Is digital photography cheating?
Its easy to take 400 pictures of something when you can see it instantly and delete all the mess up shots, but film photography can only take a roll of 27 exposures and has to wait to see what they came out as and if they mess up it costs money.
Another advantage is Photoshop (or similar programs) where you can Auto Correct, instead of fix the problem in the dark room by trial & error. You can cut things out of pictures or add things in, without anyone really recognizing.
(this can also be a problem with evidence these days because I could take a picture of some one and frame them by adding them to a scene)
So Although digital is helpful and fun for kids and parents, is it too much of an advantage in photography competitions?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
It actually makes no difference, I think. Sure, 400 snapshots instantly, deleting the bad ones is great. An advantage to the snapshot photographer. But the pictures they take are still snapshots, lacking the qualities of a true Photograph.
Photography contests are for photographs, not snapshots. Photographs are compositions, not just a point and shoot edited. You can certainly manipulate depth of field or any number of other things in PhotoShop (including lighting), even moderately well, but the fact is--it's still an edited snapshot. Editing a snapshot is not the same as focusing the shot through a lens, cropping in a darkroom and tweaking exposure, lighting, framing, and contrast. All of these are skills a photographer possesses that can't be duplicated in PhotoShop. It's not quite the same thing.
Furthermore, digital pictures are restricted by the camera's resolution--and high resolution quickly gets expensive--while the problem of graininess is easily corrected by proper film speed in a 35mm camera.
How is it an unfair advantage if everyone has access to a digital camera? I can understand that limitations would need to be put on megapixels (you cannot have a 10-megapixel camera against a 2-megapixel camera), but as for eliminating contest digital photography? That's absurd.
I don't think it's cheating at all, as long as you stay within the realms of the abilities of the darkroom (saturation, contrast, etc.) Photoshop offers the same solutions to problems that film cameras presented, in a much cheaper and more efficient way. The problem is, like you said, when people begin to cut things out or add things in, because this destroys the whole purpose of a photo, which is to capture a true and real moment in time. Additions and subtractions to digital photos also bring in a whole new world of trustworthiness, because the photographer now has a lot more responsibility to be honest with his audience.
very well put!
You inspired me to write my own blog post about this topic :] You can read it here: http://www.progressiveu.org/115921-photoshop-enhancing-or-lying
I'm attending the School of Visual Arts in NYC for photography next year and I've been placed in a few photography contests. I'm lucky in the fact that I'm almost 99% completely clueless when it comes to Photoshop. I've found, though, that the contests I have entered ask you what photoshopping you did to the photograph and take that into consideration. As long as you're a great photographer, not a great photoshopper, then I don't think there's a problem or advantage at all. If you can take a great picture that has meaning, then that's all that truly matters. Whether you manipulated it to death on the computer or manipulated it to death in the darkroom, it's still a work of art.
=]
If you've ever used a dark room and photoshop, you can definately say that Photoshop is not necesarily better, but a whole lot easier.
With photoshop, you can bress CTRL + Z and undo whatever you last did, with a darkroom, you have to start all over again.
The dark room, however, gives you a more hands on approach and really connects you to the picture. You really understand what everything is and if you much use photoshop, understanding the dark room is crucial to understanding the program.
IMO, Photoshop should've been called DigitalDarkroom
I think this all depends on the photographer and what his/her eventual goal is. I'm not professional, but I do like taking pictures in my spare time, and I do use photoshop. However, most of my photos are digital, and are kept on my computer. The only time I print them is to put them into a scrapbook or if they're important, a photo album. Photoshop allows me to manipulate my photographs in so many ways - it's easy to experiment with. And in an increasingly digital world, I think it's beneficial to at least know the digital realm of photography.
However, I have always admired those photographers who stick to the dark room, as it definitely takes more of an artistic eye and talent to produce excellent photos.
_________________________________________________
"In and of itself, nothing really matters. What matters is that nothing is ever 'in and of itself.'" - Chuck Klosterman, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs"
http://progressiveu.org/blog/k-moore