Is Photoshop "Cheating"?
 

Please forgive the n00b question... just wondering what the concensus is on Photoshop manipulation of photos.

I'm a very inexperienced/amateur photographer working with pretty basic equipment (Nikon D5000 with Nikkor 18-55mm VR and Nikkor 55-200mm VR and super cheap filters).

I tend to be very disappointed with the original photos when I load them on my computer... specifically they tend to lack the "crispness" of most other semi-pro photographers and the colours are really faded/weak. I assume this is partly due to my ignorance and lack of skill, and partly an equipment (filters?) issue.

Anyway, I'm not much of a photographer but I've been working with Photoshop forever and I can usually manipulate the photo and turn something very bland/crap into a usable photo. Specifically, I most often adjust hue/saturation, contrast, and vibrance. Sometimes I'll also correct for over/underexposure too.

Am I "cheating" by doing this? Is there a certain limit to how much Photoshop manipulation one can do to a photo before it enters the realm of "quasi-photography, quasi-digital art"? (ie. HDR)

Here's an example of a pic...

Original (re-sized, but otherwise no alterations or manipulations)

http://www.borlandstudios.com/pics/before1.jpg

After Photoshopping (re-sized, cropped, rotated, adjusted vibrance, adjusted hue/saturation, adjusted contrast)

http://www.borlandstudios.com/pics/after1.jpg


"Cheating"? Thoughts?

By definition, is putting on make-up considered cheating for you as well?

LOLOLOL +1 thank god for make-up btw ..some girls would just be brutal without it

Well, a lot of the modifications done in PS were done with film images in the darkroom, so no, it isn't cheating per se. Virtually all photographs since the first stable photographic print in 1826 has been modified in some way. I think the new content aware fill thing in CS5 is pushing it though. It also depends on what context image editing is used for, as in photojournalism all you are allowed to do is exposure, crop and rotation edits. You cannot add or subtract anything to in the image. For wedding, fashion, etc, then it's ok I guess, but I personally am a firm believer of getting it right in camera, and do as little photoshop work as possible. It also is more efficient to one's workflow.

Haha. Interesting analogy. I suppose make-up could be considered "cheating" if you were entering an "all-natural" beauty pageant...

Anyway, I didn't say I necessarily thought it was cheating. Just wanted to know what the consensus among photographers was.

Good feedback, thanks. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

And yes, I have seen the new "content aware" tool and it's clearly pushing the boundaries of "cheating" since you are fundamentally altering the subject(s) of the photo. Obviously the degree to which you're using the tool would be a major factor. (Ie, removing a leaf on the ground vs. removing a person from a photo altogether).

I would love to be able to achieve the colour and exposure of the latter photo with the camera alone, but I wouldn't know where to start. Clearly I'll have to do more reading and upgrade my equipment before that becomes a reality.

You can! It's very simple - it's called "Velvia". :D

...but for digital photography, it will be your image editing skills that will decide whether of not you can achieve those results more so than your gear.

Here are three zoom pan photos I did on three separate occaisions. One is a digitally manipulated image done in Photoshop using the radial blur filter, and the other two were done in camera with my film body, so the zoom pan was done by zooming the lens during the exposure. Is the digitally manipulated one cheating if it 'saves' an otherwise dull photo? Oh, and can you guess which photos are the film ones? :)

1)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...PICT7611-2.jpg

2)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...entrepiece.jpg

3)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...oom-azalea.jpg

Yeah, that's basically what I was asking initially... Is it "cheating" to use Photoshop to save a photo that's complete shit (before any PS'ing)?

Nice pics. :D

It might come down to "who cares as long as no one knows?" but I guess it takes away from the authenticity of an image.

you don't need to use PS, but you're just putting yourself behind everyone interms of "competition"... because everyone uses photoshop these days, and you can't take a perfect picture just from a straight shot 99% of the time, adjustments always help.

Yes, but wouldn't it save you much processing time if you nail the shot right on the first time around? That for SURE gets you ahead of the "competition" not only did you get the shot, you saved yourself the time to post process as much as the "competition" did.

Time is money ;)

a camera lens will never be able to capture the beauty of the subject in a way the incredible human eye can, and it never will.

so manipulating the picture trying to bring it close to reality as possible is not cheating, it's the opposite, what you're doing is trying to make the picture more real.

+1
I considered photoshop is a way to express your imagination, perspective.

photoshop would be cheating if you consider proof reading is cheating when you write an essay.

I had this same conversation with an uncle of mine, and I still can't get the point across to him. Digital sensors can't capture the same colour and quality as a film camera.

Using photoshop to make adjustments allows one to match or re-create the same affect.

Another way of looking at it is that your camera has built in presets. Instead of having your camera apply the presets automatically, you apply those adjustment settings after the image is taken. Thus allowing to have more control over the image.


The only time that I believe that your cheating is in model/fashion. When they start taking weight and other imperfections of a body out.


Also IMO the most basic adjustments that necessary to any image would be the adjustments found in Lightroom/Aperture.