The "PhotoShop" Issue.

[Macaroon]

If I could present the world with an image which was a precise representation of something outside of myself, every time somebody else looked at that image they'd be creating an image of their own anyway; perception is a very personal thing and is different for everybody. Each time one perceives any image one carries out many manipulations without being aware of the fact. I'm not putting this very well but I suppose what I'm saying is that the manipulation involved must always be just a matter of degree and what really matters is the integrity of the image maker in the first instance.........................

The best parallel I can think of is what the impressionist painters did when they opened their particular form of manipulation.

 

[Harvestman]

Image manipulation only bothers me if I don't like what I see in the finished image. It is, after all, about the image in the end. if I like what someone has done, then it doesn't bother me.

I'm just starting to manipulate mine, as I gain experience and tools.

 

[santaman2000]

.....Light bouncing off the subject enters the lens of the camera and is focussed onto a light sensitive sensor. The amount of light is controlled by the shutter speed which determines how long the light affects the sensor and a variable aperture that determines how much light is allowed through the lens.

On most cameras, the sensor itself is made up of many individual receptors each filtered to receive light of one colour, red, blue or green. In a standard Bayer array the green receptors out number the red or blue by a factor of 2:1 which simulates our own eye's increased sensitivity to the green part of the visible spectrum......

I take your word about the camera array, but the receptors in the human eye receive Red, Blue, and Yellow (the primary colors) Not Red, Blue, and Green.

 

[Wayland]

The way the eye and it's retina works is far more complex than a camera sensor, photo manufacturers can only dream of replicating it really, but it's peak sensitivity lies in the middle of the spectral range that it can perceive. ie. Green.

The response curve is normally bell shaped so colours such a yellow and cyan are the next best and so on down to deep red and violet.

By doubling the number of green receptors in the sensor array and doing a bit of clever math the manufacturers aim to replicate this bell shaped response curve to mimic our visual response. In practice it's not perfect but it does a pretty good job.

Incidentally, yellow is a subtractive primary while red, blue and green are additive primaries which is the model generally use when discussing light. Mixing red and green light actually produces yellow light which seems counter intuitive if you are used to mixing pigments.

 

[santaman2000]

. Mixing red and green light actually produces yellow light which seems counter intuitive if you are used to mixing pigments.....

Mixing pigments is something I'm fair at (not good, but fair) as I was cross trained as a painter about 12 years into my career when the Air Force decided to combine the two career fields (structural repair with paint shop) More or less comparing the aviation equivalent to automotive "body & paint."

And yes indeed; the human eye is far more complex than the mechanical or electronic counterparts.

 

[mousey]

This has got me thinking on some other discussion relating to architectural drawings, in the past artistic impressions were used to sell the building / project to prospective clients. It was clear they were an artistic impression and as such not to be confused with how the building would REALLY look , just an idea of what it may look like - a pretty picture, [until the structural guys got hold of if and said 'what? that flimsy thing hold up the roof!!??!' - and the design gets change...]

Anyway, in this day and age of computer rendering and 3d modelling many people seem to belive that if the image has been produced using 3d cad software then the building / design /whatever has been fully thought through and therefore must be an accurate rendition of what a final project will look like. Some are very surprised to find out that the 'realistic' computer render is actually still very much an artists impression and as such may bear little resemblance to the real world final outcome. So now people make cad drawings look 'fudged' or 'hand drawn' on purpose to give back the idea that it's an artistic take on it and not an attempt to be a realistic image.

 

[Wayland]

Interesting point. CGI can look very real these days.

 

[mousey]

It's even got to the point where I've heard the special effect team that did the Iron man suit stuff have been contacted by one military or the other to design body armour.....

 

[Wayland]

Here is an interesting example. I freely admit that this has been PhotoShopped.

I had been on location, set up and waiting for about half an hour.

The rooks were flying around as usual, playing noisily on the wind and there were intermittent flashes of light breaking through the scudding clouds.

People were visiting and leaving the circle as they do all day, every day.

One beam of light burst through into the valley and traversed the scene over twenty seconds or so. I took five shots of it.

I took three shots of the rooks and I took a shot of the circle while no one was in the frame.

All the shots were taken within about two minutes and the elements are represented exactly where they were.

A two minute long exposure would have included all of these elements but the movement would have rendered much of the activity blurred or invisible.

