Can PhotoShop really fix everything

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'd like another helping of tripe, please.

 

[ghpham]

Because it makes a better image?

And at the end of the day, a better image is all that matters. You keep repeating that it's abuse, that it's wrong, and unacceptable. But you can't seem to articulate why.

I already told you why but you don't seem to want to understand. The whole point is that he wanted to convey a sense of solitude, to tell a story (photojournalistic?). The man was not under the tree, so he decide to move the man. That is not what he actually observed. Presenting to an audience as such is not being truthful.

If he was taking the picture with intent of claiming that the scene was exactly as photographed, then yes, it is absolutely untruthful. But no where does he make that claim.

You're making a really broad assumption that photographs are truthful so long as they were not digitally manipulated. Would it have been acceptable if he had gone to the man and asked him to move to a different spot? In that case, the image accurately records the scene, but the photographer has acted to change the scene.

Were LAphoto documenting the scene as a journalist, both options would be unacceptable, because the rules are built around changing the scene, not around digital manipulation.

But I find it very difficult to fault someone for the second option in any other circumstance, and if you can't find fault in the second, the first is just another way to handle the same task.

Without question, learning how to get as much right in camera as possible is a critical aspect of learning to be a photographer. But that fact does not make digital manipulation wrong as a rule.

I never said LaFoto lied or being untruthful. He posted the pics asking us if we think that is "abused". I gave him my opinion. You have yours. Let's just move on.

 

[LaFoto]

Yes, let's.

And it's "she".

And this photo actually is only for my collection of holiday pics, so it's never meant to show in a newspaper, nor is it ever going to be exhibited, nor do I mean to pass it off as "pure truth". Other than for my own viewing, for which the original felt a little unbalanced, I did not put him on "fast forward"

Here's what I started with:

And yes, I only posted this in order to hear people's opinions about the degree of manipulation (whether to their minds it's "abuse of Photoshop" already or not), and I'm happy to find that you did start discussing the matter.

 

[ghpham]

Yes, let's.

And it's "she".

oops......

 

[Gaerek]

I think it's an abuse if you want to call it that. I say so because you didn't really capture what you "saw". I doubt if you enter such a picture into a contest, that it would be allowed. Now of course, you could set it up in such a manner that the man was actually walking by the road....

As to the OP, I guess, the only comment I have is for the newbies to get as much correct in camera as they can. I see no joy in spending countless hours in front of a computer when you could use those times to practice photography skills.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what was done here. If LaFoto hadn't mentioned that the guy was moved, I would have never noticed. Since it was mentioned, it's easy to spot where he was cloned. In the end, all that matters is the end result, the final image. I would never have made a second glance at the original photograph that LaFoto described, since having the man on the same side as the tree wouldn't have looked very good. This way, it's at least an interesting photo.

Whether it would be allowed into a competition isn't really the point. Every photo competition has different rules, and even categories. If LaFoto had taken a couple more minutes with the PP, you would likely never be able to tell the man was moved.

That's not the point. He posted the photo asking if we think by moving the person whether or not that would constitute an abuse. To me, this type of photograph is supposed to tell a story. Something along the line of "while on a bus, I saw the man walking alone along the road, and it made me think of solitude and I took the photo". If you have to go to this degree and force the photo, then it lost it's mystique, and there would be no sense of connection to the scene.

What isn't the point? You said it's an abuse, and I said it doesn't matter. If what I said isn't the point, then neither is what you said. Whether it lost it's mystique or not is something completely subjective. If LaFoto had never said anything about how that photo came to be, you would likely have absolutely no idea that the man was moved. Since she did mention it, then somehow the photo is flawed? Next, are you going to tell me where to draw the line on how much PP is too much? Oh wait, you already did:

Now, I think it's ok to use Photoshop for such thing as making colors pop, smoothing someone's skin for instance, but I would never recommend it to a newbie as a mean to correction a composition. I see quite a few C&C where a newbie is advised to clone out, say, a branch sticking out from someone's head. The problem with such an advise is that it does not convey the proper message to the newbie, and that is think before you click that button on the camera. It's a fine delicate line we need to walk.

Tell me, what's the difference now, between making colors pop, and smoothing someone's skin, and moving the man in the photo? When you saturate those colors, aren't you forcing a new interpretation of the image onto the viewer? When you smooth that skin, are you conveying what the scene actually showed? What if LaFoto had been able to ask the man to move and been able to retake the shot like that? Would that have been acceptable even though the end result was the same? And why would that be acceptable, but manipulating the image to gain the exact same result is abuse? Cropping is a technique to correct a composition mistake. Is that abuse (since you implied that correcting composition in post is abuse)?

This is a case of, "I never manipulate my image past adjusting colors, and smoothing skin (or whatever you do to manipulate an image), so anything beyond that is abuse." Basically, you've set in your own mind what is acceptable to YOU. A photojournalist would likely think that even what you find acceptable is actually unacceptable, and you'd likely argue the opposite point with them. Why? Because that's what you believe to be ok. What is acceptable to me, and LaFoto, and anyone else is a completely different. In the end, all that matters is the image.

 

[deb]

Interesting thread.

I think that Photoshop (or other editors) have value, depending on what you are trying to accomplish. I don't particularly like overprocessed images of people, but I recognize that making a person's skin appear flawless while keeping other aspects of the photo in focus takes skill, and I appreciate the skill and patience of the people who do this type of work.

I am particularly impressed by the HDR images that many have posted. Again, it takes skill and talent to get to the desired result....whether everyone else would desire the result is a matter of personal preference.

