"Photoshopping" (or gimping) and truth-in-advertising

I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

But as for the last picture, do you think that it is going too far?

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus23731 wrote:

I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

But as for the last picture, do you think that it is going too far?

Pure Opinion: Unless the customer is buying the background - or should
really be able to see a serious oil leak from the product *on* the
background g - it doesn't seem like the BG is relevant to the product.
It *can* be useful, as in the case of your ruler. But that's optional.
If the BG is irrelevant, I don't see any problem with changing it when
deception is not intended.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project -- http://improve-usenet.org
Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* -- http://usenet4all.se

Ignoramus23731 wrote:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the
part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

But as for the last picture, do
you think that it is going too far?

I don't think it's too far. It doesn't
misrepresent or cover up anything, maybe*.
But I'm not sure if it helps it be more
visible.

I think I can actually see the chuck
better in the 2nd photo than the 3rd,
and the ruler is a nice touch.

*The diagonal line on the smooth body
in the 2nd pic - scratch? tarnish?
There might be a buyer that got weird
if he received it and found the line
on the widget. "It wasn't there on the
photo".


Lumpy

How come you didn't star on Star Trek?
Because Clint Howard beat me for the part of Balok.

www.LumpyVoice.org

On 2008-05-30, Lumpy wrote:
Ignoramus23731 wrote:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the
part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

But as for the last picture, do
you think that it is going too far?

I don't think it's too far. It doesn't
misrepresent or cover up anything, maybe*.
But I'm not sure if it helps it be more
visible.

I am not sure, either.

I think I can actually see the chuck
better in the 2nd photo than the 3rd,
and the ruler is a nice touch.

I agree with that. I try to stick the ruler into as many ebay
pictures, as I can.

*The diagonal line on the smooth body
in the 2nd pic - scratch? tarnish?
There might be a buyer that got weird
if he received it and found the line
on the widget. "It wasn't there on the
photo".

I do not see any diagonal line?
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus23731 wrote:
I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

But as for the last picture, do you think that it is going too far?


Your postproc is not remotely enough.
You are not even backing up for a good start.

Edge finders are totally useless. Do it by hand to get it right.

Everything, of course, should be done to one pixel accuracy in true
Architect's perspective. Totally shadowless or nearly so. With all
lettering perfect.

Your background should be more subtle.
Try http://www.tinaja.com/glib/knockout.bmp

The only time "too much" might happen would be in the case of a rare
collectible where exact condition is important.

Check the ads in Newsweek or a gal putting lipstick on for a date to get
an idea of how much is appropriate.

See the examples on http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQ...00QQsassZabeja

and the custom tools at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/postproc.pdf

All you need to do decent work are my free utilities, Paint, and
Imageview32.

An example of a "just barely enough" postproc appears as
http://www.tinaja.com/images/bargs/tek576.jpg





--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email:

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

On 5/30/08 1:52 PM, in article
, "Ignoramus23731"
wrote:

I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

The first change, to me, made the part more visible and did not
distort its representation.

Yes.
But as for the last picture, do you think that it is going too far?
Yes. To the point of "Cartoonism". Remember, you are selling the product and
that is what your customers want to see-not some BS background.

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gimp/001/

Lump:
*The diagonal line on the smooth body
in the 2nd pic - scratch? tarnish?
There might be a buyer that got weird
if he received it and found the line
on the widget. "It wasn't there on the
photo".

Igor:
I do not see any diagonal line?

On the first two photos. Diagonal, dotted
line runs from "northwest" to "southeast"
across the highlighted rectangle that is
nearly center, running north-south. I think
it's a mark from a tool contacting it.

I don't think they are a reflection.
In the enlarged image versions, the
dot-lines are even easier to see.

http://digitalcartography.com/IgorChuck.jpg

I can kind of see it in the third pic.
It's on the bottom portion of the smooth
body.

Lumpy

You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.LumpyGuitar.net

In article ,
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:

Ignoramus23731 wrote:

I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:

Overcomplicated and unnecessary photo editing. To avoid all these hassles
you need the proper eBay setup. This is why we use this for all out Beanie
Baby Pics.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/R1C1.jpg

Who was it who said KISS - Keep It Simple S*******?

Some people prefer simple cool graphics, probably very Photoshopped to
keep it simple or perhaps the Microsoft approach
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEmZuieb7TM
I suppose if the manipulation isn't immediately apparent but seems too
perfect somehow maybe this is too much.

Any changes should be invisible to the layman or woman

On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:05:25 -0700 (PDT), rjn
wrote:

Don't make the photos look TOO professional.
Leave in slightly amateurish clues. The more it
looks like a catalog photo, the more the bidder
will think it is, and wonder if you are just image
deprived ... up through ... do you even have the item.

I've never liked Don Lancaster's images for this reason. They look
like airbrushed artwork.

I don't subscribe to your suggestion of leaving in a slightly
amateurish clue, but I do believe in stopping short of making the item
look like a commercial art school poster project.

Fix the white point, black point and gamma.
Fix the white balance and color saturation.
Rectify severe keystoning.
Crop to the essentials.
Sharpen tastefully.

#2 and #3 should be addressed when taking the photograph. Setting the
white balance manually in the camera when taking the shot all but
eliminates image processing needs in this area. Correctly positioning
the camera when taking the shot all but eliminates keystoning.

Too many people get carried away with sharpening. The result is
noise.

I do use Adobe Photoshop, but I try to set up the photo so that very
little Photoshopping is required.

* I use flash (or not), strive to avoid
blinding direct reflections, but don't
worry too much about small specular
highlights. Make it look just a bit
amateurish.

I avoid using flash. You only know the results after you've uploaded
the images. Exterior lighting allows you to see what will be on the
image.

You and I aren't very far apart in our approach even though I do some
things differently. We both seem to be doing what works for us.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Stewy wrote:
In article ,
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:

Ignoramus23731 wrote:

I am learning slowly the various capabilities of image editing program
GIMP. Which looks to be a very nice program. My question is how much
editing would you say is acceptable, from the standpoint of
truthfulness in advertising.

Check this out for example:
Overcomplicated and unnecessary photo editing. To avoid all these hassles
you need the proper eBay setup. This is why we use this for all out Beanie
Baby Pics.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/R1C1.jpg

Who was it who said KISS - Keep It Simple S*******?

Some people prefer simple cool graphics, probably very Photoshopped to
keep it simple or perhaps the Microsoft approach
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEmZuieb7TM
I suppose if the manipulation isn't immediately apparent but seems too
perfect somehow maybe this is too much.

Any changes should be invisible to the layman or woman

The criteria is this: Are your images BETTER than the ads in Newsweek?

If not, they need more work.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/postproc.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email:

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com