What the “editing is cheating” crowd DON’T understand 

Spot on.

Exactly, photo manipulation is as old as photography itself.

Ansel Adams and alike photographers were not cheating, I too in the early 80 started with film and darkroom. nothing wrong with a bit enhancing if you understand the concept of light and how to do it so as not to make it ridiculous.

@@ronniea.4830 We used to stylize portraits using 4x5 Kodalith duplicating film - Dodging and burning and all kinds of things to fix issues or introduce stylizations. It's art. Artists use whatever tools they need to achieve their vision. Simple :)

There's actual footage of him talking about post processing and how cumbersome it is for him; then he actually sort of predicted postprocessing automation and how wonderfull it would be.

Thanks Peter. means a lot.

Exactly... and nothing is wrong with Digital Art, but Don't try to Pass if Off as a "Photograph". Call it what it is. "Digital Art".

It becomes "Digital Art" once the Photograph is Altered in any way... You can Scan a Picasso, change Colors, move things around, is it still a Picasso? Digital Art is a Fun Hobby... but it is NOT "Photography", so don't try to tell someone you are a "Great Photographer", when all you are is a Graphic Artist.

Wrong... If what you are saying is True, we would all be looking at the same type of images they took in the 1860's. Wide open lenses no aperture, and of course nobody can capture an entire 360 degree image that is worth looking at without Stitched images, or 9 cameras mounted to a roof of a car the way Disney did it... What you are saying is Total BS. Cameras and Lenses have Not Evolved to allow people to Fake Photos Better... it evolved to Capture Photographs in Better Quality. Art and Photography are Two Different Things... It is why up to about 15 years ago, No Gallery of "Art" would allow "Photography" included in that "Art" Gallery. Photography can be considered an "Art Form" in some instances, but with today's Image Manipulation Software, and Millions of people using it... There is Less and Less of Anything, that could be called a "Photograph" or even "Photographic Art"... You have to decide for yourself if you want to be a "Photographer" or if you want or be a "Digital Artist"... Nothing Wrong being Either, but call a Spade a Spade. .

​@@cruzinthru8285 Before I waste my time responding - was your post really intended as a reply to my post?

@@AmorLucisPhotography - Part of it was directed at you and your claim that Every Choice we make is Editing... Yeah Right. You know very well that Nobody is talking about "Photo Composition"... or choosing "Depth of Field"... so Stop Blurrrring the Facts. Fact is that more than 90% of Digital Photographers Fake their So Called "Photos" into something that would be Unreal in Nature... and then try to convince other people that they are a Great Photographer, when at best they are a Mildly Skilled "Graphic Artist.... THAT is what this Video is about, and THAT is what I am speaking to.

