Can PhotoShop really fix everything

[Overread]

If someone is trying for the most colour accurate and realistic representation of a subject then even slight adjustments to the white balance would be going too far

I think a photographer who specializes in photographing paintings would strongly disagree with that.

What even if they have custom white balance enabled first and are shooting in controled lighting? I would have thought with such shooting conditions one would not need to adjust the white balance for best archival record - now if they want a nice pic for a book or the newspapers then maybe a little shift would be inorder (I'm interested only because getting some "real world colour" shots of moths is a project I hope to start sometime soon)

 

[Gaerek]

I think I'm going to email Max Brooks and tell him that because he didn't tell people that his book "World War Z" is a work of fiction, even though he presented the Zombie War as historical fact that he should put a disclaimer on the cover saying it's a false story. I'll make sure Dan Brown knows also, with regards to all of his books.

While I'm at it, I think I'll let Michael Bay know that Robot Aliens from space have never landed on the Earth, and that he needs to put a disclaimer on his movies saying these events never happened.

They are already waaaaaaay ahead of you in both the books and the films. Any work of fiction published in those areas nearly always has a disclaimer that the work is fictional - for books its generaly in the first few pages on the legal and copywrite details page whilst for films its either at the very start or (more commonly) in part (often the end of) the rolling credits

You are correct about that, however, when they are put into these mediums, they are usually put in locations where people will likely not see them. How many people actually watch the credits of a movie? Some do, but wouldn't you say it's misleading to wait until the end of the credit roll to put the disclaimer? More people are likely to see the "claimer" at the beginning of the movie that says something like, "This movie is based on actual events." That's even more misleading, I think, than not having anything there at all. Maybe I'll embed my disclaimer on my photo in the meta-data. Would that be appropriate? That's essentially what the movie studios are doing.

When it comes to Dan Brown, I thought there was no disclaimer, but there actually is. However, (and I have a copy right in front of me) World War Z has no disclaimer anywhere stating that it isn't true. It's written as if the author interviewed several people about their experiences with the Zombie War. Some might say that the content gives the context needed to understand that this isn't true, but then again, that puts us back in a sticky situation.

Here's a few things to think about. Should there be a disclaimer on photos of waterfalls taken with a long exposure saying that the water really doesn't look like that? I mean, that isn't how water really looks. What about star trails? When I take a picture of a kid on a jumping on a trampoline, and I make sure to compose so the trampoline isn't in the frame, should I disclaim that children really can't fly? I can keep going on and on here. People say that Photoshop is bad, and they try to make arbitrary rules with how it should be used (typically based on personal preference) yet they're ok if the manipulation can be done "in camera" or "in a darkroom." How come we're ok with that kind of manipulation, even though it doesn't show reality how it really is, but we're not ok with photoshop doing exactly the same thing? Photo Journalism is one thing, but for the rest of us artists (whether you like the title or not) does it really matter? Nope. All that matters is the image.

I'll give you the point about movies and books. Context and disclaimers can tell us what's real or not in most cases. But where do you draw the line in photography? And who gets to make those decisions? And what happens if you don't stay on the 'right' side of that line?

 

[Overread]

Publication date might also be important - the legal reasoning for the requirement might not be present uptill a fixed date - further international differences in legal publications might also lead to differences in this aspect.

As for the rest of your questions again its coming back to contextual events and situations. Do you have to list that the child is not flying - maybe yes maybe no - the context of your presentation of that work should (in theory) define the need for such an explination.
Also there are whole areas of photography outside of art and photojournalism (and we must remember that journalists can also be artists - if again within certain contextual rules.)

 

[Gaerek]

Publication date might also be important - the legal reasoning for the requirement might not be present uptill a fixed date - further international differences in legal publications might also lead to differences in this aspect.

As for the rest of your questions again its coming back to contextual events and situations. Do you have to list that the child is not flying - maybe yes maybe no - the context of your presentation of that work should (in theory) define the need for such an explination.
Also there are whole areas of photography outside of art and photojournalism (and we must remember that journalists can also be artists - if again within certain contextual rules.)

I agree with what you are saying here. I suppose this is why this is such a convoluted situation. Taken in context of the many different facets of photography, there are just as many ways of determining how much manipulation is too much. I suppose I will leave this part of the discussion with, manipulate as much as you're comfortable with manipulating, but don't get on others for manipulating simply because it's something that you think isn't right.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

When you shoot paintings (especially for publication of high quality books) you have to get the colors 100% right. With film (sorry, that is all I ever shot for this kind of work), every film is slightly biased towards one color or another. Take Kodachrome and Ektachrome for example. One is warm, the other is cold, neither is 100% real. So there is no way around doing some manipulation.

As I think you know I am pretty new to digital but I understand that digi bodies have the same "problem." Nikon has a slightly different color cast than Canon so that means that the colors need to be adjusted in PP.

With moths, if the colors are critical, I don't see why it would be any different. If the moth's colors are not quite right straight out of the camera, you will need to adjust them until they are spot on.

Hope I'm explaining this right.

Btw, the disclaimer in books of fiction is actually a protection for the author and publisher against people saying "That's me. You can't use me in your novel" and then they sue. At least, that's the way it was explained to me.

