# Alteration of photos - is it cheating?



## jedi_339 (Apr 30, 2014)

Hey All,

After submitting a few photos for a reptile and amphibian photography competition with rules that allow some minor manipulation, it got me thinking, I (Prior to this competition) have never altered any of my photos and would rather take a great photo on the camera and if it doesn't work out, there's more to practice on next time. What are your thoughts on the alteration of photos? Is it cheating as a photograper? I'm interested in your thoughts.

These were the rules regarding alteration.
"Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to cleaning work, levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work, applied to the image as a whole. The faithful representation of a natural form, behaviour or phenomenon must be maintained"

And here is a sample of a photo that has been altered, dunno if I've even done it right, but it definitely feels wrong to change it.

First photo is the altered version.


----------



## eipper (Apr 30, 2014)

It's certainly a grey area.... By what you have quoted I am guess you entered the Nactus comp. At what point does the post processing begin.... If your contrast and saturation are adjusted in camera on the manufacture of the file is that modification? Is dust removal from the shot editing? What about shooting in a dx mode on a full frame? The list goes on. Hence the somewhat arbitrary nature of the rules. The selection judges on the exoterra comp are both herpo's and photographers themselves and hopefully will weed out the bulldust before it gets to the judging stage.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw good luck


----------



## jedi_339 (Apr 30, 2014)

eipper said:


> It's certainly a grey area.... By what you have quoted I am guess you entered the Nactus comp. At what point does the post processing begin.... If your contrast and saturation are adjusted in camera on the manufacture of the file is that modification? Is dust removal from the shot editing? What about shooting in a dx mode on a full frame? The list goes on. Hence the somewhat arbitrary nature of the rules. The selection judges on the exoterra comp are both herpo's and photographers themselves and hopefully will weed out the bulldust before it gets to the judging stage.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> Btw good luck



Cheers Scott, and yep, Nactus comp it is, though I've left it till the last minute to enter :facepalm:

I haven't actually submitted any of the altered versions as yet as I am still not sure whether I am fully comfortable with doing it. Would you as a long time herp photographer think that saturation adjustment shown is too much?

I think I'm fighting with myself more than anything on this.


----------



## giggles (Apr 30, 2014)

jedi_339 said:


> I (Prior to this competition) have never altered any of my photos and would rather take a great photo on the camera and if it doesn't work out, there's more to practice on next time.


 I totally agree with this, i don't like the idea of altering pictures in general, to me photography is about what is actually captured not what you can make of it with photoshop. (natural beauty ) lol but for a competition? :S Honestly the 2nd picture you've added looks better/natural than the altered one anyway!


----------



## saximus (Apr 30, 2014)

giggles said:


> I totally agree with this, i don't like the idea of altering pictures in general, *to me photography is about what is actually captured not what you can make of it with photoshop*. (natural beauty) lol but for a competition? :S Honestly the 2nd picture you've added looks better/natural than the altered one anyway!


What if some slight “tuning” makes the photo look closer to how the subject looks in real life though? Wouldn’t that still be considered bringing out the natural beauty, possibly even more so than the original?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 30, 2014)

I never alter animal colour. the most I ever play with is a burn tool on some of the shadows or highlights in the background to emphasize the subject....and brightness & contrast. Anything else to me feels like cheating :lol: One of my favorites is dropping out the background to black & white...then the subject seems like it has been enhanced. the natural colours do all the talking


----------



## jedi_339 (Apr 30, 2014)

saximus said:


> What if some slight “tuning” makes the photo look closer to how the subject looks in real life though? Wouldn’t that still be considered bringing out the natural beauty, possibly even more so than the original?



I can see how that sort of tuning would pertain to the competition, to maintain the faithful representation of the original subject.

From a photographers standpoint, I would hope that one day I might be able to recreate how it looks in real life without any tuning.

