| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2003 03:58:56 PM · #1 |
Since we have all this freedom this month in the members' challenges, I'm wondering just how much editing people are doing to improve their pictures. Do you just do minor tweaking, like adjusting levels or contrast? Do you clone out garbage or distracting man-made elements? Do you go so far as to improve upon nature?
For instance, if you took a shot of a colorful duck on the water and got it into photoshop only to realize that the water is an ugly color of brown. Assuming you have the skills to make it look natural, would you change the color to a beautiful blue color? Afterall, it is possible that the water could have been blue.
I had a similar dilemma with a current submission. Although I could have "edited nature" in a way that would have made the shot better AND looked more natural, I left it as it was because that is actually how I saw it. Now I'm getting comments about the technical mistake in my shot and wondering if I shouldn't have just gone ahead and "fixed" it to be more like everyone assumes it should be. Arghh, this isn't a rant. I seriously want to know what people think about improving pictures to look more natural than nature actually was.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 04:07:07 PM · #2 |
My December free study shot has been modified to make the 'natural' element in it appear as flawless as possible. I wanted to present the best possible view of my shot as I could, and due to limitations at shooting, there was no way to avoid some elements that would distract. I think that there is nothing wrong with making your image be the best it can be, as long as you're not introducing something that makes the image look 'doctored'.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 04:21:00 PM · #3 |
You mean something like this?
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 04:36:19 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
My December free study shot has been modified to make the 'natural' element in it appear as flawless as possible. I wanted to present the best possible view of my shot as I could, and due to limitations at shooting, there was no way to avoid some elements that would distract. I think that there is nothing wrong with making your image be the best it can be, as long as you're not introducing something that makes the image look 'doctored'. |
well said...
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 05:34:46 PM · #5 |
I think everyone has to decide for themselves where that line is drawn. My general rule is to use caution and error on the side of less corrections. However, I have exceptions and those are usually with photos that are intended to be abstract in nature where the forms and colors are the primary focus. With these types of photos I may edit more to emphasise these qualities and naturalness takes a back seat to the visual impact I desire. I also like to keep things simple and I try to maintain that in my image editing too. My editing mostly involves improving the color and lighting qualities with some very minor cloning out of small unwanted elements. Depending on the photo I often will leave telephone poles and wires in the scene because it keeps a level of authenticity to the image that I prefer. The level of editing comes down to the individual photo and what my intent is and its impact on the viewer. In the case of Beagleboy's photo I would have no problems removing the sign. Of course I would try to not include the sign in my original photo but sometimes it is unavoidable and then sometimes the photo may be taken by someone else that is less experienced and so they accidentality include things like signs because they are so focused on the subject. Removing these things places the focus back on the subject only which was the original intent in the first place.
T |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 08:09:14 PM · #6 |
It helps to be really good at PS then, huh? If you basically can do anything to make the shot look better as long as noone can tell you've done anything. I don't have a problem removing man made things like the sign in that previous shot. The particular thing in my own picture did bug me too, but that's just how it was IRL so I left it. Guess from now on I'll try to "fix" more.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2003 08:43:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by indigo997:
It helps to be really good at PS then, huh? If you basically can do anything to make the shot look better as long as noone can tell you've done anything. I don't have a problem removing man made things like the sign in that previous shot. The particular thing in my own picture did bug me too, but that's just how it was IRL so I left it. Guess from now on I'll try to "fix" more. |
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at by saying that we can do "anything" to make a shot look better. There are definitely limits to what can be done with most images and we need to make sure we follow the rules of DPChallenge. And yes, it really does help to be good at digital editing just like it is important to understand darkroom work if you are serious about using film. It looks like most of us are in agreement that we strive to keep our shots looking natural and to maintain the visual integrity of the original photo. We're not really interested in creating completely altered photos. Most of us are mainly improving on the lighting and color qualities of the images because rarely are these elements acurately captured in the original image. I almost never add anything to a photo, only occasionaly removing small distracting elements. I am always ready to show the original to show what was done and I'm not interested in getting away with anything.
