# Photographic cheaters?



## gregDT (Aug 15, 2012)

I posted this originally in an invite only photography forum but thought it might be of a little interest to people in this forum? So I've cut and pasted it here.

This stems from a conversation I had with some other photographers a few weeks ago about 'photographic cheats'. Usually when the phrase photographic cheat is used it is leading to a[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]n unresolvable argument about Photoshop/Aperture etc. and to what degree a photographer can manipulate an image and still claim it as a piece of original photographic work rather than a piece of graphic art. However that's not the argument we had. Our discussion was about when a photographer looses the right to claim a photograph they took as their own work, because most of the work was done by someone else i.e the set up and lighting was done by a third party. My photographer friends all believe that unless they are responsible for all the creative input the image isn't theirs and they should disclose the fact if they show that image to anyone. So here's the argument......[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Using a portrait photograph as an example, there's obviously much much more to making a compelling studio picture of a person than just pointing a camera at a subject and pressing the shutter. There's composition, facial expression and probably most importantly lighting to consider. To claim an image as their own work a photographer needs to be responsible for all the elements of making a picture, not just stepping up and pressing the shutter. That's frankly the easy bit. So the argument goes.[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]There are several situations where a photographer could capture an image without having to do any of the work involved in making that picture a good one. First there are photographic trade shows. It's not uncommon, as I'm sure may here who have visited such shows are aware, for exhibitors to create little photographic sets to show off their products. This is especially true of lighting companies. They skilfully design little studio sets, provide photogenic models and allow visitors to the shows to step up and take pictures of their sets, in the hope that the visitor is so impressed with the result that they rush off and buy the product, be it lights, diffusers, set accessories or whatever . The photographers don't contribute to the set up in any way. They simply take some pictures. Normally the agreement is that the photographer gets no model release and has to agree not to use the images commercially. There's usually no restriction on them using images for other purposes including portfolios.[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]The second example is Studio nights. Here photographic studios open their doors to paying photographers, usually amateurs, who attend in groups of a dozen or so. The studio provide one or more sets, a model or two and often, although not always, they set up the lighting. The photographers are then free to photograph the models and claim the resulting images as their own. These studio nights are great fun, provide practice for photographers and a revenue stream for the studio.[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Lastly there are commercial training courses. Photographers attend and learn to set up, light and photograph various scenes. How much input the student has varies a great deal depending on what level the course is aimed at and how much the teacher actually contributes to setting up the shots. Often much of the work is the teachers and the student is learning from them as they go. Clearly at some point the student will be making their own design choices as they learn and improve. At what point the work could be considered to be their own is a tricky one. It requires an honest judgement from the student and teacher.[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]The issue comes down to the question - can the photographer claim the images taken in the above examples as their own work and if they use them on their web sites or in their portfolios are they cheats? The short answer, according to my friends, is no they should not use them and to do so is to be dishonest. The photographer did little or none of the skilled work required to set up a lighting scenario and in some instances won't even have posed the model themselves or picked the composition of the shot. They simply step up, point their camera and press the shutter. Portfolio's should be examples of what they as a photographer can create from scratch. They walk into an empty room and create the photograph. They arrange the set, backdrops and most crucially the lighting. They work with the model, pose them and create your images. The results, good or bad, are a true representation of what the photographer can achieve. The work is theirs for better or worse. Of course when working with models some of that result is down to the skill and ability of the model themselves. But that should be self evident. The model is in the picture and clearly must have had an effect on how well the result turned out. But the assumption is that the other elements of the picture are the work of the photographer. Studio nights, training courses and trade show sets are therefore often not true examples of a photographers work. Someone else built the sets and lit the scene. The images created are as much their work as the photographers. For a photographer to use those images and pass them off as their own work is a lie. They didn't make these pictures, the skill wasn't theirs and they stand on the shoulders of others. People who use these images on web sites and in portfolios might as well just go and steal some other photographers work and pass it off as their own. So goes the argument.[/FONT]

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Fort me, I sadly have to agree. While commercial studio nights can vary in how much input a paying customer has is setting up a scene, normally the lighting is set up in advance, unless of course the night is actually a lighting workshop. If I was a painter and I exhibited a painting where I had just picked the frame, it wouldn't be mine. If I was a waiter who just served a dish then I couldn't claim to have cooked it. And if I am a photographer who didn't create my lighting set up then I can't claim to have made the picture.[/FONT]


----------



## RikkFlohr (Aug 15, 2012)

I suppose you shouldn't claim it because you didn't apply the makeup? Weave the fabric for the wardrobe? Act as a physical trainer and coach for the modelling talent?
Deciding where to draw this or any line is a waste of time. Unless you are entering a competition whose rules are specific-who cares!

Even with a perfect set up it is still possible to blow the shot.


----------



## gregDT (Aug 15, 2012)

I think it could be considered a given that the photographer isn't the MUA, fashion designer etc for a shoot (unless they state the fact). But I think it's a reasonable assumption that a photographer is responsible for their own lighting, composition etc. 

the reason for the argument was that a colleague lost a contract to another cheaper photographer who's portfolio was almost entirely made up of images from a series of training workshops where they had used someone else's set ups. When they were on location and expected to create their own shots to the same standard that their portfolio suggested they were capable of they failed utterly and caused serious inconvenience to the client. At least my friend got the client back


----------



## RikkFlohr (Aug 15, 2012)

gregDT said:


> But I think it's a reasonable assumption that a photographer is responsible for their own lighting, composition etc.


