Lightroom + Presets = Cheating?

Hi guys,

Ive been a P&S clicker for yrs & thoroughly enjoy taking pics & editing them on photoshop. We recently got a D90 & yes I discovered Lightroom, the tweaks & tons of presets out there.

Though u can make a decent pic look gr8, somewhere it feels like cheating. Agree or disagree? There are times u can make a bad pic look gr8 too, but then deep inside u know it aint the truth!

I may not get much sleep tonight knowing alot of my images have been altered.

Do you feel that you cheated because you stitched you sparrow shot?
Shame on you.

haha no. If i wanted to cheat on tht, i would have stitched them together much neater, adjusted the grills so that the viewer would think its 6 sparrows. More importantly, I wouldnt clearly mention the same in my post then!

I am talking about a sincere question asking how much reliance on lightroom is ok. If u can give a straight answer I would be happy with tht. I dont want u expensive blabbers sir. Just ur 2 cents (cliched dpreview term) would do!

Want to see that.

But, no, to answer your other question, nothing about PP is for me 'cheating', i am by profession and hobby an 'electronic artist'. What is 'cheating' about PP?
--
David~
WSSA Member #90



. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!

Hi Supr x, agreed. But there is this continual debate I & my wife have where I support photoshop & she tries to drill it into my head tht the fun is in getting better at clicking better pics.

Becomes a really tough choice at times when I touch up a decent pic to look gr8 & she tells me - we have a SLR now - whts the pt if u spend so much time on PP instead of learnin & clickin em better.

geniusoid said:

Hi Supr x, agreed. But there is this continual debate I & my wife have where I support photoshop & she tries to drill it into my head tht the fun is in getting better at clicking better pics.

Becomes a really tough choice at times when I touch up a decent pic to look gr8 & she tells me - we have a SLR now - whts the pt if u spend so much time on PP instead of learnin & clickin em better.

Click to expand...

Why are they separate or exclusive? I use the shooting and the developing(which is what PP is) as equal wonderful parts of the whole of my photographic fun . . . i certainly have as much or more fun developing as i do capturing, but view both parts essential to the whole.

--
David~
WSSA Member #90



. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!

Let her do it her way and you do it yours.
-How long have you been married?
--
David~
WSSA Member #90



. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!

haha yes i agree. i enjoy PP a lot more than mere clicking. Clicking is like creation. PP is like nurturing. We were made mammals, but nurtured to humans (oops i'm getting philosophical)

1.5 yrs, but known each other for enuff yrs to get into knuckle fights in debates

P.S: Below is the sparrow pic tht was being dragged into the conversation earlier.

I've been into photography for years but never got into it seriously until the digital era. When I first discovered the joy (read: hatred) of post processing I considered it cheating too. I felt just a little bit guilty when I made anything that could be considered a fix to an errant shot of mine...why couldn't I get it done in camera?

As my photography expanded I began to read more and more about what 'wet' photographers were capable of in the darkroom. I realized that my professionally done film photography was mediocre due to poor choices of film stock and development process as well as a lack of talent as photographer.

I read about the darkroom processes of the master photographers, we've all heard of the amount of time Ansel Adams would spend to get a print just right. I had a photography instructor describe the litany of chemicals that could be used in the darkroom to achieve the same effects as in photoshop. My stance on post processing slowly changed to one where it was acceptable if it could have been done in a darkroom. Darkroom work in the past was this arcane science that was unattainable to most of us...photoshop and lightroom merely opened it up to the masses.

Now when I look at the overblown HDR effects or other prepackaged over the top presets that are sometimes used I don't say that it's been photoshoped and that it's cheating but rather it's just poorly done. Good post processing shouldn't hit you over the head but if it does it's not cheating, it's just not my style.

What about digital manipulation on a grand scale such as the sparrow pic by the OP? or a flaming eagle? I now think of that as digital art more akin to painting. The lines between photography and other art may be blurred but, to and extent, they always have been. Just as digital post processing has evolved I guess I have too...it's not my favorite thing to do and probably never will be but it serves a purpose.

eddyshoots

geniusoid said:

Hi guys,

Ive been a P&S clicker for yrs & thoroughly enjoy taking pics & editing them on photoshop. We recently got a D90 & yes I discovered Lightroom, the tweaks & tons of presets out there.

Though u can make a decent pic look gr8, somewhere it feels like cheating. Agree or disagree? There are times u can make a bad pic look gr8 too, but then deep inside u know it aint the truth!

Click to expand...

This is a difficult question, but important one for modern photography. How much processing is not enough/too much? Finding that line is a little difficult, but I've finally come to the realization that it's all about the final image, and how close it comes to what you envisioned when you took the shot. In the end, cameras are only a way for people to capture static moments in time. When I click the shutter, I don't feel as though I've locked myself into something...as though the camera creates the be-all-end-all of what an image should be. It's just the first step of the larger process of image capture. My pictures rarely come out of the camera the way I want...close sometimes, but never exactly. Although I do my best to get them as good as possible "on click", it's still only half the process. Don't let that nagging purist inside make you feel as though using the tools available to you is somehow a pollution of the process.