​@@cruzinthru8285 I'm not sure why you capitalize so many words - is it to indicate a strident tone? Anyway, since you do seem to be addressing me in some fashion I guess I'll respond... 1. Your claim that no art gallery accepted photography until 15 years ago is not remotely true. To take just one example, the Museum of Modern Art began collecting photography in the 1930s and created a department for photographic art in the 1940s. 2. Notwithstanding point (1), you seem to believe what is found in art galleries is indicative of what is or isn’t art (else why mention it?). By that very criterion, and your admission that photography is found in art galleries, photography is (or at least can be) art. 3. You claim that if what I said were true (not sure what specifically you had in mind as you don't specify) then we would all be looking at the same type of images they took in the 1860s. There is nothing in what I said that has that implication and I’m bemused why you might think that there is. 4. Similarly, I never said anything about fake photos or lens development, nor does anything I’ve said imply anything about such things, so any views you might have about that have no clear relevance to my comments. 5. Editing is the process of adding, subtracting, or otherwise changing content. The raw (unedited) content is the light array available to the camera in the scene. Choices of shutter speed, aperture, iso, composition, etc., add, subtract, or otherwise change the content (information) available in the scene to be recorded in the image - it’s therefore a form of editing. You say that “no one” is talking about such things. Well, I’m someone. I’m talking about such things. So someone is talking about such things. And I’m talking about such things for a very good reason - because it is a form of editing. You’d be right if your point was that it is an aspect of editing that people often do not consider under that term. What it is not is post-processing, which is probably what most people have in mind when they think of editing and is the central focus of the video. My point is precisely that editing in photography extends prior to post-processing and is engaged in by every photographer every time they press the shutter, thereby supporting the view defended in the video that editing, per se, is not “cheating” - it is, I argue, an ineliminable aspect of taking a photograph. None of this precludes the fact that some people “cheat”, but it is not the editing as such that is the source of such problem - it is the deception that is generated. 6. You don't elucidate what you mean by “fake”, how you distinguish “photos” from other media, nor how you wish to distinguish “graphic artist” from “photographer”, so I don't know what to say about your views because it is not particularly clear what they are. For myself, my point is this: no photograph is an unedited representation of a scene. There is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between “fake” and “authentic” (pick your preferred terms), but it cannot be drawn along the lines of “edited” vs “non-edited” because all photographs are the result of editing. 7. At the risk of giving you more to think about than you probably bargained for, you refer to what is “unreal in nature” as though what is "real" is somehow unproblematic or obvious. Speaking in a professional capacity I would venture to suggest that you likely have a naïve picture of what is “real” in nature. Everything you perceive is a synthesis of the world and your mind. Are colours real? Every colour you or anyone sees is simply the response of a brain to a frequency of electromagnetic radiation that is not itself coloured in any way. Is a black and white photograph “real” when (almost) no one perceives the world in that way? What about long-exposure photography - is the silky smooth water “real” or "fake"? What about reflections removed by a CPL filter - does that reveal what is “really” there or hide what is “really” there? Every photograph is an interpretation of reality just as every perception is an interpretation of reality.

@@AmorLucisPhotography - Wow Martin... Amazing you had enough space for your Inane Comment... Did you take your Schizoid Meds today? You knows you have to take them Every Day for them to work. :>)

Much appreciated! Thanks

Thanks so much!

Thank you kindly

wow. thanks.

Yes... RAW Files were Invented so that Anyone can "Look like a Photographer", therefore there is Nothing Special about ANY Manipulated Image. The Entire Photographic Industry Revolves Around the Ability for Common People with No Schooling or Experience to make "Professional looking Images". If you Remove the Ability for Everyone and his Aunt Judy, to be able to "Manipulate" those Images, they would sell less than 10% of the Gear they sell today. What you ARE Finding to be True, is that even with Millions of people now "thinking" they are a "Photographer" it is putting Camera makers out of Business. Photographers as a whole are Paid 20% of what they used to make... No matter if it is a Wedding, (which has always been Entry Level Photography) or if it is Product Shots for Advertising. Because it didn't take long for Corporations and Business Owners to discover that some office staffer, could do the job with their Cell Phone, and Photoshop. So what has all of your "Fun Hobby" done to the Industry as a Whole? One end of the Industry has Prospered making and Selling Gear and Software made for Clueless People to enjoy their Hobby, while the Other End of the Photography Industry almost does not exist. Specialized People with a Skill and Actual Artistic Talent that Few People Possessed, are Not Needed, when Anyone can make "Digital Art" in their Home. ...and I do mean ANYONE. Craig Pifer Photography should actually make a Video about Kids under the age of 10 and the "Amazing Photos" they take. Nobody will do that... because then it Literally Shows how ALL of what You Call "Photography", has become Child's Play. .

Thanks Andy. really appreciate it

DUH... If you are Planning to Print your "Manipulated Digital Art", it is Converted to a JPG because you can't send RAW Files to a Printer. Sad for you that 28 years with Photoshop and can still only use it to Remove Distracting Elements... That should tell you something about your Own Artistic Level, or lack of Creativity. "Nobody wants to see a completely unedited image" ... Maybe not YOUR Unedited Images... but it is ALL that I want to see. Because Only Unedited Images show your Skill as an Actual Photographer, and not a "Graphic Artist". Since Anyone can do Anything to an Image in Software... there is Nothing that makes it "Special". Obviously it is All "Child's Play" so Why Bother?

