Photo manipulation...yea or nay?

[pierces]

On a recent cruise, we were talking to some people we met, and the subject of photography came up (I know..."shocking"). He is of the camp that believes a photo should never be manipulated, not even for white balance, tilt (packs a huge Gitzo tripod) or even brightness. He wants the picture to be "as he saw it". He wasn't a tin-foil-hat fanatic about it and admitted I had a point when I offered that film and most digital capture cannot match the wildly adaptable dynamic range of the human eye and only rarely does an image match exactly what your eyes see. He was, however, adamant about editing out distracting objects, correcting horizon tilt and especially the use of the new AI-driven sky replacers and such.

 

I have mixed feelings about image alteration. I will freely correct everyday anomalies such as exposure, white balance, dust, or the occasional zit if the subject requests it. I will add or delete someone in a group photo in the case of inability to attend or divorce but manipulating an image in a such major way shouldn't be done unless it is requested. Altering for restoration or artistic intent is ok by me if the alteration is posted or admitted to if asked. There are a lot of grey areas but avoiding falsehood or ill intent is a rule of thumb that I prefer to follow.

 

While processing images from our recent trip, I took some liberties with alteration. Examples below.

 

The original with a criminally blah sky:

 

Luminar Neo had a sky that fit pretty well and even allowed me to flip the inserted sky to match the suns direction. I should have darkened the sea/sky juncture on the left, but learning is part of life.

 

Another blah sky view:

 

Not bad. The program even took away the yellow cast from the reflection of the original sky on the water. It also represents a potentially possible view.

 

This one had the same featureless sky but was pretty blown out on the left by the setting sun. I was able to flip the supplied image and adjust it horizontally and vertically to match the source light. By far the most realistic of the bunch. It retains the original sense of the scene but adds just a bit of detail.

 

Dang the untimely passerby! 

 

Here I used the Magic Eraser on my phone software to immediately banish him to oblivion and save as a copy. I feel a bit uneasy about using it now since I didn't see that guy for the rest of the trip...hmmmmm.

 

After playing with the replacers, I'm not as adverse to them as before. I will make it a point to point out when they are used, but I now think that judicious use of advanced editing tools in image creation is not all that different from stitching a panorama or judicious cropping and is just another way to express one's vision.

 

What do you folks think?

 

 

Dave

 

[Gardyloo]

The first time someone added a sepia tint to an old B&W photo, or cropped out something distracting on the edge of an image, the movement from "realism" to "artistic interpretation" was underway.  I'm agnostic on the subject, personally, but it always comes down to what you plan to do with the images you capture.  Is it just for your own memory, or to share in a picture book or album? Is it to post on social media to share your experiences or to show off how well traveled you are?  (Hard to admit sometimes, but you know that happens.)  Or to make wall-sized murals or 16x20 wall-fillers?  Enter in competitions?  Lots of motives, and none of them mutually exclusive.

 

I'm not opposed to sky replacement - sometimes it can add real drama to a picture - but I think it should always be acknowledged as an artistic interpretation, not an attempt to pretend something fake was real.  

 

Example, a monument to local wild horses (still around) in central Washington state:

 

 

 

Or it can be used for some fun, e.g. uninvited guests to Seattle - 

 

 

Photography should be fun, shouldn't it?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Gardyloo

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

I'm

 a bit of a purest  .... basic editing is OK in my book but there comes a time where you've gone beyond that and it is no longer a picture but art. I never replace the sky .... I'll enhance lets say clouds and make them a bit more dramatic or a bit more saturation but the clouds were there from the beginning ... 

 

I often see 'pictures' which are so over enhanced that you know it didn't really look like that. All of my pictures after a basic edit still look 'like a picture' not art.

 

I'm old school and the challenge it to get it the best you can in the camera  ... not in the edit software. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Tahitianbigkahuna

[pierces]

1 hour ago, Tahitianbigkahuna said:

I'm old school and the challenge it to get it the best you can in the camera  ... not in the edit software. 

