Acceptable Image Alteration

[Steve Wheeler]

Very curious on your thoughts regarding "touching up" subjects in photos.

I didn't want to hijack Leroys thread here...

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=6195

But reading it did bring a question to mind.

How much alteration or touching up is ok?

Feedback in the above thread included...

From Artie... "..the bird is somewhat of a mess, epsecially the bill which is badly beaten up. And I believe that the yellow around the bill and on the neck are stains."

From Alfred... "btw that bird needs some serious cleaning up to do !!!!"

I'm not quite sure if this feedback is saying these things need to be (or could be) fixed in PS?

Or perhaps it's merely saying that a more attractive subject would've made a more attractive image?

If the former... How much fixing up is ok? The battered bill while perhaps not as "Pretty" is more realistic and certainly tells you something more about that bird.

I read feedback here quite often along the lines of clone this or that out or blur this or that...

How much alteration is acceptable to you?

Steve

[Fabs Forns]

Steve, I would ask, acceptable to whom?

It would depend on the intended use and the personal ethics.

For contest, there's very little you can touch.
For publishing, some touch up would be allowed.
Major processing would benefit from disclosure.

In the end, digital tools will be very common in the future as they become more accepted with time.

Heavy manipulation in film lab were accepted. Just look at what Ansel Adams did. Can you imagine if he had PS available???

[Steve Wheeler]

Hi Fabs... Thanks for the response. In this case I was asking the BPN membership how much alteration is acceptable to them. I do understand it's been going on for a long time in different forms. I also understand it's a choice made by the individual and that choice might vary depending on the application of the image.

I was just curious, haven't been doing this long enough to develope a real strong opinion one way or the other and thought it would be interesting to hear what the membership here thought about the subject.

Steve

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Steve Excellent point !!!!

My feelings are exactly like Fabs Could not have said it any better

....btw when I said "btw that bird needs some serious cleaning up to do !!!!" I meat it literally ...... "the bird" not the photographer in PS :)

[Paul Pagano]

So not only is it important to use technically correct photography, but for publishing you want to ensure your subject is nice? In other words, if all things were equal except a dirty, weather worn beak on a subject, the nicer specimen will be more favored in judging?

Great question.

[Steve Wheeler]

He definetly looked like he'd seen some action Alfred!

Thanks for the clairification!

Steve

[Alfred Forns]

.................... some action :eek: your kind Steve :D:)

[Fabs Forns]

So not only is it important to use technically correct photography, but for publishing you want to ensure your subject is nice? In other words, if all things were equal except a dirty, weather worn beak on a subject, the nicer specimen will be more favored in judging?

Great question.

Paul, as a judge, I will always favor a nicer specimen versus a raggedy one.
May I refer to Miss Universe? :D

[Jim Poor]

So not only is it important to use technically correct photography, but for publishing you want to ensure your subject is nice? In other words, if all things were equal except a dirty, weather worn beak on a subject, the nicer specimen will be more favored in judging?

Great question.

For me that depends as much on what the contest is about as the amount of acceptable manipulation depends on the use of the photograph.

Most contests seem to be about beauty, but some are about emotion. If a worn bill and scruffy feathers conveys the emotion the contest is seeking, then wonderful.


As for how much manipulation is acceptable to me personally; provided there is disclosure and no intent to deceive or defraud, the sky is the limit.

[Ian McHenry]

Hi Steve
Up until recently I had never altered a picture by cloning or healing brush.
However now if a picture needs a small amount of tinkering to eliminate out of focus foregrounds or BGs or obtrusive vegetation provided the end result produces a natural look I am prepared to post these to my Flickr and P.Base websites.
If the end result looks to me like it's been altered I will keep for future reference but not post to my galleries.
Whatever you feel comfortable with.
Ian Mc.

[George DeCamp]

I try and do as little as possible and Iam sure most here do also. As Fabs said in the major contests you have to send them your RAW file, this prevents any Hocus Pocus. As much as I wanted to clone out a couple of simple white spots on an image I sent to the BBC contest I hesitated and did not, turns out it was a winner anyway.

If I do clone out a twig or some vegetation I say so if I post it. I recently picked up Roberts APTATS CD o learn some PS stuff to make it easier for me to do some quick fixes when I feel I can. Of course that depends on what and where. A few twigs in the water is not something I would worry about altering but making Carl Maulden look like Brad Pitt is another thing. :p

[JP Bruce]

I think it comes down to personal decision. What ever you feel right with.

I try to do things I would have done in the film days. I sharpen (same as fine focus during printing), crop, control contrast (dodge and burn) and control color (filters). The images to me are also a memory and if I manipulate too much it no longer my memery but my imagination.

As an instructor once said we all probably start out thinking photos are real. The sooner we realize they are a representaion the better off we will be. He used a poster with about 10 different animals on it as an example. As a poster no one questioned it but if it had been a photo collage then people would have wondered how all the animals came together at the same time.

