Opinions and thoughts, please.

On 9/1/2017 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?� Is it really okay to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personal�, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time, darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honest�.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if� edits with the software of your choice, it is an “honest�
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the driver’s head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I jumped out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was rather sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell

Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't comment previously.


The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate record
of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?
I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong with
doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30 second
exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For some
reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think that
statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

You are notorious for turning your birds into “frequent fliers�.


I have a directory with skys, backgrounds, and birds.

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

--
PeterN

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 22:51:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

It becomes a new image. Make a note of the image file name in PS when
you save it and close PS, then look for that file in LR.

On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?†Is it really okay
to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personalâ€, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time, darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honestâ€.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if†edits with the software of your choice, it is an
“honestâ€
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the
driver’s head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is
really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I jumped out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was rather sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell

Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't comment previously.


The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate record
of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?
I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong with
doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30 second
exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For some
reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think that
statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

You are notorious for turning your birds into “frequent fliersâ€.

I have a directory with skys, backgrounds, and birds.

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

Make all your adjustments in LR as you would in ACR.

(In LR Preferences you should have set external editing to look something
like this)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

Right-click and from the pop-up menu, cover Edit In. Choose PS CC.

From the dialog which opens, select: Edit a copy with Lightroom Adjustments.

Make all your PS adjustments and enhancements using layers as you normally
would. When you are done with the PS work do not bother merging layers or
flattening as that would negate any non-destructive workflow. Just SAVE, do
not Save AS. The TIFF will be returned to LR.

If you want to re-edit the PS work, just right-click on the returned to LR
TIFF, select Edit In PS, but this time in the dialog select: Edit Original.
The TIFF will reopen in PS with all the layers intact for you to re-edit as
you choice. Repeat until happy.

If you want a JPEG use the Lightroom Export Dialog. Your JPEG resizing can be
done there.Doing things that way I have no JPEGs in LR.

Here is what my export dialog looks like. I have presets which export
directly to Dropbox folders, Adobe CC folders, Desktop, or other locations.
This is my last export to Dropbox for the Dawn shots.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vemlw8fz9a16cru/screenshot_156.png

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Sep 1, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 22:51:24 -0400,
wrote:

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

It becomes a new image. Make a note of the image file name in PS when
you save it and close PS, then look for that file in LR.

If you have things set up correctly, You will see the Copy with LR
adjustments in the Flim Strip. It will usually be labelled something like
this: DFSCxxxx-Edit.tif, or DFSCxxxx-Edit.PSD.

If the Film Strip is sorted by file name, the LR original (and any Virtual
Copies) will be with the PS edit.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 09/01/2017 10:01 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?� Is it really okay to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personal�, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time,
darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honest�.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if� edits with the software of your choice, it is an “honest�
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the driver’s head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural
road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to
see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I jumped
out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was rather
sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell


Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't comment previously.



The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate
record of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?


I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong with
doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30 second
exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For some
reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think that
statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0


Very nice image. I think it would have worked without the birds, too.
With the birds, I immediately thought "Hitchcock!"

--
Ken Hart

On 9/2/2017 11:02 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/01/2017 10:01 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted
and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?� Is it really okay to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personal�, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the
moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time,
darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honest�.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if� edits with the software of your choice, it is an “honest�
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the driver’s
head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural
road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to
see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I
jumped out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was
rather sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found
some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL
and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell


Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't commentÂ* previously.



The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate
record of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?


I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong
with doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30
second exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For
some reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think
that statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0


Very nice image. I think it would have worked without the birds, too.
With the birds, I immediately thought "Hitchcock!"


Thank you. It was my first attempt at a long exposure. I often alter my
images. This tiger was never that close to the antelope.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2yhr60llh64tnvd/Well%20mannered%20tiger.jpg?dl=0


--
PeterN

On 9/1/2017 11:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?†Is it really okay
to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personalâ€, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time, darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honestâ€.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if†edits with the software of your choice, it is an
“honestâ€
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the
driver’s head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is
really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I jumped out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was rather sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell

Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't comment previously.