 

To a certain point, I am as well. I do take the time to assure that my settings an all are correct and take care to compose.

 

But...

 

Sophisticated editing software is like that backpack thing you are glad to have when the unexpected happens and the plane's engine stops. 😉

 

BTW, I agree about the unnatural enhancements. Like the last enhancement in my examples above, it should look (as much as possible) like no enhancement was applied.

 

Dave

[Host Bonjour]

10 hours ago, pierces said:

The original with a criminally blah sky:

 

Actually, I love this image the most. The tonality is incredible, the the geometry of the horizon and how it marks the break between the blue of the sea and the introduction of the gradation in the tones of the sky. There are also the the tiny ships out in the distance, which add a sort of drama to it... ships–a lighthouse...there's almost a horizontal alignment between them. 

 

I'd maybe only do the most minimal edit on this, only to bring it to what the eye saw, which would maybe mean tweaking contrast the tiniest bit, and white balance, shadows, which would make the shades true. I love it.

 

I think the tools may be used do make images in two ways: to enhance images that are meant to be (more or less) representative of what is before the camera, and to create an image that was before the camera, and composite that image in the way it would ideally be before the camera. I guess the latter could be considered a sort of image collaging, but it's not exactly like collaging, in the way we think of doing collages, but it is something where you can pick and choose what goes into the frame. Custom image making? Photo-compositing. 

 

I think it's been game changing for photographers who do editorial work and other contract work. There just isn't enough time to wait for the right conditions anymore, not with the cost of doing the job.  The client needs the image to sell/promote/feature/communicate something strongly, and the visual has to be precise. Editing ensures there are no flaws, and that's game-changing. 

 

I hadn't thought of it as Dave mentioned, updating images for events when folks couldn't make it or something like that, to include them in an important moment. That's very worthwhile! 

 

Otherwise, I am of the mind that you have to get the image you want. I think editing software is useful in making the slight adjustments for getting an image nearer to what the eye might see, but in terms of changing composition and removing things from view, I won't do it. I'm very what-you-see-is-what-you-get. I kind of think that's the point–either that's a shot I want to take, or it isn't, once I frame it up. If me moving around, or moving the camera doesn't remove an obstacle I want out of the shot, doesn't make the shot more interesting to me, I pass on the shot. This is what I'm seeing, so either I want to reproduce it or I don't. What are my intentions?

 

The only other time I get into editing software is when I PLAY with it, which is to say that the image doesn't look anything remotely like what it did, because I went all in on a few options, just to see what it would look like, something really abstract and cool (futuristic or theatrical)  just experimentation. Do I love the street views with no signs or poles or ugly electric circuit boxes? Yes. But then why am I needing a photo of that street? Maybe I should find another street. Or just keep moving.

 

There is no perfection. Well, I guess some places really do look amazing, don't they? That's why when I travel, I was into buying small, softcover (lightweight!) picture books to bring home. They were locally made and always had amazing images, the kind either I couldn't/wouldn't get, maybe because it was a different season, or I wasn't hanging out of a helicopter (or now, no drone) etc. My pictures looked like it looked when I was there.

 

I work on getting the image the usual way, lighting/comp/depth of field/speed etc... and sometimes just shoot whatever, see what happens. But I love what I see in the photography sphere that can be created with design software, bringing in elements of not just other images, but also graphics, painting, drawing etc. Creating is awesome, and it's amazing to see what's possible.

 

I think it's great that there are ways to make the image you want. Should the edits be disclosed? I guess that's the question. Sort of like the old discussion a number of years back about airbrushing (PhotoShop) especially in fashion/cosmetics images that were heavily altered, but it was never disclosed and the high ideal set was not real, a lie. That's not the same as changing a sky though, is it?