 Why? there are lighting directors just like there are makeup artists.

As for the people who hired your client's competition. They will figure it out...


----------



## gregDT (Aug 15, 2012)

There are but they're not that common.  Again I make the point that a photographers portfolio should represent work they're capable of reproducing for a client. Make up and clothing are not something that a client would normally expect a photographer to be skilled in but arranging and using lighting effectively is,  assuming their portfolio shows work that uses lighting .  If you can't do it don't put it in your portfolio.


----------



## RikkFlohr (Aug 15, 2012)

gregDT said:


> a photographers portfolio should represent work they're capable of reproducing for a client



Who is going to police that? Who is going to draw the line that says this element or that element is crucial to the photo and the photog should get the credit? There is no Portfolio Police. Whether or not the photog delivers will determine how much or how little they will work in the future. Your situation with your friend, shows what should happen: The pretender fails and your friend gets the client back. 

I get the impression that "All your photographer friends" want some type of legal/ethical protection from these 'cheaters' but the world isn't like that. Maybe the authorities will get to it right after they start prosecuting magazine editors for unrealistic retouching of young women?  Till then - produce good work, market yourself fairly and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, tell a client you can do something you haven't yet tried - that is where growth and inspiration come from.  After all, no one ever gets in over their head, has a bad shoot, has a first-ever assignment or is presented with something outside their experience or comfort zone. 

I am an opinionated sort of photographer-but that is what the lounge is for.


----------



## gregDT (Aug 16, 2012)

Good points.  I can understand the argument for requiring some form of accreditation for wedding photography but certainly not general commercial work. My friend was obviously peeved and went on a not unexpected rant  I just wondered if I was missing a trick and that there's an argument for adding these images to portfolios. 

I still believe it's dishonest but of course impossible to police.


----------



## Jack Henry (Sep 11, 2012)

When I saw the title to this thread I thought it was about something else. But I'll post a comment here about what I thought it was anyhow

I assume a lot of people here have web sites that you upload your photos to. My wife is a wedding celebrant and her site has a few photos from her ceremonies. Following a 'tip off' we found that another celebrant (different country) was using some of Kerrys photos on her site, claiming them as her own. (Obviously photos without Kerry in them) I then discovered a very neat feature of Google search that most of you may know of already.

When you search Google Images, if you click on the small 'Camera' icon at the right hand end of the search box, you get an area where you can paste a URL.

From an image on your site, right click and select 'Copy Link Location' and paste it into the search field of Google Images.

The search will do an excellent job of matching the image at your URL with any other instance of it on the web.

I hope you find this usefull.

Regards
John


----------



## GBM (Sep 11, 2012)

Rikk, When I was young (62) I would have totally agreed with you. Now that I am old (63) I am able to find better answers.  Just because there are no Portfolio Police does not mean there can not be in the future.  GregDT is clearly interested in fixing the problem so I Nominate Him to be ' The Portfolio Police' .... I have no idea if he can ' monetize ' ( as they say now ) the situation....but if your heart is in something money is not the primary motivator......  I expect you to support my nomination and vote for him at the proper time.


----------



## Tony Jay (Sep 12, 2012)

I understand that the OP is primarily referring to studio photography and the politics/economics/ethics of the lighting setups and the use of images subsequently taken for marketing purposes however a broader perspective may be useful.

I am a landscape and outdoor photographer who, with rare exceptions, is completely captive to lighting conditions that I cannot control. Are my images mine or God's (who arranged the light). Concentrate on the ethics and not the theology of the statement. This point is not as silly as it sounds on first reading.

I do not believe that any explicit "policing" of the issue raised is required. The marketplace is the great leveller. Can photographers dupe a client with a portfolio obtained in the manner described by the OP. Sure - once! The world of commercial photography is exceptionally competitive. Repeat business is crucial. Word of mouth referral is essential. Without those any photography business will quickly wither and die.

Part of a successful business strategy in commercial photography is HONESTY. If one does not know how to do a studio lighting setup claiming one can is a recipe for disaster. One always has limitations as a photographer (no matter who you are). Admitting this is no crime and in fact can be seen as a sign of maturity and professionalism. Some clients may be completely unreasonable in their expectations of what the photographer should be able to do but most clients will understand and be flexible.

Overall, an ethical approach to photography is crucial to long-term success whether as a commercial photographer or a serious amateur who embarks on a "career" of entering competitions. In my field of photography I have a particular problem with photographers who do things like replace skies in their images but do NOT own up. Several landscape photographers have made successful careers doing just this sort of thing but are very upfront about what has been done to the images through an artists statement of intent - more power to them.

So, in summary, snake-oil salesman will all eventually be found out. Every field of endevour has examples of cheats. Just don't let yourself be numbered among them. We live, in the Western world at least, in an ethical environment that is slippery to say the least where the questions asked are no longer: Is this right or wrong?, but simply: Can I get away with it? Nonetheless those that live by the second option cannot sustain the illusion for ever - even Bernie Madoff failed. Honesty wins - do not misrepresent yourself.

My $0.02 worth

Tony Jay


----------

