I realised, those people who think editing is cheating are normally those who don't know how, lazy to learn or has no talent for digital editing. When comparing to enhanced photos, they often self console and feel proud that their photos are raw while others cheat.
Seriously, I don't think there is anything call "cheating in photography"... Basically there's nothing for you to cheat! lol.. We only say someone cheat when he edited a photo and deny about it!!!
Anyway it's the digital age... Editing is digital darkroom.. It's part of digital photography!!
Hope that we can bury the dead horse of "Post-processing is cheating" soonest.An excellent example is the photograph "Schweitzer at the Lamp" by W. Eugene Smith, from his 1954 photo essay A Man of Mercy on Dr. Albert Schweitzer and his humanitarian work in French Equatorial Africa. The image took 5 days to produce, in order to reproduce the tonal range of the scene, which ranges from a bright lamp (relative to the scene) to dark shadow.
Let me show you all an example of "cheating" in photography
china fake tiger scandal
Sometime, I couldn't understand what they really mean when they talk about being original. Even if the photo is overexposed/underexposed or has a color cast, they don't edit it?
And, if they want to be a step closer to originality, then they should use the standard lens (50mm lens for full frame cameras) exclusively, because the way it renders perspective closely matches that of the human eye; It delivers a very natural, unforced perspective. Shooting with a wider or longer lens clearly deviates from what the eyes see.
Though things are looking right with a 50mm, it doesn't cover a wider view which the eyes can perceive in a scene. So what'? MOve a few steps away to cover the scene? But the original viewpoint has already been changed.
There is no way to be original in the ulitimate sense.