 

Sometimes, with a good eye, it's easy to spot the PhotoShop, some people are Rembrandt with it and you can barely notice. Sometimes it's good to just be in awe of a beautiful image.

For everyone it will be different, how they see their images, what they want to create, and how they like to create using the available tools. Kind of cool. 😎📸🪄

 

Also, I really can't stand PhotoShop, 😂 of all the Adobe programs, it's my least favorite, but I love many others a lot. (No one asked, I know...)

 

Great discussion, thanks for posting!

 

Colleen

 

 

[Victress2007]

I have a habit of holding the camera so the right side is just that little bit lower than the left.  Even with the horizon guide, I often get it wrong.  But when I fix it, I save it as xxx1st,  that way when I look at a file I know what I did to it. Cr= crop, ad=adjusted, etc.

 

 

 

I did hit the save button before labeling this aa (auto adjust), on my monitor I like the original colors better.

So, no problem with art or adjustments, they just aren't always the same thing.

 

Vic

[pierces]

Photoshop is a curse and a blessing. An incredibly useful tool that gets a lot of bad press from photo purists. Not fair. As a tool, Photoshop will never over-process or perform an evil manipulation on a photo without some human interaction. 

 

Blame the human.

 

Here are some more sins committed by Satan's software.

(See how easy it is to shift blame to the tool? 😉)

 

Flock of obstructive tourists at Peggys Cove discreetly disintegrated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These were done with the Clone Stamp. The content-aware deletion tool can be a little odd-looking unless detail is low, as in a sky. 

 

 

 

[ski ww]

I'm a purest because I don't own Photoshop. I'm more of a picture taker, not a photographer. I take lots of pictures & delete the bad ones. I'm happy with the results I get. But I do love to see what people can do with Photoshop.

[eileeshb]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:53 AM, ski ww said:

I'm a purest because I don't own Photoshop. I'm more of a picture taker, not a photographer. I take lots of pictures & delete the bad ones. I'm happy with the results I get. But I do love to see what people can do with Photoshop.

Somewhat similar… I’m too lazy to do detailed changes in photoshop, I just don’t have the patience for it. I’ve done a few classes so I know the power of it and if suitably motivated I will make the effort.

 

I once lucked into a fab black & white version of a colour photo and I’ve no clue how I managed it. The black & white was so popular that the pro rugby team featured sent out a print of it to every member of their supporters club as part of the membership pack the next season. 

I actually find the apps on mobile devices far more user friendly and powerful with a lot less effort, but when posting on Instagram I rarely use their filters unless I specifically want something to look different.  There’s a reason #nofilter #nofiltersneeded are popular hashtags on instagram. 

[Host Bonjour]

On 1/31/2023 at 12:40 PM, pierces said:

(See how easy it is to shift blame to the tool? 😉)

 

Using tools are just another way of creating something which is as valid as someone making something a different way. One is not more right or wrong, there are now just options and alternatives, in some cases time savers.

 

A way to create something one visualizes beyond what they see, not unlike what a painter would do: how do we know that every painter in history included everything in a landscape that was within view? We don't know. And we do know, for example, that a still life is staged, often with specific light, for a desired effect on the objects.

 

What's interesting, maybe, is let's share about the difference between the clone stamp (grabbing bits of the rocks and–sort of like the old rubber stamp–stamping over parts of the image one wants to delete), and the content awareness tool (better for picking up discernible backgrounds and omitting what one wants to delete), for folks that might not be familiar with the terms, to describe how the magic is done. (There was also a tiny zoom and crop on the beautiful lighthouse image, to great effect 🙂 ) All of which sounds "easy" but takes practice! 

 

However, as you see, the results are 🤩🤩 and of course not wrong, quite practical for oh so many reasons. 🙂 

 

Colleen

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

5 minutes ago, Host Bonjour said:

 

Using tools are just another way of creating something which is as valid as someone making something a different way. One is not more right or wrong, there are now just options and alternatives, in some cases time savers.

 

A way to create something one visualizes beyond what they see, not unlike what a painter would do: how do we know that every painter in history included everything in a landscape that was within view? We don't know. And we do know, for example, that a still life is staged, often with specific light, for a desired effect on the objects.

 

What's interesting, maybe, is let's share about the difference between the clone stamp (grabbing bits of the rocks and–sort of like the old rubber stamp–stamping over parts of the image one wants to delete), and the content awareness tool (better for picking up discernible backgrounds and omitting what one wants to delete), for folks that might not be familiar with the terms, to describe how the magic is done. (There was also a tiny zoom and crop on the beautiful lighthouse image, to great effect 🙂 ) All of which sounds "easy" but takes practice! 

 

However, as you see, the results are 🤩🤩 and of course not wrong, quite practical for oh so many reasons. 🙂 

 

Colleen

 

As they say to each their own ... any good photographer can tell when there is manipulation ... small basic edits and it's still a photo ... beyond that and IMO it's art. However, most don't know the difference and many 'artist' try and pass it off as if they are a great photographer and it really looked like that. 

True photographers take the time to plan their trips  ... going at the right time for lighting, going at the right time for textured skies, going at the right time so it isn't overly crowded  ... another words they get it right in the camera as much as possible so there is no big need to do extensive corrections/manipulation. 

True photographers are becoming extinct as the increase in filters and manipulation continues ... like so much in the world what you see isn't always real ... darn right scary.

Just my two cents ...

[JoC2024]

sometimes I take a photo and it looks terrible, but there is something there that 'could' make it work with a bit of a quick visit to Photoshop/Lightroom might just fix.  the aircraft photo looked pretty sharp and in focus, just wildly overexposed.  the lake photo was one of those opportunity shots, where I was there, it was cold, dull and I was late for breakfast. the final image has kind of evolved over a number of years as I learnt more about photo editing.  both in camera .jpgs could have been in-camera deletions (fortunately I do not do in-camera deletions) and also fortunately, I also shoot in RAW.  while I still shoot RAW +jpg (even when shooting sports), I've learnt a little bit since these were taken (2008/9) and most editing in post would now be restricted to bringing down the highlights/bumping up the shadows a touch and maybe levelling the horizon as I tend to twist the frame slightly down to the right these days.
cheers

[Crew News]

9 hours ago, JoC2024 said:

sometimes I take a photo and it looks terrible, but there is something there that 'could' make it work with a bit of a quick visit to Photoshop/Lightroom might just fix.  the aircraft photo looked pretty sharp and in focus, just wildly overexposed.  the lake photo was one of those opportunity shots, where I was there, it was cold, dull and I was late for breakfast. the final image has kind of evolved over a number of years as I learnt more about photo editing.  both in camera .jpgs could have been in-camera deletions (fortunately I do not do in-camera deletions) and also fortunately, I also shoot in RAW.  while I still shoot RAW +jpg (even when shooting sports), I've learnt a little bit since these were taken (2008/9) and most editing in post would now be restricted to bringing down the highlights/bumping up the shadows a touch and maybe levelling the horizon as I tend to twist the frame slightly down to the right these days.
cheers

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic and this forum. 

 

As a many year hobby photographer shooting RAW, I have been revisiting thousands of photos.  New dehazing technology, Topaz sharpening products, amazing Lightroom masking improvements, and content aware removals have indeed brought many photos to better presentation.  I think back to all of the photos that I have trashed that could have been rehabilitated with this new technology. 

 

This is especially true for those foggy cruise days in Alaska and so many photos that can now be brought to life.

 

 

 

[Crew News]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:48 AM, Crew News said:

Welcome to Cruise Critic and this forum. 

 

As a many year hobby photographer shooting RAW, I have been revisiting thousands of photos.  New dehazing technology, Topaz sharpening products, amazing Lightroom masking improvements, and content aware removals have indeed brought many photos to better presentation.  I think back to all of the photos that I have trashed that could have been rehabilitated with this new technology. 

