I think this Tony & Chelsea video brings up some interesting questions about photo editing, some of which I often ask myself. I'd be curious about other people's views on the topic.
When is editing cheating?
- Thread starter Abinoone
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Box Brownie
Member
TL : DW it all.....
For me I adhere to the KISS with post processing, I have never (that I can recall) added anything to enhance the naturalistic appearance of an image (I did once alter an image with Dahli'esque running architecture but that of course is so obviously not reality
) ....cropped, removed, repaired but never added anything such as the mentioned lit window. Having said that removing 'stuff' is perhaps as controversial as adding a lit window.
Hmmm? is the line drawn very subject to the image and what the editing is aiming to 'illustrate'.................this thread could run & run as afteral this 99+% a nature and wildlife forum
For me I adhere to the KISS with post processing, I have never (that I can recall) added anything to enhance the naturalistic appearance of an image (I did once alter an image with Dahli'esque running architecture but that of course is so obviously not reality
) ....cropped, removed, repaired but never added anything such as the mentioned lit window. Having said that removing 'stuff' is perhaps as controversial as adding a lit window.Hmmm? is the line drawn very subject to the image and what the editing is aiming to 'illustrate'.................this thread could run & run
as afteral this 99+% a nature and wildlife forum 
John Navitsky
Well-known member
considering their sensationalist piece on Steve McCurry which followed no journalist standards yet covering material that required those standards, then doing silent revisionism when called out, those guys are not only in no position to make commentary on the subject, but some of the few youtubers i simply refuse to give clicks to and suggest others do the same.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
here's one on the topic i liked
and
and
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
[merged posts]
Last edited:
True, but the issue really applies to all genres of photography. Is it OK to clone out a stray elk leg in an otherwise good elk photo? Enhance an otherwise drab sky? Remove a distracting tree branch?TL : DW it all.....
For me I adhere to the KISS with post processing, I have never (that I can recall) added anything to enhance the naturalistic appearance of an image (I did once alter an image with Dahli'esque running architecture but that of course is so obviously not reality
Hmmm? is the line drawn very subject to the image and what the editing is aiming to 'illustrate'.................this thread could run & run
Cameron T
Well-known member
The only answer is 'it depends'.
I don't do that much post, including removal of things, because...I just don't feel like it's what I want to do and portray. Others might feel differently.
Calson
Well-known member
There is the false premise that a photograph or film clip does not distort reality when no editing has been done. The reality is already distored by the camera person selecting a single moment in time and choosing what lens to use and what shutter speed or frame rate to use. There is already a selective censorship of reality by what the person chooses to leave out.
I watch professionally produced wildlife films and all involve taking clips to support the story line and so what viewers see as linear is not at all. The distortion includes exaggerated use of clips of animals fighting with each other which is rare in the wild outside of the breeding season for mammals. The issue is whether the story line presents a false narrative and I see this 99% of the time where the dialog mentions "climate change" but never mentions global warming or the oil companies or the meat industry (which is responsible for most wiidlife habitat destruction and it contributing a great deal to global warming).
Film producers fear lossing sponsors like Mobile or Exxon and facing lawsuits from the fossil fuel lobbies and from hyper aggreesive organizations like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. As a result there is a great deal of self censorship in the wildlife film making business.
I watch professionally produced wildlife films and all involve taking clips to support the story line and so what viewers see as linear is not at all. The distortion includes exaggerated use of clips of animals fighting with each other which is rare in the wild outside of the breeding season for mammals. The issue is whether the story line presents a false narrative and I see this 99% of the time where the dialog mentions "climate change" but never mentions global warming or the oil companies or the meat industry (which is responsible for most wiidlife habitat destruction and it contributing a great deal to global warming).
Film producers fear lossing sponsors like Mobile or Exxon and facing lawsuits from the fossil fuel lobbies and from hyper aggreesive organizations like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. As a result there is a great deal of self censorship in the wildlife film making business.
