[tuco]

It is cheating to call it a photograph when it it digitally manipulated to the point that it is a digital painting, IMHO. Kind of like tracing a photograph on a canvas and then painting it with interpretation except the modern version a more complete image is used as the starting point.

[BrianR]

Not counting photojournalism, some photo contests, or other confined areas where there are rules, there are no rules in photography. That makes it pretty hard to cheat. At some point in the manipulations a photo will stop being a photo and become 'digital art', but everyone will have a different place to put that line so it's not worth worrying about what other people think.

I would never universally declare that it's better to get it right in camera then to use post processing. Consider the inside/outside brightness problem someone mentioned earlier of an interior hotel shoot. If the usual tricks to overcome this issue are not feasible (light up the interior with strobes or do the shoot at dusk/dawn) then an HDR shot can get the job done with minimal processing time and is a great way to go. This is shooting with the intent to process in a certain way, and I think is making good use of all the tools available.

I don't look at fixing major blunders the same way. Royally screwing up the exposure and correcting later isn't a great way to do things and even with the latitude of modern sensors you'd be kicking yourself in the foot quality wise, but I still wouldn't call it cheating.

[demp10]

It is always cheating with photography in some respect.

No photograph can be the "truth". You, the photographer, make a decision where to stand, which direction to point the lens, what focal length to use, how to frame the picture (more importantly what to include/exclude) and set the exposure. All the above will dramatically affect what being captured, and many times will convey different massages/stories without any further manipulation.

All this may represent reality, but it is from your point of view. Another photographer may (and in most cases will) see things differently and his/her photo will look different and convey a different message.

It all comes down to intend. If you intend to show reality (the way you perceive it of course) then it is real; if you intend to cheat, then it is cheating.

[Na Horuk]

I would call it cheating when the photograph gets meanings that it should not have. Things like adjusting brightness or white balance isn't cheating. I think intent and usage of photo is the most important criteria. Like if you take a photo of a horribly polluted area and photoshop out the pollution to put it into a brochure claiming the area is clean. Or if you take a photograph of a person and make their body proportions unreal, just to make them look more "beautiful", which creates false impressions about the person and people in general.
You can also "cheat" without using photoshop, clever cropping or framing can be very manipulative

[MetteHHH]

Hey! Wait! I have simply GOT to link this thread to today's xkcd. It is so incredibly on topic!

xkcd: Rembrandt Photo

[TenZ.NL]

Neither.
Does the final image work for you or not?
The process is irrelevant.

+1
That being said, overmanipulating is not my way. I merely see pp as an enhancement since RAW is somewhat dull.

[reeftool]

Getting the shot right the first time...wonderful.

Being able to fix it in PP because I didn't....Priceless!

[Just1MoreDave]

Neither.
Does the final image work for you or not?
The process is irrelevant.

My recent idea on this: the typical non-photographer person thinks a photograph represents "reality", maybe a version of reality. If you push them a bit you can get them to agree with "what the photographer saw". If they see an image that's called a photograph but crosses that reality line for them, they feel like the photographer/creator/artist is just lying to them, manipulating them in some way. At the reality line point, I think the process is important to the average person.

Now, shortly after getting a camera and taking some shots, a lot of people realize they can't get a photo that includes exactly what they saw. For people farther down the photography road, we know that a good photo may involve manipulation. We have a different idea about where that reality line is, and know that there's a huge gray area in there. It becomes more about your personal values and the images you want. The process is kind of irrelevant to the photographer except maybe when they don't want to do it, like hiking up Everest for a better angle.

The two views can clash when the photographer starts showing work to the non-photographer.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'll show a "cheat" and I have never, ever in all discussions about this photo stated anything other than it is a cheat.



the two birds in this photo are adult and chick , both were photographed at this exact spot, on this exact hole in the tree, on the same day, just not at the same instant.

the only manipulation was to cut the chick (and the surrounding shadow of the hole out of one photo and place it in the other. the alignment of the beaks was pure chance.

I will admit, that even though this pose is possible, (i have one from a previous year that is similar but a little blurred due to low light) it is a cheat.

Now, when it comes to other cheats, touching up photos to remove blemishes etc, i think the issue would be, if it is done with the subjects permission then no, but if it is done without, then yes. Also if manipulation is done to imply something, then even if done with the subjects permission, it may be considered a cheat. i.e. removing blemishes to promote products related to skin appearance,/ blemishes would be a cheat.

I will separate here art, advertising and such from accurate reporting. reporting should not involve any manipulation that adds either color, or adds or removes image content. I will accept lighting to isolate background but thats about it.

[wildman]

If they see an image that's called a photograph but crosses that reality line for them, they feel like the photographer/creator/artist is just lying to them, manipulating them in some way.

Yep...
... and there are places where we build huge structures that cost millions and fill it up with fantastically expensive stuff who's primary or only purpose is to "manipulate" them - its called an Art Museum.

[Smeggypants]

Photography is not just an art or photojournalism but also a source of self satisfaction. So, if some body enjoy post-processing fine with him. If some one like taking great photoes using his or her camera in a unique way that is also fine. Personally i don't like post-processing much just to make my pictures more acceptable. I prefer using my camera skillfully.

There are many of us who love a lot of post-processing also love using our cameras skilfully. I think it's wrong to imply that post -processing is a compensation for lack of camera skill

[SpecialK]

I prefer using my camera skillfully.

There are many things you can not do in the camera.

[civiletti]

It all depends. On what, depends on you.

[wildman]

I prefer using my camera skillfully.

Of course - I can't imagine anyone preferring to use any tool unskillfully.

The final irreducible minimum at the time of capture a photographer should ideally be concerned with is framing (composition) and when to release the shutter. All other considerations are just noise and a distraction from the creation of the image in front of you at the moment of capture.

It is for this reason that I have found shooting in RAW both the best and the easiest way to capture quality images.
One possible setup: shot in RAW, set camera to TAv, set shutter and aperture consistent with the requirements in front of you, which I have usually found to be obvious, and you are pretty much free to concentrate on visualization and not on what the damn hardware may or may not be doing correctly.

When shooting RAW you are not shooting for the perfect final image up front but for the maximum editable data which can later, with powerful software and at your leisure, be edited more precisely to conform to the photographers wishes. To be worrying about the exact WB, tone, shadows, highlights, levels, contrast etc at the time of exposure is precisely the worst time and distracts from the photographer's real purpose which is to capture a meaningful image at an instant in time. Note: I'm not talking about "cheating" or over the top editing just getting a decent final image.

I hope this makes some sense. It's complicated and really taxes my modest writing abilities.