Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: PS ethics

  1. #1
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    sacramento california
    Posts
    500
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    PS ethics

    Is adding a catch light or making the sky blue when it was white ethical? I am curious in peoples thoughts. I hope this appropriate place to ask this.

    Thanks Ray Rozema

  2. #2
    Fabs Forns
    Guest

    Default

    Ethics are VERY personal and only you can decide what is OK to you.

  3. #3
    Steve Patterson
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabs Forns View Post
    Ethics are VERY personal and only you can decide what is OK to you.
    I agree.....and the situation matters. Nature photography is expected to be more true to life. Art photography may be all about PS. It all depends on what you are trying to do with the photo. Trying to make a landscape even more beautiful than reality? Bluer skies? More saturation? That isn't bad in itself. Cloning in predators that weren't in the original photo? That might need some explanation.........that is just as I see it.

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    4,547
    Threads
    253
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The other day Arthur Morris uploaded a great image of a turkey vulture, well in that occasion he explained that he removed some distracting elements out of his composition, did he alter the image by doing so? I don't think so, he wanted to present a aesthetic image and he did. I believe that if you don't alter the essence of the image then is fine, but when you try to turn the skies blue or add a catch light then you trespass the border, at least that's what I believe.
    I will state right here that I have no problem at all when someone does it, in fact, many of those ''great shots'' we are used to see on all sorts of magazines are full of Photoshoped pictures and that is not the problem, but we don't even notice it some times! so...

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    It's a lot more fun trying to get the catchlight and blue sky in the camera, and ultimately more rewarding I think.

  6. #6
    Robert Amoruso
    Guest

    Default

    I will use a flash to get a catchlight. If it is not there, it is not there.

    I will use PS to intensify or subdue colors. Like removing cyan from an overly cyan sky, or adding black to darken a blue sky but I don't select a white sky and dump blue into it using the paintbucket or something similar.

  7. #7
    Fabs Forns
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Amoruso View Post
    I will use a flash to get a catchlight. If it is not there, it is not there.

    I will use PS to intensify or subdue colors. Like removing cyan from an overly cyan sky, or adding black to darken a blue sky but I don't select a white sky and dump blue into it using the paintbucket or something similar.
    But you do believe in adding wingtips, no?

  8. #8
    Lifetime Member Doug Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    11,879
    Threads
    917
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Due to limitations of the camera's dynamic range it's not always possible to capture what the eye sees. I think news photography is supposed to be totally true to life, but not necessarily nature photography. I don't create images out of thin air, but I do use PS to enhance the visual appeal of my images. This includes sharpening, NR, blurring, limited cloning, and the usual assortment of adjustments. If I do more than that I will typically disclose the additional work in my image description.
    Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
    Website -
    Facebook - 500px

  9. #9
    Alfred Forns
    Guest

    Default

    I think the problem deals with how much? Its all up to the individual and what you are comfortable with !!!

    I give you one specific example Have several frames of a bird flying, you pick the one with perfect wing position etc but the membrane is down over the eye ... is it ok to take the eye from the previous frame?
    If you did what is the ethical problem? Is the same bird !!!

    Have thought about this for some time and can say I have never exchanged the eye but do think .. why not? Don't have an answer !!!

  10. #10
    BPN Member Kerry Perkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Simi Valley, California
    Posts
    8,310
    Threads
    1,048
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I think this issue will be debated in perpetuity. Where I think the ethics issue goes beyond being personal is in the disclosure, or lack thereof, of any alteration of the image. IMHO, if it is disclosed and the situation calls for disclosure (like critique forums) then people can make their own decisions about whether or not it fits their model of ethics. Clearly, there are situations where alteration of the image is not allowed and these situations should be respected (some contests require RAW images), but if your work is presented as art, then I personally tolerate alterations that make the image look better. I do not consider standard RAW conversion techniques to be "alterations", but necessary processes that just happen to allow variations.

    “I had been able to realize a desired image: not the way the subject appeared in reality but how it felt to me and how it must appear in the finished print.” -Ansel Adams

  11. #11
    Robert Amoruso
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabs Forns View Post
    But you do believe in adding wingtips, no?
    Your answering a question, not asking one.

    And I do not believe adding or subtracting components in the image like a wingtip was the purpose of the poster's question. I spoke to his question only.
    Last edited by Robert Amoruso; 05-14-2009 at 09:17 PM.

  12. #12
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Corning, NY
    Posts
    2,507
    Threads
    208
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    It is an extremely personal question. I admit I clone funky stuff away and fix a wing tip in an otherwise great image. I have not been able to add a catchlight I think looks natural so I use a flash and better beamer. Does using flash alter the "natural" environment? I think so, but, to me, it is OK. However, I never alter the essence of the natural scene. Art idealizes the the presentation of the natural world around us. Journalism presents naked stark reality. I attempt to create art so I can present nature depicting the best of nature. If this means adding a wing tip or cloning a dead branch my ethics say it's OK.

