, the color of the original looks good to me.

 

[Bram]

To be honest, I prefer the original over the edit. Too much contrast in the edit too fake. If you take your edit too far like this yes I would consider it cheating, as in you've cheated the original.

 

[heyjoe]

Depends on what you're shooting for. If you're shooting photojournalism and edit your photo in a way to force an agenda (such as cropping something out of the photo that, if left in, would give the photo another meaning) then yes, I'd say you could be cheating. What you're doing is not cheating.

 

[Derrel]

We see it alllllll the time. Take a look at these beauties (?).

Celebrities Without Makeup

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Cheating is the wrong word to use.

The edit would sell.

 

[rocdoc]

I think it's gray, much like everything, not black or white (the issue, not the photograph; I'm a little color blind, but not that bad).
If you edit things like contrast, white balance etc., as has been done indirectly in the dark room since the beginning of photography and is now done digitally, it's definitely still photography. When you clone in elements from other photographs and create a new image altogether, it's definitely up for debate.
Why does it feel like I've seen this thread before? Oh, right, because it's been around many, many times before... Usually creates intense passionate arguments. I'll check back in a while, should be fun...

 

[chito beach]

Cheating is the wrong word to use.

The edit would sell.

unfortunately :er: a tad over done but Ive seen worse edits. editing is important part of any photography

 

[flyingember]

not necessarily

I believe that editing is appropriate when it's only used to the most minimal amount possible. fix problems with lighting and color and exposure to the best of your ability when you take the photo. recompose whenever possible to take care of unwanted items in the scene. photoshop is not an excuse for taking the photo right the first time, it's a tool to give that last little bit of oomph to the scene. and yes, I use photoshop.

editing works great when it's obvious you want to make a photo more artsy.

in this case, if the purpose was to make it more artistic and you're upfront you did use photoshop to this end it's totally cool. if you did it and act like that's what's there, is dishonest.

I do like the original better. you know why? the sky doesn't turn purple at night

 

[pgriz]

Sure, it's cheating. Just as adding salt to food to make it taste better is cheating. Just like adding makeup to... (oh, wait, Derrel's already covered that). Just as using a machine to create a memory of what was in your mind's eye. Serious cheating. Put down your pencil. Hand in your paper. Yer doooone, boy! And on the way out, may we interest you in these courses on cheating? And this extensive library of writtern material? Because, you see, boy, cheating is cheating only if you're caught. If you're so smooth that no-one ever knew you were cheating, well, you're a damn geeeneeous, boy!



(Political correctness clause. The use of any gender-specific noun is to also mean the inclusion of any other gender, or variation thereof. Such a use is not intended to promote or favor the predominance of one over the other. Any use of age-specific reference is understood to include all age-related references. The use of any color is intended to include all colours. The use of any language-specific term is understood to be applicable as well to all languages. If none of this makes sense, then such use is not intended to preclude the use of non-logic.)

 

[ghache]

DONT!

WEll, if you take your photo right the first time, post processing is going to be faster and much less painfull.

 

[Buckster]

The notion of what constitutes 'cheating' (to those who feel that way) seems to be hinged on whether you did 'something' to change the thing you decided to photograph from so-called 'reality' to something 'other', even if nobody can detect it.

But then, why limit the notion of "cheating" to POST editing? Why not include PRE editing since it changes the shot from 'reality' to 'other' as well?

Used an ND filter? CHEATING!
Used a polarizer? CHEATING!
Used a sunset filter? CHEATING!
Used a red or yellow filter with B/W film? CHEATING!
Used B/W film? CHEATING!
Used any lens other than a 50mm? CHEATING!
Used aperture to increase or decrease DOF? CHEATING!
Used a tripod to keep the camera steady? CHEATING!
Used a long shutter on that waterfall? CHEATING!
Used a fast shutter to freeze the action? CHEATING!
Had an assistant hold a branch out of the way? CHEATING!
Took a step to the left or right to include or exclude or line something up? CHEATING!
Used a sound or light or pressure trigger to catch a fleeting moment? CHEATING!
Used strobes or other photographic lights? CHEATING!
Used light modifiers like umbrellas, diffusers, snoots, flags, etc.? CHEATING!
Used colored gels to change the background or balance the ambient light? CHEATING!
Posed a model a certain way? CHEATING!
Waited for just the right moment? CHEATING!

There must be thousands more...

And we've not even gotten into the darkroom discussion yet, where photo editing was done long before Photoshop or computers to run it were even thought of! Yes, the darkroom; A photographic workshop where such things as sharpening, blurring, dodging and burning, compositing, vignetting, selective coloring, and the rest of it were dreamed up and implemented for a century.

Yes, it's all cheating, from the moment we choose the lens and film or ISO, look through the viewfinder and start composing the shot, choose aperture and shutter speeds, all the way through to presenting it to the viewer in a matted frame chosen specifically for it's ability to enhance the image right to the last detail - we're manipulating 'reality' to our own ends; Bending it to our will, lighting it as the gods never intended, filling the shadows with light or dark at our discretion and using any color or intensity we care to, wielding such unnatural power over nature's 'reality' that it borders on criminal and is therefore wrong to do (in the minds of some).

Maybe we should form a support group. My name is Buck, and I'm a photographic cheater!

And I'm not about to stop. In FACT, I try to come up with new ways to 'cheat' every single day!