| Author |
Message |
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 08:14
Reply
I don't know it the subject was already opened...
But this question turns in my head.
A lot of my pictures are cropped.
Almost 50% of them have brightness, saturation and/or contrast changed.
In my mind, it is a part of the photograph's job to do that. It does'nt change the deep nature of the picture.
But on some pictures - 2 or 3 per cent - I retouched only part of the picture.
For instance, I erased a little spot, I selected an overburned spot and retouch onnly this part.
At this moment, I began to felt guilty, I had the feeling to almost be a cheater.
My limit is reached when I made the change not for a correction (as a spot), but for a enhancement.
For instance, this one is not touched ...
But on this one (same moment), the sky, already very grey, was lightly darkned for a better effect :
It is almost invisible because I increased the darkness of... let say... 4% (I don't remember exactly).
I have seen pictures on Woophy with same kind of retouching, and not lightly, but hardly made. In this case, we can see often luminous franges of halos on the borders of the selection.
(Some months ago, I didn't know where it cames, but until I use Paint Shop Pro, I can identify the reason of this effect).
For me, the picture is no longer a picture, but something else, the photograph's creation.
Of course, it exists a lot of other effects of the same kind. Changing a part of a picture by another (copied/pasted), for exemple.
On my mind, it is not good.
Of course, I have no problem with pictures hardly retouched, when it is officialy done, as a visible transformation. Even I often don't rate them, I respect.
I think it doesn't exist rules...
But I would like to know what are your opinion, Woophy members, and what are your limits.
I also would like to know if it exists a kind of deontology for the professional photographers ...
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 10:11
Reply
In the 'old fashioned' way a photographer worked on his picture in the darkroom until he was satisfied about the photo. In my opinion you have to see, PSP, Photoshop or what program ever, as the new darkroom.
A photo , worked on or not, is a creation of the photographer, always!
For myself, I've several worked on pictures, because at the time I shoot that picture I already have an idea what I will do with it. And sometimes when I see a picture on screen and it is not what I expected to be, I change it till I'm satisfied.
ruud
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 10:45 - Edited by: fred snijders
Reply
Agree with "de Stilte" that Photoshop is the equivalent of the former darkroom. Coming from the B&W era I have worked a lot in the darkroom and I am glad that I can do it now in bright daylight on my computer. I often change/enhance parts of px because of a better dramatic effect. IMO that is part of the creative process of photography.
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:25
Reply
I also agree with "de stilte" en Fred. I never had the chance to work in a darkroom so I always had to wait for the printed results. Now, with PSP I'm free to do what I want and work on the photo till I think it's right. Sometimes a mere contrast will do but a lot of the time I'l go a lot further. As Fred said, it's a creative process that gives me a lot of pleasure. I also take pictures with the PSP actions in my mind.
I must say I heve noticed by the ratings that our fellow members don't always agree.
The following pictures were altered for different reasons and were rated from 5 till 1.
|
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:31 - Edited by: fred snijders
Reply
Just as an example.
The original:
and the ultimate result:
Personally I prefer the Photoshoped px
|
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:34
Reply
Well done :-)
It's sometimes nice to look at the originals you've forgotten about. In some cases I give it another shot just to create a whole new pictture.
|
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:47 - Edited by: fred snijders
Reply
Another example of "tuning" the atmosphere of a px.
Original:
And the ultimate result:
|
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:49
Reply
great jobs fred, pictures 1 are boring , pictures two are great ( IMO )
|
|
de stilte
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 11:53
Reply
the original
and the result
|
|
fred snijders
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 12:08 - Edited by: fred snijders
Reply
Great job. Especially the parkling blue of the pool makes the px. Also the improved contrast of the hotel gives an eyecatcher point. And I like the cropping.
|
Wilfrid
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 12:29
Reply
Hi Aline,
what is wrong, when we crop, force, reduce or eliminate parts of our pictures?
I think nothing. We did it in old darkroom days and we do it now with new digital possibilities.
But IMO we must be honest, when we are asked about our pics or when we want to document something.
Here an example of my collection:
 ___
Or a picture far away from reallity:
|
nature
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 12:32 - Edited by: nature
Reply
Excelent topic! (before I' had the sensation that postprocessing was a "taboo" ... :D )
I really like the result of Aline, de stilte, fred snijders and wilfrid ;) very good job everybody !