    All that said, I respect and understand that very learned and reasonable artists feel differently. That's OK with me as well.

  13. #13
    Fabs Forns
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Amoruso View Post
    Your answering a question, not asking one.
    I see no difference in adding half a wing to adding a catch light.

  14. #14
    Maxis Gamez
    Guest

    Default

    I don't mind removing distracting elements to enhance the image or adding canvas to help the composition. I'm not a big fan of removing an eye from a frame and add it to the second frame per say but I think is pretty cool to have that capability. At the end of the day, you are creating your own image and if you are OK with it so be it!

  15. #15
    Robert Amoruso
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabs Forns View Post
    I see no difference in adding half a wing to adding a catch light.
    My original post:

    "I will use a flash to get a catchlight. If it is not there, it is not there.

    I will use PS to intensify or subdue colors. Like removing cyan from an overly cyan sky, or adding black to darken a blue sky but I don't select a white sky and dump blue into it using the paintbucket or something similar."

    I stated I add the catchlight with an electronic flash in the field using a camera. That is not the same as adding a catchlight or a wing in PS.

  16. #16
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,829
    Threads
    569
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    There was a huge debate previously if you alter an image should you disclose the manipulation. It came down to some agreeing that ethically that was the right thing to do while others felt it was an art form and the final image needed no explanation.(exceptions are areas that insist on disclosure) There were also opinions in between...I don't think anyone will have the right answer since it is a personal decision and ethical standard that the photographer alone will decide.

  17. #17
    Lance Peters
    Guest

    Default

    How about HDR images then?? - Photograph or DC??
    ;)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfred Forns View Post
    I give you one specific example Have several frames of a bird flying, you pick the one with perfect wing position etc but the membrane is down over the eye ... is it ok to take the eye from the previous frame?
    If you did what is the ethical problem? Is the same bird !!!

    Have thought about this for some time and can say I have never exchanged the eye but do think .. why not? Don't have an answer !!!
    I'll give my answer: 1) I have never switched an eye on wildlife (I have in family group portraits as it seems someone is always blinking). 2) It takes so much time to do a good job. I'll just move on to the next image.

    It seems to me that many people here on BPN get out an photograph a lot, more than I get out. Don't you all get so many images that you don't need to fix eyes and wings? Don't you (everyone, not just Alfred) have enough images to process that your time is filled doing that rather than trying to fix a few photos? This is a serious question. I think someone said they shot tens of thousands of flight images per year. I got 4400 images from my January trip to Tanzania, and it'll take me till I retire processing images without replacing parts (hey that's only 4.5 years). (I do process for large prints, 13x19 and larger, including some digital mosaics for much larger prints.)

  19. #19
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rnclark View Post
    I'll give my answer: 1) I have never switched an eye on wildlife (I have in family group portraits as it seems someone is always blinking). 2) It takes so much time to do a good job. I'll just move on to the next image.

    It seems to me that many people here on BPN get out an photograph a lot, more than I get out. Don't you all get so many images that you don't need to fix eyes and wings? Don't you (everyone, not just Alfred) have enough images to process that your time is filled doing that rather than trying to fix a few photos? This is a serious question. I think someone said they shot tens of thousands of flight images per year. I got 4400 images from my January trip to Tanzania, and it'll take me till I retire processing images without replacing parts (hey that's only 4.5 years). (I do process for large prints, 13x19 and larger, including some digital mosaics for much larger prints.)
    Hi Roger, if I read your post correctly, looking forward to 4.5 years from now when YOU are retired and WE can see more parts of this great World and I (in caps :D) can learn more from my favorite scientist/photographer. Here's to your future retirement!! Cheers, Mate.

  20. #20
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    786
    Threads
    117
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I am not a fan of replacing an eye or a wing tip. I have enlarged catch lights on a few images. That's just me.

    I do the following in PS/ CS4 on a routine basis: levels, curves, contrast adjustments, SH, NR, selective color, some minor cloning/ healing brush, USM sharpening and use the photo filter tool if needed. While it seems minor to me and probably much less than others, its a lot of manipulation.

    My reason for these alterations is to improve the color, contrast and sharpness of my digital images. I only want to reproduce want was present during the photo session. I also came from a slide/ chrome back ground like both Mike and Artie. It's really so much more fun these days using the remarkable DSLR's available these days. I for one could benefit from Artie's work ethic of long hard days shooting in the field.
    _______________
    Charlie Wesley
    St. Augustine Beach, FL

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics