enhancing photos - OK or not?

the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

"F. D. Lewis" wrote:

the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

He is supposed to have claimed he was just removing dust, though it is
obvious that he also added more smoke (as if it needed any extra!)

I guess it would depend what your results achieved. Making an image
fit a story should be against the rules but news websites, specially
the BBC etc seem to use the same stock images often to cover lots of
stories, say a person was arrested at home, you'll frequently see a
picture of a policeman guarding a premises, but neither substantially
clear, so it could be virtually anything you were looking at. Either
that or one of those striped tapes with 'police' written on it.

My concern at the moment is that this story is being used to draw
interest away from the subject of the photographs themselves.

--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

F. D. Lewis wrote:
the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

I should think that working news photogs would have their cameras set so
that minimal, if any, work would be required on the images, and apart
from checking focus and exposure, or maybe selecting the best shots,
leave the rest to the editor of the paper. Speed is of the essence, and
wasting time fiddling with images is not in their interest.

In which case, your question doesn't arise.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.

F. D. Lewis wrote:
the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

It has never been possible to print an image that is a perfect
replication of the original scene, not even in film days. The
developers used, both for the negs and print, affect sharpness,
contrast and brightness, as does the print paper.

I would say that digital, especially if on a color-managed setup, is
probably better in terms of sharpness, brightness and contrast control,
than film, subject to certain limitations.

The biggest limitation (either digital OR film) is that a daylit
(sunny) scene has well over a thousand to one dynamic range. Print
paper has 50:1 or less. One must ALWAYS decide whether to lower
contrast to print all tones in image, or leave contrast high and print
for either the highlights OR the shadows. Now, if you do nothing
yourself the computer does it for you these days (including the printer
driver). So NO published photo is a fully accurate recording of a
scene.

F. D. Lewis wrote:
the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

It has never been possible to print an image that is a perfect
replication of the original scene, not even in film days. The
developers used, both for the negs and print, affect sharpness,
contrast and brightness, as does the print paper.

I would say that digital, especially if on a color-managed setup, is
probably better in terms of sharpness, brightness and contrast control,
than film, subject to certain limitations.

The biggest limitation (either digital OR film) is that a daylit
(sunny) scene has well over a thousand to one dynamic range. Print
paper has 50:1 or less. One must ALWAYS decide whether to lower
contrast to print all tones in image, or leave contrast high and print
for either the highlights OR the shadows. Now, if you do nothing
yourself the computer does it for you these days (including the printer
driver). So NO published photo is a fully accurate recording of a
scene.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:48:53 +0100, Derek Fountain
wrote:

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.

How about in the 'old days' when graphic artists drew, or sketched
pictures to accompany the news articles. Or even today, in court cases
when cameras are not allowed, but artists can draw picturees?

"F. D. Lewis" wrote in message
oups.com...
the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?


Hi

It should be obvious that that sort of adjustment is Ok. That is just
compensating for what a Film Photographer would do, or have done, in the
Darkroom to get a good quality image.

What is not acceptable is adding or subtracting, parts of the image, which
change what it is representing. One Flare becomes 3, or 1 Fire becomes 2
or 3.

The difference between these 2 activities is quite clear, and the second is
not acceptable.

Roy G

In an earlier era it was said that a photographer was only as good as
his printer (the professional, not the machine).

F. D. Lewis wrote:
the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.

suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?



Any of these steps, in a camera or a computer, can introduce
distortions into the image. If the intent is to distort in
a particular way, that is dishonest journalism. It can be
excellent art.