|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Feb 1, 2005, 8:20 PM
Post #1 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I know this has been discussed before, but what hasn't? ;)
I'm wondering what people think about photoshopping images. I use photoshop a lot, personally, both to create and to modify images. In my mind, there is nothing bad about photoshopping pictures to make them better, yet to many people it is a terrible thing and should be shunned at all costs. Maybe I'm just a product of the new "digital" generation, but I suppose that is what we find out with this discussion. ;)
Now it's widely accepted that effects applied over the whole image are perfectly fine. This is things like brightness, contrast, and the like. I personally find that quite often I don't get the saturation that I want just by snapping the shot on my digital cam, so I almost ALWAYS adjust color balance, B&C, and saturation. Sometimes this improves the picture exponentially. Check these two out: first one is unedited except to shrink, and second is touched up using these methods only.
http://www.morffed.com/climb/bland.jpg
http://www.morffed.com/.../2004/gslacklining08
Then there is the slightly more extreme example of error editing. This one is banned from a lot of photography contests, since it's rather controversial. Check the first pic above, and you can see up on the lip of the rock in the upper left my camera has a speck of dust on the CCD. Sometimes, as in the second image, this blends in with darkness and doesn't matter. Other times, it drastically reduces the quality of the image and I am forced to clone it out. Sky is especially a problem here, since it's so flat and light colored. A large number of my pics have been edited to kill that splotch. Here's a sample of pre-edit and post-edit:
http://www.morffed.com/climb/snow1.jpg
http://www.morffed.com/climb/snow2.jpg
Here's a much more extreme example. I did a relatively HUGE amount of manipulation to this. It got a comment that the contrast is funky, but that's because I used a flash to brighten up the foreground, not anything I did digitally. This picture I know I'm treading on unsteady ground. The original problem was that the horizon was vastly tilted. Anybody with any graphics savvy will look at this and immediately be able to see what I did, since I didn't do the best job, but for those of you who miss it, I cloned in the ground, snow, and mountains from just about the right edge of his shoulder up to that peak in the corner, and a similar job in the upper left.
http://www.morffed.com/.../2004/climbing03.jpg
Here's another similar example that's much less drastic. I only had to draw in a small portion of the pic.
http://www.morffed.com/climb/edit.jpg
http://www.morffed.com/...4/gslacklining14.jpg
So anyway, bash and discuss. I'm interested in what people think here. :)
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Feb 1, 2005, 8:37 PM
Post #2 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
The only one I have a problem with is the third from the last. As you mentioned, the cloning is painfully obvious.
As a photographer, I take great pride in an image that is perfect coming out of the camera. In photoshop, I'll only color correct, resize, and apply USM to most images. I even prefer not to crop an image as I believe proper framing (with the camera) is a very important attribute of a great photograph.
I am, however, human and error on my part or somtimes simply the limitations of the camera or situation prevent the ideal shot from being captured. In those cases, I won't hesitate to push pixels if I can make the image look like it hasn't been doctored. If the image looks doctored, it loses all of its appeal to me. I do also feel that it's important to note what type of post processing has been done on a published image if the work involves anything other than attempts to make the image look like the neg/slide in the case of a scan or like the lighting of the scene in the case of a digital photo.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
celticelement
Feb 1, 2005, 8:50 PM
Post #3 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 205
|
Photography is a communication tool.
I think the photoshopping limits should be determined by what you are trying to communicate.
Are you trying to communicate fact? If you are, of course editing the photo will damage your credibility.
Often photographers would like to change an image if it does not communicate what they want the audience to see effectively. If you are patching in a piece of a shoe and some line to make the photo more balanced to match what you as an artist see in your head, then I say go for it. Just don't take that image to court. Remember your photo is not reality itself but simply a reflection of reality. If you can reflect reality better with the aid of some photo editing tools then go for it.
Another category is when you are trying to get across something that is beyond the photograph. Like when you are communicating an idea or a feeling through your photograph. In this case you should focus in on the idea and bring it out and forget about the image.
In short, do what you have to do to communicate what you, as the artist, are trying to communicate.
|
|
|
|
|
rmoellering
Feb 1, 2005, 9:02 PM
Post #4 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 14
|
I think that honesty is the best policy. If you modify your image in Photoshop, you should make a note of that somewhere.
I think the natural assumption when seeing an image is that it is the original. Clearly some modifications are obvious to the point of not needing explanation, but many more are not. I think it's fair to let people know just how different the finished image is from the original.
Ultimately though - just like using Photoshop in the first place - it's a personal decision.