Yes, a good photographer should be able to compose an image, determine exposure and get a good image right out of the camera, but a better photographer will be able to take that good image and make it better.

Any transformation of the literal into the vision of the workman is a form of art. Public opinion will vary, just as some people prefer oil paintings to watercolors, Picasso to Van Gogh, or books to movies some prefer realistic photographs while others prefer the processed images.

For many, manipulating the image is the art...so have a blast. Isn't that what it's all about?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I don't quite understand why it is alright to smooth someone's skin but not to move someone from one side of the image to the other. Either way you are changing the story, you are not being truthful.

LaFoto is not a PJ so she has no need to stick to the truth. Talking about the truth, photography is not very good at telling it anyway. Or at least, at conveying it the way it is in real life.

A great example of that is Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam photo that tortured him to the end of his days and made the life of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan a big pita. Here's how he talked about his photo to Time: "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'"

 

[ghpham]

I don't quite understand why it is alright to smooth someone's skin but not to move someone from one side of the image to the other. Either way you are changing the story, you are not being truthful.

LaFoto is not a PJ so she has no need to stick to the truth. Talking about the truth, photography is not very good at telling it anyway. Or at least, at conveying it the way it is in real life.

A great example of that is Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam photo that tortured him to the end of his days and made the life of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan a big pita. Here's how he talked about his photo to Time: "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'"

My opinion only: smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated. In the latter case, noboby knows that it's actually is a lie. Now in regard's to general Loan, most likely, the PJ didn't know the whole story till much later, for otherwise, he might have never published it. Also, I don't think the photo "lied" in a sense, that it demonstrated the atrocity of war. Do you recall the photo of the naked girl running in the middle of the street escaping bombs? how would you feel if you found out that the girl was never there in the first place and the image was manipulated to put her in there?

 

[Early]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

Not always! Sometimes, action shots come to mind, you should allow yourself some leeway. The point I was making, the gods designed those sensors for optimum exposure, contrast and color. It just seems a sacrilege how often we constantly go against them.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

smoothing someone's skin is also a "lie" if you will, but in this case the client most likely requested and know that the image is being manipulated.

So, if LaFoto's image had shown up in a magazine with the manipulation asked for by the editor (the client), it would be alright?

A lie is a lie. Sorry, I don't see who/what gives you the right to decide when a lie is Ok and when it is not. I sure don't give myself that right which is why I have no problem with photogs doing as they wish with their images.

PJ work is another story. It is supposed to tell us what is going on in the world telling the story as it actually was. Some images got manipulated and the publications got in trouble for it. Today, they have very strict rules about NO editing.

Some images half lie because photography is far from perfect as a story telling media. But purposeful lies are not seen with a kind eye. See the controversies over the famous Iwo Jima and Robert Capa's Falling Soldier photos.

 

[white]

I don't have a problem with post-processing like that in LaFoto's picture as long as the person is upfront about it. I personally do not like to see compositions that were created in post-processing. I like to do it all in-camera if possible. That is fulfilling for me.

Images that don't look manipulated are generally believed to be an accurate representation by most viewers. And that is a powerful tool some photographers use to their advantage. When I looked at LaPhoto's picture, I believed the tree and the man were there. Silly me, right? What if they weren't there and later dropped in? Is the picture a photograph, or is it closer to photomanipulation? Like I said, I have no problem with the post-processing, but call it what it is.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, White, you can see what the all untouched photo (as it was shot by me through the bus window in speeding past the scene) looked like. I'm showing it, too.
The situation I was in did not give me much opportunity to get everything so right in camera that the end result would be one pleasing to the eye, so for reasons of "Can I do it?" more than any other I played with the photo a little, by picking up the man and putting him 12 steps ahead of where he was.

And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake of this discussion.

 

[Dao]

For me, all I care is the end result. LaFoto, I like the edited version of your photo.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You shouldn't rely on PS to crop your images. You should get it right in camera. :greenpbl:

Not always! Sometimes, action shots come to mind, you should allow yourself some leeway. The point I was making, the gods designed those sensors for optimum exposure, contrast and color. It just seems a sacrilege how often we constantly go against them.

And the "gods" gave you the ability to frame your shots correctly in camera.
I don't like how people draw arbitrary lines for what is acceptable to do in post, and what is not.

This whole argument thread, is hogwash.

 

[white]

Well, White, you can see what the all untouched photo (as it was shot by me through the bus window in speeding past the scene) looked like. I'm showing it, too.
The situation I was in did not give me much opportunity to get everything so right in camera that the end result would be one pleasing to the eye, so for reasons of "Can I do it?" more than any other I played with the photo a little, by picking up the man and putting him 12 steps ahead of where he was.

And I'm only presenting this photo of mine to an "audience" for the sake of this discussion.

Right, I get all that. And I'm not criticizing you personally. I think it's great you posted the image because that is exactly what we're talking about.

What bothers me about this photography vs. photomanipulation issue is there are a lot of people manipulating their photos to the extent you did and they're not telling anyone. So people view their work with a natural tendency to believe it is an accurate representation if it doesn't look manipulated. I think people would like to know if their favorite photograph has been heavily manipulated. I sure would. I would view the picture differently, as I did with yours, LaPhoto. I thought the photograph was excellent when I first saw it. Thought the composition was really excellent, and that it must have been challenging to get that shot. I have to admit I don't think as highly of it now. But this is all coming from my personal view of what makes good photography. I think the process is just as important as the end product.