Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Mar 6, 2016.
Vote on this week's poll - Do you consider removing an object from an image ‘cheating’?
No - unless specified in the terms of submission for use. For personal stuff, anything goes (except crazy HDR and selective colour).
Another vpte for almost anything goes - except that I hardly ever do it
All depends - I'll sometimes tidy up if there are distracting highlights such as litter or a bright point of colour and I did remove power cables from one picture where it was impossible to find a position where they weren't running across the church we needed a record of. I don't agree with dropping things into a picture - like swapping out skies unless it is a deliberate and obvious montage. I have wished that things could be removed when discarding shots ruined by something in the way. In the recent Chinese New Year events here in Chester the lion dances were in a marked out square and it was impossible to avoid clutter. I deleted a lot of images which would have been OK without a persistently intervening head.
That's just not logical. You are either for or against modification in a particular context. What's so special about HDR and selective colour (apart from it being hideously down market and demonstrates a taste that is generally considered suspect).
The context does make a difference. Reportage or docuumentary (both the same thing to me, but feel free to go off at a tangent to suggest otherwise) should allow no modification other than trying to recreate what the author experienced. Basically what a decent auto generated jpeg should show. An artistic creation then anyt form of synthesis goes.
You're right, it isn't. I just can't stand overdone HDR and selective colour. If I am seen using those techniques I would hope that someone who knew me well would make a swift intervention and bring me back to sanity.
We agree on something?
These new smilies are tempting aren't they?
I seem to recall we have agreed on various things in the past too.
Some of the new smilies are quite good, others less so. The above is a good one!
For documentary purposes, possibly; for art, I don't believe there is, or can be, such a thing as "cheating".
The only time I've done that was spotting out a cigarette end from a photo I took at Surprise View. I still think I cheated.
If it's a News photo then strictly verboten, otherwise whyever not? I must have cloned out many miles of power cable, moved sheep around on a hillside, tidied virtual rubbish off many a street etc.
Since I don't do documentary or natural history 'seriously' I have no issue with moving/removing stuff, after all those clever people with the paint and the brushes have been doing it for centuries....
I don't even have an issue with dropping in skies or adding other elements. If you can do it and do it convincingly and it's for arty purposes then fine - though I can get into a grump when all those digital art images grab all the glory at the expense of us real photographers...
Of course it's cheating. But then, so is most art, so who necessarily cares?
It depends what cheating means. What are the rules? If I presented a composite in a no composites competition then it is clearly cheating. If I just put it in some gallery with no rules then it cannot be cheating. Is Star Wars cheating?
I do not enter competitions. I am not even sure I would ever submit a news picture. So i do not concern myself with rules of any sort.
However... while I would certainly remove annoying dog ends and rubbish. I do not remove fixtures. Power lines, people, aerials, and street furniture will all add to the interest some day in the future. So I am never in favour of sanatising views.
Even rubbish and discarded items can be part of the essence of a scene, so there are occasions where it should not be touched, and even emphasised.
It depends upon the image in question. For a straight run-of-the-mill landscape etc. I wouldn't dream of removing anything, except dirt and cat hairs, since that, for me, would be 'cheating'. For my abstracts and impressionist pictures, besides dirt and cat hairs, it depends upon the image in question and the mood I'm in. That goes under 'art'.
With a photograph I usually want to record what I see. If I physically remove a piece of litter, I’ve improved the view for all, and can take an attractive photo without any need to edit the litter out.
Journalists must show “reality”. Wildlife photographers are also generally expected to, and in competitions are usually expected to demonstrate their fieldcraft and camera skills rather than their editing abilities. But beyond this, much photography is about creating striking images, where no editing techniques are “cheating”. But if it isn’t obvious, I would still like to know, for instance, whether the sun really set between a pair of mountains as shown, or whether it was placed there in editing for artistic effect.
@velocette Are you on IE11 or earlier version? No text is appearing in your posts...
Explorer doesn't seem to work with this forum software - I've tried...
It does - at least enough to reply - use Compatibility View.
Separate names with a comma.