Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:26 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 57
Photoshop.... we've nearly all got it, use it, or want it.....

BUT.. where do YOU draw the line between editing your images.. and it becoming cheating/going to far ?

personally i think we should always try to make as little adjustments as possible. but i am aware of people who 'spend hours and hours editing pictures adding boats on to water' ect. -but thats not the image you saw though the viewfinder on the camera..... right ?, is that not like cheating?

im only a keen amateur photographer as you can see from my images. but what i post is what i shot.

what you all think people am i been to harsh on photoshoping?

_________________
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9652485/Photography-competition-winner-disqualified-for-too-much-Photoshopping.html

i think this is quite appropriate to my point.

_________________
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: NW England
jgcparker46 wrote:


Not sure if it was last year, or the year before, but someone else was `stripped` because he'd overdone the PP'ing, although from memory I think it was just cloning out a plastic bag/bit of rubbish from the scene, which was harsh imho. especially when it was something that couldn't easily be reached & removed at the time of taking the shot :roll: (possibly a river Ganges scene in India?)

If you enter a competition they will have rules or guidelines to follow, so if you overstep the mark..........Bosh!


PP'ing is almost inevitable these days, especially if you shoot RAW.

I've only been shooting digital for about 3 years & at first hardly did any PP at all,(partly because I'm the least techie person on the planet :? ) but as time has gone on, depending on the image, I do tend to use it more because it can improve the image immensely. Just de-noising makes a huge difference, as does sharpening & the clone-tool is, well .......magic! :lol:

Not sure I'd know how to manipulate an image by adding boats to a watery scene, certainly not convincingly, but tbh I wouldn't want to.

I know what you're saying about an image being as `lifelike` as poss, but things have moved on from the days of film.

I take photo's for my pleasure, it's purely a hobby, but for others it's more for the kudos or maybe it's business.

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9834
Location: UK
.
I thought I'd add a pointer to my thread Post-processing: The Devil's Dilemma. I'm almost sorry I just did as I've just realised that I raised the question six years ago. Maybe I should get out more... :roll: :lol:

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:27 am
Posts: 528
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
A famous street fotog whose name escapes me was once asked what he did to his images to make them look like that. He answered "a lot"

He shot B&W film back in the day and dodged, burned, cropped and brushed extensively.

All images are manipulated either by the manufacturer's choice of JPEG conversion, or the film manufacturer's film qualities. B&W photography doesn't represent what the fotog saw either, it merely is a representation of how the fotog wants the image to be seen or interpreted.

Making a photograph is showing a scene how the photographer wants it to be seen and I have no problem with any amount of digital manipulation. It's an artwork and by that definition, is open to the artist's whims.

I shoot raw and spend a minute or 2 adjusting tone, contrast, clarity, saturation etc. At what point can a photo be deemed to have been over-manipulated? I will occasionally clone out distracting telephone lines or selectively de-saturate a distracting element.

I don't care.

If someone enters a "no photoshopping" competition or makes an agreement not to manipulate a photo and then over-processes, then it's a different story such as Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Narciso Contreras being kicked at of the Associated Press for this image:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/23/photographer-dumped-altering-syria-image

Perhaps in some contexts, the photographer should also submit the original raw file for reference?

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53061745@N02/

Panasonic G3: 9-18mm, 14mm, 20mm, 45mm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1168
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I think its down to what you want from your photos, with birds its often the case that nothing works in your favour, ie lighting, wind, positioning or pose, or objects like sticks getting in the way.
So being able to enhance the photo to maximise what the subject looks like is a great help, but being able to get a good shot despite of all the challenges makes it more satisfying.
I would like to get most things right at the time I take my shot, but sometimes you take what you can get. Moving a few sliders around in LR or making something less distracting is normal now, but its important to me that the bird looks like it does in real life.

I have been playing around with LR a lot recently, in particular as I have hundreds of Landscape photos form my 2 month trip away with the caravan. Its almost scary what manipulation you can produce, in the end I have only picked about 4 photos that I have really enhanced, the rest just get a 1-2min touch up. Its just to enhance the drama of the scene and it suits the shots, typically involves clouds and beach.
In landscape shots where the sun/clouds/weather/ smoke from bush fires can throw up some unusual and amazing light conditions, its great to capture that and often its a matter of changing exposure settings to add that drama. But how far do you go with post processing when instead of re-creating the scene you are creating art.

I wouldn`t do that to a bird photo, it doesn`t look real then. I used to frequent an Australian photographic forum, where some enhanced the birds way too much, people commented how much they liked it. I don`t like it, oversaturated and too contrasty too much sharpening.

