If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
"Roger Whitehead" wrote in message ... In article .com, TopPhotoBlog wrote: What do you think about manipulating photos with PhotoShopping. You might as well ask if people like typing documents without using a spelling checker. What's a spell checker? It's a small program within many word processing applications. Compares words in a document against words in a "dictionary", and flags any word not found. Often provides a suggested replacement word. Doesn't really check spelling because it can't differentiate between homonyms - to a spell check program there's no difference between "sea" and "see"; "meet" and "meat"; "there", "their", and "they're". |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
Yes I agree with you, have tried to do this myself, its actually kinda
tricky to do, unless I'm doing it the hard way. I think Bill nailed it down pretty good, I agree with his 12 steps, maybe about step 6 it should start being captioned as photoshopped? "Angela M. Cable" wrote in message ... gll wrote: I use photoshop to adjust scans to look like the original slide, maybe even better than the original, but I think the nuts and bolts of this is in createing an image in photoshop. I once saw a photo of a huge moon rising and a huge bull elk silhouetted in front of the moon, I thought how lucky the photographer was to to be there and get to see that sight much less capture it, then I found out it was a computer composite, I just felt cheated. You know, people have been making slide "sandwiches" for a very long time. Sandwiching a full moon with another image is probably one of the most common reasons for doing it. An image editor simply makes the process of getting the print easier. recently someone posted the www.wildthings.com website and I was blown away by his images, I sent links to my kids to show them, they promptly emailed back "Photoshopped", I did a google and sure enough. is he less of a photographer ? NO, is he as skilled in photshop as some are in the darkroom? yes I only wish they were a little more up front about what it is. -- Angela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 8, 9, X Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
Celtic Boar wrote:
A photograph is an attempt to record the world within the view of the artist taking the picture. Perception is reality. My eyes convey to my brain and I perceive. The image I capture, whether film or digital, is mimicry of the scene I perceived. To enhance the image to more closely match your perception is to make the image more real than what a limited device like a camera can capture. I want the color, the contrast, the vividness of the 3D experience or as close to it a I can reproduce with our techniques. I draw the line at making the scene into something it was not. I don't add an extra duck. I may crop one out. I take out a fence post I didn't see when I captured, I don't add one in to create symmetry. I bracket and combine exposures to approximate what our eye can see, I do not shift spectrum or alter color from what it was in my mind's eye. I treat a photograph as I would a scan. It is a beginning. When it looks like my memory, it is at an end. Rikk. The appropriateness of manipulation is related to the purpose of the photograph. Journalistic photos should not be manipulated. Their purpose, to inform, to document and to educate, is defeated by manipulated images. In photojournalism, the image must be trustworthy. A manipulated image is not, even when the manipulation is relatively benign, a trustworthy image. What might have been acceptable in the wet darkroom is no longer acceptable in digital photojournalism. One result of the shift is that for photojournalism, such manipulation is no longer acceptable in the wet darkroom either. Prime example is the photograph from Kent State of Mary Vecchio at the body of Jeff Miller. There was a post growing out of her head in the original photograph. http://blogs.salon.com/0002551/images/kent-state.jpg This post was retouched out before the photo was distributed for publication. http://dailyramblings.com/images/kent1.gif Such a change would not be acceptable today in photojournalism, digital or film. And in fact the image with the fence post growing out of the Veccio's head is today the preferred image despite its defects. In art, or in commercial photography, anything goes. The purpose is not to convey a "factual" image, but to influence emotions. Nature photography is generally closer to photojournalism than it is to commercial photography, but because the sensor can't record what the eye can see, slightly more latitude is granted to make the image match the photographer's vision. I wouldn't worry too much about adjusting an image as long as you're working with whatever is inherently in the image. But if you add to or take away from an image, the image shouldn't be mis-represented as an un-manipulated photograph. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
In article , Jeroen Wenting wrote:
You might as well ask if people like typing documents without using a spelling checker. What's a spell checker? Something wizards use to ensure their incantations are correct. A spelling checker, on the other hand, checks one's typing for basic spelling errors. Roger |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