Turberticus
Well-known member
I'll remove a stick or two, or fill in the background in situations where there are bright blown out spots of white sky. To me those things take the focus away from the subject. Of course I do try and avoid all those things when I'm out in the field, but that's usually easier said than done! Here's an example of a relatively easy color range mask to fill in the sky. I loved the pose and stinkbug in its beak, but the background almost ruined it for me. That said, it still gave me something to work with.
Last edited:
lwan
Well-known member
To me a photograph is to capture a naturally occurring event as it happened (that of course includes events happening on purpose, set up by people), so editing should be limited to whatever tools helps get rid of the limitations imposed by gear compared to the eye, if applicable.
I agree the removal of some disturbing element to save a photo is almost impossible to avoid from time to time...
Beyond that you're switching from photography to digital arts and despite there is nothing wrong with that the distinction matters to me.
I agree the removal of some disturbing element to save a photo is almost impossible to avoid from time to time...
Beyond that you're switching from photography to digital arts and despite there is nothing wrong with that the distinction matters to me.
Last edited:
Photography is art. Other than adherence to the rules of photo contests and the requirements of honest journalism, my point of view is that the concept of “cheating” is meaningless.
I think this can be a pretty simple question.
The first and primary question to ask is whether the photo is intended to be - and I'm sure there's a better and more comprehensive word for this - a portrait. If so, I think almost anything goes. This is especially true for a portrait of a human being, but to a lesser degree even an animal or an object or a place.
Nobody would ever dream to call it cheating if someone had their portrait painted and the artist put in a different background than was really there at the sitting or if the artist changed something about the person's clothes or even, for the most part, appearance. A portrait is by definition intended to portray the subject in a way so that they're recognizable and so that the picture conveys something about the person that either the patron or the artist wishes to.
Doing the same kind of work with a camera doesn't change any of that as far as I am concerned, and this is even true for an animal, building, etc. to a slightly lesser degree. Consider the cover or card art for instance from the game Wingspan. These are all drawings of birds intended to look nice - not to depict some hard-line reality. If the game had used photos instead of drawings with heavy editing, or if someone shoots a photo of an animal with heavy editing to use in a similar way or to use as wall art or for many other purposes where a "portrait" is called for, I think most editing is fine.
It's only when a photo is for a documentary style purpose that I think editing needs to be minimal. A photo of an animal which is meant to show it in its natural state or habitat should have little editing. A photo of an athlete on the field to accompany a game report should.habe minimal editing. Etc.
I tend to think that even relative gray areas are relatively clear. Candid wedding photos for instance are taken to document the day, but I think very few people would object to someone doing relatively heavier editing on such a photo to emphasize the bride and groom, to remove clear distractions, etc.
In short, I think there's a somewhat easy question to ask. Is a particular photo primarily supposed to look pretty, or is it primarily supposed to show what really happened? If the former, edit away. If the latter, edit very minimally.
The first and primary question to ask is whether the photo is intended to be - and I'm sure there's a better and more comprehensive word for this - a portrait. If so, I think almost anything goes. This is especially true for a portrait of a human being, but to a lesser degree even an animal or an object or a place.
Nobody would ever dream to call it cheating if someone had their portrait painted and the artist put in a different background than was really there at the sitting or if the artist changed something about the person's clothes or even, for the most part, appearance. A portrait is by definition intended to portray the subject in a way so that they're recognizable and so that the picture conveys something about the person that either the patron or the artist wishes to.
Doing the same kind of work with a camera doesn't change any of that as far as I am concerned, and this is even true for an animal, building, etc. to a slightly lesser degree. Consider the cover or card art for instance from the game Wingspan. These are all drawings of birds intended to look nice - not to depict some hard-line reality. If the game had used photos instead of drawings with heavy editing, or if someone shoots a photo of an animal with heavy editing to use in a similar way or to use as wall art or for many other purposes where a "portrait" is called for, I think most editing is fine.
It's only when a photo is for a documentary style purpose that I think editing needs to be minimal. A photo of an animal which is meant to show it in its natural state or habitat should have little editing. A photo of an athlete on the field to accompany a game report should.habe minimal editing. Etc.