Thanks. glad you enjoyed it.

Very much appreciate this feedback. thanks

Shoulda mentioned, I'm not into swapping skies or placing things in the scene. I just stick to color and contrast, and local adjustments.

@@my.penny.wagers - Good for you... it is the way it all should be. Realize that it isn't "Art" unless it "Evokes Emotion"... A Blank piece of Paper could for some evoke the emotion of Excitement for the Possibility of what could appear on that paper, but as it is Blank... it hasn't happened yet. We are all being Bombarded with over a Million New Uploads of "Manipulated Images" each day to out Social Media and Image Websites. Very Few, evoke any emotion at all... aside from Boredom, as they are All some form of Manipulation. Anyone can do it so Why Bother. If Everyone could do Amazing "Magic Tricks, and Astounding Feats of Illusion... would you pay to see a Magic Show or Illusionist? If everyone can do it, David Copperfield would not be a Millionaire today. Which is the Point I am trying to make here... Nothing is Special, if Everyone can do it... Somehow people don't get that. I guess it just Showcases another problem that all Societies everywhere has always had... Most People are Stupid. It is a Fact that You can not deny... A Small percentage any population have more than an "Average" IQ ... Much more have less than Average. Today all I am seeing is a Bunch of "Average" or even less than average IQ people thinking they are some "Photographic Wizard", because they watch these Videos, do the same thing the guy on the Video does and end up with the Same Results... Wow... Amazing! ... lol I am very happy that so many people are Enjoying themselves with their little Hobby... but there are Millions who are also into "Making Quilts", and they do it the Old Fashioned Way, because Nobody is Impressed with a Store Bought Quilt from China. :>)

Ai is just anothet tool. Much like CGI in film production. It can be used well or terribly, it can be used for goof or ill. I took a trip to Ireland and was on a bus trip. Wanted to get a picture of St. Mary's cathedral and had some jackass step in front of me to take his picture. Because we were on a time limit and bus tour he not only ruined my shot but he wasted my time so I don't give a second thought to using generative fill to remove something undesirable. I just took a shot of the moon. I had a 18-300mm. Given the characteristics of the lens and where I was shooting I couldn't reliably get something in the foreground and keep the moon at a size that was usable. So yes I did use some AI to generate a tree line. Otherwise it would have just been a moon on a black background which isnt terribly interesting. When photography first came around people said it wasn't art. Then it began to gain acceptance as art. A person makes a lot of choices in how they compose and take the image. Marcel Duchamp advocated for the idea to be more important than the technical process. Today photography is widely accepted as art and hasnt replaced more traditional methods like painting or drawing. AI is a new medium and is itself being asked the same kinds of questions that photography was asked. A person still has to create the prompt for example. In photoshop the user for example still has to make a decision where to use it, how to prompt it. Ai makes it easier than ever to remove unwanted elements with generative content aware fill. There is the legal sticking point that while firefly is in beta it isn't for commercial use. Still I view Ai as just another tool much like photoshop itself. Sure its great if you can get it right in camera but thats not always going to be a reality giventa variety of situations. I can take photos that maybe dont quite work by themselves but still find use for them to make something. At the end of the day its up to the individual.

That’s true. A trick used by all the worst (real)estate agents.

Those people get found out by real Astro photographers though who always know how the Milky Way should look t a particular time, place, direction etc. still it probably deceives most people.

Next two videos are outdoors. I’ve done a few outings but have had some failed shoots. confidence and skill has been low.

if you could take a good photo you would not need to edit you have not taken a photo you have a computer image

i don’t think long exposure is distorting reality. It’s capturing reality in a way humans can’t perceive it.

good point. It ugly when people shoot down the thing they are incapable of achieving themselves.

I bet some people thought it did back then.