See this poll on: https://poll.fm/9330598/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
There is always the argument it has always been done whether with film use or digital. The difference is everything is so much easier now, things can be changed with the click of a few buttons, changing a film image in the darkroom before the days of scanning took some patience and skill. I cannot take any image at face value anymore whether it be in AP or any other publication. Being a film user and processing in the traditional way it is pointless me entering APOY as I will be on a loser before I even get the film in the camera.
In my opinion Yes it's cheating if you call it a photo, but no it's not cheating if it's an image, then you can do what you like.
I don't have any problem with removing 'unwanted' elements, wires, alarm boxes, people etc. from a picture if it leads to a better result, and if I can get a better shot then the skys no limit
I largely take architectural photography for architects. I photoshop out an object that isn't designed by the architects because they are annoyances. Such things are removing sprinkler heads and exit signs on interiors, distracting cars, people or signs on exteriors, sometimes air conditioner vents and adding content to tv screens.
As AP has shown us, this is routinely done when creating images for advertising and fashion.
This is why nobody should take such images seriously or ever believe they are honest depictions of the subject.
Personally I think it comes down to what the image is and how it will be used. It may be that while taking a landscape photo with a brief moment of perfect light, it meant that there were people in the frame or a vehicle parked in the distance. In this case I think it perfectly acceptable for those to be removed. However, if the same image was to be used in a competition which stated that no manipulation could be used then it would most certainly be cheating to remove them.
Personally, I think that any action 'carried out with dishonest intent' should be deplored (see previous comment).
If the photograph is presented as an exact record of the scene then any manipulation might legitimately be considered cheating - but few photos (journalism apart) are: they are presented as pictures (does anyone complain that a monchrome image is cheating? It's not an exact reproduction of what was in front of the camera).
Incidentally, manipulation of images is not something that started with digital photography (that only made it easier): we were advised back in the 1950's it was a good idea to have a file of nagtives with clouds, to be added to landscapes with empty skies. Oh, and look up Reilander on Wikipedia - he was doing it in the middle of the 19th century with 10x8 glass plates.
Generally speaking any interference with a photograph is a distortion of what was captured at the time it was taken so could be accurately construed as 'cheating'. I might have voted for the option 'Yes – but only in certain situations, such as journalism' but I don't think this is wide ranging enough in what it conveys.
Any manipulation of a photograph carried out with dishonest intent should be deplored. Journalism is only one example of an area in which this might occur. I think there is a vast difference between personal artistic interpretation/expression in photography ( which might necessitate removing an object from a photo etc.) and the deliberate distortion of context and content for what might be generally described as 'political' purposes.