The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate record
of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?
I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong with
doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30 second
exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For some
reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think that
statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

You are notorious for turning your birds into “frequent fliersâ€.

I have a directory with skys, backgrounds, and birds.

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

Make all your adjustments in LR as you would in ACR.

(In LR Preferences you should have set external editing to look something
like this)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

Right-click and from the pop-up menu, cover Edit In. Choose PS CC.

From the dialog which opens, select: Edit a copy with Lightroom Adjustments.

Make all your PS adjustments and enhancements using layers as you normally
would. When you are done with the PS work do not bother merging layers or
flattening as that would negate any non-destructive workflow. Just SAVE, do
not Save AS. The TIFF will be returned to LR.

If you want to re-edit the PS work, just right-click on the returned to LR
TIFF, select Edit In PS, but this time in the dialog select: Edit Original.
The TIFF will reopen in PS with all the layers intact for you to re-edit as
you choice. Repeat until happy.

If you want a JPEG use the Lightroom Export Dialog. Your JPEG resizing can be
done there.Doing things that way I have no JPEGs in LR.

Here is what my export dialog looks like. I have presets which export
directly to Dropbox folders, Adobe CC folders, Desktop, or other locations.
This is my last export to Dropbox for the Dawn shots.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vemlw8fz9a16cru/screenshot_156.png


I tried that. I notice that PS is not on this list of default external
editors. I get the edited image, but it is saved as an additional file.
I am very confused.

--
PeterN

On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 11:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 1, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted
and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?†Is it really okay
to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personalâ€, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I
would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the
moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time,
darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honestâ€.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if†edits with the software of your choice, it is an
“honestâ€
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the
driver’s head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is
really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural
road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to see
if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I jumped
out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was rather
sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found
some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL
and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell

Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't comment previously.


The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate record
of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?
I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong with
doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30 second
exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For some
reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think that
statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

You are notorious for turning your birds into “frequent fliersâ€.

I have a directory with skys, backgrounds, and birds.

BTW: When I open an image and process it in LR, and then do further
processing in PS, the PS changes are not automatically reflected in the
LR image. What am I doing wrong.

Make all your adjustments in LR as you would in ACR.

(In LR Preferences you should have set external editing to look something
like this)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

Right-click and from the pop-up menu, cover Edit In. Choose PS CC.

From the dialog which opens, select: Edit a copy with Lightroom Adjustments.

Make all your PS adjustments and enhancements using layers as you normally
would. When you are done with the PS work do not bother merging layers or
flattening as that would negate any non-destructive workflow. Just SAVE, do
not Save AS. The TIFF will be returned to LR.

If you want to re-edit the PS work, just right-click on the returned to LR
TIFF, select Edit In PS, but this time in the dialog select: Edit Original.
The TIFF will reopen in PS with all the layers intact for you to re-edit as
you choice. Repeat until happy.

If you want a JPEG use the Lightroom Export Dialog. Your JPEG resizing can
be done there. Doing things that way I have no JPEGs in LR.

Here is what my export dialog looks like. I have presets which export
directly to Dropbox folders, Adobe CC folders, Desktop, or other locations.
This is my last export to Dropbox for the Dawn shots.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vemlw8fz9a16cru/screenshot_156.png

I tried that. I notice that PS is not on this list of default external
editors. I get the edited image, but it is saved as an additional file.
I am very confused.

PS is the default external editor.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfu941m6d6v24g1/screenshot_157.png

That is not an additional file. It is the copy of the file (a TIFF, or PSD)
with LR edits created when you chose to edit in PS.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu8uhs2muswpb00/screenshot_160.png

....and the DB screenshot of the LR Preferences for external editors above,
and below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

As I explained above, right-click on the image, or thumbnail in the
film-strip, and select the external editor. In your case that will probably
be PS.
The next thing you are presented with is a selection dialog.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eothmp0hvi9ry9p/screenshot_158.png

As I suggested above, choose ‘Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments’.
This will open in PS after creating either a TIFF, or PSD copy in LR, as
either a TIFF, or PSD.

