Once you use RAW, it's have to be processed to be used print/screen, whether which RAW converter you are using there is a different.
Most PG like to shot in RAW because it give more head room for correction in PP.
What is considered "cheating" in photography?
- Thread starter AYC Nee
- Start date
Once you use RAW, it's have to be processed to be used print/screen, whether which RAW converter you are using there is a different.
Most PG like to shot in RAW because it give more head room for correction in PP.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
Cheesecake
Senior Member
I'm not sure what thread starter wants to find out but for me, I felt that I was "cheated" somehow when I first started out in photography. Before I picked up my camera, I have seen all those stunning shots of magnificent scenery, beautiful landscapes and exciting sports photography.
I wanted to do that, take those beautiful photos too. But try as I may, I can never achieve what those photos inspired me to achieve. Its always some parts over or some parts under. That was when I realised that a great photograph does not happen with the click of the shutter. A good one, yes. But a great photograph requires PP, and its a skill thats as important, if not more, than the act of releasing the shutter.
That was why I felt cheated. The "standards" of the photos you can find online, in the media, are so high that it demoralize me. It felt like a slap to the face with the realisation that photography is not about angles, lighting, apeture and shutter speed. Its about how good you are with the mouse.
Nowadays, I judge my own photographs based on how much, or little, PP I need to make it presentable. Of cos, in my opinion, the least PP, the better. I dun wanna cheat myself by spending a day outdoor shooting and spending the next 3 nights PP-ing the images.
Thats just me.:think:
I wanted to do that, take those beautiful photos too. But try as I may, I can never achieve what those photos inspired me to achieve. Its always some parts over or some parts under. That was when I realised that a great photograph does not happen with the click of the shutter. A good one, yes. But a great photograph requires PP, and its a skill thats as important, if not more, than the act of releasing the shutter.
That was why I felt cheated. The "standards" of the photos you can find online, in the media, are so high that it demoralize me. It felt like a slap to the face with the realisation that photography is not about angles, lighting, apeture and shutter speed. Its about how good you are with the mouse.
Nowadays, I judge my own photographs based on how much, or little, PP I need to make it presentable. Of cos, in my opinion, the least PP, the better. I dun wanna cheat myself by spending a day outdoor shooting and spending the next 3 nights PP-ing the images.
Thats just me.:think:
ill consider myself a cheater when i add or delete an object that is not or a part of the scene...its simply "what you see is what you get" thing. So in that sense, removing warts or a pimple from a subject face is a cheat to me! hahaha
Don't. There's one rule that you may have read before, but forgot to factor it in, Simplicity. Sometimes, you just take a photo for the sake of taking it. What for let others judge you for a poorly composed photo, too noisy, etc...ultimately, you are your own photographer, so what you yourself says, goes. Unless you are talking about working for a client, and that's another story all together.
What's considered cheating in photography? Using PP to make your bad photos, which by your own caused factors, to look good to submit to your client. In the first place, you should alreadly know what settings to use..ETC.
What I was trying to mean was that there are so many stunning images out there that are impossible to recreate without digital manipulation. Thats why I felt that I was cheated. It was not that I got the angle wrong or that I over exposed the image. It was not because of the equipment I used or the wrong season. It was just that I did not PP the images.
Is it right to say that photography encompasses PP on top of capturing the "moment"? I'm not sure if this is the right way to approach photography but thats my way of doing it. The only PP I allow myself to perform is to correct the mistakes I make while capturing it.
All those levels, contrast, saturations... I do them for an alternate viewpoint.
Not only film... negatives have leeway of about 3 stops.
Try slides. No chances of failures there. Miss it and that's it.
TS just started a thread without replying...
Judging from all the replies so far, think enough already la. :angel:
Judging from all the replies so far, think enough already la. :angel:
Although I've been registered since 2004, I rarely post here so I just wanna clarify, did I ruffle any feathers here? I dun wanna be sensitive but it seems as if there is no middle ground on this. Its either you're pro PP or anti PP. And with some here recommending films/slides/kodachrome 25(I have no idea whats that!) for the purists, it does seems to be that way, right? :what:
The question is not whether to PP or not, which film to use or RAW or whatnot. Your question about "cheating" is a term in a broader perspective and needs a context. I'm neither pro or anti PP or any other tool / technique you have listed. That would clearly miss the point. The right tool in the right moment for the right purpose, that's the point.
I was just joking since they were discussing about shooting film to be really back to basic.
Really back to basic would be to make your glass and chemicals and going back to the initial days as what DM once mentioned... :bsmilie:
nah, not every photo needs a lot of pp.
having good light helps.
and skill...haha.
other things can be cheated too.
eg, micro shots, some ppl feed the spider w grasshopper, then shoot. to some, tis is not merely cheating, but simply disgusting.
last time, there was a trend of shooting beautiful portraits of goldfish. but i heard in order to better manipulate the subject, water was replaced w egg white. after the session, the model confirm "up the lorry".
more common and generic form of cheating may include "do liao, say never do" eg, the pic is altered, but the photographer claims its "straight out of camera".
eg, micro shots, some ppl feed the spider w grasshopper, then shoot. to some, tis is not merely cheating, but simply disgusting.
last time, there was a trend of shooting beautiful portraits of goldfish. but i heard in order to better manipulate the subject, water was replaced w egg white. after the session, the model confirm "up the lorry".
more common and generic form of cheating may include "do liao, say never do" eg, the pic is altered, but the photographer claims its "straight out of camera".
AKG isn't the thread starter. The TS uses a Horizon...that is already a cheat.
Those activist of " true white balance " also a cheat. When are the time that we actually live in a " true white " situation.
The TS is just like saying...
when you add spices, soya sauce, sugar, salt, vinegar, ginger, pepper, chili, garlic, onion, sesame, etc into preparing your food, it is consider " cheating ", bcoz it is not the " original " taste of that food stuff.
Those activist of " true white balance " also a cheat. When are the time that we actually live in a " true white " situation.
The TS is just like saying...
when you add spices, soya sauce, sugar, salt, vinegar, ginger, pepper, chili, garlic, onion, sesame, etc into preparing your food, it is consider " cheating ", bcoz it is not the " original " taste of that food stuff.
Similar threads