ups.com... TopPhotoBlog asks ... What do you think about manipulating photos with PhotoShopping Everybody does it, at least a little. The question is where do you personally draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not. For example here are 12 ways you can manipulate an image with Photoshop (I'm sure there are a lot more). Where do you personally draw the line? 1) adjust brightness 2) adjust contrast 3) increase saturation 4) change white balance (These first four are OK by me because I can do the exact same things with film cameras, maybe to a lesser extent but I can do them with film so I see no reason not to do them in Photoshop with a clear conscience) 5) clone out sensor dust spots or scanner dust (OK by me since it's not changing the overall image) 6) clone out distracting small things (now it starts to get interesting ... is this OK or not? To me if it's something in the corner I didn't see because the viewfinder didn't show 100% then I feel OK with it. If it's something I saw but couldn't compose out I confess I often clone out small distractions, but I always feel a bit guilty about doing it, like I had a minor failure). If it's something I didn't notice at the time I will also clone it out but I know I've failed a little bit when I took the original shot. 7) clone out large areas (I almost never do this but I know a lot of people who do ... maybe I'm just too lazy or maybe I don't feel comfortable with this large of a change if I want to represent it as a photo instead of a digital manipulation) 8) replace out-of-focus eye of, say a bird, with in-focus eye of the same bird from a different image (I don't do this and when I've seen people demonstrate doing it I always look at their images in the future with a skeptical eye 9) extend canvas and clone in wingtip of bird or foot of animal or whatever from another image (I don't believe in adding anything that wasn't in the original but I know several big-name pros who regularly do this) 10) select and move items that are in the same image to re-arrange the composition (I've never done this but some of my friends do) ... I recall Art Wolfe getting a lot of flak for doing this (or duplicating parts of the image to fill in dead spots) in about 1/3 the images in his book "Migrations" 10 years ago. And a National Geographic cover shot moved one of the Egyptian pyramids closer to a different one digitally 20 years ago and the magazine was criticized for it strongly. 11) select item from different image that COULD be (or recently was) in the same scene and composite the two to create a new image (I don't do this except for obvious composites but some of my friends do) 12) select item from different image and composite with another image to create something that couldn't happen and represent it as an actual image (I think everyone agrees this is not kosher, well everyone except those working for tabloid magazines) So there you have it, the first five manipulations are fine with me while # 6 is something I do but hope to avoid by careful composition in-camera. For me 7 - 12 are things I don't do if I want to represent it as a photo image, but I realize a lot of people disagree with this. Where is YOUR ethical boundary? Bill Bill, Always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. I like what you wrote above, but would empahsize something you alluded to mentioning the National Geographic cover. I'd suggest that the amount of ethical manipulation has to do with the final context in which a photo is going to be used. For instance, photos used in National Geographic stories (and cover) must have a higher standard than advertising in other contexts. For example, several years ago I bought a Milepost (for planning a trip to Alaska) and just inside the front cover was a wonderful advertisement for fishing in Alaska. The photo showed a large brown bear standing at the edge of the waterfall, head twisted to one side and mouth open, a split second before grabbing a leaping salmon from mid-air (a rather iconic photo with which most of us will be familar). Directly behind the bear--let's say three feet from the bear--was a fisherman all duded out in the latest fishing gear, head twisted to one side and mouth open and eyes firmly fixed on the bear. The caption read something like, "Come to Alaska and learn from the experts." Of course, the photo obviously was a digital manipulation, but to me at least, it seems like a perfectly admissible use of photography. Perhaps it was because it was an obvious manipulation, was tongue-in-cheek, or because it was an advertisement, or a combination of all three. Regardless, it was an effective, and humorous, use of photography that didn't seem to cross any ethical boundaries because of the context in which it was used. On the other hand a photo of a quaint New England village/steepled church surrounded by fall colors, but with all the aerial telephone and power cables digitally removed, isn't an ethical use of digital manipulation even if, and perhaps especially if, it is used in advertising designed to attract tourism. In fact, I can't think of a context in which this photograph would be permissible--maybe on the cover of a church brochure? (That's kind of ironic!) The second issue I'd expand on is that film and sensors don't see a scene as the human eye sees it. Slide film, sensors, print film, and the human eye have vastly different capabilities of resolving details in both shadows and highlights at the same time (as well as color balance, contrast, etc.). (In addition, the human brain almost surely add details that the eye may not see, but the brain assumes is there. So the brain fills in details from "over or under-exposed" areas of a scene that it remembers from previous experiences.) A number of years ago I led a project that designed and built a zoo exhibit. Visitors sat in a covered ampitheater of the