As I suggested above, do not merge or flatten any layers (I did say that
above), and just *SAVE*, DO NOT *SAVE AS*.
The PS adjusted/edited TIFF, or PSD will be returned to LR, and can be
reopened by selecting it for editing in an external editor, choose PS and
*Edit Original*. The edited TIFF, or PSD will reopen in PS with all the
layers intact.

I also explained above that I do not *SAVE AS* to get a JPEG returned to LR,
I only *SAVE*. If I want a JPEG, I export from LR using the export dialog.
See above.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 9/3/2017 7:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

snip


PS is the default external editor.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfu941m6d6v24g1/screenshot_157.png

That is not an additional file. It is the copy of the file (a TIFF, or PSD)
with LR edits created when you chose to edit in PS.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu8uhs2muswpb00/screenshot_160.png

...and the DB screenshot of the LR Preferences for external editors above,
and below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

As I explained above, right-click on the image, or thumbnail in the
film-strip, and select the external editor. In your case that will probably
be PS.
The next thing you are presented with is a selection dialog.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eothmp0hvi9ry9p/screenshot_158.png

As I suggested above, choose ‘Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments’.
This will open in PS after creating either a TIFF, or PSD copy in LR, as
either a TIFF, or PSD.

As I suggested above, do not merge or flatten any layers (I did say that
above), and just *SAVE*, DO NOT *SAVE AS*.
The PS adjusted/edited TIFF, or PSD will be returned to LR, and can be
reopened by selecting it for editing in an external editor, choose PS and
*Edit Original*. The edited TIFF, or PSD will reopen in PS with all the
layers intact.

I also explained above that I do not *SAVE AS* to get a JPEG returned to LR,
I only *SAVE*. If I want a JPEG, I export from LR using the export dialog.
See above.


OK I guess the best way of learning is just to do it, and take more of
the tutorials in Adobe and Lydna.com


--
PeterN

On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/3/2017 7:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in ):

snip


PS is the default external editor.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfu941m6d6v24g1/screenshot_157.png

That is not an additional file. It is the copy of the file (a TIFF, or PSD)
with LR edits created when you chose to edit in PS.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu8uhs2muswpb00/screenshot_160.png

...and the DB screenshot of the LR Preferences for external editors above,
and below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/171mbjie3h132jt/screenshot_155.png

As I explained above, right-click on the image, or thumbnail in the
film-strip, and select the external editor. In your case that will probably
be PS.
The next thing you are presented with is a selection dialog.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eothmp0hvi9ry9p/screenshot_158.png

As I suggested above, choose ‘Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments’.
This will open in PS after creating either a TIFF, or PSD copy in LR, as
either a TIFF, or PSD.

As I suggested above, do not merge or flatten any layers (I did say that
above), and just *SAVE*, DO NOT *SAVE AS*.
The PS adjusted/edited TIFF, or PSD will be returned to LR, and can be
reopened by selecting it for editing in an external editor, choose PS and
*Edit Original*. The edited TIFF, or PSD will reopen in PS with all the
layers intact.

I also explained above that I do not *SAVE AS* to get a JPEG returned to LR,
I only *SAVE*. If I want a JPEG, I export from LR using the export dialog.
See above.

OK I guess the best way of learning is just to do it, and take more of
the tutorials in Adobe and Lydna.com

Good idea.

LR and PS are not simpleware. Guessing at how they work using preconceived
ideas, and bad habits usually leads to compound errors.

I made a mistake, I thought you would be able to follow what I had tried to
explain, and demonstrate above.

If I were you I would start with Julieanne Kost, her videos are not going to
steer you wrong.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html
--

Regards,
Savageduck