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".

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/

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.

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

"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

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.

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