I think i want to get photoshop to improve my pics, do you think that would be cheating ?
Thank you !!!
2007-10-23 13:27:00 · 12 answers · asked by A 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Do you think it's cheating to do any post-production work on a musical recording? Do you agree with the people who say that George Martin was the sixth Beatle or do you agree with the people who say that Billy Preston deserved that title?
George, I GUARANTEE that - unless you are sitting in front of a musician with an unamplified acoustic guitar - you are not hearing undoctored music. There is absolutely no such thing as an unaltered recording. EVERYTHING is processed. Some to a greater degree than others, but even the most pure of purists would die if the world heard their raw recordings without any EQ or normalizing. Very few would let it go to market without adding some reverb. It just isn't done. Listen critically to the recording that you believe is "most pure" and you will hear it. I'm not saying that "everyone" uses "overdubbing and studio effects," because there are many who do not use overdubbing. Everyone uses studio effects to some degree.
I think that the MOST IMPORTANT PART of photography is getting it right in the camera in the first place, but I quickly add that using Photoshop to fine-tune an image is not cheating. I think the people who say that you have to get it right in the camera or delete it don't live up to their own credo. What's the difference between processing an image on the computer and processing it in the camera? The pros tell us to set a custom white balance with a grey card (or anatomic substitute) and yet, isn't that image processing in the camera? Does everyone here use the factory default settings for color saturation and sharpness 100% of the time? If not, don't you think you are processing your image?
If Photoshop existed when Ansel Adams was doing his "landmark" darkroom manipulations, you can bet he'd be the first in line to buy a copy.
In the olden days, when film purists were all that there were (no digital = film purist), there were probably more books sold about darkroom technique than photographic technique.
Did anyone ever wonder where those tools in Photoshop with weird names like "Burn" and "Dodge" got their names from in the first place? These are basic darkroom techniques that I learned before I was ten years old. EVERYONE DID IT. Everyone still does. It's just that some do it with Photoshop and some still do it in the darkroom.
Photoshop to fine tune an otherwise acceptable image is not cheating. Even the best of our photographer friends remark frequently that they create the images and then pay someone to do the post-processing in Photoshop.
Putting your head on Carmen Electra's body and then posting that on MySpace is cheating.
~~~~~~
Somewhat related material:
There may be some debate about whether "real" photographers alter images or not and I'd rather not go there. I'd rather just see someone admit when they couldn't get what they wanted and let the world accept that.
Check this out. http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1254710884/
This is actually two "untouched" images merged into one. You just can't get the leaves, which are about 8-10 feet away, and the moon in sharp focus at the same time. I took two shots from almost the same spot, using a tripod, and combined what I needed from each image to come up with the final product. I dropped the sharp image of the moon right where the blurry one was in the shot of the leaves.
In fact, here you go. I just went through and added a "NoPhotoshop" tag to the appropriate images on my Flickr site. http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/nophotoshop/ When I say, "NoPhotoshop," I admit that up to 50% sharpening has been allowed for this tag. If I altered levels, contrast or saturation, that disqualified the image from this tag. If I cropped an image, or if I cloned out dust or fingerprints from a scan, I did not consider that to be "alteration" in Photoshop and left it in the group. Some are very boring snapshots, but some are images that I am proud to show. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have them on Flickr for the world (albeit a small world) to see. I'm just making this point to say that I do not believe ever photo image requires Photoshop although some can be improved by using it. It's not cheating.
2007-10-23 17:05:22 · answer #1 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not cheating.
If you say that the pictures are unaltered then it is lying.
If you overuse it and do so unastheticaly it is stupid
If you become addicted to it, it waste time and is useless
My take on photoshop is "with moderation". I use camera RAW conversion and I correct tilts and perspective and color and I sharpen and pull out contrast and dodge and burn. Once in a while I will use an artistic rendering on request.
Most importantly, there is a very, very limited market for obviously photoshopped pictures. There is an even smaller market for photo retouchers. And smallest yet, there is no market for photographers with a slow workflow.
If you like what you create as art, it is never cheating.
2007-10-23 14:36:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Photoshop (and any professional picture editing software) is a work of art in of itself, and it takes talent to make things look good with it. Using it to improve your pictures is mixing one art form with another, and I think that's pretty cool. Now, I also believe it depends on how exactly you're using it; Photoshopping a bunch of the pic then telling everyone it's your original work with nothing added would be cheating. But as long as you make sure you're clear about what the picture is and how you created it, I don't think there's any real "cheating" when it comes to art.
2007-10-23 15:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by kayrine13 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Would you like me to take my clothes off darling? Wearing clothes covers up your rude bits, photoshop just makes you crap bits look better. Big difference.
2016-03-13 05:35:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if photoshop is cheating, then you'd have to consider contrast filters, dodging and burning cheating. You'd also have to consider pushing and pulling = cheating, using different chemicals in the darkroom = cheating, toning prints = cheating. it's all the same. there is a different beauty to digital prints as opposed to silver. some people are just better on the computer. every artist is different. so digital darkroom people are different from silver darkroom people.
2007-10-23 17:11:07 · answer #5 · answered by terrielicious 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, its the one who uses it makes it a form of cheating. It depends in your purpose. Photoshop is actually an art, art of creating/editing new images from an old picture to make it more beautiful and presentable. It is not cheating unless your purpose is to cheat.
2007-10-23 13:45:57 · answer #6 · answered by fatimah 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1
2017-02-10 21:16:35 · answer #7 · answered by stanley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't bear obviously Photoshopped pics ...although I use Corel myself for straightening and cropping ..fine line, eh?
Personally, I find it much more satisfying (and less time consuming) to get the photo right in the camera in the first place.
2007-10-23 17:05:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It falls under the heading of doing everything it takes to get the best possible results. It's a little ridiculous to limit yourself for some silly, esoteric reason. {Sort of like refusing to use an eraser because you think you should have gotten the line perfect in the first place in order for it to have any validity}
{These days it's just part of the process anyway.}
2007-10-23 13:33:14 · answer #9 · answered by Rick Taylor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I may be in the minority here, but I think photoshop IS cheating.
I was proudest of my 35mm and 2 1/4 film photos that were perfect, directly out of the camera. Maybe just some cropping, but no manipulation of the image.
Don't get me wrong, Photoshopping (notice how one brand has become generic for the process?) is an art and a skill, when done well. I think it's an art and a skill, but it's not photography.
Guess I've always been an acoustic music fan and not one to favor overdubbing and studio effects. I feel the same about photography.
Photography is planting, nurturing, and growing the perfect rose.
Photoshop is finding a daisy and painting it.
If you create a great photo WITH Photoshop, you should feel proud.
If you create a great photo WITHOUT Photoshop, you should feel prouder.
Just my humble opinion.
2007-10-23 16:05:17 · answer #10 · answered by George Y 7 · 8⤊ 6⤋
really it is not because it is an art form in itself, not everything can come out perfect but that will help you.
2007-10-23 16:39:59 · answer #11 · answered by mybiggestfan123 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