Photoshop ethics

[ryme-intrinseca]

I think few people would disagree when I say that the Photoshopped pictures of the supposed Iranian missle tests, and other 'doctored' images that have appeared in the Press, are morally wrong. I think the majority of people would also agree that, at the other end of the scale, it's perfectly acceptable to use Photoshop to remove dust spots, boost saturation, sharpen images, etc.

However, where should the line be drawn? The reason I ask is that I have an image of two insects that I'm quite proud of. However, it started life as two separate photos, with one insect in each. Obviously this deception isn't important in the grand scheme of things, it's hardly newsworthy. But my conscience pricks a little when I look at the photo, particularly as a very small version of it has been printed in a magazine this week.

As an exercise in using Photoshop layers, it was very useful. It certainly makes an interesting image - but my question is, is it ethically right for me to submit it to competitions (assuming that the rules allow digital manipulation), or is it wrong for me to let others assume that's how the scene was in 'real life'?

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Photoshop ethics

I can vividly recall my father masking off one side of the lens and having me stand on the other side to the mask, then reversing the process, so I ended up shaking hands with myself.

That was 50 years ago. I've put two slides in one mount, printed from two negatives, masked off bits left, right and (never the centre it looks odd )

With the advent of digital we can now do all this and more, but with greater ease and much better results.

My personal line is now clearly drawn at using only images that I have taken and the resultant "Picture" is never intended to deceive. Anything that is a composite is always declared.

Lets face it HDR could hardly exist without multiple "exposures" albeit from individual bracketed shots or developed from RAW files.

For years I would take gloves and plastic bag and clean up the scene of dogends, crisp packets, cans, etc., but now I simply clone them out. OK! it not so good for the environment, but at least I can get them all now rather than watching the one I'd missed appear in the developer

As long as you can look in the mirror (or self portrait) and not feel guilty then go for it and have fun in the process.

[Patrick]

Re: Photoshop ethics

I can vividly recall my father masking off one side of the lens and having me stand on the other side to the mask, then reversing the process, so I ended up shaking hands with myself.

That was 50 years ago. I've put two slides in one mount, printed from two negatives, masked off bits left, right and (never the centre it looks odd )

With the advent of digital we can now do all this and more, but with greater ease and much better results.

My personal line is now clearly drawn at using only images that I have taken and the resultant "Picture" is never intended to deceive. Anything that is a composite is always declared.

Lets face it HDR could hardly exist without multiple "exposures" albeit from individual bracketed shots or developed from RAW files.

For years I would take gloves and plastic bag and clean up the scene of dogends, crisp packets, cans, etc., but now I simply clone them out. OK! it not so good for the environment, but at least I can get them all now rather than watching the one I'd missed appear in the developer

As long as you can look in the mirror (or self portrait) and not feel guilty then go for it and have fun in the process.

I have expressed this view on the forum more than once, if the image is for news consumption then the only manipulation should be that of contrast control, content untouched.
But we crop the scene either in camera by selecting what we photograph or afterwards don't we, this can change the interpretation of what's before the camera.

If its pictorial in my opinion anything goes.

Things get more difficult when it comes to natural history, cloning out a leaf or twig is probably OK but creating a background that fits the authors requirements may be considered cheating and in many competitions it would.
be breaking the rules.
Documentary photography of any kind falls into the news category and should remain relatively untouched with the same guidelines as news.

Patrick

[ryme-intrinseca]

Re: Photoshop ethics

Thanks both! I'm going to post the image that prompted me to ask this question in the 'critique' section.

[Patrick]

Re: Photoshop ethics

Thanks both! I'm going to post the image that prompted me to ask this question in the 'critique' section.

It looks OK to me as it is.

You did a good job its not the least bit obvious its a composite.

Saw your picture in AP a little to small to do it justice.

Well done

Patrick