 
|
Bunny
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 13:17
Reply
good question though!
i think it depend on what you want. taking a picture to show how it is, don't need much corrections. maybe croping, contrast but in a modest way.
a photographer who wants and need to be creative shall do (and even overdo!) whatever he/she wants!! untill he/she is satisfied with the result. it has to do with 'art'.
its like painting... there are different stiles too. and not everybody likes everything. who cares?
till now i corrected my pictures by cropping, adding some contrasts, lights, colors (or taking the colors away..) more i haven't done yet, for the simple reason that i don't know (yet) how... ;-)
greetings
|
Joop O
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 13:21 - Edited by: Joop O
Reply
I totaly agree. Sometimes you can make a poor picture into a special one, just with a little creativity, an example;
the original, not very good
the result after PSP editing
Fred, Ruud, Nature and Wilfrid you all did very good jobs with great results!
|
Akbar
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 13:36
Reply
And I agree too. After only a bit of playing with Contrast, Saturation and Gamma Correction a dull pic can change in something nice:
BEFORE
AFTER
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 13:57
Reply
Hi Aline,
Thanks for this topic, because, when I began to be addicted to photographic job I was like you. "this was like THAT and nothing else" . As it was argentic, we had no choice, because you discovered your photos after the laboratory works. (II never worked in a dark rom mayself) I began to change my point of view with numeric, because working on a computer is my second passion. and very naturally I began to combinate the 2.
I work also on PSP and I'm amazed by the lot of possibilities it offers. For me there is nothing wrong to modify a picture, as far you don't pretend that dont don't touch it. this is exactly like apainter who sometimes draw his own feeling of a landscape. If the result is nice to be looked at, what is bad?
I have two ways of working :
1 - photos which tells a story regarding life of people for example, I eventually remove the parts who could be disturbing from the main interest like this one :
First there was a bycicle on the left and I wanted the 3 boys to be the only interest so I removed the bycicle (accordingly btw with wilfried advice) and it's better now (for me)
2 - for some landscape by exemple I feel free to do what I want to try to transmit my real feelings. this picture by example :
Is totally "fictive". This is superposition of pict of Blue mosquee end of the day, and sun rise in Brittany. But the result is for me the dream I had of Istanbul when I was a child. I really "falled in love" with this town when I was 6 by reading, looking at magazine, ad when I discovered it "pour de vrai" it was like and even more all that I have imagined. And now I go overthere once or twice a year, and each time I land off the magie continue to operte, and this picture reflects my feeling when I arrive in Istanbul. Even if you'll never see the sun like that, because it's not the right position. If I had been a painter I would have represent it like that (infortunatelyI'm unable to do a drawing. My talent in this is about the same of a 5 years child....) So I was happy to manage to do that with my camera and the computer...
The most important thing is to have fun in doing it and to give pleasure to people who likes. and for those who don't like (all the tastes are allowed), there are such a variety of diferent type of picture in Whoopy, that everybody can find his own pleasure.
Nice sunday to all
|
|
Martin de Rijk
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 14:31
Reply
Bernadette, your #2 picture is a hard one for me, this is imoo a form of digital art that creates a new reality, a composed picture. When we use this option we can create the most spectacular pictures. Once a friend showed me a picture of myself at a bar in Corsica. A nice picture, the problem was that I've never been in Corsica. He had created a new reality. For one I think one has to mention what has been done to a picture when it's a composition made out of several pictures. This doesn't mean I don't like them, I've seen some very good results in several Digital art forums.
|
Marcos
Moderator
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 16:38 - Edited by: Marcos
Reply
Hi !
I believe photo editing is ok. If we have the possibilities to do that, why not?
I dont know how a dark room is. I did never went into one but I know It is the place where some years ago the photographer needed to go to work with his pictures, I know there was a smell of chemical products and a red light but I dont know the capabilities of the dark room.
I am amazed with the work posted here, the befor and now, just unbelievable.
Conclusion: I think pictures editing is ok and there is no problem If you do it.
Greetings,
Marcos Rowinski !
|
|
Aline
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 18:19
Reply
Hello all,
First, thanks for your answers, detailed, pedagogic and demonstrative. It's good to hear you.
I have to admit I'm amazed by your answers : it's an almost unanimous "Yes, for all kind of retouchings".
It is rather far from my first personal point of view, but so unanimous and conivincing that you are on the way to change my mind.
Ok, I have another exemple to submit to you.
Here, the last release of own of my pictures :
|
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Sep 06 18:31
Reply
Hi, again
Just somehing to add, and this is Martin's comment which remind me that.Martin I agree, you have to say when this is not a real picture but combination of several (what i've done in my comments) This is a play, a game, as you prefer to name it and there is no lack of honnesty to do that, as you use technical tools. but an other thing. I put my own personal limit, in doing this only with landscape pictures, when there is an esthetic point of view. I would'nt have done that with a picture of people. Your example is the best one, I don't like when people are put by an artificial way, such combination of pictures with PSP or other, in a place or situation they have never been. From an ethical point of view, it begins to be "manipulation" of people life and not an innocent entertainement in order to make beautiful pictures. But one more time, this is like I feel things, and I'm not sure to own the truth.
Greetings
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 1