Good topic. Personally, I strive for minimal edits to what I saw but consider cropping perfectly acceptable. I see too many bird photos that are overly manipulated to achieve images presented as “fine art”. Plus, my wife immediately lets me know if something looks phoney!
@ Does the bane Magnolia stem from the Magnilia garden and swamp area on the Ashley? That is my absolute favorite place for bird photography. The triangular shaped pond near the rice dikes is incredible!
@@gscottfuller No, it's just felt like a good name for the area. I've never been to the location you mentioned and since I've only been in SC for 10 months I'm always on the lookout for new locations. I will have to visit the area you mentioned.
There are so many ways to "cheat" with photography, however when you use that word, it makes it sound like you're doing something wrong. A photograph, no matter how good, will never be reality and will never truly represent what we see when we are there. Just using differing shutter speeds changes the scene - do we use a long shutter speed to blur the motion or super fast to freeze it? Only the photographer can say what is right for the image they are making. Fun topic.
Well said and some great insight. I do believe editing is half of the creative process and that's why I have no issues with color correction, sky replacements, etc. I do think AI needs to be left out, but other than that the photo is the artistic vision of the photographer and there's nothing wrong with it. In my experience, many of the people complaining the loudest about photo editing suck at it, so they, of course, don't like it. Art is expression and we shouldn't shame someone because they choose to edit their photos differently than we do. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@@magnoliaphotographysc well, I think I suck at editing, sometimes, but I'm not complaining about it. That does make me think about the "natural light" photographers shooting portraits; they're "natural light" because they don't know how to use flash.
@@craigpiferphotography Back when I photographed weddings, I wrote many blogs about the "natural light" photographer because they didn't understand how to use flash. Very true. Natural light is great when the conditions are right, but if you don't know how to use flash, you're screwed when the conditions call for it.
What is reality anyway? Is it just what your eyes can see? Your eyes can see a very limited amount of the full spectrum. Is infrared photography cheating or is it presenting an other facet of reality? What about black and white photography? It’s not reality! What about colorblind people? The reality for them is very different… What about astrophotography with very long exposure to see objects in the deep sky ? Your eyes are not able to see it but these celestial objects are there! What about macro? Your eyes cannot see these details … And what about white balance? The real colours under underneath an incandescent light, a neon light or a tungsten light are all different but your brain adjusts what you see and everything appears ok but it’s not real… the scenes under those lights are green or yellow in reality. Nobody says anything when someone uses white balance. Furthermore, your eyes are seeing a lot more of dynamic range that your camera cannot capture. So your camera is NOT capturing reality anyway. I think it’s ok to edit the scene to make it look like you’re BRAIN saw it. And if you go beyond that, it’s ok too, but just inform your audience, especially if there’s AI involved.
My personal limit for changing a photograph - and it's not "cheating" but retouch to reach a pleasant result - would be to add something to the image that I didn't photograph. Removing an ice cream add in front of an old castle is perfectly ok with me. Such a respectful photograph of mine was refuted by a potential customer due to my tampering with "authenticity". Ridiculous! The same goes for minor distracting details, I remove them when "minor" means: irrelevant for the expression of the photo. I would not replace a sky - or use generative A. I use AI for noise reduction because it makes the product pleasant to look at without changing the content. I agree AI-"photos" are not photography. It's a kind of graphic art, at least in the more successful cases. Claming an AI generated image to be your own photo is cheating - like in fraud. I don't agree with Chelsea that lighting up a window is ok if the image is used commercially and claimed to be authentical.
I'm not sure what you mean by using my photographs as I do use them. I am working on a new set up in my studio. Not sure if you have ever tried having a TH-cam channel, but it takes a little time to bring it all together. Sorry you think it's boring too, but the good news is there are lots of options out there. Best of luck.
@@magnoliaphotographysc Yes, I watch a lot about photography, and I am willing to point out for beginners what works and what doesn't. So again, replace at least 50 percent of you talking face to face with your audience with examples, just voice over the images, and avoid long explanations where the scene doesn't move. Drop the idiotic 2 secs stock clips. And lastly but not least - try to remove the microphone from your face. These improvements will make your channel more interesting - I promise. And btw you don't need to thank me for my attention. If you sounded like a complete idiot I wouldn't bother.
IMO when the photo is presented as being a true depiction of the scene, but it isn't, you are on a slippery slope. For me it's fine to tweak the brightness/contrast levels a bit so it looks like it did to you at the time and a basic crop for a more pleasing composition is okay. But cloning things in or out is going a bit too far IMO. Being artistic is fine, but you have to acknowledge that on the image.
Let me add that running your video about photography with an image that doesn't change - except for some stock-flashes - is boring, even when the theme is interesting. It would be much more worth my time to watch your content, if you demonstrated what you are talking about using ..... photographs! - and why not your own?
Your microphone is too big! Nothing wrong with cropping. I wish all my shots didn't need to be cropped... Moose sucks! Who cares what he thinks about cropping! AI sucks and will get worse. Tony Northrup and what he thinks is totally irrelevant to me. (Glad he keeps Chelsea in his videos) or he'd be working a real job long ago!! LOL...People use to throw the red flag on calling something "photoshopped" Well AI will make "photoshopped" look harmless! Crop on photographers and be successful!
@@BrianMorrisPhoto I guess it’s good for you there are other channels out there. Share your channel with everyone so they can be better entertained. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
If we are saying cheating is acting dishonestly to gain an advantage, then what qualifies as cheating becomes very clear.
Yes, certainly a bit subjective That is part of the issue with this topic. We need to have a more definitive definition of cheating. Great point!
Great!
