There was this fisherman fishing by the lake in a fishing competion. He had been there 4 hours without a single bite. He had the right gear the right bait and wonderful lake to fish in - But not a sigle fish. - A man pulled up is a pick-up truck and said " I have a very large live fish in a tank in the back of my truck - For $50 you can have this fish and put it into your keep net and win the competion. " - No said the fisherman that would be cheating.

A mile over the hill was a photographer with camera on a tripod been there also for four hours waiting for that special light and mood - He had that special composition a stream as lead-in with wonderful heather of all colours - Moutains in the background - All he needed was a great sky and beautiful light.

Along came a hiker and said to the photographer I'm Alberto Adobe in my back pack I have 1000 skys of all colours of the rainbow in fact I will throw in a few rainbows free of charge. For $150 per year they can be yours to add to this wonderful composion you have here - They could even help you to get an image Published and Awarded on 1x.com - Well said the photographer " would that not be cheating " - " Who's going to know " said Alberto Adobe I won't tell anyone..

I think the feeling is different for the fisherman of photographer. Spectators won't mind.

If I caught that wonderful sky or that outstanding mood and can show it to others, their compliments feel differently.

I recently captured Dark Hedges in Ireland. A dream came true - which turned into a nightmare. We had perfect, smooth light, but found two wedding societies spending hours shooting each other in the middle of the alley, next to about 3 dozens of hikers and another 3 dozens of Instagram-selfie shooters blocking the view. Well, you can manage that with multiple frames and median-function in Photoshop. 

I shot with a long lens to not have the gaps in between trees, we spent 3 hours or more waiting for people to move around and be sure we captured every inch of the alley. When I returned home, all my photos were slightly blurred. I forgot to turn off VR/image stabilization. Nothing I could use.

My spouse is a photomaniac, too. She basically had the same shots and offered me to take one of her frames. Like me, she did dozens, same focal length, same position apart from one meter. 

Do I want that? No, it does not feel the same. I know I did not shoot it so it is not MY photo. Bizarre? Maybe. Nobody would notice the difference, it is only about me.

Danny,

A thought-provoking question. I pains me to say this but I feel the answer clearly is, "it depends". Replacing the sky can be okay in some situations. Likewise, replacing the sky with a purchased sky can also be okay in some situations.

Some examples:

1. If you are a photojournalist is never okay to replace the sky, purchased or otherwise. There are certain journalistic ethics in play.

2. If you are producing art, as compared to documentation, it is okay to replace the sky if the sky you use is one you photographed (not purchased). There are no rules in art with the exception it has to be your work and not someone else. There are situations where you can include samples from others in your art but again it has to be with permission and that portion not presented as your own.

3. If you are taking a photo for hire to be used in an advertisement I believe that sky replacement is okay and I also believe using a purchased sky is okay as long as it was licensed for commercial use.

For most of us here on 1x, I believe we fall into the example #2 category but that is not the situation universally.

Mike

as someone who shoots mostly landscapes and loves travelling and hiking I consider it cheating; I accept that many photographers have a different opinion;

a second point -  if you sent your landscapes to a photo contest the manipulated photographs should - and usually are disqualified;

that said I have no problem seeing collages (and appreciating some of them ) here on 1x, as long as they are entered in the creative edit category and not in landscape.

The analogy of cheating at fishing vs photography is amusing but a fallacy. One is a competitive sport, the other is a craft/art form. The answer in the former is clear cut, the latter is... well, blurred. (and using a tripod here won't help) 

I feel sorry for landscape photographers, and luckily, I'm not one of them. Do you hear anyone complaining about the artist Turner's dramatic cloudscapes? Or any other painter/watercolour artist's landscapes? Of course not. Frankly, no one cares as long as the image presented is pleasing emotionally. Except photographic snobs apparently. And it seems I'm one of those snobs too, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps, as a photographer, I have an built-in, photographic moral compass. A compass that is becoming increasingly wobbly as to what is 'right' and 'correct'. Are we all becoming confused by 'alternative facts'? 