I tend to think that even relative gray areas are relatively clear. Candid wedding photos for instance are taken to document the day, but I think very few people would object to someone doing relatively heavier editing on such a photo to emphasize the bride and groom, to remove clear distractions, etc.
In short, I think there's a somewhat easy question to ask. Is a particular photo primarily supposed to look pretty, or is it primarily supposed to show what really happened? If the former, edit away. If the latter, edit very minimally.
Hmm, appreciate your perspective and points, but I don't think it automatically disqualifies someone from raising some valid issues simply because they were less than candid in the past, although it might make the listener/watcher/reader a bit cautious. Otherwise, how would we ever believe our politicians?
John Navitsky
Well-known member
less than candid would be very generous. i think if you see from my post my "say something" threshold is pretty high.... i think there are only two youtubers that i won't ever watch a video of, then they are one of them.
well, i think we should scrutinize and expect truth from out politicians, but hey, that's another topicOtherwise, how would we ever believe our politicians?
Well said! The beauty of photography is in its limitless possibilities. As long as the intent is clear—whether it's artistic, journalistic, or something else—there shouldn't be constraints like 'cheating.' After all, art has always been about pushing boundaries, not following arbitrary rules.
pochito
Active member
Hear, hear!!
"Truth in advertising," I did not watch the video. This question continues to pop up, it has, as the media might say, "legs." It's a question that really should not even be asked at this point in photography yet it never quite goes away. Photographers have been editing images from the beginning of photography, it's not a new thing with digital, which most (but maybe not all) photographers are aware of. In fact, the Pictorialists of the 1920s and early 30s were all about faking scenes to photograph, they used every trick in the book in photography to create images that looked like paintings, including composites, as they thought then photography would be considered an art (a misguided effort). And, photographers have always dodged, burned, altered negatives, and used various other means to alter their film, including removing things from a slide or film image (Ansel Adam's assistant removed letters from a negative, a high school had put LP on a mountain for Lone Pine High School).
The real question is, what kind of photography are you talking about when the question is asked, photography is not a "one trick pony." Is the question in reference to photojournalism or documentary photography? Or is it in reference to photography that strives to be art? These are very different types of photography. There still seems to be the thought, however, that wildlife photography should not be altered, even though many wildlife photographers strive for artwork, not documentary work, again, two different types of photography.
A painter does not state on their artwork that the scene is only representational in nature and that a bench or waste basket was removed, or that the mountains were not really there by that building: it's art, they have license to create what they want, why people don't understand this about photography has been an issue since it's inception and will probably continue to be an issue for the duration.
The real question is, what kind of photography are you talking about when the question is asked, photography is not a "one trick pony." Is the question in reference to photojournalism or documentary photography? Or is it in reference to photography that strives to be art? These are very different types of photography. There still seems to be the thought, however, that wildlife photography should not be altered, even though many wildlife photographers strive for artwork, not documentary work, again, two different types of photography.
A painter does not state on their artwork that the scene is only representational in nature and that a bench or waste basket was removed, or that the mountains were not really there by that building: it's art, they have license to create what they want, why people don't understand this about photography has been an issue since it's inception and will probably continue to be an issue for the duration.
I agree with most of what you've said here, after all, see my own post above. However, I do think that people viewing photography differently does make sense. After all, a camera's raison d'etre is that it has the power to do something very special that painting and drawing and sculpting cannot do: it record a scene exactly as it really is (within a perfectly reasonable and understandable sense what "exact" means) by literally capturing the light bouncing off of the objects in the scene. It can therefore record the very same "data" that the human eye uses to observe a scene without any question of the sort of interpretation that a painter or a sketch-artist brings to the table. Yes, we could talk about the white balance of a digital camera or of the differences in color representation for different film stocks, etc., about the depth of field of a given lens vs. the human eye, etc., but again, if we're not trying to be pedantic here I think we can agree that everyone understands what this means.
