Should photoshop creations be admitted to up front?

[Ilovemycam]

Should photoshop creations be admitted to up front?

Or is there nothing wrong with just putting them out there and don't say it is a composite until asked? (For forums, photo blogs, etc.)

Am talking about taking 2,3,4 photos, whatever and combining them. And not talking HDR either.

 

[Derrel]

Only if they are ghosts or UFO's or alien beings. We've had a number of "ghost" photos posted here. Last poster of a "ghost photo" kinda got run outta town on a rail, as the old expression goes...

 

[Light Guru]

Depends on the intent of the photograph.

News or documentary photos definitely yes.

Fine art images, I don't think it maters.

 

[timor]

News or documentary photos definitely yes.

So... do you think we see a lot of "photoshop creations" in news and we are not told about it ?

 

[Fred Berg]

I wouldn't have thought it really matters if what you mean is a digital version of multiple exposure on film. Done well it can be very rewarding for both the photographer and their audience. Overdone - see Derrel's post.

 

[runnah]

I run every image I post on here through photoshop. Normally its to adjust some levels and clone out anything that can't be done in the field.

Then again I did the same when I was shooting film and using a darkroom.

 

[sm4him]

runnah: I think the OP is referring to instances where the elements of a photo are substantially changed, like taking a photo of a building, and a photo of a person looking a tree, and combining them so the person is now standing in the photo looking at the building.

All depends on the OP--if you wanna, do it. If you don't wanna, don't.

For me, personally, I tend to go with the notion that if I *feel* like I'm trying to "pull something over" on people, it might be disingenuous. If I'm just creating art, and I wouldn't feel guilty or embarrassed about it if someone pointed it out, then I'd have no qualms about posting the photo without mentioning the alterations.
If, however, I am changing the photo in order to mislead people into thinking I've captured something I haven't, that's different. FOR ME, examples of this would be: Maybe I shot a photo of my niece playing soccer and it's a great shot except that I missed by a millisecond and the ball isn't in the picture, so I photoshop the ball into the picture. Personally, I'd be upfront about having done it, because otherwise if people starting telling me what great timing it was or something, I'd FEEL like I'd been less than honest.

But those are my own personal rules. Since I haven't (yet) been appointed to TPF Grand Master Ethics Police, I don't get to say what the rules are for anyone else.

 

[KenC]

I didn't vote because "do what you want" was not one of the options. I don't think it is important that someone describe how their image was made. We look at images all the time and don't really know how they were done. Whether it's a good image is what's important. Why should someone either have an obligation to disclose all or feel that they should not disclose anything unless asked?

 

[MLeeK]

I couldn't care less how the image is created. It's the end product that matters.
Now if you are looking for help on the basics that the composite will change the help you get? That matters a lot. It's only yourself you are hurting, so if you want a pat on the back that bad? Go for it. If you want to grow and learn how not to do what made you edit for all that time in the first place then obviously you might want to be up front.

 

[kathyt]

If my breasts are suddenly a cup size larger, my butt was a wee size smaller, and my waist was narrowed just a smidge, I would not be calling and complaining to the photographer!

 

[TheFantasticG]

Where is the "Don't Care" option in the poll?

 

[Buckster]

Once in a while, a news photographer gets caught PS'ing his images, and they get fired and disgraced in the industry because there's a standard of truth involved with journalism that most want to uphold.

Other than for journalistic work though, I don't think it matters at all.

When looking at others' images, I judge by the end result, not how they got to it. The image stands on its own or it doesn't. I am sometimes interested in how they got there from a technical, want-to-learn POV, but that's it.

For my own images, I usually don't say up front what I've done, if indeed I've done anything beyond normal processing. When I've done a lot of work on an image, especially compositing and cloning and so on, I want to know if the work stands on its own or not, and the way to do that is to wait and see if anyone says it doesn't look right to them and questions what's going on. At that point, I'm willing to bare all for the sake of everyone being able to learn from it, including myself.

It's funny... Lots of stuff passes right by without question, while other stuff that gets questioned wasn't PS'd at all. I learn from all of that.

 

[jake337]

I'm not voting and I'll just re-post this:

You start with point "A", which equals no image.

You end at point "Z", a completed image.

"B" through "Y" is just your medium of choice.

 

[Mike_E]

Unless advertised as unaltered, why even worry about it.

Photographers have been "doctoring" photos since they first found out how.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Less philosophy, more photography.