completed exhibit looking out into an outdoor wetland in which two Whooping Cranes wandered. The human eye could easily see details in both the semi-open amphitheater (open shade) and in the sun lit exhibit at the same time. Print film, much less slide film, couldn't reproduce that scene because of their narrower exposure latitude. So for advertising purposes I took two photographs from the back of the ampitheater looking over the heads of the audience and out into the exhibit. The first was exposed properly for the outdoor scene (actually under-exposed it a bit so as not to blow out the highlights on the white cranes) and the second slightly underexposed the audience seating area (to accurately reflect the pleasantness of the shady area and to emphasize the exhibit itself). I then combined the best of both photographs to recreate a scene that the eye realistically could see, but that film couldn't record in just a single shot. This photo was used in advertising, but I'd be comfortable in using it in other contexts as well since it accurately reflects what the eye sees rather than what the film could see. Yet this photo is a highly manipulated digital compilation of two photos. A fine art photo print can go the exact opposite direction by creating a scene that the eye couldn't see. For instance, I think about Ansel Adams' gorgeous photo of the aspen grove. The shadows are undoubtly deepened blocking some detail the eye would see, i.e. the eye would almost certainly see more detail in those shadows than what a viewer can see in the photograph. This level of manipulation is almost certainly acceptable as well, but the context is different than what is discussed with the advertising examples mentioned above. Would it be permissible to use in National Geographic? I suspect that it would be if it was being used to document Ansel Adams' life work, but would it be if it were being used to illustrate a story about aspens in California parklands? There are many other examples of what is permissible or what isn't, but it seems to me that context is almost certainly the most important determinant of what is, and isn't, ethically allowable when it comes to digital manipulation. In the end, I'm wrestling with some formulation of how I deal with this issue and so enjoyed your comments very much, but wanted to add the context issue to see what other think. Just my two cents worth.... Gordon Dietzman |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
Gordon Dietzman wrote: ....snip On the other hand a photo of a quaint New England village/steepled church surrounded by fall colors, but with all the aerial telephone and power cables digitally removed, isn't an ethical use of digital manipulation even if, and perhaps especially if, it is used in advertising designed to attract tourism. In fact, I can't think of a context in which this photograph would ....snip One project that I'd like to undertake when I've the time is to photograph all of the churches in my home town. I'd have no problem using PS to remove telephone or power lines from those photographs. What I'm attempting to capture is the essence of the building. I don't believe that telephone lines define the essence of a house of worship. In many cases, the buildings predate the telephone lines. FWIW. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopping, YES or No?
Bill,
Excellent post. I have some additions. Bill Hilton wrote: TopPhotoBlog asks ... What do you think about manipulating photos with PhotoShopping Everybody does it, at least a little. The question is where do you personally draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not. For example here are 12 ways you can manipulate an image with Photoshop (I'm sure there are a lot more). Where do you personally draw the line? 1) adjust brightness 2) adjust contrast 3) increase saturation 4) change white balance (These first four are OK by me because I can do the exact same things with film cameras, maybe to a lesser extent but I can do them with film so I see no reason not to do them in Photoshop with a clear conscience) 5) clone out sensor dust spots or scanner dust (OK by me since it's not changing the overall image) I would add: 5a) Fix camera artifacts. For example, every raw converter interpolates, and no interpolation algorithm is perfect and causes artifacts. Same with in camera jpegs, which includes in camera raw conversion then compression with artifacts. Then when you upsize an image and sharpen, there can be additional artifacts, such as ringing around edges. I will clone out such artifacts on more prominent subjects. Also, repair of chromatic aberration, and other image smear problems (but not by replacing things from other images). This is the point up to where I normally work. 6) clone out distracting small things (now it starts to get interesting ... is this OK or not? To me if it's something in the corner I didn't see because the viewfinder didn't show 100% then I feel OK with it. If it's something I saw but couldn't compose out I confess I often clone out small distractions, but I always feel a bit guilty about doing it, like I had a minor failure). If it's something I didn't notice at the time I will also clone it out but I know I've failed a little bit when I took the original shot. I did this when first starting and got fewer good images. As we discussed external to this thread, this is an interesting case: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...149.f-700.html There is a stick partially intruding onto the back of the bird. It would be better if it was not there. I tried to position myself in the field to eliminate it, but could not. Moving more to the right had bright blue sky as the background and the birds were in silhouette, moving left makes the problem worse. I've shown the image to a number of people now (13x19 inch print) and no one has mentioned the stick. Removing the stick would disqualify the image from some contests. I've convinced myself that the stick adds reality to the image as it makes the scene not "perfect." 