That said, let me take a crack at the Lightroom presets issue. I've always had mixed feelings about these. Sometimes being able to click a button and see a certain rendition of an image is helpful in the creative process. However, I think the danger with these is that we can get used to letting someone else make a decision that is really the photographer's. Again, digital image capture is about recreating what you the photographer saw at that moment, including mood, attitude and the rest (hence b&w, split tone, etc.). I guess I've come to the conclusion that presets are a useful tool at times, but should never be allowed to crowd out the intelligent, thoughtful decisions of the photographer who knows exactly what the image looks like, and where he/she wants it take it. The person who designed the preset didn't know that you had strong backlighting, or an important detail in the "darks" range, etc. If I use presets, I ALWAYS try to find out exactly what it did, and tweak the settings to match what I'm looking for.

That's my $0.02. ;-)

----------------------------------------------
Chad E. Nelson
http://www.chadenelson.net

Greetings Sir PaperPuncher!

Thanks for tht detailed & enlightening response. I agree with you that even I feel many times that a camera falls short of capturing what we can see with our eyes. Maybe its jst some silly emotional thingy we have but yeah....

The thing with presets is so true. Many times I open a pic & just run with the presets. And then end up with wht I liked the best, Out Of What Presets Were There. Maybe if i had 100 presets more, i'd see 100 more options. I guess u are right in stating that we should use them as TOOLS rather than as RULES.

This is how I look at it...

1. I compose the shot in my frame and take it. This first step is extremely important.

2. If I shoot in JPG, I am relying on the group of people who programmed the algorithms in my camera to turn the RAW photograph into the JPG.

3. If I shoot in RAW and then go into PS Elements (or Lightroom if that's your bag), I am taking the "decision-making" out of the hands of those people and putting it into my own.

Because I view it this way, the only thing I ever really feel "guilty" about is cropping when I made a stupid framing decision. At the same time, some of that guilt is assuaged on some photos because my camera's VF doesn't give me 100% coverage.

As far as I have ever been concerned, there are only two things you can do in photography that are "cheating".

1) Representing an image as an unaltered representation of the past when it is not. (This is just lying)

2) Passing off an image as yours that is not. (This is just stealing)

All other techniques are valid tools to reach whatever endpoint matches your vision.

The more tools you know, and the better you are at using them, the closer you will get with more frequency.

I don't see any difference in Lightroom presets and in-camera presets (Picture Controls), both manipulate the image after the the shutter actuation. It is utterly impossible to take a digital photo that has not been manipulated (interpreted and edited). The raw data from the sensor isn't an image it only the counts from the millions of very small light counters that make up the sensor. Either the camera has to interpret and generate an image in the form of a jpeg image, or an application on your computer has to interpret the data and generate an image; if the application is designed to be part of the computer's operating system than it is called a CODEC. Nikon produces a CODEC but it is generally behind the curve and doesn't work very well on the current version of Windows; it currently doesn't work on 64-bit operating systems.

“Though u can make a decent pic look gr8, somewhere it feels like cheating.” I have never understood this viewpoint., People used to take a roll of film and turn that film in at the local drugstore or supermarket, or maybe at a kiosk sitting in the middle of a parking lot, for processing. That dropped off roll of film was developed in a photo lab and someone at the lab looked at your images and made adjustments (edits). It wasn't all that many years ago that automated machines were developed that evaluated the image and automatically applied needed corrections (edits), and the one-hour photo shops sprang up.

Along came digital photography and people wanted to be able to “develop” their own pictures at home on their computers. Now we can do what labs used to do for us, and save a lot of time and money in the bargain. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say my Social Security check wouldn't cover the cost of film and processing if I had to revert back from digital photography. Besides I get to see the results PDQ, frequently soon enough that I can reshoot if I don't like what I'm seeing.

Ansel Adams, considered one of the greatest photographers of all time, would spend days fine tuning a photo in the darkroom before he felt it was ready to be shown. Many of the techniques that we use to day in programs like NX2 and Photoshop were perfected in the darkrooms of photographers like Ansel Adams. A famous quote of his is this one, “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” UnSharp Mask was a technique used in the darkroom to make shots look sharper by sandwiching an "unsharp" negative between two relatively sharp negatives; it is a lot easier in Photoshop. I also like this one by Ansel, “You don't take a photograph, you make it.” He spent one entire summer in the darkroom preparing a few photos for a gallery showing scheduled for the fall.

It is virtually impossible to take a non-post processed picture using a digital camera, the sensor doesn’t capture an image, it counts photons and a program has to interpret the count from each of the pixels and produce an image. Your camera has a computer and a program that generates a jpeg image and that program makes some edits as it generates that image. Nikon, Adobe, Phase One, Microsoft, Apple, etc all interpret the same data (that is what is in a NEF file – not an image) and every other application produces a slightly different image from the data. The great thing about PP is that you the photographer can make the image look the way you want it, rather than the way some engineer in Japan who has no idea of the subject may be, and frankly couldn't care less, thinks it should look. Your camera makes the same edits for virtually every photo you take (depending on the Picture Control and presets), it isn't even as sophisticated as the one-hour photo machines. Over time you will come to realize, that every photo needs your TLC to look its best, and you no longer have a lab-tech watching your back..