The nine quick shots that I took in that time allows you to see, just as my eye did, the scenario that I experienced.

I have of course made decisions. I could for example have chosen a moment where people were visible in the circle but I chose not to.

If I had shot a movie in those two minutes you would have seen all of this and more but I chose to distil it into just one image. I also chose to depict it in monochrome in this instance.

Some might feel that two minutes is a long time but geologically speaking it is still just a fleeting moment.

Did it look like this at any single precise instant? No.

Does this present a true impression of what it was like to be there during that time? Yes, I believe it does.

 

[Macaroon]

Does this present a true impression of what it was like to be there during that time? Yes, I believe it does.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell for me

 

[colly]

on a side note an ex girlfriend was the manager of a photo developing shop with machines the cost of would make your eyes water.
many 'professional' photographers would bring in wedding photos they would charge a fortune for and she would have to 'correct' most of them in photoshop or the married couples would get horrible photos.
the worst 'professionals' also thought they were the best and would instruct her to print them as they are so she couldn't tell them what she had done. none seemed to notice.

 

[ArkAngel]

Loving this thread

Photo manipulation has gone on since the invention of the medium. Whoever said "the camera never lies" has never seen a camera or knows anything about it.
I got most of my training back in the late 80's/ early 90's and what can be done on a computer these days is just a faster. easier way of doing what is possible in a darkroom. The advantage being the skin not being burnt off your hands, a stinking chemical headache and a skin tone that would make a vampire jealous due to hours spent in a dark room!

Even the days of film the brand of film, whatever chemicals it was processed in, the paper it was printed on and the machine used to do so gave the same level of variation that today we find in camera sensors, computer monitors and printers, inks and papers. So all we have is updated and digital version of problems that have always existed. Most of the time this was not seen as a problem and by knowing what combination of film paper and processing to use could assist in creating the finished image you were looking for.

Everyone's interpretation of images is personal to them and very individual. Show 1 image to 100 different people and you will get 100 different answers to what they do or don't like about the image and what it means to them.
I have numerous pictures over a few sites and it's so interesting to see the responses. Some of what i think are my most 'average' shots get the most likes and the best comments but shots that I think are better composed and technically better are overlooked....Like I say it's personal.

Ansel Adams has been mentioned on here already but i liked his ethos that "the single most important component of a camera is the 12 inches behind it"

All our modern technology just makes the job easier, not better.....just easier.

I've always liked this saying that i've seen in various locations over years:

"It is the camera that catches your imagination. If you do not use your imagination, you will wind up with just another photograph. Where does the word image come from? It comes from the word "imagination". Not from lens, noise levels, sharpness, color balance."

 

[Squidders]

The Facebook member in me wanted to like BR's post.

Using Photoshop to adjust levels or even to merge bracketed images into a HDR photo is much like converting an image to greyscale, you aren't changing the scene but changing how the scene looks.

Removing parts of the scene or adding things that are not in the scene is another thing altogether, that is not only changing how a scene is viewed but fundamentally changing the scene.

Now, I'm not into judging those who do either - I have done both myself when I wanted a photograph to look a certain way but when I did that, I will not lie to myself by thinking that's what I saw. I see what is in front of me and if I remove a soldier from in front of an Egyptian temple, i'm creating a fantasy world - one that does not or did not exist.

It's all about being open for me. Make whatever art you like, you are not obliged to give away your methods but be open about post processing vs. creating a composite image.

Wayland, you have a good eye for a scene and a talent for taking a good photo and processing that photo to its potential but I don't get your reluctance to say "Yes, I 'shopped the hell out of it." your photos are great and that cannot be disputed.

To my mind there are two types of manipulation. One involves correcting errors in the photograph - be that "red eye", colour balance, exposure etc. That is akin to the type of correction done in the dark room (as is enlargement, cropping etc.)

The other type involves creating an image that does not accurately reflect what was there at the time the photograph was taken. This can be inserting elements into the image that were not there originally, removing image components (the annoying brightly dressed person in the landscape) etc. This type of image is perhaps what some refer to as "like a painting". Its certainly a composition - a work or pleasing fiction perhaps. I have no problem with this, provided that the "artist" makes clear that the image is a creation rather than an accurate representation. I think the lack of honesty in this (for example the "airbrushing" of models in fashion magazines) can have sinister, untruthful and potentially dangerous consequences. Clearly this is less of an issue with a mushroom - but if it leads a forager to make a bad identification then its still bad.

