The Ethics of Photography

[KneeJerk]

As I looked through the photos on this site, I can't help but notice that many were either "Photoshopped" or that other members actually suggested altering the photo digitally.

It is my opinion all along that the photo is a manifestation of the photographer's eye. If we were to edit a photo without much of a thought, aren't we distorting our perspective in a way? Intentional changes should come under the "Special Effects" category.

Comments, anyone?

 

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by KneeJerk
As I looked through the photos on this site, I can't help but notice that many were either "Photoshopped" or that other members actually suggested altering the photo digitally.

It is my opinion all along that the photo is a manifestation of the photographer's eye. If we were to edit a photo without much of a thought, aren't we distorting our perspective in a way? Intentional changes should come under the "Special Effects" category.

Comments, anyone?

First off, welcome to Clubsnap.

As for the issue you have raised.. well, it has been discussed before.... Here are various threads (with regards to various ethical issues in photography, digital or otherwise) that it was discussed in and maybe you would like to go through them first?

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

Thread 5

Of course, you are more than welcome to post your point of view.

I do sincerely hope you enjoy your stay here with us.

 

[KneeJerk]

Yeah sorry I should have done a search firts :embrass:

My thoughts came about from a photo book where one chap waited hours for the right mix of sunlight and shadow to get what he considered the perfect photo. Poor guy, if he had waited a few years he could have just gotten the effect with Photoshop! :bsmilie:

Anyway the point I had wanted to make was that photography has become more of a digital editing skill than anything else. Guess I've to move with the times!

Thanks for the welcome. It's a great forum :thumbsup:

 

[Digipix]

Oh yeah.. I'm the culprit. :devil:

And yes, perhaps we should have a special effects category for posting my kinda images. But then again, with such a category means an encouragement for more people to manipulate... bad.. very bad indeed.

Art is very subjective. To me, I break all rules to achieve my image. My concern is not the technique or the process of getting it done, it's the result that counts. Even with digital manipulation, photography skills like composition, is still very important. Don't forget that you are still shooting with a camera to achieve that picture, without that picture, there's no manipulation.

 

[Jonny]

There are always 2 schools of thought when art is concerned. The conservative one and the radical one. IMHO, art will not "progress" if new methods are not tried and tested.

PS is a new and great tool. It allows alot of manipulation and enhancements. In the end, the art presented will be delivered by the artist's imagination. It is the presentation of his concept and creativity. Well, it ain't no conventional photog anymore, but like what Digi says, the artist still has to capture that shot. He still has to visualise what goes in or out. PS just assists him in a more effective way.

Andy Warhol merged the two schools or art and achieved pop art. You either love it or hate it. I for one love it and i embrace technology

 

[MrBig]

Originally posted by KneeJerk
As I looked through the photos on this site, I can't help but notice that many were either "Photoshopped" or that other members actually suggested altering the photo digitally.

It is my opinion all along that the photo is a manifestation of the photographer's eye. If we were to edit a photo without much of a thought, aren't we distorting our perspective in a way? Intentional changes should come under the "Special Effects" category.

Comments, anyone?

Welcome to the digital world pal :rbounce:

 

[Zoomer]

Originally posted by KneeJerk

My thoughts came about from a photo book where one chap waited hours for the right mix of sunlight and shadow to get what he considered the perfect photo. Poor guy, if he had waited a few years he could have just gotten the effect with Photoshop! :bsmilie:

It depends on what you want. For example, many photoshopped images would look downright horrible if they are printed (to a decent size, of course) than if it was just displayed in a smallish size online. Changing the light levels introduces noise into the image. The more you try to change, the more noise you get. There are also some other stuff that degrades its quality, but I'll not post them here, the above example should suffice to explain my point.

 

[Jerome]

In digital photography, the whole idea is to spend more time on post-editing. Very often, you can spend more time editing than taking the picture itself! That's something most novices don't realize. It's not the end after you press the shutter.

That's not to say you don't do the same for films. But much less for color prints than B/W. In digital, to enhance your shots, you almost always have to spend time mastering at least one good photo-editing software. If u spend a lot of money on a good digi cam and are thinking of shooting in digital and simply keep the image as it is, that's a pity. Cos images from digital cams are never at their best without any editing done to them. I'm speaking in particular of colour, contrast, sharpness, etc in addition to cropping.

It's not cheating. It's digital art. If you want to just take a picture as it is without such processing, then digital may not be for you. Better to turn to slides.

 

[matthew]

Originally posted by Jerome
In digital photography, the whole idea is to spend more time on post-editing.

That's not to say you don't do the same for films. But much less for color prints than B/W.

I did some colour prints in High School. I spent far more time making test prints trying to get the colours right than I've ever spent in recent times digitally touching up photographs.

The school didn't have auto colour correcting enlargers, and besides the object of the exercise was to see what really went into the process.

The teacher that looked after the 'camera club' had a side line business in photo retouching, some of the work she did with a print , ink and brushes was simply amazing. She showed one B&W print where she had removed a distracting fence from the background for a customer.
She commonly removed people from photos.
It was hard to spot the photos had been altered.

I guess it depends on if you think a photograph is a snapshot in time or a creative work of art.....

 

[Revo]

with regards to topic.......

aint we already distorting our perspective when we try to omit some things by using a shallower depth of field; or when we zoom in from real far to places we probably have difficulty or never set our foots in?

Well, i guess we shldnt bother too much abt the post processing of wat goes on after taking the pics.....( erm i meant so long if the end result is what u like to achieve/liked) den it shld be ok rite?

All this from my pt of view........

 

[JRTerrier]

I'm still a newbie, so it always benefits me more to have an editing tool on hand. Recently, I came across this article from another site and I sort of subscribe to what the author wrote. have attached the link below.


http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/10062002.html

 

[KneeJerk]

Digipix wrote:

Oh yeah.. I'm the culprit.

Don't be too hard on yerself, it wasn't only you I had in mind :bsmilie: A surreal image has a strange beauty in it.

As for breaking the rules, I'm glad your writing is of Cambridge standards. Writing is an art too, but bad English really riles me.

 

[Adam Goi]

Haha! Welcome to Clubsnap KneeJerk!

 

[ahguan]

wow hot in here...

anyway my 2 cents....

i belong to the old school, even tho i have embraced technology and taken up digital photography. I believe in the moment of taking pictures, and being able to capture that moment is how I derive my pleasure from photography... i still do editing, but not to the extent that the moment captured has been altered beyond recognition.

However, I accept that art is borderless. It's just about being more open-minded. Have your principles and viewpoints, but also accept others for what they are/do.

ok lah, sorry for the essay :embrass: