Swan

[kmorgan]

This is a shot I took back in 2002. I did a major clone on part of the picture, I'll post the original in a reply.

Kevin

 

[kmorgan]

Swan before Picture

Ok, here's the Swan photo before I cloned out the piling....



Kevin

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I like the improvements, including the more saturated colors and sharpening. One other that might help would be to eliminate the duck behind the swan's head. That duck and its reflection sort of look like a mane on the swan. It is also unfortunate that we can't see the swan's eye better (a highlight), but I don't know whether you could fix that and have it look natural.

 

[darren]

I agree with Mark. Nice job on the post process color and level adjustments. Removing the post does improve the photo, but it does raise the standard digital photo alteration controversy.

My biggest comment on teh photo is that I would like to see the swan without the ducks behind the swan's head. It is always as important to make decisions about the background as it is to make decisions about the subject.

- darren

 

[Grumpy]

Darren always has such a nice way with words. His comments reflect my thoughts, but he said it so-o-o-o much more gently and nicely than I could (would) have, particularly in raising ethical questions about removing the pole. My long time involvement in photojournalism tells me such alterations are taboo.

G.

 

[kmorgan]

Darren always has such a nice way with words. His comments reflect my thoughts, but he said it so-o-o-o much more gently and nicely than I could (would) have, particularly in raising ethical questions about removing the pole. My long time involvement in photojournalism tells me such alterations are taboo.

G.

I have to disagree (not on the ducks behind the swan's head) on the alterations taboo. Photos have always been modified by professionals. Mostly airbrushing or shaving down density on negatives.

What about all those portraits where blemishes are removed from people's faces? How about removal of cellulite, freckles, etc., from a swimsuit model's body/face?

The swan photo, in this case, was taken by me, for me. I have also used cloning on other photos to remove graffiti from rock faces.

When is editing too much?

Kevin

 

[nartreb]

>When is editing too much?

Two separate cases:

-when the result is used falsely, ie, claiming to document an actual ocurrence. (eg, recent case where "photojournalist" cloned in extra smoke from bombed building in background of photo of a warplane, to make an airstrike look more dramatic - this was reprinted in many newspapers despite being very crude and obvious)

Your "by me for me" defense is valid here.


-when the result is so idealized it no longer resembles the actual photograph. This requires a judgement call, of course - it's probably OK to remove a pimple, but most magazines go way beyond what I see as the line, changing skin tones and textures, enlarging breasts and shrinking waists, and on and on. I like digital art plenty (check out worth1000 or mechapixel for some great examples), but I don't refer to it as photography. Photo + graph = written by light; implying the scene creates the image directly. What the magazines produce, of course, isn't intended to be photography, it's intended to boost sales.

In this case I don't think you've hurt the integrity of the scene. Positioning yourself for the perfect background, and improving the background in the digital darkroom, are both useful skills.

 

[darren]

I agree with the "by me for me" defense. The problem I have with such alterations is when people post stuff like that online or in print and do not disclose the alteration. It impacts the credibility of the entire digital photography genre. People are starting to associate "digital photography" with "fake". It is sad, because digital photography is just a natural progression of film photography and when standards are maintained it is the same art form as film.

I guess my take is that alterations are ok, as long as they are stated up front to the viewer. In this case, you posted the original so it is clear what you did. Now if you had posted just the edited version and merely said "hey, what do you think of my shot?", then as a viewer I would feel cheated.

- darren

ps: kmorgan - I'm just glad that you didn't disagree with Grumpy's statement of me having a nice way with words.

 

[Grumpy]

These links provide some thoughtful discussion of photo alteration and manipulation, mainly from a photojournalistic perspective. They certainly are not what I’d call the ultimate word, but are good starting points. I don’t mean to be argumentative. The essays are shared here as food for thought.

Essay 1

Essay 2

G.

 

[DougPaul]

These links provide some thoughtful discussion of photo alteration and manipulation, mainly from a photojournalistic perspective.

