 G. Scott Compton |
Photo Ethics
What are your thoughts, ethically, about altering your photos with Photoshop? With the attached photo, I understand I could use the software to bring the subject in closer as it was only taken with a 18-70mm lense but I feel I am cheating here. Do those of you who are professionals, regardless of your specific field, alter your photos before distributing them? I value your comments as I have yet to change/edit a photo and perhaps my future job at National Geogrpahic (hee-hee) would look down upon me for this. TX
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Liz Novak |
I've had some friends tell me that because I shoot digitally and sometimes alter my photos that I'm not a real photographer. I think this is ridiculous!! I do agree that the older photographers had a much harder time working with 35mm and a darkroom, but I don't feel that doing the same thing in photoshop makes me less of a photographer. I say go for it - whatever it takes to make the photo better.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Connie Niehaus |
My humble amateur opinion: It depends on what the photo is for. If you're competing and the contest rules say "no altering," then no. Digital is so much the "thing" now that our county fair (which has a great photography competition!) this year added a digital category. I took a photo maybe 15 years ago and was fortunate enough to catch just the right second for lighting and effect. It's my favorite ever, but today it looks like something that could have been Photoshopped. Everything else without "rules" is fair game! When I shoot to sell, anything I can do to make a picture better is part of my service.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
I spend a lot of time, creativity, and energy learning how to use software to make works of art out of my photos. My goal is art. I want to illustrate books with my photos so I'm very interested in making my photo visually gripping. To me it's about the final product. I love the use of filters, layers, and coloring to make a photo the very best. I just can't see the difference in screwing on a softening filter to my camera or applying a filter in software--except that if I do it in software I have the option of not softening the photo if it works better! Cropping has always been used by photographers, and color tweaking has always been incorporated. Software is just a digital darkroom. It will do to the photography biz what computers did to the writing biz--increase competition. That's just going to make the final product better. Karma
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Shauna Linde |
I've often replied to my husbands questions of "why don't you buy a digital camera?" with, "because it's cheating." Referring to the fact that you can keep taking the picture over and over if you don't see the immediate results that you like, and because you don't get them developed anywhere- you just upload them to your computer where you get the instant gratification. Part of this feeling came from the photography classes I took in which my instructor felt the same way (he now teaches classes that include Photoshop work by the way), but part of it is just an overall appreciation for the extremely hard work that I do to take my pictures, develop them, etc. Now I'm not saying the same doesn't apply to the work that people do in Photoshop- I've definitely seen some REALLY great photographs that I'm sure have been altered/enhanced or whatever--but I just prefer to "go it the hard way" as I put it. It gives me more pride knowing that I alone, made the whole image come alive. Sure others can argue that the same could be said for using photoshop-- the photographer is still the one who is making the image come alive--but it still seems much easier to do it that way..just point and click... Over the years, my opinion on digital cameras being cheating, has softened-- I no longer say that to my husband anymore, but I won't buy one- even though sometimes it would be nice to know I got the shot on the second or even the first try, I like having to shoot more film to make sure that one turns out great. Just my opinion of course!!! And I do think that for contests, the use of photoshop or any other program to digitally alter a picture should be controlled- like having separate categories for enhanced/altered, and non... Great question--I've always wondered what others thought on this one...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Even as a film purist, I wouldn't go so far as to call digital photography "cheating". Photography is an art form in which a machine must be mastered before the art can emerge. Digital photographers may not have the same challenges as film users, but there are other quandaries which must be overcome before their art can materialize. Everything is relative. Going back to G. Scott's original question,...I think Connie put it best in saying that how far you go with alterations depends upon the circumstances and the intended use of the photo. By the way Scott,...I'll keep a spot reserved for you at National Geographic,...right next to mine! (hee hee, back). ;)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
If you've ever tried to do some major artistic work beyond color tweaking in Photoshop you realize there's no "point and click" about it. People can spend hours creating art in these programs. Often it takes a lot of experminting to get it just right. Many times you need a steady hand and a lot of patience to achieve certain effects. There are also things you just can't do "in the field" that you can achieve in photoshop. For my purposes there is no other way. I need the ability to add text, create a painting effect, put in borders, etc... It's really hard to take a bad photograph and make it stellar in PS programs. Much easier to take a good photograph and make it different but still good. Once you get immersed in the world of layers, modes, masks and the thousands of other various tools available in editing programs you realize it's a highly learning intensive endeavor to master these programs. I'm not even close, but I spend hours each week figuring these things out. I read turtorials, edit and scrap dozens of pictures, try, try, and try again to learn it all. All the while I'm still learning to master the camera and it's various technicalities. It's not the same as a real darkroom, but it's not necessarily easy. I spend a lot of time composing my shots and trying to capture precious moments in the field. Then I spend more time trying to ehance them until they evoke a response in the viewer. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But it's seldom "point and click". And such enhancements have been made in real darkrooms for decades. It all boils down to preference. I admire photographers who do it in the field and tell them so in my comments. I also admire people who master the use of complicated software. I see enough botched PS pictures posted here to know that often the results are disasterous. You still have to have an eye for art and talent to make it all come together. Karma
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
PS: RE National Geographic--they started this whole debate by moving a pyramid to fit their cover back in 1982. As in many things the purists were the first to falter. :-) Karma
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