Does any photographer care that a photographer enhances (changes) the sky or cloudscape with polarising filters, grad filters and colour grading, or long exposure? So why the controversy of sky replacement? Because it's not real? Is long exposure blurred clouds natural? What IS real? I mean, if you are photographing reality... well, good luck. Nothing digitally recorded is philosophically real lanyway, if you want to go down another particularly endless rabbit hole....

I remember about twelve years ago I change the sky on one of my images going into a landscape competion at my local camera club - I won the competition but I remember feeling so guilty and even ashamed - I can remember the print having pride and place and all members looking in admiration - I was trying to get though the crowd so I could take it down I felt I had cheated - I have never changed a sky since and I never will.

Perhaps the guilt you feel is due to omission. There is nothing wrong in presenting a landscape expression, meaning all creative techniques have been employed to creat an image that reflects your emotional intent on the viewer. What we call a creative edit - to make it plain (to those that care) it is not a representational image of a landscpe. Why we should need this distinction is up for endless debate of course. The guilt you feel is not about creating a 'false' image, but more about decieving those that think the image is 'real'. Is that their problem, or yours? 

Daniel Springgay Peter Davidson Great discussion, I love this.

Danny's contest experience strikes a chord. My local camera club has a annual contest. Unfortunately, they are mired in thinking all photography has to be photojournalistic. No sky replacement, composities etc. at all. They begrudgingly allow it only if you submit your image to a Creative Edit category.  All other categories do not allow it. Photojournalism is great but why can't we accept photography as art and apply the rules (or the no rules) of art to photography.

At times people complain that the general population doesn't see photography as art.  I think photographers are our own worst enemy in doing this. If we don't see it as art, why should we expect others to?

I am willing to admit it is art, but as a minimal common courtesy just mention in the photo description that you changed the sky or inserted a human silouette;

I don't want this to be enforced as  a rule by the administrators, but just a freely assumed gesture of goodwill.

I don't feel I'm a snob, and I am not convinced I am always right.

Daniel, very interesting senario - and yes also thought provoking. That said, Photography is subjective and most of us do post processing of our photos, sometimes its photographers imagination to imagine a sunset and edit the photo change the sky and make it appealing - if that is wrong - I am guilty, I have done it.  BUT, what about when we do portraits, we also do retouch the skin, change lighting, effects because those tools are available to everyone and the portrait does look amazing - now is that also wrong? Doing post processing is not wrong, it is making a great photo excellent or outstanding - correct?

I like this debate - please continue - if you follow technology as I do, please be aware what AI (Artificial Intelligence) is able to do to photography.

I know I only mentioned a replacemant skys - But lets face it - Won't stop there will it - We have members on this site today adding mood in bucket fulls with added fog and coloured mist - And as Sunil Kulkarni said AI is coming to a web site near you. What will happen to landscapes then with no rules - Add a big red sun and reflection - What castle would you like on the horizon you have a choice of 150 - I can just see the menu.... If This is the future - This is not Photography - Don't sigh me up...

I think that, in part because of social media, we have become our worst enemy. With the quest for “likes” and recognitions, I am really concern that over the next few years, the photographic medium will degrade to the point of no value. What use to take considerable skills to master can now be handle by a computer algorithm producing a wow photo in a blink of an eye (and uploaded on Instagram) for all your “friends” to enjoy.  Landscape and portrait will likely be the first victim of this trend.  The problem is that over time the images will end up looking all the same… I can see in the future “oh another big mountain with a stream photo” comment. It unfortunately makes the effort of waking up at 2 AM and hike 10’s of kilometers up a mountain side in the dark to be there at the crack of dawn pretty futile if a future tourist go up in the gondola, snap a shot in the middle of the afternoon on an Iphone 20 and Apple fixes it for him/her. (not that I do that sort of things, but I have great appreciation for photographers that do!). The saving grace may be the skills needed in the proper composition. I hope that software won’t be there till I get too old to handle a camera.

Daniel,

Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.  It's an old issue that goes way back to the film days - 'straight' photography vs manipulation and montage.  Who can say where one starts and the other stops?   Personally I still believe  'anything goes in the name of Art'.  We can't hold back technology with rules.  Maybe websites can reject photos made with AI, but artists will continue to use every tool in the toolbox.   