<just my opinion on>
I think it depends on your purpose. If you are trying to represent an actual event (such as in photojournalism), then one should avoid maniuplations that create a misleading impression of what was actually there. On the other hand, if you are just trying to create an attractive image, the sky can be the limit (think of, for instance, a painter making non-realistic images). And I'm sure one can conjure up all sorts of shades of grey between the extremes.

Just don't mislead your audience.
<just my opinion off>

Doug

edit: fix spelling error

 

[NewHampshire]

<just my opinion on>
I think it depends on your purpose. If you are trying to represent an actual event (such as in photojournalism), then one should avoid maniuplations that create a misleading impression of what was actually there. On the other hand, if you are just trying to create an accractive image, the sky can be the limit (think of, for instance, a painter making non-realistic images). And I'm sure one can conjure up all sorts of shades of grey between the extremes.

Just don't mislead your audience.
<just my opinion off>

Doug

Hmmm, I think this is well stated. Now (and I am not pointing any fingers at anyone here) I think too often photographers, especially digital users, figure that Photoshop can give them the photo they want from a relatively off the cuff shot. I see a lot of people not put enough thought into their picture before they press the shutter button (and Ill admit I have done it too.) Then its off to PS to clone this, unmask that. I guess it is both a good thing and a bad thing all in one.

Brian

 

[kmorgan]

Photography is art

Let's not forget that a camera is not just a recording tool for documenting the exact state of whatever it is imaging.

It is also an artistic tool, just like a paint brush. Photographers have a long history (look in any Photography magazine) of distorting reality in various ways in order to convey a mood or a faux landscape (e.g. infrared photography) in order to entertain or stimulate.

Double exposures, high strobe rates, open exposures with flashlights moving around, sepia tones, shooting with graduated neutral density filters or polarizers, etc. and so forth. These techniques all alter or enhance that which the camera sees.

Unless an altered image is being used in some illicit way, e.g. as evidence of a crime, for fraud, or what have you, it is an artistic expression as presented by the photographer and his tools, be it a darkroom (lithographs, bas reliefs) or a computer post processing (Photoshop, Lightroom, Paintshop Pro, etc.).

You could also make similar claims for musicians use of synthesizers and effects. They aren't really making true sounds with their instruments, they are distorting, delaying, frequency shifting, sampling... But they are doing it for artistic reasons.

Excuse the ramble. It just came over me.

 

[NewHampshire]

Hey KMrogan,

Ok, I should apologize, perhaps what I felt did not quite come out the way I wanted it to, so I will expand and clarify what I am talking about.

First, my intention is not to say Photoshop is a bad thing. Its not, and is a valuable tool. But I will elaborate a bit more in a second. First I want to agree that Photography is an art. I can't necessarily agree it is no different than a painter since they start with a blank canvas, and their imagination and ability is the limit. With photography, we are using a base image, something tangable that already exists, and the "art" comes in the way we alter the perspective of said base image.

"Enhancing" photos is fine by me. I have no problem with that. My origional statement (once again no directed at anyone here, rather a number of indviduals on a dedicated Photography forum I visit) was leveled at a lot of people I have seen who view Photoshop as a way of getting around poor photography technique. On a few occasions I have seen people post images for critique that were pretty poor (and which they admited it was) and basically asked "How can I fix this in Photoshop" rather than ask "What could I have done at the moment of shutter release to better this photo. I saw an image of a blurry bird, obviously from too low a shutter speed and hand shake, turned into a "passable" photograph due to 20 minutes of Photoshopping. Now, this is all good and fine if someone wants to try and salvage a "blooper" photo, but when it becomes apparent that they are more concerned on how to "fix it" on the computer, and not take the time to understand what they did wrong with the equipment they used to shoot the photo, I get a little disappointed. Im actually surprised on some sites how many people do not understand how f/stop, shutter speed and DOF all relate and work off each other. Yet they want to know if unmask sharp, or clone this will give them the results they want.