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Feb 1, 2005, 9:27 PM
Post #5 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
if you're using Photoshop to create a more artistic image like a painter would do with his paints and brushes then I'm all for it. Photoshop can create some really amazing and interesting images.
my biggest problem with Photoshop is that some people who can't take a decent photograph to save their lives can create one on their computer. a lot of people have their nice like point and shoot digitals or even dslr's and they set the camera to automatic and just click away then take what ever they get and run it through Photoshop and clean up the photo to make it look nice. its cool for the average person out there just wanting to clean up their photo and make it look a little nice but if you're going to call yourself a photographer you should be able to control depth of field, sharpness, contrast, exposure, color balance, and composition all on your camera without having to Photoshop it.
I'm old school and I shoot film for the most part and I almost never scan in photos to change them in Photoshop. they're usually exactly what I want and exactly what I expected them to look like and its cuz I can control everything about my photograph with my camera and film that someone else can in Photoshop with the exception of all the artistic stuff like morphing a photo or completely changing colors or cutting and pasting stuff into or out of my photograph or something like that.
don't get me wrong I think Photoshop has its uses and I do use it every now and then but I think if you really want to get some great photographs then you should really learn to use your camera and learn to make it do all those things you were gonna do in Photoshop when you got home.
cheers,
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
mingleefu
Feb 1, 2005, 10:13 PM
Post #6 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 466
|
In reply to: I think that honesty is the best policy. If you modify your image in Photoshop, you should make a note of that somewhere. I think the natural assumption when seeing an image is that it is the original. Clearly some modifications are obvious to the point of not needing explanation, but many more are not. I think it's fair to let people know just how different the finished image is from the original. Ultimately though - just like using Photoshop in the first place - it's a personal decision.
It is important to keep in mind that an image is merely that - an image. An image is never the real thing, because the photographer must choose what frame of the panorama he or she is trying to capture. The photographer also chooses the film type and filters that will all affect how the image turns out. If the photographer uses a poloarizing filter, would the image not turn out differently than the eye sees it?
To adjust an image in photoshop is merely to allow the photographer to portray that aspect of the scene that he or she is attempting to capture. It is no less than using filters or adjusting shutter speeds or choosing fuji vs. kodak film.
In a competition, one must follow the rules. If the rules are pre-production adjustments only, so be it. But there is no shame in adjusting an image to make it more appealing to another viewer since it is only at best a rendition of the real thing anyway.
Bad photoshopping is another subject altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Feb 1, 2005, 11:49 PM
Post #7 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
dude... photography is simply another form of art, do whatever u want if u think its cool. just dont photoshop something and claim its real.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Feb 2, 2005, 1:52 AM
Post #8 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Expressions like old school in photography can be very deceiving. Let’s face it, professional photographer have been “editing” their photos from the beginning. Unless of course cropping and developing don’t count.
Mr. Adams himself wrote a whole book on how to change the way your picture look during the development process.
One misconception about Photoshop (or digital editing) is that someone can shoot a bad picture and turn it into a good photo. Photoshop can enhance a pick, but the program cannot make a bad picture a great one.
Photography has undergone many changes: Plates to film, black and white to color, negative and positive.
Go out, shoot some photos, and play with your editing tools.
Have fun, I like the work you have done. Your edited picture look good.
|
|
|
|
|
jookyhead
Feb 2, 2005, 1:53 AM
Post #9 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 667
|
In reply to: It is important to keep in mind that an image is merely that - an image. An image is never the real thing, because the photographer must choose what frame of the panorama he or she is trying to capture. The photographer also chooses the film type and filters that will all affect how the image turns out. If the photographer uses a poloarizing filter, would the image not turn out differently than the eye sees it? To adjust an image in photoshop is merely to allow the photographer to portray that aspect of the scene that he or she is attempting to capture. It is no less than using filters or adjusting shutter speeds or choosing fuji vs. kodak film.
This is right on my view. If I am using photoshop on a picture, it's just another step in the process of trying to get the shot I want. It's not dishonest in any way to me.
In reply to: don't get me wrong I think Photoshop has its uses and I do use it every now and then but I think if you really want to get some great photographs then you should really learn to use your camera and learn to make it do all those things you were gonna do in Photoshop when you got home.
I personally don't value someone's abilities in a photo lab over their ability to use photoshop. They both take a certain amount of skill and knowledge. Though I generally shoot digital and use photoshop, I also shoot manual and develop my own photos. I can do certain things in a photo lab that I can't in photoshop, as well as the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
mtman
Feb 2, 2005, 2:16 AM
Post #10 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 229
|
i agree with most of you and lets face photography is an art form and tricks we use in photo shop and in the photo lab are ways to reflect the artists view of the world and the emotions that the artist wants to depict.
another thing is if you are going to use a scanner to scan images the colors are not true so as soon as you go from film to digital the image has been changed so some times Photoshop is necessary and unavoidable.
mtman
|
|
|
|
|
speedywon
Feb 2, 2005, 6:59 PM
Post #11 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Posts: 182
|
Good thread!