Maybe more importantly, the way that 99% of people have engaged with photography 99% of the time since at least the 1970s and probably in many cases even before that has been with handheld cameras that they have used to take snapshots of things they want to remember. They see these snapshots as being exact representations of what was really there. It's true that photography can do much more than this and is as much a form of art as an oil painting is - BUT precisely because of the reason photography was invented in the first place and its unique capability, it makes sense that the average person sees it as being something which is supposed to capture pure, unadulterated "what was really there."
Cheating implies rules are broken. What rules apply? So ask the right question and you'll find your answer, and only you can answer if the images are for yourself. The complexities of variations on this are immense. You have some of them in prior posts. Most find their own peace with the process as it's what they do over and over.
I have limited to no drawing or painting skills. I cannot get to all of the “best” locations at the exact moment. I do not sell my work and am not a photojournalist. So, I am only bound by my desires and computer skills. In most cases I stay within reasonable limits. But, if I don’t, that is my choice.
If you look at past film photographers like Ansel Adam’s and the effort he put into his prints to present his vision, it is up to each to choose our own vision of what we saw when we hit the shutter button. Thanks to the marketplace for the amazing tools that help us do that.
If you look at past film photographers like Ansel Adam’s and the effort he put into his prints to present his vision, it is up to each to choose our own vision of what we saw when we hit the shutter button. Thanks to the marketplace for the amazing tools that help us do that.
I agree with many of the points you make, but I do think there's a limit to what might be considered ethically "acceptable" in wildlife photography, unless it's clearly stated that the images are purely artistic expressions. For example, would it be OK for a wildlife photographer to superimpose a bear image on a village scene? Or bait and harass animals in a game farm for the shot, then claim that the subjects were "wild" (as does David Yarrow)? What about using AI? Is it acceptable to employ generative AI (in whole or in part) to create a "wildlife" image without making it clear that it's a fake? I can't define what the ethical line is, but I know there is one.
Last edited:
For me it isn't what is done (although my preference is for minimal change it editing - typically what most photo contests allow). It is about how it is presented when captive animals are passed off as wild or blended images as a single shot then I feel the 'line' has been crossed.
I take an interest in various astrophotography blogs and groups and like the way that most images are accompanied by a note of how the final image was arrived at in terms of its composite elements.
I take an interest in various astrophotography blogs and groups and like the way that most images are accompanied by a note of how the final image was arrived at in terms of its composite elements.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
how about, people feel cheated when the circumstances of the photo, or the manipulations to the photo don’t match their expectations of how that specific type of photo should be
ex.
if people think it’s a shot in nature, but it’s baited
if people think it’s a candid but it’s staged
if people think it’s journalism, but you changed the date
oh, and you can manipulate the actual photo, too
the rub of course is it's controlled by the viewer's expectations (because the viewer decides if they feel cheated), and you don't control those, nor do you even have control of how they categorize the photo (is it a picture of a kingfisher, or is it a documentation of a bird in it's natural habitat?)
ex.
if people think it’s a shot in nature, but it’s baited
if people think it’s a candid but it’s staged
if people think it’s journalism, but you changed the date
oh, and you can manipulate the actual photo, too
the rub of course is it's controlled by the viewer's expectations (because the viewer decides if they feel cheated), and you don't control those, nor do you even have control of how they categorize the photo (is it a picture of a kingfisher, or is it a documentation of a bird in it's natural habitat?)
Last edited:
I think it's cheating if you intentionally misrepresent something to others. Otherwise, as has been said, it's an artistic presentation. My example here just now took me 5 minutes in PhotoShop and I doubt anyone thinks it's real. It is a little scary with what someone can do with higher skills and more time.
Vinny
Vinny
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I did not watch the initial video, as I only watched one of their videos and it was enough to know I never want to see another one from them. I also have not read through all the posts, but my short and simple answer is it is cheating when you try to pass it off as an unedited photo. There are some infamous examples of this (cough - Lik moon - cough). If you are not lying about it or violating contest rules, then I think anything goes. Even in the film days, photos were improved through darkroom techniques that made a scene look different than it did in person.