 

This is especially true for those foggy cruise days in Alaska and so many photos that can now be brought to life.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Crew News

[pierces]

You know how you take a bunch of shots of the same pose to catch a good one. Doesn't always work, does it?

 

I took six shots and my daughter-in-law was the only one who stuck with the plan. Daisy was so tired from all that graduating that she was yawning and grew a second head and I think my son saw a squirrel. These two were the only ones that has all the elements needed.

 

In Photoshop, I took cut out his upper torso from just below the flowers and did some creative warping to match the pieces. I then cleaned up the edges of the cutout and removed some background junk.

 

 

Is it a true-to-life, pure unretouched photo? No. Not by a long shot.

 

Was this the only way to get a memorable family photo from a series of shots I should have checked better but was tired and in the middle of a huge milling crowd? Yes.

 

Manipulation isn't always the bad, impure thing that some make it out to be. 

 

Dave

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by pierces

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

10 minutes ago, pierces said:

You know how you take a bunch of shots of the same pose to catch a good one. Doesn't always work, does it?

 

I took six shots and my daughter-in-law was the only one who stuck with the plan. Daisy was so tired from all that graduating that she was yawning and grew a second head and I think my son saw a squirrel. These two were the only ones that has all the elements needed.

 

In Photoshop, I took cut out his upper torso from just below the flowers and did some creative warping to match the pieces. I then cleaned up the edges of the cutout and removed some background junk.

 

 

Is it a true-to-life, pure unretouched photo? No. Not by a long shot.

 

Was this the only way to get a memorable family photo from a series of shots I should have checked better but was tired and in the middle of a huge milling crowd? Yes.

 

Manipulation isn't always the bad, impure thing that some make it out to be. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

There is a difference between a 'fix'  and making it something it wasn't .... your finished picture is a reflection of the occasion ... it didn't change it to something that isn't believable to a good photographer 😉

[pierces]

And then there's this...

 

 

 

😁 

 

Dave

[JanR]

On 6/7/2023 at 6:32 AM, pierces said:

And then there's this...

 

 

 

😁

 

Dave

Sorry, which photo was the altered one?  😉

Edited July 13, 2023 by JanR

[azappraiser]

In every class or workshop I've taken, the instructor/teacher/professor/pro photographer... they've all pretty much said the same thing; "film negatives get developed, lightroom/photoshop develops digital negatives (& jpgs) and can take it to a whole new level.

 

The instructor I had for the Lightroom Classic webinar I took stressed the temptation to over-correct... 

the only corrections in the below pic were to black-out a few stray, faintly lit light bulbs.

[Host Bonjour]

On 7/16/2023 at 6:02 PM, azappraiser said:

every class or workshop I've taken,

 

Have you ever taken a film photography class? That's when I first properly learned photography with film. I first started taking pictures when I was about 5, having been given a camera kit by my grandfather. 

 

It was astounding to learn how professional film photographers created special effects back when there were no in camera effects (or few) and few ways to have an impact on them when processing; some things you could do in a darkroom, but not a lot. 

 

What could be done while shooting, to the camera rig, to the surroundings/environment, the lens, whether that involved light or altering the light/blocking the light/changing the color/augmenting/reflecting with home-made rudimentary materials, a foreign substance (vaseline on the lens) or some sort of material (nylons/panty hose or window screen in front of or over the lens) to create an effect that was desired but for one reason or another, not easy to conjure up.

 

Studio photographers, established ones, in a modern era would have certain tools available to them: strobes, key lights, filters/reflectors/diffusers, gels and more. A lot of people freelancing, which would be a lot of people (then and now) might not have had access to so many things (even cinematographers) due to budget constraints, and had to come up with smart and creative ways to win a gig, create a visual impact and stand out. Just being technical wasn't enough.