I have two points to make:
1) Photography is an art form. Like most art, "good" is a relative term. What one artist sees as a masterpiece, the next sees as crap. You will never impress everyone with a photograph. So, the heck with what they think. Do what you love and what you think looks best. If they don't like your work, they can move on to the next photo.
2) When was the last time you picked up a magazine in the checkout line of the supermarket whose cover picture wasn't altered? Virtually every model shot is airbrushed to cover blemished, take off a few pounds, hide hair, fake a tan, etc (granted, Time paid dearly for darkening their mug shot of O.J.). So, if it's done in the professional industry, why not by the hobbyist?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Feb 2, 2005, 7:10 PM
Post #12 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
photoshopping is like bolting.
|
|
|
|
|
mtman
Feb 2, 2005, 7:15 PM
Post #13 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 229
|
In reply to: photoshopping is like bolting.
i would not go that far....
mtman
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Feb 3, 2005, 12:24 AM
Post #14 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
I started out as an apprentice shooting hard goods catalog shots in the late 60's. 8X10 Deardorf with the negs shot 150% of page print size and contact printed. It was disapointing when you literally could not see the emulsion on the print for the air brushing after the "art" dept. got done with them before they went to the printer. They were good photographs too, happened to everyone, even the old masters that worked there! Anything you see in a Magazine or catalog is manipulated to some extent. Most of this is a result of the demands of the printing process.
Got out of it profesionally shortly there after, (no money in it!). Many years later I met a photography instructor that got to print off Ansel Adams original negatives. U of New Mexico I think. His comment was that most of them were very difficult to print and some of his most famous ones, the negs down right sucked. You can see the progression in interpretation even by Adams clearly in his Sunset at Taos over a period of years even in prints he made himself. (sorry if I burst any bubbles.) The end result is nevertheless an historic body of artwork.
All photographs are manipulated to some extent in the printing process. Photoshop is just the electronic extension. Darkroom work was always used for dramatic or artistic effect and sometimes to deceive. Nothing's changed.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Feb 3, 2005, 2:11 AM
Post #15 of 15
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
To me a photography is an artistic record of what I saw. Or what the photographer saw. I look at photography, especially nature/adventure photography as a chance for me to see places, that I might not otherwise see, through the eyes and lens of anothers camera. That doesn't mean it isn't art. It most definitely is. You can use artistic vision to record what you see without altering what your have seen. IMO, the only acceptable on camera filters are polarizers, ND grads, ND filters and warming filters. These filters chielfy affect how much light hits the film and how it hits the film. The image before the photographer is still the same, the filters just allow the limited range of film to capture more of the scene. Closer (but not near) what the eye can see.
I believe photoshoping an image is fine to the point that you are only cleaning up the image. Removing dust and scratches, adjusting brightness and contrast, saturation, color cast and sharpening. Converting it to B&W is ok as well. Selective color enhancement is borderline OK with me. Adding a little punch to your greens if you used Kodachrome instead of Velvia isn't really deceiving anyone. No more than using a punchy film like Velvia in the first place.
I have absolutely no problem with cropping. You can crop via analog print using different output mask and paper sizes. In camera cropping is ideal and can typically be achieved with scenics but street scenes, action, and various other shots often need to be cropped in the post processing. Also, I personally shoot many shots with the idea that I will print them as 4x12 panos once i process them. However, I shoot them full frame and just use the marks on my view finder to line up the frame.
Anytime you add something, like perhaps a moon to a scenic landscape, you've altered your record. Likewise, removing something from the frame is wrong. I don't think either of these two digital methods are acceptable to me.
I saw in Outside (i think) an article on Digital photography and the outdoors. They harped on Elements 3.0 and how it has all the tools needed to save your photos. I cringed because it heralded the unchecked manipulation of photos. Imagine seeing your friends Disney Land photos with all the crowded lines cloned out? That would be cool but you'd assume they had special park passes that allowed them to enter the park before the crowds or they went on a special day.
what happened to the art of taking a good photo in the camera. It's a heck of a lot less work to start with a good image and just enchance it a bit. Digital is a great way to save that once in a lifetime photo went bad but I personally don't feel it should be used for every photography and I still feel when a photo is manipulated it should be noted so.
The truth is there is no concise straight forward answer to the question. each person needs to decide how they want to remember what they record. For me, I like to keep my photos as real as possible and alter them as little as possible. With few exceptions have I went to great lengths to manipulate and image. But there have been and will be canditates for manipulation in the future and I am sure I will, but it will never be a routine occurence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