I guess it comes down on whether you take the photo to capture what there is , what is real ie like being a journalist or a documentary maker, or a wildlife/nature photographer or you do it for the art. If its for the art, then you need to be able to distinguish the two and it needs to be clear up front.



I can see why the Landscape photo that won the comp looks overdone, the dark sky on the left is not natural, but without knowing what the rules were in the first place, its hard to comment. Personally its art, as you are not there as a documentary photographer, therefore irrespective of processing it should have won

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:03 am
Posts: 1470
Location: Gold Coast Australia
A never ending topic with no correct answer. As I shoot mostly in bright sun I’ve found the settings that gives me a natural look with no PP. If I PP I spend a few minutes with levels and crop.

If I use a CPL or stich a panorama is that faking the scene.

Having said that, to gain some good points from my wife I made an annual calendar for this year. All were taken from our gardens which she loves and the bird from my back gate. Although the blown out sky was only partially fixed she made no comment on it. This photo shopped image for January was her favourite, the rest were natural shots of flowers. It did get me some good points but not enough for a Nikon 80-400 mm lens :( . Do I like it, as a photo not really.

Image

Cheers

_________________
Nikon D7000, Nikkor 80 - 400G, Nikkor 18- 200 VR II, f3.5-5.6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 57
I think in regards to my link. The picture was not aloud as many pureists said it was not possible to take a photo like that with out lots of pp. I think the up turned boats were added in.but dont quote me.

I agree with what you say about bird pictures.
I think all now theres a very fine line between photo editing and art.
As you say there isnt a right or wrong answer is there.

_________________
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:52 pm
Posts: 579
Location: Scotland
As others have said since the start of photography people have found ways to manipulate images to get the results they want. Your camera even does this when you take a shot setting up things like white balance etc and using it's own algorithm to translate what the image sensor sees into something that makes sense to the human eye.

It really depends what you want the image you have taken to achieve, if it is a record or reporting shot then it should be as true to the original as possible. If it is a creative or art shot then you can pretty much do as you like.

The same is true of movies as it is of stills, do you think all the CGI and post production in the film industry is justified, do you want to see the cardboard scenery of the past?

_________________
Nikon D90
Nikkor AF-S DX; 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G VR, 55-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, 35mm f/1.8G
Speedlight SB-700

http://keystrokesukimages.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 57
Ive never thought of it in regards to cgi and films.its a very good valid point. If you think about it its done everyday everywhere you look isnt it.?

_________________
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 828
Location: Boca Raton, FL, USA
In the end, photography can be an art, or it can be a document. When being pursued for art, then photography is open to whatever the photographer wants to portray in his shot - be it realistic, manipulated, or almost completely manufactured with processing...there's not a 'rule' in art - it's open to the whims of the artist. When being used to document, or claimed to be real, then photo manipulation should not be part of the process - with exception of minor corrections to make a photo discernible, such as adjusting the shadows or highlights or correcting white balance or color, which are usually considered acceptable.

As it happens, what I like to capture in most of my photography is realism, and I prefer to not manipulate most of my photos in photoshop - not because it's right or wrong, better or worse, but because it's just what I enjoy. I prefer to shoot in JPG most of the time, again just because it's what I enjoy - working the camera's controls on scene and before I shoot, choosing my exposure, and seeing what I can capture...rather than tweaking and working the shot afterwards on the computer. It's just a personal challenge I enjoy. However, I occasionally like to post-process some shots too - and I'll go from very mild touchups to very wild, over-the-top looks and adding or removing objects from the shot to completely manipulate the reality of the scene. When I do this, I make no claim that I've captured reality, but offer it as my artistic vision, whether liked or hated.

The right or wrong doesn't come from the post processing or manipulating of a photograph, it comes from CLAIMING that the photo is something that it isn't. Stating a manipulated photograph is not manipulated is wrong, especially if being used as a document.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 150-600mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6000 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Holland
In my opinion the line for PP is when you edit things out or into your pictures, or move subjects arround.
Taking a good picture is about choosing your viewpoint and being observant. When you have to edit your picture because you didn't choose a good viewpoint. Or you have to edit (move in/out/around) the subjects in your picture, I think you should loose to someone who has been more observant while taking his/her picture.

Some great photographers do extensive editing to produce great art. But still they have to be verry observant to make a good pricture to begin there editing proces with. So for me, someone who forgets to remove a bag out of the pricture is just not a winner to someone who dit remove prior to the shot.

Regarding to the boats on the beach who where supposedly edit into the picture. I would give the price to someone who did more location scouting to find a viewpoint that would not need editing.

Winning a price with editing you have to begin with a great picture and end up with a better picture, not hide your mistakes.

_________________
www.pimvandevelde.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group