7) clone out large areas (I almost never do this but I know a lot of people who do ... maybe I'm just too lazy or maybe I don't feel comfortable with this large of a change if I want to represent it as a photo instead of a digital manipulation) I agree. It is very hard to do well, and is usually obvious unless done by a real expert. Note landscape photographers from 100+ years ago used to insert clouds into their images from other photos, sometimes using the same clouds in multiple images. I think it saves time to get right in the field, than fix it in photoshop. 8) replace out-of-focus eye of, say a bird, with in-focus eye of the same bird from a different image (I don't do this and when I've seen people demonstrate doing it I always look at their images in the future with a skeptical eye Interesting. I've never thought of this one. But if the eye is out of focus, aren't too many other parts of the image also out of focus? A slight mis focus can be repaired by Richardson-Lucy deconvolution (or similar algorithms). I took a family portrait in Hawaii once (wife and 3 kids), using a tripod and delayed timer (Diamond head in the background). This was on film before I had a scanner. We didn't notice, but every frame (I did about 6) the youngest boy was making funny faces. The otherwise superb image was ruined. When I got my first scanner a couple of years later, the first thing I did has scan another image of the boy and replace the head in the family portrait. 9) extend canvas and clone in wingtip of bird or foot of animal or whatever from another image (I don't believe in adding anything that wasn't in the original but I know several big-name pros who regularly do this) I have had situations where using fixed focus lenses, I could not fit the subject into the frame, so I take multiple frames and mosaic. E.g.: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ons.c-600.html I usually do document when I do this. One advantage is that it adds many more pixels to the final image. But with animals, or a breezy day, things move from frame to frame. The boundary in the image above was just below the birds feet. Mosaicking was a challenge because in the couple of seconds between frames, the bush shifted in the wind (note the feather on the bird's head indicates wind coming from the right). So I would say mosaicking is OK as it represents a different method of making a higher resolution image. 10) select and move items that are in the same image to re-arrange the composition (I've never done this but some of my friends do) I have done this, but I label the image as to what was done. E.g. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries..._05_17n4w.html 11) select item from different image that COULD be (or recently was) in the same scene and composite the two to create a new image (I don't do this except for obvious composites but some of my friends do) Yes, I do this, but to do wildlife in large format scenes, and I label it as such. E.g.: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries..._L4a6_600.html The reason I have done this is to get the detail of 4x5 and the speed of 35mm. The 4x5 requires a 1 to 2 second exposure, which animals would be blurred, and the 35mm with a fast exposure. Both cameras were set at the same focal length (e.g. 90mm, using the same film). But even when photographing with two different cameras, taking two images with the same lighting from the same spot, and merging them is non trivial. It probably took me 8 hours to merge the two frames in the above image. I probably will not do that again, but instead do an all digital mosaic. So the above image, done in 1998, I would now do with a digital camera, shoot the marmot, then continue to frame and build up the large field of view. 12) select item from different image and composite with another image to create something that couldn't happen and represent it as an actual image (I think everyone agrees this is not kosher, well everyone except those working for tabloid magazines) Yes, I agree. Digital sandwiches have been done for a long time, but such images should be labeled. The number of moon inserted into an image where the lighting doesn't match is amazing, yet most people do not know the difference. On a visit to Moab photo gallery once, I say a big print of Arches with the moon large in the frame. A salesperson said it was their highest selling image. Knowing the location, I knew the moon was too big and could never be at that altitude at that phase in the sky, so I knew it was faked. Yet they made no mention of it. So there you have it, the first five manipulations are fine with me while # 6 is something I do but hope to avoid by careful composition in-camera. For me 7 - 12 are things I don't do if I want to represent it as a photo image, but I realize a lot of people disagree with this. I agree. See my statement: Photography Ethics and the Limits of Film and Cameras http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html (looks like I need to update this page to include digital mosaics.) Roger |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshopping, YES or NO ? | TopPhotoBlog | Digital Photography | 36 | March 4th 06 11:18 AM |