 

[Overread]

ahh true point with regard to the colour shots cloud - my canon 400D certainly favours reds a little more than it should. However that is when I am using auto white balance and the camera is doing the thinking on the lighting for me. When you set custom white balance (as I understand it) the whitebalance should be ideal for the lighting inwhich you are shooting in provided that you don't have conflicting sources of major light into the scene (eg mixing flash with regular indoor lights).
Its important to me because on the first count our eyes are subjective so what I see as red one other person might see as a slightly different shade of red - further when it comes to editing the results I won't have the moth with me nor would it be in the same light as it would photographed in - so again problems for getting the correct colour.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Color critical work is not easy that's why they are people who specialize in shooting paintings. I shot my own because I could do a good enough job for what my use was. If someone ever wants to publish me in a high quality book, I will not be the photog.

I agree that our eyes see things differently (or so it seems) but that does not matter one bit. You look at the moth and you match the color on your photo. If I look at this moth and see it slightly differently than you do, I will still see it as a match on your photo though because you made it match. Do you know what I'm saying?

Not having the moth with you is a problem. For all practical purposes, you should have the moth pinned next to your printer. Who said photography was easy

 

[Overread]

Ahh yes I see your point about eyes - but yes pinned next to the printer would ideal - though I have a feeling the moth might have some objections to such a plan

 

[vtf]

:gah:

 

[Overread]

:gah:

Ahh I see you share the pains of accurate moth colour presentation! :lmao:

:mrgreen:

 

[JasonLambert]

I love this thread... Reminds me of talking to my uncle who's a die hard left wing Democrat and I'm a Libertarian. We go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and... Well you get the point.

Is there a right answer to this? No... It's a personal choice. It's like TV... You don't trust everything that you see do you? You should be able to trust the News (print or film) but other than that viewer beware.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

And I do agree with the moth. I wouldn't like getting pinned next to your printer if you were doing a portrait of me

But in theory, that is what you would need to do.

 

[burnws6]

Almost everything.

 

[Derrel]

As for your post, Derrel, what about parents taking responsibility for their kids? My parents certainly taught me the difference between fantasy and reality. They also taught me to not believe much of what was said in advertisements. In the 60s, we had Twiggy but I don't remember girls going nuts because of her the way they are today. Parents need to get back to the job of being parents.

Well, I'd love to address that point CW...Sorry dude....Twiggy was ONE famous thin model...the media culture today is vastly differnt from that of the 1960's, and this is a far,far,far bigger problem than parental failings. The media culture today is vastly more pervasive than when you were a boy,or when I was a boy. You're only a few years older than I am; when I was a boy, we got FOUR television channels, which were on the air from 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Surely you recall the days when the TV went off the air every night..when it was literally **impossible** to record a TV show. Now there is a huge world-wide media blitz. Today,many homes have 400 channels,and TV is on 24-7. On the web. On mobile phones. DVD. VCR. TV shows can be bought on DVD, rented, etc. In the 1960's once, rerun, Gone! Poof, into the ether,and never seen again! It's not that way today.

When you were a kid, anorexia was not an issue, it really wasn't. It was a rare disease, very,very uncommon. When you were a kid, there was no Nikelodeon, no Cartoon Network, and the Disney Corporation was not targeting kids through McDonalds toys. There was no Happy Meal. There was no cable TV. There was no nudity or semi-nudity on TV. No sex on TV. Married couples slept in separate beds, with "one foot on the floor at all times". There was one black man on American weekly TV, and one black woman on American TV (who was not a doorman or maid). There was no rap music, and people thought The Beatles were long-hairs. That was Twiggy's era.

Sorry, but "Twiggy existed in the 1960's" is one isolated case,and does not make a strong argument. The fact is that today, Photoshop fakery is all around us, and the role of media in cultures world-wide is a huge factor, whereas in he 1960's it was NOT much of a factor. A good case in point is the struggles totalitarian governments have with this little thing called...the internet. China had no problem squashing printing presses that operated outside the government's purvey in the 60's. What we have today however is not your America (or the China) of the 1960's. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but at least people are beginning to realize that hundreds of thousands of advertising impressions have the power to override parental and scholastic teaching efforts. Some people are concerned because what people "see" is what they "want". When I was a kid, we watched June Cleaver totter around in high heels, a black skirt, and a pearl necklace, while Wally and Beav got in trouble for breaking a window with a baseball; today's kids might get in trouble when one of them tries a PCP-laced joint some A-hole off the street sells them...or killed by a crackhead or meth head.

An old expression was "a photograph doesn't lie." Courts used to accept photos more or less at face value. Today, both Canon and Nikon have "kits" that create digital photos that are verified to be...unretouched, for legal acceptance into court proceedings! The Canon kit costs $714.
Canon | DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit | 9314A001 | B&H Photo Video

Reuters has been found guilty of publishing numerous faked news photos,mostly of middle east war coverage between Israeli and Palestinian armed conflict. It's easy to fake a photo now. Very,very easy. Although Twiggy was thin, she was isolated. Ralph Lauren has 'shopped models so that their heads are larger than their pelvic areas,and the images are plastered all over the side of city buses. Buses in the 1960's didn't have advertising on them the way they do today. The issues surrounding fakery in media go far outside the parental realm, and are society-wide. Which is the main reason I am interested in this entire debate and issue. I find it fascinating to hear the different points of view!!! I am of course, interested in sociology and cultural issues, but the difference between fantasy and reality in the 1960's was clear--but today, MUCH of what is portrayed as "reality" is actually fantasy,and today, Photoshop and CGI is so,so good that many parents cannot tell the difference between the two, and kids today are easily manipulated by faked images, both still,and moving.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I don't totally disagree with you Derrel but I will stick to the fact that parents need to get back to being parents. I would love to keep talking about this but I would hate to see this thread closed for getting political. Sorry.