I share Pierre's concern that photography may 'degade to the point of no value'.   That process may have already begun - in part because of the technology that makes it so easy to produce images, and because there are so many more people clicking photos.  Example:  'Bee on a Flower'.  Not long ago, if you got a shot that wasn't too badly blurred you'd be proud of it.  You'd get the 'Wow!' reaction from viewers.  It took skill, patience, technique, and quite a bit of luck.    Now, if you Google 'Photo - bee - on - flower', there are 51 million samples.  By the time you read this there may be 52 million.  I'm sure some are wonderful images,  but the sheer volume creates a feeling of 'well, that's nice - but so what?'  The 'seen it a thousand times before' feeling is there every day.   

That's my 2¢ worth. 

. . . . Steven

Steven T CREW 

Daniel,

 

Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.  It's an old issue that goes way back to the film days - 'straight' photography vs manipulation and montage.  Who can say where one starts and the other stops?   Personally I still believe  'anything goes in the name of Art'.  We can't hold back technology with rules.  Maybe websites can reject photos made with AI, but artists will continue to use every tool in the toolbox.   

 

I share Pierre's concern that photography may 'degade to the point of no value'.   That process may have already begun - in part because of the technology that makes it so easy to produce images, and because there are so many more people clicking photos.  Example:  'Bee on a Flower'.  Not long ago, if you got a shot that wasn't too badly blurred you'd be proud of it.  You'd get the 'Wow!' reaction from viewers.  It took skill, patience, techique, and quite a bit of luck.    Now, if you Google 'Photo - bee - on - flower', there are 51 million samples.  By the time you read this there may be 52 million.  I'm sure some are wonderful images,  but the sheer volume creates a feeling of 'well, that's nice - but so what?'  The 'seen it a thousand times before' feeling is there every day.   

 

That's my 2¢ worth. 

 

. . . . Steven

 

 

Steven, I gree with you - and this is why I feel - sites like 1X are important - to keep publishing the best content. I am currently testing a AI based site where one can create a complete photo without actually having a photo!!! can you believe this? All you need is to understand the algorithm and write a small script of what you are looking for and in few seconds to a minute in comes a fantastic photo - which you can then customize it. This kind of stuff will make cameras obsolete - That said - imagine Apple's recent announcement of iPhone Pro Max 14 - most analysts missed and didn't give attention to this fact that this iPhone - comes up with a camera with 3 lenses and 45 MP capability. I have tested the iPhone Pro 13 with Lightroom Camera app - it produces stunning images which are comparable to any mirrorless camera - and one dosen't need to carry heavy camera and big heavy lenses. So, bottom line - cameras are going to be in for surprise as iPhone like mobile handhelds are going to be disruptive for them unless they quickly adopt and change - whether they like it or not.

Sunil, 

That's very interesting.  If you make a photo with the AI based site, maybe you could post it here - or in Critique - so we can take a look.  I would love to know more about this technology. 

Regarding cameras getting smaller, lighter, and better . . . . that's been happening all along.  Many years ago to make a photograph you needed a view camera, heavy glass plates, and a darkroom tent because the negatives had to be processed immediately.  Film changed all that, but the cameras were still bulky and awkward.  Kodak's 'You press the button, and we do the rest' cameras were revolutionary in 1888.  Oscar Barnack made a camera that would take 35mm movie film, and the Leica was born.   Films and lenses improved.  Colour pictures were possible.  Next came motor drives, auto-exposure and auto-focus.  The first digital camera was invented in 1975.  The first phone to have a camera - 1999. 

Eventually we'll probably all have chips implanted in our brains and will be able to record and images simply by blinking -  one blink capture, two to transmit to the internet.  But to make good pictures that people will appreciate you'll still have to know where to stand and when to click.   

. . . . Steven

Fortunately, the world of photography is not limited to 1x.com. And in the real world, people do care and the rules are quite simple.

Study this example: https://petapixel.com/2018/04/27/winning-wildlife-photo-disqualified-because-anteater-was-stuffed/

Fortunately, the world of photography is not limited to 1x.com. And in the real world, people do care and the rules are quite simple.

Study this example: https://petapixel.com/2018/04/27/winning-wildlife-photo-disqualified-because-anteater-was-stuffed/

Fortunately, the world of photography is not limited to 1x.com. And in the real world, people do care and the rules are quite simple.