[Steve Wheeler]

George.... Reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Patton' when G.C. Scott is telling Maulden about his worst fear of a bullet heading straight for his nose.... Mauldens response, with both actors' very prominent proboscises in clear view, was something along the lines of... "and it's such a handsome nose too George."

Sorry.... Got side tracked...

Thank you all for your responses! This is an interesting subject for me as I'm still making up my own mind on these types of issues. Great feedback yall!

Steve

[George DeCamp]

George.... Reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Patton' when G.C. Scott is telling Maulden about his worst fear of a bullet heading straight for his nose.... Mauldens response, with both actors' very prominent proboscises in clear view, was something along the lines of... "and it's such a handsome nose too George."

I remember that scene too, a classic line! :)

[Maxis Gamez]

This is a hard topic, but to me.... if you photograph thinking that you can fix this and that in photoshop..... you are not a photographer, You are an EDITOR.

That simple!

[Jim Poor]

You've got a great point about the image making process. Always get the best you can in camera.

Even so, there come times when some post work offers a different alternative.

[Robert O'Toole]

As it is now I think most people rely on Photoshop for more than they realize.
For example most photographers shoot all day on AWB, knowing completely well they will tweak those sunrise colors in PS later. And we all know that shooting a sunrise in AWB on most cameras will take out most of the natural warm tones making an image on the LCD unnatural and not true to life. Then they download the image and put color back in (normally I try to use the most accurate WB that I can in sunrise situations relying on Custom K WB settings). But still most claim to do the absolute minimum adjustments in PS but forget about some simple things even in the conversion process.

As of today digital photography requires the use of image editing programs there are no ways around it unless you only show images with the HDMI output on your D300 :)
I dont see a problem with PS work as long as the work doesnt mislead the viewer and if you do change the image as it was in real life, other than clean up, then there should be a statment under the image to that effect.


Robert

[Todd Frost]

I agree with getting it in camera first. To me you also have to ask yourself are you trying to be a photo-artist or a photojournalist. It's ok to be both. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only you can decide as you are the artist. Remember photography is ART and its your art!

Edit: A quick question, why do some feel it ness to disclose editing and capture situation on any given image other than for learning purposes. Did the masters of film days list all info under there signature on their prints?

Todd

[Mary Stamper]

Depends upon the purpose of the image. And it's more complex than one might think.

I just saw a fascinating book on forensic photography that showed how digital image manipulation was used to find evidence in photographs that wasn't obvious to the camera or to the naked eye.

A well-known book on digital macro photography, portrays a delightful "photo" of a butterfly on perched on the back of a turtle. I was disappointed when I found out that that the whole thing was a photoshop composite...that that delightful moment never happened.

On the other hand, I'm not the slightest bit bothered by patching a clipped wing tip. Or replacing backgrounds. Or converting digitally to black and white. Or removing extraneous stuff.

I think it's necessary to consider how many of our so-called photographic "ideals" really arose not from ethical considerations at all, but from the practical realities of the older media. It was expensive to shoot and develop a whole bunch of film and have to throw it out due to various imperfections. So it was logical to try to "pre-visualize" and get it all "right" in the camera. It also wasn't possible to shoot half the things we do today. Imagine taking flight shots with a view camera :D or without autofocus. We can be a whole lot more spontaneous today than we once could be. We can shoot in situations that we could only dream of 25 years ago.

It makes sense to me that some of the old "ideals" should give way to the realities and possibilities of the new media, as well as to the realities and possibilities of the shooting situations that we find ourselves in today.

And it depends upon your interests as well. Some prefer to be out with the camera and minimize computer time. Others see the camera as mere input to the digital art-making process.

It's not entirely a question of information either. A good painting can provide as much information as a photograph. So if you digitally enhance a photography to better show what you are trying to convey, why not? You have to use common sense though. Probably not a good idea for a photo journalist to do this, and probably not a good idea if you're shooting for the police department. ;)

Oh, and what about cropping? We've always taken things away by cropping. We have more granular methods now, so why not regard removal of extraneous stuff as a more dimensional form of cropping? Sometimes we clip a part of something out, but can crop in to still save the good part. So instead of cropping out, why not put back instead? Especially when you're using wide open lenses and motion blur and other types of non-realistic rendering that lend themselves to digital treatment.

You still have to understand light.
You still have to understand composition.
You still have to understand the limits and tolerances of the media.

It's the final image that counts (and in my opinion, it's not necessarily easier to get it right in photoshop than to get it right in the camera.......both take skill........and sometimes it actually takes a lot more skill to do it in photoshop than in the camera.......but if you enjoy it.......)

[Toomas Ili]

This is a hard topic, but to me.... if you photograph thinking that you can fix this and that in photoshop..... you are not a photographer, You are an EDITOR.

That simple!

Very well said!