Perhaps what we need is some transparency in the Exif data that shows when an image has been manipulated.

 

[Mesquite]

Interesting little video about what can be done with PhotoShop

[video=youtube;Hnvoz91k8hc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnvoz91k8hc[/video]

 

[ArkAngel]

I was involved in the industrial and fashion side of photography when i graduated college and this video pretty much sums it up, when is photoshop "too much"?

This is a pretty girl...who put's make up on....then is photoshopped.
I've met a few of the supermodels like Kate Moss, Naomi Cambell. Shall i just say more than a few owe their careers to significant makeup and photoshop. One of the prettiest 'sans help' was Rachel Hunter:Wow:

[video=youtube;318iFsOOWr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318iFsOOWr8[/video]

 

[Wayland]

Snip> I freely admit that this has been PhotoShopped.<Snip

Snip> Wayland, you have a good eye for a scene and a talent for taking a good photo and processing that photo to its potential but I don't get your reluctance to say "Yes, I 'shopped the hell out of it." your photos are great and that cannot be disputed. <Snip

Thank you, I don't mind admiting when I have manipulated an image but the picture I showed above is an extreme example to demonstrate that some images need more work. The majority of my work is captured single frame with nothing but the processing required to properly render the image.

What I do object to is constantly having to justify the time and effort I take to create an image or the skills and techniques I have acquired through long practice and research.

When I'm out on location an hour before dawn to record an image, it is done in a way that captures the full potential, not in a way that would produce a mediocre JEPG if I couldn't be bothered to do the job properly. The simulated image on the back of the camera is utterly meaningless to the final result. So constantly being badgered to "Show us what it was like before PhotoShop" not only displays complete ignorance of the technology but I, like many other photographers, also find it rather insulting.

I cannot think of any great photographer that nailed his negatives to the gallery wall. They all exhibited prints and most of them made great prints.

 

[Squidders]

My guess is that people want to know if you have adjusted the levels or created a composite image.

As for asking for an unprocessed image, I think it is, as you say, unreasonable to demand to see your straight out of the camera exposure. Though, as an educational exercise I think it would be interesting to see the original, some of your workflow and the final result.

 

[brancho]

One of these two images is straight out of the camera and the other was processed in photoshop.

So which is the original?

They are not from the same press of the shutter but they could have been.

Manchester-1 by alf.branch, on Flickr

Manchester-2 by alf.branch, on Flickr

 

[demographic]

People have been manipulating images to give a warped version of reality since early man started spitting coloured mud on the cave walls.

Its carried on through oil painting, Dagerotypes (paint colouring on them) photography, to digital.

 

[ArkAngel]

The majority of my work is captured single frame with nothing but the processing required to properly render the image.

What I do object to is constantly having to justify the time and effort I take to create an image or the skills and techniques I have acquired through long practice and research.

When I'm out on location an hour before dawn to record an image, it is done in a way that captures the full potential, not in a way that would produce a mediocre JEPG if I couldn't be bothered to do the job properly. The simulated image on the back of the camera is utterly meaningless to the final result. So constantly being badgered to "Show us what it was like before PhotoShop" not only displays complete ignorance of the technology but I, like many other photographers, also find it rather insulting.

Exactly, well said.

I've had a camera with me in one form or another for 35 years (and I'm 41 now so it gives an idea of how early my love affair with a camera was). I am now a 'happy amateur' although i have worked as a professional photographer (my definition of 'professional' is someone who makes a living from it nothing to do with skill level, there are far better photographers out there than I)

As a 'pro' (during film days) there was never a question that my output was manipulated, the client was/was not happy with the result. How it came about they didn't care the final image was all they were interested in. Manipulation of lighting, processing of film (as there were different ways to do that to achieve certain effects) and darkroom techniques were used extensively as part of my arsenal to create an image.

Now i find as a 'happy snapper' I am constantly questioned about how much manipulation has gone into the image when the reality is probably less than when I was using film (mainly because i have feeble skills in photoshop/lightroom). I still try to create the image in camera. I may tweak certain aspects to give me the effect i want mainly because the weather that day didn't provide me with the light needed to create it.

Along with Waylands other bugbear of "great shot, you must have a good camera"

My reply these days? "yes, i taught it everything it knows"!