Question on "ethics"

[The Chimichunga]

I guess you could call it that.

This has come up a few times recently as I have been entering a few photo contests here or there, and sometimes these contests have an "unaltered image" clause in the rules.

I shoot in RAW almost exclusively, so in order for me to get to a format that's submittable to most of these contests, I would obviously have to go through Photoshop and adjust settings and then save as JPEG.

The way I see it, this really isn't anything a skilled developer couldn't do in a darkroom with a film negative, so should it really count as "editing" a picture?

[AHHthatsJDMyo]

i think that unedited in RAW would be pulling it up in ps and not adjusting any settings.

[Mama Got Boost??]

i think that unedited in RAW would be pulling it up in ps and not adjusting any settings.

Yes.

Converting your RAW to JPG/TIFF/PNG or whatever is not considered editing. Pulling it in there, adjusting your exposure, levels, curves...something to alter the image is considered editing it.

[The Chimichunga]

I can see what you guys are saying, but at the same time, the majority of what you can do in RAW is what a film developer could do with a negative in a dark room. So how would developing a negative and adjusting the exposure or contrast be any different?

[AHHthatsJDMyo]

From my experience with contests, when they want "unaltered" images, they want you to have worked out those aspects before you take the picture.

[Mama Got Boost??]

I can see what you guys are saying, but at the same time, the majority of what you can do in RAW is what a film developer could do with a negative in a dark room. So how would developing a negative and adjusting the exposure or contrast be any different?

No offense but we aren't using the dark room any more and converting an image isn't the same as editing. You aren't adjusting anything.

To solve this problem just shoot in JPG and not RAW

[jdmteggy01]

so I guess the almighty know it all, doesn't know it all!

[The Chimichunga]

Ethics is a subjective topic. It's based on your opinion, and I was just seeing what everyone else's opinion is.

[AHHthatsJDMyo]

so I guess the almighty know it all, doesn't know it all!

Is that really necessary? Your not a contributing member of p&g so please take your billshit elsewhere?

[tampa railroad hobo]

well, what's the difference of shooting in jpeg with in camera processing compared to shooting in raw then 'slightly' processing it in lightroom or photoshop?

[Drewster]

I think it stands that they really don't know what your doing with the photo is PS. At least when you shoot in JPEG they can tell you just uploaded.

Its the uncertain that is the subject of debate. Not what mode. The what "if" factor.

[Mama Got Boost??]

And on this subject, meaning of contests, while it's ethically correct to say you've submitted an unaltered image, it's also honesty. Unless you strip your exif and your metadata, they aren't going to know if you altered it or not.

[rotarykidd]

i dont understand any of this photoshop/digital stuff. ive only shot and developed 35mm with my minolta. wouldnt want it any other way. i do know that an "unaltered" pic when manually developing is impossible. you set the enlarging, developing, and fixing times yourself and theres really no "set" time. weve always just enlarged a test photo with a time wheel, developed it, then set our enlarger time accordingly. then set it in the developer and fixer till we liked the out come.

so im a little lost with this new fangeled technology. i guess if you load it up to PS and did anything other than convert it to jpeg (as previously stated) then yes, id consider it altering the pic.

[Michael.]

What are ethics? (I'm in a friggin Management Ethics class, I don't wanna see the word ethics any more than I have to) haha

It's sooooo subjective, it's ridiculous. Common sense...

[The Chimichunga]

so im a little lost with this new fangeled technology. i guess if you load it up to PS and did anything other than convert it to jpeg (as previously stated) then yes, id consider it altering the pic.

Okay, short lesson in digital photography. A JPEG is 8 bits of data, which is basically what the human eye can see at any one time. Camera RAW captures 12-14 bits (depending on the camera) of data per image, and since only 8 bits is displayable at a time, you use Photoshop to select which bits to display.

Basically, it gives you the same leeway in adjusting exposure and contrast and what not as a film negative.