 

You might enjoy the challenge, and be surprised by the results because since you're already taking the advice of your instructors and not over-relying on the software to obtain results, (you know how to get a quality image) it's actually almost next level to see what can come of say, going out with a roll of black and white to try some contrast photos and play with light. Then see how Instagram came up with all those different filters: based off of all the different types of films photographers used, exposures, etc.

 

You never know. 

 

BTW, I love the neon image...really cool. Keep learning, however you study!

[azappraiser]

On 7/17/2023 at 3:42 PM, Host Bonjour said:

BTW, I love the neon image...really cool. Keep learning, however you study!

Thanks... I shot that on the final night of a 4-day Historic Rt.66 Photo Workshop.  From Holbrook to Oatman, including the longest continuous stretch of the original "Mother Road" from Seligman to Kingman.

 

Unfortunately, AZ Highways Photoscapes is closing up shop at the end of the year... so sad.

 

[Host Bonjour]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:38 PM, azappraiser said:

Unfortunately, AZ Highways Photoscapes is closing up shop at the end of the year... so sad.

 

 

Oh no, that is sad! It sounds like it was an amazing journey, doing the original route 66. I wonder if it's due to the Instagram effect, which isn't meant to ding IG, but that now anyone anywhere can snap a photo, do a quick edit or add a filter, geolocate, add hashtags to get looks on it, etc etc (and get PAID in some cases) thereby running some traditional operators out of business.

 

Of course nothing replaces doing the journey, but that's not what the some of the posts are about: the exploring the history, seeing places, and then combining that with creating distinctive images and making memories. 

 

A lot of things also make comebacks. Here's hoping 🙂 

[azappraiser]

6 minutes ago, Host Bonjour said:

 

Oh no, that is sad! It sounds like it was an amazing journey, doing the original route 66. I wonder if it's due to the Instagram effect, which isn't meant to ding IG, but that now anyone anywhere can snap a photo, do a quick edit or add a filter, geolocate, add hashtags to get looks on it, etc etc (and get PAID in some cases) thereby running some traditional operators out of business.

 

Of course nothing replaces doing the journey, but that's not what the some of the posts are about: the exploring the history, seeing places, and then combining that with creating distinctive images and making memories. 

 

A lot of things also make comebacks. Here's hoping 🙂 

 

I'm not really sure IG really had anything to do with it... I reached out to our Pro Photographer/Instructor for that trip, and was just as surprised as me.  In fact, he got the same general email that past patrons received.  I'm sure he received more info later, as he conducted several workshops for them each year; as a contractor, not staff.

 

I at least had the pleasure of working with him for 4-days... he also happens to be a Brand Ambassador for Pentax, and as the only other Pentaxian on the trip, I was the only one that could use any of his lenses on my bodies.

 

I did one other photo workshop with them at a local zoo.  Some would consider them to be a bit pricey; I honestly felt I got more than what I paid for in instruction and techniques.  I certainly hope they make a comeback.

[Skyarrow01]

Being a photographer for more than 40 years, professionally and shooting just for fun, I have heard this discussion many times. Even back in the film days they would burn and dodge images to get them to look the way they wanted. One of the issues with cruising is sometimes the weather and time of day is not what you want, so you need to make what you can from the image you get. While I try to get the best image I can in camera, I will use Photoshop or Lightroom to make changes and try to enhance the image best I can. 

Just found this forum, looking forward to hearing more from other cruising photographers.

[pierces]

I was volunteered into finding a reason to manipulate the heck out of images. Spent Sunday taking photos of the performers at my granddaughter's dress rehearsal for the ice rink's fundraiser show. Fourteen groups of cats to be herded, photographed and then placed into a movie or musical poster for sale to the parents and other relatives. Lots and lots of manual masking due to the confusing background. Next time I'm going to get a big green screen!

 

Here's a few of the before and after:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not as easy and fun as I would have wanted but the end results were pretty satisfying. 

 

Dave