I don’t think of PP’ing as fixing a bad photograph, I don’t waste my time on bad photographs, but rather of enhancing good photographs. There will never be a photograph that comes directly out of your camera that can’t be made better with some Post Processing. Most of our cameras are limited to exposure changes of 1/3rd of a stop while most PP programs allow changes of 1/100th; the shutter speed and aperture are seldom what would truly be called the optimum exposure setting. Then there is the AA filter that sits on top of the sensor, it helps with moiré, but it softens the image noticeably; many, if not most, serious photographers correct for this loss of IQ in PP.

Sorry about the length, this is one of my pet peeves and this response seems to get longer every time someone bring up the subject of PP'ing be cheating, or photography at its purist. If the last 100+ years represents the purist form of photography, than image manipulation was involved in each and every picture developed from film.
--

While amateurs change the camera’s settings; many Pro’s prefer to change the light.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

I remember when the classroom pictures came out in elementary school our teachers always quoted the same old bromede: "The camera never lies".

BS.

The camera ALWAYS lies, starting with presenting a 3D image on a 2D plane (unless you're into holography).

How many of you spent hours in the darkroom for just one or two decent photograph enlargements in B&W (darkroom color processing in the 70's was way beyond my patience).

I think the photograph begins with the shutter actuation: without PP, the image is (generally) at best a well composed snapshot.

It might be nice enough to show the relatives, but it certainly isn't the best you can produce!

I hope Lightroom adds Dodge and Burn capability soon!

My first non-film camera was a Canon Powershot S2 P&S. Every image had to be sharpened in PP: otherwise, they were barely good enough for 4"X6" prints.

Real cheating is eating a banana split!

Dodging and Burning was a technique used to increase or decrease exposure on specific areas of the image when creating a print from a negative. Dodging decreases the exposure making the areas where it is applied lighter, while Burning made the areas darker. In Lightroom you can select the Adjustment brush and Exposure as the adjustment to be affected, and change the exposure to make it lighter or darker. Selecting the Auto Mask can be a huge help in isolating the area that the adjustment is to be applied.

I love cheating, especially when it comes to banana splits, unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to find a place that serves a true authentic banana split.
--

While amateurs change the camera’s settings; many Pro’s prefer to change the light.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

There's no such thing as cheating in photography. Use any and all tools to produce the best looking picture possible.

Well, let me turn this around and ask it this way:

• Do you consider the work of Ansel Adams or any of the other photographic "titans" to be diminished by the fact that very nearly all of their work was extensively post-processed?

You have to remember what we call "post processing" today is just our equivalent of the wet darkroom. The major differences are that today's techniques:

1. Smell better.
2. Make some things easier and quicker.
3. Are much more forgiving of mistakes.

I do agree with you wife though, that "getting it right" in the camera is important. The reality is that PP is NOT magic, you may be able to make a good picture great, or a great picture out of this world, but rarely can you make a bad picture good. This is the same limitation as existed in the wet darkroom; you need something good to start with, if you don't have that, you're fighting an up-hill battle just to get back to "good".

The simple fact of the matter is that good photographers should be making good exposures, but should already have in mind how they're going to PP the image. It's not like the two events are completely decoupled. What you do in the camera is going to dictate what you can later on the computer, so why shouldn't you keep PP processing in mind when you're making decisions at the time of capture?

Unfortunately, digital PP makes it easier for people be dishonest (gluing a picture of Elvis in a big foot costume into the background of that picture of you and the wife out at some national park.) To my mind, that's really a different ball of wax: adding something is never good unless you disclose it as "collage", removing dust bunnies or that stray but annoying stalk of grass are OK, but removing a whole tree would be bad.

Techniques that composite multiple exposures (like HDR and/or focus stacking) also don't really bother me as they're usually very obvious. When they're not obvious (meaning, when they're actually well done) they become good examples of how our art is adapting to technology and coming that much closer to replicating what the human eye can view.

So, what's the "truth"? (Interpret "saw" as you will.)

• What you saw?
• What your camera saw?
• What the guy standing six feet to your right, but looking at the same scene, saw?

My answer is all of them. It's up to you as the photographer to decide which one you're going represent in your work.

Post processing inst' a "good thing" or a "bad thing", it's just a "thing", or more specifically a tool. Figure out how that tool fits into your own work and then take advantage of it. Better photographers than you or I have been doing so for as long as there has been such a thing a photography.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/florida_dan/

If you get the result you were looking for, why does it matter how you got there??

The powerful tools available after the fact are there to extend your creative vision...it's a shame people see that as "cheating"

Was Ansel Adams "cheating" when he used the Zone System??

--
http://www.carlmphotography.com
http://www.runwayweekly.com

'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'