What's cheating, what's not: Given the number of times we've had this debate about what's ethical in a distributed or exhibited or published (or otherwise made public) photograph, I...

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

Given the number of times we've had this debate about what's ethical in a distributed or exhibited or published (or otherwise made public) photograph, I thought many of you might find the following interesting. Jamie Windsor is a photographer whose channel presentations I've found frequently interesting and always insightful. Here, he weighs in on the question of "cheating" (or not) in photography, pointing to intentional (creative) manipulations in many very familiar photographs. I leave it here without further comment ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nsFNUqQpJM

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I'm surprised he didn't differentiate between photojournalism and photography as art. That has everything to do with our expectations of photographs. I was glad he noted that photographs can be dishonest just by what is included or excluded from the composition. Same thing with the timing of the exposure.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Very interesting discussion!

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I wouldn’t call it “cheating”, but cropping and simple composition can change the mood of a photograph.

Years ago i took my teenage kids on vacation out west. In Colby Kansas was a junker of a ‘38 2-ton Chevy truck. It was surrounded by other junk, old combines, crappy cars, piled up fence posts and so on. Nothing photogenic about a piled up junk yard but when I zoomed in on the kids and just the old truck, the resulting feeling was totally opposite of what was really there.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

NickGee wrote:

Given the number of times we've had this debate ab... (show quote)

If the work is art then fine, but do not pawn it off as reality as the Nikon photographer did by adding a separate element and not fessing up to it.
Just like adding fake skies which seems to be popular here in UHH. Fine do it but just admit you faked it and were creating art and not that you waited days or months to get the just right sky.
Lightening and darkening some parts to make them pop is harder for me to say one way or the other. Adams did not add or subtract any elements just highlighted what was already there. Or the posing the elevator girl or milkman, that is what they were doing anyway so who knows, but NO separate elements were artificially added that were not there ever and were taken from somewhere else that is totally unrelated and make a composite of a bunch of photos. Do it for fun but do not pawn it off as "Look what I shot" but look at what I collected and manipulated into one digital composition.

Bill_de Loc: US

NickGee wrote:

I leave it here without further comment

You shoulda left it without 'further comment' in the "Links and Resources" section.

---

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

NickGee wrote:

Given the number of times we've had this debate ab... (show quote)

Well, in literature we have genres: fiction, non fiction, biography, creative non fiction, etc., etc. So in literature we have academics classify their production into clearly defined categories which identify the expectations of the reader and the writer, allowing no deception or misrepresentation of the product being presented. So, you know what to expect when you begin the process of reading or writing in a specific category. Perhaps a system in photography would be helpful where a simple symbol would indicate a photographic category eliminating any criticism of staging, manipulation, exagerations, and inserts or deletions. Just my thoughts.

jcboy3

NickGee wrote:

Given the number of times we've had this debate ab... (show quote)

Misrepresentation is cheating. Claiming it is reality is cheating. Breaking the rules in a photo contest or news outlet is cheating.

Otherwise, photography is art and anything goes with respect to art.

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

Indiana wrote:

Well, in literature we have genres: fiction, non f... (show quote)

I think the point is that ALL photographs are, in one way or another, manipulations of reality. Documentary photography or photojournalism has stricter rules, of course, but ever since the beginning of photography darkroom magic (in the film days) and now digital manipulation are part-in-parcel to photo processing. I think that's what Jamie Windsor is getting at -- or part of what he's getting at. I think he's saying we make our own rules, but that integrity comes in begin honest about it.

User ID

JohnSwanda wrote:

I'm surprised he didn't differentiate between photojournalism and photography as art. That has everything to do with our expectations of photographs. I was glad he noted that photographs can be dishonest just by what is included or excluded from the composition. Same thing with the timing of the exposure.

Didnt see any reason to click the link. A short post such as yours encapsulates everything. No need for some stuffshirts more verbose version.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

SOOC always works! No PP.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Interesting video. I feel like it is cheating in away. Example: the airplane added at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes photography is catching those remarkable moments. Anyone can "fake" it. I guess there is a fine line because deleting a garbage can in a scene doesn't seem like cheating to me.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

DAN Phillips wrote:

SOOC always works! No PP.

I would say SOOC almost never works. My raw files pretty much always need something done to look right and correct and bring out what I saw or felt about a photographic situation. No one sees any of my work without a little PP love done first.
…Cam

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tracy B. wrote:

Interesting video. I feel like it is cheating in away. Example: the airplane added at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes photography is catching those remarkable moments. Anyone can "fake" it. I guess there is a fine line because deleting a garbage can in a scene doesn't seem like cheating to me.

George Limle

And what does it say when we put different types of filters on our lens?