T |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 09:07:57 PM · #8 |
| I'm not talking about trying to "get away with" anything either. I didn't mean that noone can tell so you don't get caught... I meant that it doesn't LOOK altered or doctored. Making something flawless isn't perfectly natural even if it is legal. People are just used to seeing perfect images now even though you rarely would see something like that in the real world. Show it like it really is, and they'll tell you how to "fix" it. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 09:21:40 PM · #9 |
Well, I am still playing by the 'old' rules, mostly cuz I don't know how to do much more. And I was pretty happy with my shot 'as was'. I had one shot I thought of entering and was going edit out some branches, but I actually did not like the way it looked. So I went with a shot that started out very clean.
p.s. beagle-- how did you get the sign area so smooth, when I removed my branches (via cloning) I could see sort of smudge or lines that I did not like how did you get such a good effect?
Message edited by author 2003-12-31 21:23:47. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 11:37:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by indigo997:
I'm not talking about trying to "get away with" anything either. I didn't mean that noone can tell so you don't get caught... I meant that it doesn't LOOK altered or doctored. Making something flawless isn't perfectly natural even if it is legal. People are just used to seeing perfect images now even though you rarely would see something like that in the real world. Show it like it really is, and they'll tell you how to "fix" it. |
I understand and I agree completely. It is really easy to go too far with editing, particularily when you are first learning the tools. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who should know better that feel it is necessary to over-enhance their photos in an attempt to stand out.
T |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 02:57:15 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Well, I am still playing by the 'old' rules, mostly cuz I don't know how to do much more. And I was pretty happy with my shot 'as was'. I had one shot I thought of entering and was going edit out some branches, but I actually did not like the way it looked. So I went with a shot that started out very clean.
p.s. beagle-- how did you get the sign area so smooth, when I removed my branches (via cloning) I could see sort of smudge or lines that I did not like how did you get such a good effect? |
My December shot was also almost completely unedited this time, but that's just how it turned out. I did try to pick my best "photo" so that I wouldn't have to edit much this time.
For smooth cloning, make sure you try and match the source spot to the target spot for color and texture, use a soft-edged brush, and make smaller "dabs" rather than painting long strokes*. This will make it easier to undo mistakes, and is less likely to show the streaking you describe. If it's something smooth/gradient, you can then blur the cloned area before you apply any sharpening to the picture as a whole.
* A tablet/stylus is HIGHLY recommended for doing this -- it is amazingly easier than with a mouse.
Message edited by author 2004-01-01 02:58:48. |
|
|
|
01/01/2004 03:13:38 AM · #12 |
I personally don't give rat's ass, as long as it's a nice photo to look at, I'm happy.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 03:41:49 AM · #13 |
I do some editing, and I've found that my best photo for December did not need a whole lot. However, I'm a bit freer with how a photo looks. I don't mind if PS was used, and I don't care if i can tell if it was used. I don't think photography should be as pure as some try to make it. If using some elements in PS or other software adds an artistic communication of some kind, I don't mind if the scene doesn't look natural.
On the other hand, I try to put forth the 'ideal' in nature, when I take nature shots, so I usually clone out garbage and unwanted things to 'tidy' it up a bit. My recent Water Challenge shot was very obviously Photoshopped, and yet I did less to it than I did with my recent December study shot.
What matters is your communication. If your photo speaks and tells a story, great.
A good example of this is Robert Parke-Harrison, who is a brilliant photographer, yet he hand paints each of his photos. I don't think that makes him less of a photographer. He's an artist, and he uses the tools he needs to make a statement.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2004 06:46:02 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
A good example of this is Robert Parke-Harrison, who is a brilliant photographer, yet he hand paints each of his photos. |
WOW!
Actually thank you David, for introducing Parke-Harrison. I didn't knew him, I gave a look and man.. I love his work.
I believe that in cases like Parke-Harrison the "photographer" term is a diminutive. Parke-Harrison clearly is an artist.
Regarding the matter of this thread, even present in other threads, I don't feel motivated to add my opinion because it has become evidente that there are two parties and my party is well manifested on my own site.
Happy New Year DPCers! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 05:32:52 PM EDT.