Cheers for your opinions guys, feel free to continue giving them. it's an interesting topic.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 30, 2014)

I really don't see a problem with it if it's within these parameters:

These were the rules regarding alteration.
"Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to cleaning work, levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work, applied to the image as a whole. *The faithful representation of a natural form*, behaviour or phenomenon must be maintained"

The highlighted statement would be the key here... turning green tree frog into a "blue" tree frog would not be a representation of a natural form...
[MENTION=29069]jedi_339[/MENTION] you're manipulation still displays a representation of a natural form.

If the pics are going to print publication... the printers will tweak them anyway to make them print better (within the parameters already stated in the rules)


----------



## jedi_339 (Apr 30, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> I never alter animal colour. the most I ever play with is a burn tool on some of the shadows or highlights in the background to emphasize the subject....and brightness & contrast. Anything else to me feels like cheating :lol: One of my favorites is dropping out the background to black & white...then the subject seems like it has been enhanced. the natural colours do all the talking



I think in this case moose the rules state the manipulation must be done to the image as a whole, otherwise there'd be some cool effects like that I could try. From memory I only altered the saturation of that image, but I still can't work out if I'm comfortable with it haha.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 30, 2014)

I mean its not for everyone...but I kind of like the result 

I love your pic btw...good luck with it


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 30, 2014)

Here's two images one straight out of the camera Nikon D7k lit with the pop up flash..

Straight out of camera.





Same images done with the same editing parameters as stated: All done to the image as a whole
Saturation
White balance
Curves
Sharpening





Is the editing a misrepresentation, I'll let you guys discuss and decide


----------



## critterguy (Apr 30, 2014)

Yeah I agree, often have to adjust the brightness, contrast, do some cropping and some sharpening to bring the colours and edges in the pic out better, but I don't have any equipment to get the flash output right etc, usually just use a point and shoot digital cam on manual with certain settings that I rarely change.

I used to adjust the aperture etc when I was learning on a Canon Eos 3000, but you couldn't have many wasted shots back then when using film, so learnt how to try and get the shots right the 1st time, I've since forgotten alot of what I learnt on that cam.

Will be getting back into taking better macro's again soon and relearning how to, got a Pentax Kx and a ok cheap beginner lens for it that I couldn't use, only just got a adapter for the lens recently, months after getting the camera and lens. 
The lens is a old Tamron SP 35-80mm CF macro with adaptall 2 type connection, it's manual aperture and zoom adjustment, it came with a Hoyo UV filter on it.

I still need to get a ring flash and some extension rings to improve the macro on the lens and to lengthen it's range, current is 1:2.5 at full extension, will down to 1:1.25 with a entension ring and change the range to 70-140mm and so on with each ring added.
My wife and I really like this lens, it's way clearer than the starter pentax 18-55mm lens the camera came with.


----------



## ssnakeboyy (Apr 30, 2014)

Nice to see another Pentax user [MENTION=39804]critterguy[/MENTION], i use a k3. I do a lot of bird photography where sometimes you cant use flash because the birds too far away and often the light isnt too good and you end up getting a dull image. To me adjusting saturation, contrast, clarity etc isnt cheating, especially if you could just crop an image and edit a bit or buy a $10k lens and get the same results then id opt for the first option. it all depends on the person behind the camera and what they like.


----------



## eipper (Apr 30, 2014)

Only you "know" what would be the natural representation of the image Jedi. But to me the work you have done is minor/ if not less than minor so to speak


----------



## Beans (Apr 30, 2014)

If you are changing the natural shape of the subject, eliminating defining features or 'flaws' then yes it's cheating. But if you were just touching up the photo, like making it clearer or if the lighting wasn't captured as well as you though then I think its okay. There's definitely a place for Photoshop, but people tend to go too far.


----------



## Klaery (May 1, 2014)

If you are into photography, then get over your fear of post processing. Even with film post processing was done in the darkroom (why we use a program for post processing called lightroom today).

Camera sensors are not perfect and all images will need a little sharpening, contrast and saturation adjustment to look their best. If you shoot in jpg (which you don't I hope) then the camera will do this post processing for you before you even see the image. So with that attitude everyone who shoots in jpg is a cheater.

Post processing is a necessary step for every photo you take.


