Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Retouching and Post Processing' started by vulturetec, Dec 4, 2005.
I don't know if this is cheating or not. 10 minutes in photoshop does wonders.
Certainly not cheating in my book, photography is an art and we owe it to ourselves as the artists to make the greatest use of the tools available to us.
Painters use synthetic brushes now where years ago they were probably made of some kind of animal hair or whatever.
The art world isn't screaming that its cheating though so I guess they have no problem with that. Technology progresses at a fast pace these days but to me photography was and always will be about the vision behind the image.
If you have not got the vision and let a computer make your image from scratch then that is cheating. If you see the potential in an image and then use the tools to hand to bring that potential forward then that is art!
Great picture by the way, one definatley all the better for the exclusion of the cone.
#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
Not cheating in my book either. However, I'd like to see a bit more of the car & driver, so would suggest cropping it a bit tighter, like to the retaining wall, then cloning out the guy's red shirt, making it blend into the white tee shirt, then a little off the left and bottom to keep it proportional. Nice shot! Who's it behind the wheel?
I was just playing with PS to see what I could do, not really getting serious with the picture. No idea who was driving.
I fiddled a little more but really don't want to go too much further because I'm cropped the heck out of it. They were all the way at the other end of the pit road from where I was. I just happened to see the car run in and I ran off a couple of frames.
Oh ya baby, that's perfect now! :biggrin: btw, reason for asking who that was, is that it appears to be a female behind the wheel. Run for your life!!! :wink: j/k
I don't do a lot of editing like I did with this image, but the cone bugged me and I wanted to play with it.
"Cheating" in a photograph is only possible if you are documenting history/news/sports/etc. and you change something within the image that would give the viewer a different understanding other than reality. How's that for a mouthful? In other words, if you take a picture of President Bush and "paint" in his fly open and his "nether" region exposed, that would be cheating. If you remove a telephone pole sticking out of the top of his head, that is not.
In that same line, how often do you read someone's information about a posted picture, and they say the image is completely untouched? I own two D2xs and one D1x, and shoot about 25,000 images a year. The one thing I know for certain, the color of the raw images out of the camera is pretty lousy. Do I adjust the color and sharpness of my images? You bet! Do I adjust the white balance? Do I use filters? Hey, whatever tool I have that helps me complete the story I want to tell is put to use. But my photos are my vision and emotion, not a documentary. (Large crash as I fall off my soapbox...)
To be honest I don't have a lot of patience for the long winded whining I hear elsewhere about how pictures should be raw "out of the camera" images without any editing whatsoever (including tweaking the color, brightness, contrast, etc). I'd best the vast majority of them are completely unaware that a production lab printing negatives alters the "brightness" and color balance of every single negative to get the final prints to look decent. Applying their philosophy to 35mm negatives they'd eventually end up with a stack of lousy prints.
But back to your point - you should do all that stuff. All we're doing is replacing negatives/slides with a digital image that can be tweaked under the photographer's control and not the lab tech. Hardly cheating :smile:
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.