Is editing photos fair?

I'd say enhancement of photos is OK but not if overdone. The question is 'what is considered overdone?' Perhaps changing the entire nature of the scene the camera saw could be termed 'over-doing it' but other than that, I'd say some enhancing is fair enough. Cropping, adding sharpness or contrast can all make a photo look better without changing the essential nature of it. Taking photos into an editing program and processing them is all part of digital photography.

It is the scene or subject of a photo is the most important thing. However, quality can also play a part in the overall impression a photo gives and this might depend on the camera and equipment used. The better the camera, the better the photo quality would be a general rule of thumb?

Photo editing programs can help to make up for the fact that zoom, sharpness and overall quality of photos won't be as good if taken with a less expensive camera. If a degree of editing is not allowable, a photographer using an inexpensive camera might always be at a disadvantage in any competition.

In the 'UP IN THE AIR' photo competition, I posted a photo of some fellows assembling a crane. It was necessary to zoom in on the workers in order to show the precarious position of one man in particular. However, the point of taking the photo might have been lost without showing the scale of the whole crane and where the workers were in relation to it. Is this thought to be editing to death, or a fair way of showing why the scene was thought worthy of a photograph? To me it's fair but others may not think so.

In any event, I hope people won't stop posting photos because these points have been raised. We do see some excellent photos in the competitions. Good camera, not so good camera, quality enhanced after the event in a photo editing program. It's all fair enough in my opinion.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

Every single picture I take will pass through Photoshop or Lightroom to bring out contrast, colour balance and maybe if needed sharpness, crop-in, straightening or some such. However, my camera is usually good enough that these changes are extremely slight or unnoticeable.

Occasionally, the picture may be really good, but there is some minor detail in the way and I will patch it out - but nearly these changes are subtle in effect and do not alter the image per se. Sometimes I will adjust exposure, shadows/highlights and gamma usually to correct my own mistakes in high contrast/brightness environments.

I apply 'radical' changes when dealing with my wife's pictures, manly because her camera is c**p and she only takes 'snaps' and can't be bothered with messing with camera settings, which I have to compensate for on my PC. Usually I can bring up the best in an image and turn down the worst. But there are a good portion which are beyond help and end up in the trash folder.

There is a grey area between an untouched image, one which has been tweaked, and the obviously Photoshopped composite image - which can be a total misrepresentation of the original.

Most photo completions I enter will accept that the image has been 'processed', even if its just tweaking the colour/contrast etc, but to expertly Photoshop two images to make one, or paste cut-outs into an image to make a 'false' picture is usually obvious to the expert eye. Whilst that may be acceptable in some areas, it can be viewed as a form of cheating if the final image is passed off as an original capture.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

The camera never lies eh....

Re: Is editing photos fair?

Firstly I will say the competition on here is the domain of Mags and if anyone has any concerns about the content of photograph entries the best thing to do is to contact Mags by PM or start a thread in Contact a Moderator rather than discussing it in the thread.

The rules state...
'All entries must be the original work of the member submitting them'.
I suppose this is open to interpretation, it has never been a problem before but for many like myself unskilled in photography this means posting an untouched picture.
I guess some members make small adjustments to the photographs to enhance the clarity but it seems some people are now taking 'enhancement' to a whole new level and manipulating photographs .
I guess it may be a joke for some but I don't think that is in the spirit of the competition even if the rules are not specific.

If people want a 'novelty picture' competition they should say so rather than spoiling what has always been a simple but enjoyable competion by trying to be clever .

Re: Is editing photos fair?

Photoshopping an image is not new, but was used by film photographers from the year dot when developing pictures. Many modern photographers use digital enhancement to change the nature of an image, best examples being on models eradicating wrinkles and blemishes or slimming waistlines and enhancing boobs etc.
t

There are of course creative uses of PS, HDR, Urbex, Selective coloring, to name a few.

Most of my photos are of natural subjects, wildlife, flora, or landscape, so i try to present them as i photographed them, usually i will crop for composition, reduce in size for the web, and a light sharpen and nothing more.

So we can see that there are reasons to use editing programs for many reason.

When it comes to presenting your work, then that can open up a can of worms if its at a competitive level. The most famous was the guy who won a major Wildlife photography competition with a Wolf jumping a fence, it turned out to be a captive animal, simply cheating.

But a photo is much more than what the camera can see and produce, its about the creative input from the photographer behind the lens, so a good eye for an image is still in my opinion the most important part of photography.

Some sites set limits on their photo comps, depending on what level they are set at.

From anything goes, to set rules, like must be taken by the poster, only cropping, straightening, and sharpening allowed.

This is not a photography site, but it plays a good part of the forums, im for not turning it into a critique fest, but i am for encouraging others to join in the fun , and if someone has a question then help if i can without being condescending.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

I take a photo and apart from cropping out lots of black sky I do nothing.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

Images have always been retouched. Before computers it was done by hand painting either the print or the negative (transparency). I don't have a problem with pictures that are retouched except when someone is trying to convince me of something that isn't.

For instance pictures of cars in advertisements often have their proportions changed to make the vehicle look wider than they really are.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

A 'Contact a Moderator' private message about the above reply then Meg. Feel free to show it to Mags.

Re: Is editing photos fair?

I'm sure that lots of posters, like me, enjoy looking at the current photo entries and voting...this is a most interesting and relevant discussion, why would you want or need to hide it away?

Re: Is editing photos fair?

I must be very naive I assumed the photoes were all completely natural no fixing up at all.