----------



## yellowbeard (May 1, 2014)

digital photography is cheating LMAO!


----------



## Klaery (May 1, 2014)

I want to also add that post processing isn't going to fix what wasn't right in the camera. If you over expose and blow the highlights, you have lost that detail forever. Underexposing is better but it will still never be as good as it would have been if the image was correctly exposed to begin with. Likewise you can't sharpen your subject into focus.

The kea below is one of my favourite images due to the subject and what it meant to get it, but it lacks a lot because I had to use a high iso and underexpose it (dark storm and needed a decent shutter speed). It needed a fair bit of work in post and will never be as good as it could have been if I was able to expose it correctly.







The next image was correctly exposed in camera and so only needed minor sharpening and contrast (to replace what is lost through your aa filter). It looks that much better for it. Printed out at a decent size the difference is very noticable and would be night and day to anybody judging a comp.


----------



## BrownHash (May 1, 2014)

When most people think of post processing they think of photo manipulation and Photoshopping images into what they are not. Basic tweaking of photos had been around a long time and was being done before cameras went digital. I believe, as pointed out, that if the faithful representation of a natural form, behaviour or phenomenon is maintained then there isn't any real issue.


----------



## PappaSmurf (May 1, 2014)

My wife was one of the leading & most awarded wedding photographers in Brisbane when i met her. ALL of her photos were on film. She gave it away when digital photography & then photoshop came in. The challenge was gone & very man & his dog suddenly became a "professional"


----------



## eipper (May 1, 2014)

there is definitely still a challenge in wildlife photography.......


----------



## Klaery (May 1, 2014)

eipper said:


> there is definitely still a challenge in wildlife photography.......



I go further and say there is still a challenge with any type of photography. Great photos are not created in photoshop and top wedding photographers are not paid the big bucks because they are good at post processing. Sure it is cheaper to get into now days but the pretenders don't last long.

Post processing is a finishing tool that all photographers need to develop in the same way that a cabinet maker needs the skills to finish a fine piece of furniture.


----------



## ronhalling (May 2, 2014)

critterguy said:


> Yeah I agree, often have to adjust the brightness, contrast, do some cropping and some sharpening to bring the colours and edges in the pic out better, but I don't have any equipment to get the flash output right etc, usually just use a point and shoot digital cam on manual with certain settings that I rarely change.
> 
> I used to adjust the aperture etc when I was learning on a Canon Eos 3000, but you couldn't have many wasted shots back then when using film, so learnt how to try and get the shots right the 1st time, I've since forgotten alot of what I learnt on that cam.
> 
> ...



My father was a professional shutter bug for over 25 years and 1 of the tricks he taught me for getting the best out of your flash without have to worry about filters and and electronic softening devices was to use differing thicknesses of tissue paper to soften (split tissue) or more creative (add more tissue) does not take long with digital photography to get it right with a bit of practice at home and all it costs is a good quality packet of multi layer tissues, it is amazing the effects that can be created using this method whether it be with a point and shoot, DSLR with bayonet mount flash or stand alone flash.  ................................Ron


----------



## critterguy (May 3, 2014)

Getting off topic, but
Thanks, yeah I know of that method and where to find how to make a flash box, just haven't been bothered to with the normal cam I use as it has crap shake reduction compared to my previous ones and my pics of critters are usually while hunting inverts, so I don't want to have to lug a stand around with me to fix that.

I will make a flash box for the Kx though as I'll be able to produce better quality images from it than the base model point and shoot digital I normally use, so it will be worth the trouble.
I'll try the tissue paper method for the normal cam though, thanks


----------



## gus11 (May 3, 2014)

You will not find an imagine in any book, magazine or printed anywhere that isn't edited in some way these days. You will not win any serious photo comp without some editing, your putting yourself behind the 8 ball from the start. You might be happy knowing it wasn't edited but that won't get you anywhere competition wise. Some competitions you can edit the hell out of photos and still win...(yes i'm suggesting last years ANZANG winner was not legitimate).

