Wrong Photography Ethics?

[RGF]

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

After all the comments what have you decided? Are you a sinner or a saint ?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

The OP used the terms "cheating" and "wrong". Those concepts only apply when applied against a set of rules/regulations/standards/laws. None of which exist universally in photography.

Now, a specific competition, website, organization... may have their own rules and they can be as restrictive or as liberal as they choose. You can only cheat/do something wrong when you try to break these rules.

Absent of any such rules or standards you are incapable of cheating or doing something wrong. People may disagree or dislike what you choose to do to that photograph and that's ok. They have a right to their opinion.

You remember what they say about the worth of an opinion -- when you put in your two cents, people will only give you a penny for your thoughts.

However, this topic raises an interesting and perhaps unanswerable question: At what point does an image cease being a photograph and become graphic art?

Identifying the extremes is pretty easy. We can all identify a picture taken with a camera with basic processing as a "photograph". We can all identify graphic art from many examples on the Internets Tubes of some pretty wild stuff. But where is the dividing line? At what point, when I am dickin (technical term) with my image in PS/LR do I cross the line from having a photograph and start creating graphic art?

Well, there is no line, or more accurately, there is no universally accepted line between photographs and graphic art. Everyone has their own internal definition of the difference between photography and graphic art. Even if people seem in agreement, it is then only a collective opinion not a standard.

So the point of my ramblings is that you were not cheating nor doing something wrong unless you were submitting this image to some entity that has some sort of rules. Of course that opens up a can o worms about implied or assumed standards, but we all know what happens when you assume something.

 

[Mick]

Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?

 

[serendipidy]

You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.

OMG!@!!!!! I knew it...Cats do live on the moon......

Only on the dark side. That's why you can't see them. They went there due to an unlimited supply of green cheese ;D

 

[sanj]

Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?

I see your point totally.
Am not saying that I cant take amazing photos. Some of my other photos have been liked by some people.
BUT this photo seemed to look better with the clouds. I had the option of leaving it just as is or adding the clouds. I choose the latter.

 

[sanj]

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

After all the comments what have you decided? Are you a sinner or a saint ?

Hahahaha. Neither! I am a photographer!

 

[sanj]

Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.

If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.

There. I said it. Zooms are flat-out cheating, and have no place in the art.

;D ;D ;D

hahahahaa

 

[sanj]

Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Brilliant!

 

[sanj]

For Mick

These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.

Have you ever seen a B&W Image in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated.

Have you ever seen a Stitched Panorama in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that employs stacked focussing in a Nat geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that's been cropped etc Saturation levels increased etc

You get the Picture I'm sure.

Why on earth are fish eye lenses not acceptable when telephoto lenses are??? Sounds biased to me!

 

[sanj]

the problem is actually your original composition... as you say boring sky, so why have so much in the image

Good point. Perhaps.

 

[Don Haines]

From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion

 

[RGF]

For Mick

These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.

Have you ever seen a B&W Image in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated.

Have you ever seen a Stitched Panorama in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that employs stacked focussing in a Nat geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that's been cropped etc Saturation levels increased etc

You get the Picture I'm sure.

Why on earth are fish eye lenses not acceptable when telephoto lenses are??? Sounds biased to me!

But hiring fixers, traps, harden case, advanced electronics, $10,000 (or higher) budgets are allowed, .. seems that anything goes in the field (as long as us mere mortals don't have access to it) but accessible to the common folks, then it is off limits.

 

[thepancakeman]

From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion

Awesome--thanks for sharing!

 

[RLPhoto]

From the cartoon strip "Calvin and Hobbes".... it seems relevant to the discussion

This is great.

 

[woollybear]

Seemed like this belonged here somehow...

http://slideshow.today.com/slideshow/today/teen-photographer-creates-tiny-portraits-52083634