phipck Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 i do not use any photo 'doctoring' for my photographs, what you see in my pictures is what i shot in that moment. I do sometimes check the lighting levels of a photo and trim them for exposure, i class this as 'editing' as it does not change the content of the image, but i have been critisized by some photographers for doing any alterations at all, while others seem to comfortably be willing to remove whole buildings or people from pictures to suit their vision. I would never do this. an area of debate here, should a photographer actively use photoshop to 'doctor' their photos, does altering light levels constitute 'doctoring' or should we just leave the images as we find them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 I believe that alterations should be restricted to what alterations conventional photography allows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 i do not use any photo 'doctoring' for my photographs, what you see in my pictures is what i shot in that moment. I do sometimes check the lighting levels of a photo and trim them for exposure, i class this as 'editing' as it does not change the content of the image, but i have been critisized by some photographers for doing any alterations at all, while others seem to comfortably be willing to remove whole buildings or people from pictures to suit their vision. I would never do this. an area of debate here, should a photographer actively use photoshop to 'doctor' their photos, does altering light levels constitute 'doctoring' or should we just leave the images as we find them? It all depends. Every digital camera starts with a set of values generated by light falling on sensors and then uses some kind of processing algorithm to turn those values into a visible image. Depending upon the type of camera, there will be more or less facility to adjust the values built into the processing algorithm. A point and shoot camera (e.g. one that produces jpeg images directly) may have little or no facility to change the processing values. A high end camera that produces RAW images may not produce any kind of decent image without some manipulation by the photographer of the RAW values. The clearest example of this lies in the "sharpness" of the image. Most digital cameras use an anti-aliasing filter and the effect of that filter is, among other things, to reduce the edge contrast in the image. Point and shoot cameras have a "sharpening" function built in to their processing algorithm. High end cameras do not have this function built in, but leave it to the photographer to choose the appropriate level of sharpening. Without intervention from the photographer the high end camera will produce images that are naturally softer than those from a point and shoot job. A traditional film camera would allow a competent photographer to choose negative processing options and some further options for manipulation when printing from the negative. The beauty of digital photography is that the RAW file (the unprocessed negative) can be processed as many times as you like without destroying it. The resulting files are each equivalent to a differently processed negative and each of them can be manipulated in printing, just like the single processed negative in traditional photography. Moving on to the question of content of the image, again it all depends upon your purpose. If you are producing pictures for forensic purposes, then clearly there should be no manipulation. News photographs should apply similar criteria. But if the object is to produce an artistic image of beauty, then as far as I am concerned anything goes and it is all in the eye of the beholder. The only other thing that I would say (from the vast range of other things that could be said) is that if you are producing pictures in some sort of competitive endeavour, then competition criteria will be laid down and you need to stick to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 Cropping, adjusting the contrast etc are ok...circumstances or limitations of the camera may mean the photo hasn't come out how you expected so needs correcting in PS. What I don't agree with is airbrushing, especially for magazines, it just looks too fake to me...what's wrong with showing a person for who/what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted May 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 ^^ thats basicly where i stand, i strive to take the photo i wish to see displayed. if something obstructs my view i would rather not take the photo than go 'post production' on my it. I work at an art college and its interesting to see what lengths people will go to to remidy an issue, or completely alter an image to their own preferences. I see this as a lazy aproach which makes more work in the long run. Maybe im just a little anal about it? i like the "do it right, do it once" approach in all things saves time by not having to fix the mistakes later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 ^^ thats basicly where i stand, i strive to take the photo i wish to see displayed. if something obstructs my view i would rather not take the photo than go 'post production' on my it. I work at an art college and its interesting to see what lengths people will go to to remidy an issue, or completely alter an image to their own preferences. I see this as a lazy aproach which makes more work in the long run. Maybe im just a little anal about it? i like the "do it right, do it once" approach in all things saves time by not having to fix the mistakes later You wouldn't approve of my abstracts then? . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 What's that suppose to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted May 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 Now to me that's cool, using photoshop as a creative tool works. As I said I work at an art college and I can apreciate the merits of a creative ability, my argument is more to do with the attitude of 'I'll fix that later' or 'remove that telegraph pole'. Why not simply find another location Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 After a comment in another forum about the wine glass photo I took I decided to photoshop it to level it out and remove the drop to the right hand side. Before After Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 That's brilliant, is that using photoshop? I'm not really that good with it, how do you remove the droplet like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 That's brilliant, is that using photoshop? I'm not really that good with it, how do you remove the droplet like that? Yep in photoshop...I copied a section of the photo that is similar to where the droplet was to cover it up and then blended it into the surrounding area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted June 7, 2010 Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 Yep in photoshop...I copied a section of the photo that is similar to where the droplet was to cover it up and then blended it into the surrounding area. Really got to start playing with it, it is amazing software. That's a really good job, I can't tell that you had cut that out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 7, 2010 Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 Yep in photoshop...I copied a section of the photo that is similar to where the droplet was to cover it up and then blended it into the surrounding area. Really got to start playing with it, it is amazing software. That's a really good job, I can't tell that you had cut that out! That's the idea mate It really is a great piece of software, so much you can do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 Skyline drifty at WIM today so I got a photo and had a little play...what do we think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 That's good.... very good actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 That's good.... very good actually Cheers, I like it, my new desktop! When I walking around the back of the car he revved the engine (don't think he realised I was there) and f ing hell how loud!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 That's good.... very good actually Cheers, I like it, my new desktop! When I walking around the back of the car he revved the engine (don't think he realised I was there) and f ing hell how loud!!! I don't often go for the Photoshop filters approach, but seeing this pic made me wonder whether it might work for an avatar. I took this one on my drive this morning. I think it is probably still not simple enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 I like it, got cartoon characteristics to it, might have a play with mine later. Filters aren't for everyone and some are horrible but others can really add that something special to a photo. Applying too many filters can also have the opposite affect and I always think it's best just to stick with one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 I'm in two minds over photoshopping.... Mind number one says the perfect picture come from the photographers skill, whereas a slight imperfection in the perfect picture corrected would add majesty...... It's a hard call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Couple more, simple blur for the first and a sketched look for the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 Ok so following this thread I got Photoshop CS5 and I'm amazed at what it can do! Haven't even started trying fancy stuff like what you guys have done above, but it's amazing how you can take a photo which is too dark or colours look wrong and fix it, and so simply! Got me thinking I don't actually need to take a good photo anymore, as long as it's in focus and decent enough, the rest can be sorted out after. Fantastic stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 Ok so following this thread I got Photoshop CS5 and I'm amazed at what it can do! Haven't even started trying fancy stuff like what you guys have done above, but it's amazing how you can take a photo which is too dark or colours look wrong and fix it, and so simply! Got me thinking I don't actually need to take a good photo anymore, as long as it's in focus and decent enough, the rest can be sorted out after. Fantastic stuff It's a brilliant program when you get the hang of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted July 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 Ok so following this thread I got Photoshop CS5 and I'm amazed at what it can do! Haven't even started trying fancy stuff like what you guys have done above, but it's amazing how you can take a photo which is too dark or colours look wrong and fix it, and so simply! Got me thinking I don't actually need to take a good photo anymore, as long as it's in focus and decent enough, the rest can be sorted out after. Fantastic stuff exactly the mentality i started this thread for, i am of the oposite mentality, i would rather take a good photo and need no alteration or trickery to correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hms Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 After a comment in another forum about the wine glass photo I took I decided to photoshop it to level it out and remove the drop to the right hand side. Before After The first photo looks as though someone could be swirling the wine in the glass prior to tasting, the second one jars with me. Vertical glass, vertical tree in the background but the wine is not on the level. There is nothing in the picure to sugest movement to make the wine not be level. Feel free to ignore my comments, I have yet to take a decent photo! h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 exactly the mentality i started this thread for, i am of the oposite mentality, i would rather take a good photo and need no alteration or trickery to correct. Totally agree mate, personally I'd love to have the skill to take the perfect shot first time (also saves time at home!) but often I find myself taking photos a few times tweaking settings each time to make it better. This way though as long as a photo is close enough it can be tidied up later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.