Wrong Photography Ethics?
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Cheating? Photography = "painting with light", so IMHO, that's like asking if Picasso cheated because he used 2 different brush types on the same painting. Compose, create, and modify as much as you like. However, if you tell someone it's out of camera that way, that would be a lie. Still not cheating, though. ;-)
Heck, even "out of camera" can even be a lie these days, with cameras having in-camera HDR and other various effects options. Does it really matter whether the computer is in the camera itself or on your desktop?
Upvote
0
I personally do not mind it. I do mind people who have double standards on it. It is ok for photographer A to remove this and that and "Photoshop" it to death but photographer B cannot do the same just because.
When posting respect the community standards or contest rules.
When posting respect the community standards or contest rules.
Upvote
0
Looks great to me.
Personally I wouldn't photoshop to this extent, mostly because I like to push myself to see what I can get in in camera, but I don't think it goes against photography ethics as long as you don't try to hide the fact it's modified to this degree.
There will be many opinions on this but IMO as long as you feel comfortable with it and can stand behind it with integrity then run with it.
Personally I wouldn't photoshop to this extent, mostly because I like to push myself to see what I can get in in camera, but I don't think it goes against photography ethics as long as you don't try to hide the fact it's modified to this degree.
There will be many opinions on this but IMO as long as you feel comfortable with it and can stand behind it with integrity then run with it.
Upvote
0
To me it's a matter of viewer/customer expectation: if you present this as photojournalism then it's not OK. If you present it as advertising for a vacation package, then it might be OK if the clouds are "native." I.e., if the scene is typical of the area, but you just missed the ideal photo conditions, then it's OK. If it's "art," i.e., exists purely for the aesthetic value of the image then it's a matter of personal taste. Some, like thepancakeman, seem to believe that photography is just like painting, but using different brushes, paint and canvas. Others, like me, think that what makes photography unique is that has an element of "reality" that painting does not have. To me, a photo is less interesting if it is "less real." Cut and paste is easy, but being there to capture the real thing is hard. I generally expect every photo to be essentially real, unless it is obviously not. "Obvious" here means either declared by the photographer, or obviously manipulated to the point that no reasonable person would mistake it for real. For example, I assume that a photo of Sasquatch driving a flying saucer is not real.
If you are fooling your viewer then it's cheating, with minor exceptions where fooling was an important message of the photo
If you are fooling your viewer then it's cheating, with minor exceptions where fooling was an important message of the photo
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Most photography has never been about capturing reality--it's always an idealized view of reality to express the perceptions and ideas of the photographer.
Ever use a backdrop? Maybe a flash? Even just move to a different camera angle? That's composing (composite/compose both from the same french root componere) the image, you're just doing it before the fact instead of after.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
thepancakeman said:RLPhoto said:
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Most photography has never been about capturing reality--it's always an idealized view of reality to express the perceptions and ideas of the photographer.
Ever use a backdrop? Maybe a flash? Even just move to a different camera angle? That's composing (composite/compose both from the same french root componere) the image, you're just doing it before the fact instead of after.
All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.
Upvote
0
it is your images, you can do whatever you want your eyes are pleased right? however, as far as i know, these type of images can not be sell to someone such as national geo.
were you using blend if split and layer mask technique to change the sky? have known this technique for a while but have not had a chance to use it... very nice and clean sky replacement...
+1 to keep those trees. without them, it is kinda little blank
final answer to your question: NO
were you using blend if split and layer mask technique to change the sky? have known this technique for a while but have not had a chance to use it... very nice and clean sky replacement...
+1 to keep those trees. without them, it is kinda little blank
final answer to your question: NO
Upvote
0
For me nature photography is trying to capture(freeze) a (part of a) moment how you would see it, I don't see the need to try and make it 'better' than how it was.
Just keep going there until you make a real picture with those clouds if that is what you like so much, if altering reality (or at least how we perceive it) is something you like, then i would definitely shop some stalking lions in the background to add some drama! , sorry for the poor remark.
nature is artistic enough for itself, rather than craving for more I try to be happy with what it has provided.
I had a picture of a fish eagle landing on a branch, but right behind it there was a car, I would love to see the car removed , and i started doing it.... but in the process i thought why shall i fool myself?, better find a landing fish eagle without a car in the background. If i could have cropped it out i would have , but that is easier to justify for myself as i would say well: This is the shot i would have gotten with a 600mm
But to each his own? or how you would say it , if it makes you happy that the trees are gone and there are some nice clouds there, then why not?
If nature doesn't provide the shot that you like, then fabricating it might be good.
Just keep going there until you make a real picture with those clouds if that is what you like so much, if altering reality (or at least how we perceive it) is something you like, then i would definitely shop some stalking lions in the background to add some drama! , sorry for the poor remark.
nature is artistic enough for itself, rather than craving for more I try to be happy with what it has provided.
I had a picture of a fish eagle landing on a branch, but right behind it there was a car, I would love to see the car removed , and i started doing it.... but in the process i thought why shall i fool myself?, better find a landing fish eagle without a car in the background. If i could have cropped it out i would have , but that is easier to justify for myself as i would say well: This is the shot i would have gotten with a 600mm
But to each his own? or how you would say it , if it makes you happy that the trees are gone and there are some nice clouds there, then why not?
If nature doesn't provide the shot that you like, then fabricating it might be good.
Upvote
0
I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.
Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.
Attachments
Upvote
0
.
Photography ethics?
Given the history of this genre that's almost oxymoronic.
The only real "ethics" I know in photography relate to serious photojournalism.
The most idealistic of street photographers will usually follow the photojournalistic ethics, but not all.
I think you probably owe it to the creatures you photographed to put them in the most visually pleasing context possible, so do what you will.
As for altering nature -- you alter nature with every breath you take! Human being ARE nature -- we are not somehow apart from it.
Photography ethics?
Given the history of this genre that's almost oxymoronic.
The only real "ethics" I know in photography relate to serious photojournalism.
The most idealistic of street photographers will usually follow the photojournalistic ethics, but not all.
I think you probably owe it to the creatures you photographed to put them in the most visually pleasing context possible, so do what you will.
As for altering nature -- you alter nature with every breath you take! Human being ARE nature -- we are not somehow apart from it.
Upvote
0
for me, photography (or a camera) is a "tool" to visualize an idea. sometimes it's not possible to visualize this idea just with photography and the reality. so you have to add another tools like photohop (or flashlights, or graduated filters etc.) to reach your goal.
Upvote
0
I like what you did
Krob78 said:I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.
Upvote
0
I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.
Upvote
0
If you're referring to my quick edit, I did use some selective sharpening and unsharpening... Think I mentioned that though...Wilmark said:
Upvote
0