Good topic. Personally, I strive for minimal edits to what I saw but consider cropping perfectly acceptable. I see too many bird photos that are overly manipulated to achieve images presented as “fine art”. Plus, my wife immediately lets me know if something looks phoney!
Agreed. The over manipulated photo is a little much for my taste too. Always good to have a wife that gives you a reality check. 🙂
@ Does the bane Magnolia stem from the Magnilia garden and swamp area on the Ashley? That is my absolute favorite place for bird photography. The triangular shaped pond near the rice dikes is incredible!
@@gscottfuller No, it's just felt like a good name for the area. I've never been to the location you mentioned and since I've only been in SC for 10 months I'm always on the lookout for new locations. I will have to visit the area you mentioned.
There are so many ways to "cheat" with photography, however when you use that word, it makes it sound like you're doing something wrong. A photograph, no matter how good, will never be reality and will never truly represent what we see when we are there. Just using differing shutter speeds changes the scene - do we use a long shutter speed to blur the motion or super fast to freeze it? Only the photographer can say what is right for the image they are making.
Fun topic.
Well said and some great insight. I do believe editing is half of the creative process and that's why I have no issues with color correction, sky replacements, etc. I do think AI needs to be left out, but other than that the photo is the artistic vision of the photographer and there's nothing wrong with it. In my experience, many of the people complaining the loudest about photo editing suck at it, so they, of course, don't like it. Art is expression and we shouldn't shame someone because they choose to edit their photos differently than we do. Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@@magnoliaphotographysc well, I think I suck at editing, sometimes, but I'm not complaining about it. That does make me think about the "natural light" photographers shooting portraits; they're "natural light" because they don't know how to use flash.
@@craigpiferphotography Back when I photographed weddings, I wrote many blogs about the "natural light" photographer because they didn't understand how to use flash. Very true. Natural light is great when the conditions are right, but if you don't know how to use flash, you're screwed when the conditions call for it.
What is reality anyway? Is it just what your eyes can see? Your eyes can see a very limited amount of the full spectrum. Is infrared photography cheating or is it presenting an other facet of reality?
What about black and white photography? It’s not reality!
What about colorblind people? The reality for them is very different…
What about astrophotography with very long exposure to see objects in the deep sky ? Your eyes are not able to see it but these celestial objects are there!
What about macro? Your eyes cannot see these details …
And what about white balance? The real colours under underneath an incandescent light, a neon light or a tungsten light are all different but your brain adjusts what you see and everything appears ok but it’s not real… the scenes under those lights are green or yellow in reality. Nobody says anything when someone uses white balance.
Furthermore, your eyes are seeing a lot more of dynamic range that your camera cannot capture. So your camera is NOT capturing reality anyway.
I think it’s ok to edit the scene to make it look like you’re BRAIN saw it. And if you go beyond that, it’s ok too, but just inform your audience, especially if there’s AI involved.
My personal limit for changing a photograph - and it's not "cheating" but retouch to reach a pleasant result - would be to add something to the image that I didn't photograph. Removing an ice cream add in front of an old castle is perfectly ok with me. Such a respectful photograph of mine was refuted by a potential customer due to my tampering with "authenticity". Ridiculous! The same goes for minor distracting details, I remove them when "minor" means: irrelevant for the expression of the photo. I would not replace a sky - or use generative A. I use AI for noise reduction because it makes the product pleasant to look at without changing the content.
I agree AI-"photos" are not photography. It's a kind of graphic art, at least in the more successful cases. Claming an AI generated image to be your own photo is cheating - like in fraud.
I don't agree with Chelsea that lighting up a window is ok if the image is used commercially and claimed to be authentical.
I'm not sure what you mean by using my photographs as I do use them. I am working on a new set up in my studio. Not sure if you have ever tried having a TH-cam channel, but it takes a little time to bring it all together. Sorry you think it's boring too, but the good news is there are lots of options out there. Best of luck.
@@magnoliaphotographysc Yes, I watch a lot about photography, and I am willing to point out for beginners what works and what doesn't. So again, replace at least 50 percent of you talking face to face with your audience with examples, just voice over the images, and avoid long explanations where the scene doesn't move. Drop the idiotic 2 secs stock clips. And lastly but not least - try to remove the microphone from your face. These improvements will make your channel more interesting - I promise.
And btw you don't need to thank me for my attention. If you sounded like a complete idiot I wouldn't bother.
IMO when the photo is presented as being a true depiction of the scene, but it isn't, you are on a slippery slope.
For me it's fine to tweak the brightness/contrast levels a bit so it looks like it did to you at the time and a basic crop for a more pleasing composition is okay. But cloning things in or out is going a bit too far IMO.
Being artistic is fine, but you have to acknowledge that on the image.
Thanks for your thoughts! Always an interesting discussion.
Why are your face partly covered by your mic? I am distracted from not knowing the answer.
The microphone was distracting.
Let me add that running your video about photography with an image that doesn't change - except for some stock-flashes - is boring, even when the theme is interesting. It would be much more worth my time to watch your content, if you demonstrated what you are talking about using ..... photographs! - and why not your own?
Your microphone is too big! Nothing wrong with cropping. I wish all my shots didn't need to be cropped... Moose sucks! Who cares what he thinks about cropping! AI sucks and will get worse. Tony Northrup and what he thinks is totally irrelevant to me. (Glad he keeps Chelsea in his videos) or he'd be working a real job long ago!! LOL...People use to throw the red flag on calling something "photoshopped" Well AI will make "photoshopped" look harmless! Crop on photographers and be successful!
yawn
@@BrianMorrisPhoto I guess it’s good for you there are other channels out there. Share your channel with everyone so they can be better entertained. Thanks for taking the time to comment.