|
krillen
May 11, 2004, 1:57 PM
Post #1 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Photoshopping get sugested here alot, but where do we draw the lines? What is acceptable and what is NOT acceptable behaviour.
Hands off?
Simply Cropping and Level Balancing?
Cut, paste, clone, chop, it's all good?
When is it "Too much"?
|
|
|
|
|
dc
May 11, 2004, 2:14 PM
Post #2 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 355
|
i think anything is "acceptable" as long as people state what they have done and how they have edited the image... in my edited images (i say 'edited' cos i don't use photoshop) i state what i have done - e.g. cropped, sharpened, softened, etc..
obviously some photos appear way 'over done' with just too many effects that are too obvious.. but i don't think it is possible to actually specify what it is that constitutes 'over done'
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
May 11, 2004, 3:35 PM
Post #3 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
So now we get into the ethics of climbing photography.
My feeling is that, as long as you don't alter the climber's relationship to the rock, it is acceptable......
However, we must be aware of the fact that climbing photos lose their power if they appear doctored. To the non climber, you have created a picture of someone doing the impossible. The image as a whole begins to lose credibility when you alter compositional elements. And once you are outed as an image doctorer, you will be accused of doctoring every image that appears too good to be true. So, over improving one picture could cost you in the long run.
That being said.... this is the most questionable doctoring that I've done. I was uncertain about whether or not I should do it. Figuring that it wasn't a spectacular pic anyway and mostly only my friends would look at it twice, I went for it.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=23151
Notice, if you will, the upper left corner. The rope originally ran straight out the top of the frame. No belayer. This image was originally tossed in the reject pile. I then discovered that I hadn't gotten any decent shots of TKS on his trip back east and wanted to post something of him. So i dug this up and decided to play with it a bit. I clipped the image of Wideguy belaying from another picture and dropped it in there. If you look closely, you can see that I could have done a better job of rubber stamping and blending. In retrospect, I should have gotten rid of the snow as well.
Now the ethical conundrum:
I mentioned, when I posted it to the massclimbers thread that it had been doctored. Those are the only people that would actually care about this particular image. I did not, however, mention this fact in the photo description, figuring it would just get bombed to shit for being doctored.
Did I do wrong?
Kind of.
Would I do that much doctoring of an image that was going to be used for anything but being shown to friends?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
merock
May 11, 2004, 3:56 PM
Post #4 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 234
|
I think PS is a wonderful tool and should be used as one, especially in conjunction with digital cameras, just depends on how you want to use it and how far you want to take it. Just because you become a master at Photoshop does not mean that you are going to become a badass photographer. You cannot make a bad image into something just because you can PS the hell out of it. There are plenty of images that I have shot that there is no way PS is going to help them. Period. The images that are obviously Photoshoped like Cold Climbs "It's All In Your Mind Series" or Cryders "Dry Dreaming" Series, I think it's fun and creative to be able take it to that level and come up with these surreal looking images. So in that aspect I believe PS is okay. Most of the things that I personally do in Photoshop could be done at a high end photo lab. i.e. cropping, levels, saturation, dodging, burning, etc..... the only other thing that I do which is where digital has a problem is sharpening. Other than that simple cloning is sometimes done to take out distracting objects like shoes or chalk bags but only sometimes. Most of the time I try or have friends help out moving stuff, but sometimes it becomes a nuisance and is easier to just say F it... I'll just PS it later rather than hear my friends bitch about moving stuff around for me (while I'm freakin hanging from 50 ft up for 45 min to get a shot of them pulling the crux on their projects....... :x ) But like I said, and this is personal preference, I try to only use PS for doing things that could have been done with film and try to work on things like proper exposure and DOF on the cameras end. This also makes PSing quick and easier. If you start with a well composed, proper exposed image, I can be in and out of PS within 2 min. only doing basics. But what I think the bottom line is How good is the final product? And how far can you take it and still feel ethical about you're image? And if you really have to Photoshop and image that much to get it to become a good image, then is it really?
|
|
|
|
|
merock
May 11, 2004, 3:59 PM
Post #5 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 234
|
Edited because Double post........
|
|
|
|
|
popol
May 11, 2004, 5:20 PM
Post #6 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
A photo is an impression of reality. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, you already start modifying someone else's impression of reality while making the photo. PS is just an extension of that.