Study this example: https://petapixel.com/2018/04/27/winning-wildlife-photo-disqualified-because-anteater-was-stuffed/

If any sort of manipulation (digital or otherwise) is being presented as the real thing - yes, it is cheating.

There are categories for digital artwork and manipulations in many contests.

I believe that in absence of Photoshop, 99% of published and awarded dear friends here would simply disappear. As they and their work will undoubtedly disappear in history anyway.

I think that is a great analogy and I get it. I acknowledge that Photography is not Fishing unless the world "fishing" is in the sense of "fishing for a compliment". In our photo club people don't seem to care about the "image" as much as the changes that can be imposed on the image to compare with some "ideal" based on "rules" or what we have seen on 1x or to the latest post processing software videos. The choice of image is stereotyped and repetative, Sunrise, Sunset, Birds, Flowers. It seems that on this space there are mostly very elegantly done photos by master photographers. And many seem very heavily edited in some way or another with things like new skies or much color or Photoshop enhancements of some kind. None of this would dissuade me of their artistic merit and enhancing the "image" is fair game to me. But is aritistic merit what we are actually seeking or is it photographic and post processing virtuosity? Which begs the question that I keep asking myself. Is photograpy (well, as a hobby) just for the feel-good or is there artistic merit that the non-photographer world might appreciate and how would we know?

Whenever I read or hear this question, I send people over to PetaPixel and their excellent article on Ansel Adam's iconic image, Moonrise - Hernandez, New Mexico.

https://petapixel.com/2018/11/07/the-story-behind-ansel-adams-iconic-moonrise-hernandez/

To me the most interesting part of that article is the straight-out-of-camera contact print (identified as an early print, but I have seen the same image with the sheet film rebate (edge markings)).  It is shown beside a later print and it shows how much the image evolved over the years.  Has Adam's cheated?  It is 100% his own work.

Interesting, Manfred, thanks for sharing. 

Actually it's about fine art photography, and the principle did not change. What we capture is the base material, and what we later see is our vision of the scene. If you know your tools well, and these very obviously changed a lot over time, you know what you need to capture and already have the vision what it will look like later on when you press thetrigger. I believe that counts for every experienced photographer here. Even SOOC documentary shots can make use of the limited dynamic range of a camera sensor, and results will have contrasts never to be seen in real life. Is that cheating, too, not sticking to "reality"? :-)

Great article Manfred, Thanks for sharing!

Very interesting discussion here! Indeed, if we talk about art, you are free to use the tools to get what you want to express. I don't think that we should be afraid for a decay of photography: in the early years, painting was the way to show reality, but later on, artists searched for other realities to express, so expressionism, impressionism and modernism came along. i think in photography we will have same movements: artificial reality, superealism, new pictoralism, impressionism ... don't worry 😊 try anything and make some beautiful artpieces

I love this discussion. Thank youDaniel Springgay !!!

I personally prefer not to add that sky, or that moon, or that other element.... not in photography. 

There should be another art, with another name to distinguish it from our artistic ability to capture the best we can in camera what tickles us. Minimum processing... 

yet, the other art is also beautiful, the creation of something that was not there, but could have been. Another art. Another name. Another group or site to express oneself 

There is a category at 1x.com called "Creative Edit".  The title tells everyone that the maker has been quite liberal with what the camera has captured and has created an image that they only saw in their imagination.

In my experience, it takes someone with a great deal of creativity, talent and experience to create a strong image Creative Edit image.   There is no "cheating" in that genre unless the poster was not the creator....  ;)

Manfred Mueller The category" Creative Edit "  don't work most of the time - many photographers hide the fact that some of this work has been done and post in the other normal categories - It works for the very obvious " Creative Edits "  but not of many others like landscapes - Cut and Paste Building - Architecture and the like...

Agreed - some people don't understand the genre at all and what some of us consider a normal post-processing / retouching is a Creative Edit to them.

The important word here is "Creative" and in my view creativity needs to be strongly demonstrated in the image for it to fall into that genre.  I have seen some stunning work here at 1x.com.  I don't do a lot of this type of work, but have worked on it from time to time.  I consider this one of  my stronger efforts.

Agreeing as 2.