Maybe I am a sort of romantic. I look to Ansel Adams as a sort or role model. For him, "Photoshop" was a darkroom, enlargers and developing chemicals. He used "Enhancements" just as we do today, but for him more focus was spent on "Before shutter release" rather than "get the shot no matter what and fix in Photoshop." Perhaps I am like the old flyfisherman, out wading with the Bamboo rod looking for Salmon, who then sees the guys in their $30,000 boat complete with all hi-tech gear imaginable. I guess both come to the same result, but just go at it differently. But ask both the Hi-Tech fisherman and the Flyfisherman whats most important, and both will probably agree proper technique. Same with photography, wether Digital or Film. Starting with a good base for your technique is whats most important, and this is where my grumblings came from in my first post. That I have seen certain people look to use modern technology (i.e. Photoshop) to make up for their lack of proper technique, and then not wishing to really understand WHY their technique was wrong to begin with.

Now, I must say that the users of this Photo group seem to have a very good basis in fundamental photography (hence my comment I was not pointing fingers at anyone here.) Whats funny, is thanks to Photoshop I have come to more easily understand what a great photo really is. How you might ask? A good example is Jim's Sticky Snow picture. He presented us with an image of exceptional quality. And the only reall "criticisim" anyone could make was to adjust contrast and sharpness a bit.....thats it. Excellent thought went into the photo long before Jim pressed the shutter release, and for it how wound up with an excellent base image to work with..

Ok, I have rambled enough. Sorry .

Brian.

P.S. I just want to also clarify more on my agreement with DougPaul. If one is presenting an image that has been heavily altered it is really more "Art" than photograph, and I believe he was tryign to say that people trying to represent "art" as a faithfull photograph could be seen as misleading. I don't know if how I wrote this makes sense.....but I usually don't make sense anyways .

 

[kmorgan]

Hey KMrogan,

Ok, I should apologize, perhaps what I felt did not quite come out the way I wanted it to, so I will expand and clarify what I am talking about.
<remainder deleted for brevity>

Hey Brian, I've actually quite enjoyed this discussion. I too am on other photography forums and have been an on and off photographer for most of my life. I actually started before I was a teen with a Kodak Brownie (remember those?) 120 camera. Then I moved up to one (don't remember which, a 120 size Kodak camera) that opened up with a bellows.

Early on I got into developing my own black & white film and prints. In high school I was involved first with a photography club (for access to a dark room) and later was photography editor of our yearbook. By then I was shooting 35mm and had also gotten into Scuba diving (which of course led me to the purchase of a Nikon Nikonos II u/w camera).

All throughout I was heavily influenced by the 'tricky stuff' that I was always seeing in Popular Photography and Petersen's Photographic. I especially love the darkroom special effects, like turning the lights on and off during the development of a b/w print to reverse or partially reverse parts of it for a halo like look. Bas reliefs were fun to play with too.

So now we have digital replacing film and Photoshop replacing the darkroom. Gotta love it! Plus, now I don't have to worry about all that film I kept laying around undeveloped that turned out ruined because I waited too long to process it.

To each his own.

Kevin

 

[NewHampshire]

Ha! Im so devoted to "tradition" that I just spent over $600 on a new Canon EOS Elan 7NE in 35mm. I probably could have gone digital (in hindsight maybe....just maybe...I should have) but just felt that old urge to stay film for now. The way I figure it, if I can get myself to the level of creating wonderful shots on slide film, then I can do almost anything. I don't have photoshop just yet, though I do plan on it (Elements that is....can't quite afford the real deal .) All of this I am doing to "re learn" what the Jr. High photography classes taught me. But as of late I have also been getting the urge to toy around with Black and White film....in true Ansel Adams style.

In the end my hope is to be able to reach the level of expertise where I can approach the levels of photographers like Ansel, and need very little post processing of the final product.

But, as you said, to each his own. Photography is like hiking......plenty of room round here for everyone to enjoy it in their own way .

Brian