PentaxUser competitions

Don't ask me, but I have seen it done, and that's not cheating? Same applies to changing the sky!

What is your problem? If you don't like it then don't do it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to play bowls but I don't criticise those who do!

In fact I think buying bowls is cheating and you should have to make them yourself.

I know you think you're being clever but you really are not. You just haven't got anything better to do.

What ever happened to PentaxExpert? At least his trolling was amusing.

It's not 'cheating' but I can't really understand why you'd want to do it. Maybe there's a person in the background with a red T-shirt on that draws the eye too much - in that situation I might locally desaturate reds to 'knock back' the T-shirt colour. That's not really cheating in my book, it's just using the available tools to best effect.

Replacing skies or radically altering them - that might be seen as cheating. If you add a beautiful dawn sky to your shot artificially, that's intrinsically less praiseworthy (or honest) than setting your alarm for 4am and getting out there and getting the real thing. There is less stisfaction to be gained from such a shortcut, and the results are usually easy to spot as fake.

Tweaking the levels in the sky or using a grad filter? They're both permissible if they bring out the beauty of the actual sky that's there.

Steady on guys, you know walkeja is pulling our legs.

The fundamental meaning of "photography" (as you yourself quoted) is "drawing with light".

That meaning DOES NOT in any way PRESCRIBE THE METHODS used to produce its result - the "photograph".

A photograph is the end product of light capture, image processing, and creativity.

A photographer has the freedom of choice to use ANY technology available to him, along with his creative mind, to make a photograph.

So the answer, to what seems to have had the intention of being a fatuous question, has to be "Yes".

If a photographer wishes to alter something in his image, computer software allows him the creative freedom to do so.

Philip

You don't take a photograph, you make it. (Ansel Adams)

I posted a photo of "Twins" for fun which I couldn't have done without "cheating" in photoshop. Note the word fun, which to me photography is. When it becomes a chore look out for some bargains in the classified

Well if I'm going to allow myself to be drawn...

I don't have a problem with that. Enjoy! For me, the fun of photography is all about meeting the challenge involved in capturing a shot which is a unique capture of the moment, a goal I am still pursuing with limited success but enjoying 'the chase'! I don't find playing with photoshop for the sake of it particularly challenging. And since I use the damn programme a lot at work, not especially fun! YMMV

Well that doesn't surprise me at all Will, especially the work bit.

I agree with the rest your post too, I think it's what we all strive for.

What is YMMV ?

Cool. cheers

Your Mileage May Vary

Thank Goodness for that I thought it could be all sorts of things

The use of Velvia versus Kodachrome 10 (yeah, I've used it) versus Ektachrome vs Agfachrome (I liked it) is a form of manipulation, as mentioned earlier in this thread. The use of a filter is a form of manipulation. I got second prize in a contest in 1962 (I think) using a No 2 orange filter on a picture of the HMS Bounty replica on black and white film. It turned the exhaust fumes from her entourage into mist. I also used a Takumar 135/3.6 preset lens with its own additions to the character of the picture, and I selected an aperture that kept her and the mountains behind not blurred. This is also manipulation - not to mention the darkroom work to print it.

If one does not think that using film involved image manipulation one should merely select one of Anselm Adams' prints and find out how he did it.