Maybe you can compare it with free climbing / aid climbing :?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
May 11, 2004, 8:34 PM
Post #7 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I like what Merrick has to say here. I have seen a couple FP photos that weren't all that good to begin with, where the photog tries to PS them into submission. I guess I'm just a hardass, but I think using PS in instances like that is a crutch. Not necessarily unethical, but kinda weak.
Maybe I'm just bitter cos I was self-taught on a hand-me-down Pentax K1000, a 7-year-old flatbed scanner, and Microsoft Paint?! :P
|
|
|
|
|
orangeoverhang
May 12, 2004, 12:52 AM
Post #8 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Posts: 71
|
When i used to shoot quick images on a point and shoot digital i would occasionally add some shallow DOF by masking and blurring the BG elements. If i shot on film or a digi SLR then the shallow depth of field was naturally in the shot. I have also painted out a few stray abseil rope shadows and de-saturated a few bright objects that stand out on the ground. If you don't touch the actual climber, belayer and rock being climbed then i think doing Pshop work is ok. Generally any doctoring i do is to tone down the BG so the foreground action is more prominant!
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
May 12, 2004, 5:20 AM
Post #9 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Obviously I enjoy editing pictures. ;)
I have no problems with people using editing programs as long as they mention that they did. If I see a pic like the_pirate's, and then he tells me it's edited, I actually like it more, just because of the stuff he had to do to get that belayer in there, and how well he did it. That just makes the picture better sometimes.
Then at the other end of the spectrum, I'm also fond of pics that took no editing to make them look good. My ascender pic was completely unedited, even brightness/contrast, and like climbsomething kinda touches on, there's a certain amount of pride in not editing pics.
I guess I really have no problem with editing at all, as long as the person doesn't claim it's unedited.
Now take my pic here: http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=31172
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=31172
It was edited to make the climber stand out in color, and to slightly blur the ground (didn't work too well, too sharp to begin with). What do you guys think of editing like this?
|
|
|
|
|
biff
May 12, 2004, 5:35 AM
Post #10 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
Aslong as it doesn't change the action on the rock, its ok.
When you take the shot you are imposing your perspective on reality aswell. The way you rotate the cameara can give a more steep looking climb. How you zoom and compose changes the appearance of the exposure of the climb, or the diffuculty of the move.
Editing things like, making the hold smaller, removing the rope to make it look like a free solo are wrong, if you intend the photo as a true representation of reality.
If you want a cool looking photo, and don't care if it real or not, there is nothing beyond your limits.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 12, 2004, 7:15 AM
Post #11 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
There is a difference between a picture and a photograph.
Photograph = uneditted whatsoever.
Picture = go to it with everything you`ve got to provide us with a work of art. Note though that beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder and the beholder may be the person who created that work of art and everyone else may think it stinks, evidence the great majority of modern art.
|
|
|
|
|
orangeoverhang
May 12, 2004, 8:13 AM
Post #12 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Posts: 71
|
In some ways we have to be careful not to change photos so drasticly that history can be changed. People look back at photos from the past and believe what they see actually happened. Climbing photos in general are historical moments captured - much like journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
May 12, 2004, 12:52 PM
Post #13 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
i think "how much is too much" depends on what you are trying to do. if you want to capture a historical moment anything but cropping might be too much. Whereas, if you are trying to show what you feel on the rock, you can collage the hell out of it, until you get what you had in mind/heart/whatever :roll:
PS is a tool, just like the camera itself, as long as you are the one who is creating the image -rather than applying a random set of filters- its good.
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
May 12, 2004, 5:49 PM
Post #14 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
Any work thats been done to an image using photoshop(or other image editing programs) that could also have been done in a pro darkroom/lab setup is no big deal(include sharpening in there). Beyond that I feel it should be stated if an image was manipulated. Obviously people aren't going to know if you cloned out that rope in frame or added this or moved that, but YOU will. Isn't that the point?
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
May 12, 2004, 10:43 PM
Post #15 of 15
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I must be thinking clearer now than I was last night. Here's a better response than my previous one, I think. ;)
I take my pictures more as art than history. I like to make them look good, more than making memories (I have plenty of memories from the botched look-good shots). This means I really have no problem at all with people editing to make the pic look good.
In fact, I really don't have much of a problem with editing at all. :? As long as someone doesn't try to claim that an edited pic actually took place the way it looks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