I edit my photos, some more than others. I enjoy looking at my photos and if i think tweaking them improves them then i do it. everyone's photos look better post processing.


----------



## BrownHash (May 3, 2014)

gus11 said:


> ...(yes i'm suggesting last years ANZANG winner was not legitimate).



Did you see his picture of the "baby dugite" and the duckling. It's a classic!


----------



## eipper (May 4, 2014)

Come on Gus he was 8ft from the osprey and spoonbill why don't you believe it....


----------



## andynic07 (May 4, 2014)

I do not edit any of my photos but that is because I don't really know how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrazyNut (May 4, 2014)

I wouldn't call it cheating. People edit there photos everyday, pretty much every photo in any magazine was edited at some stage or another. Personally I believe the less editing done the better anyway, edit a photo to much and you get a photo that looks literally unreal. I think leave editing to just removing sight blockers (leaves, grass etc), brightness and sharpness. Although if it was a competition, making your photo sharper might be considered cheating.


----------



## gus11 (May 4, 2014)

BrownHash said:


> Did you see his picture of the "baby dugite" and the duckling. It's a classic!


Did you read much of his web page, apparently he has a habit of going out at night to photograph sunrises and won't come back for days... Some very ridiculous stuff on there.


----------



## Klaery (May 4, 2014)

gus11 said:


> Did you read much of his web page, apparently he has a habit of going out at night to photograph sunrises and won't come back for days... Some very ridiculous stuff on there.



Link? I am out of the loop on this one. Have noooo idea who you guys are talking about.


----------



## eipper (May 5, 2014)

Last years ANZANG winner Daniel


----------



## BrownHash (May 5, 2014)

The photograph and photographer can be found here. It is the ANZANG 2013 winner, which created some controversy regarding the photo and whether or not it is a composite photo. To add fuel to the fire it was later found that the photograph did not meet the criteria for the ANZANG competition by having been entered in, and winning, other photography competitions.

The South Australian Museum released this statement regarding the photo. 

He also has his work displayed at The Open.

Since receiving criticism for some of his photos he has removed them from his web site, notably the photograph he had of a dugite swimming up to a duckling. The dugit was an adult, but the duckling was considerably larger.

He does have some very nice photographs, however I feel that the photo that won the ANZANG prize wasn't worthy of it and didn't comply with the terms of entry. I feel that it has tarnished the competition somewhat.


----------



## Klaery (May 5, 2014)

Oh yes, I saw 'Australian story' on that fellow. Thanks for the explanation  Actually didn't know much about the ANZANG. Some magnificent work in there.


----------



## jedi_339 (May 7, 2014)

Been away for a few day, but thanks for all the responses guys, some great insight into the topic.

AndyNic, I was and sort of still am in the same boat as you with not really knowing how to edit photos properly, I just tried to tinker with the saturation a little bit for the comp entry which made the colours a bit brighter. I was put onto a program called fast stone image viewer which seems to give plenty of easy editing options.

I was particularly interested in the ANZANG competition winners photo too. When I saw it on display in Adelaide I thought it looked a bit too good to be true.
I also liked the photo of the spoonbill taken at 2am on a full moon. The clarity of the moving droplets of water should surely defy the level of available light at the time. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Mitella (May 8, 2014)

The only thing I will ever do to my photos is enhance or brighten/darken them.
I think it's ok.


----------



## Red-Ink (May 8, 2014)

jedi_339 said:


> Been away for a few day, but thanks for all the responses guys, some great insight into the topic.
> 
> AndyNic, I was and sort of still am in the same boat as you with not really knowing how to edit photos properly, I just tried to tinker with the saturation a little bit for the comp entry which made the colours a bit brighter. I was put onto a program called fast stone image viewer which seems to give plenty of easy editing options.
> 
> ...



Rules says, saturation can be altered as a whole, technically still a true representation on the subjects "form", behaviour and phenomenon. It does say "limited" though. ANZANG comp winner... fine line in deed there?


----------



## montysrainbow (May 10, 2014)

nothing wrong with enhancing ones natural beauty 8)


----------

