How much is too much? (Fajitas welcome)

Trev M

Rather than spoil another thread I thought Id start one of my own.

As a very amatuer photpgrapher I am very interested in the capacity to edit and manipulate images so they look their best.

Personally I dislike images that look too perfect,too airbrushed and are manipulated in such a way that they remove the very essence of the subject matter. Pop princesses, obviously manipulated lanscapes and wildlife etc kinda irritate me. That said I kinda like some of the HDR stuff some of the guys on here have done.

Sure you need, commercial and promotional stuff pristine and suitable for application but Im wondering where the line gets drawn between the photgraph and the graphic.

Paulw

I think the line bends, depending on the requirements.

For editorial (press), then it's a very straight line - just colour, brightness, crop.

For art, fashion, magazines, well ... you've a lot more scope. Just look at most of the high end fashion magazines. Most would probably have the vast majority of images retouched. They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal.

It depends on the client, what they want, what they'll accept, and what you're prepared to allow.

elven

As paul said, depends on the purpose, and what the client wants if it's commercial.

If it's for your own fun, you have to make that decision for yourself, it's a purely personal thing. And over time, your ideas will probably change too.

Trev M

Paulw wrote: »

I think the line bends, depending on the requirements.

For editorial (press), then it's a very straight line - just colour, brightness, crop.

For art, fashion, magazines, well ... you've a lot more scope. Just look at most of the high end fashion magazines. Most would probably have the vast majority of images retouched. They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal.

It depends on the client, what they want, what they'll accept, and what you're prepared to allow.

Great way of explaining it "They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal" makes a lot of sense.

Trev M

elven wrote: »

As paul said, depends on the purpose, and what the client wants if it's commercial.

If it's for your own fun, you have to make that decision for yourself, it's a purely personal thing. And over time, your ideas will probably change too.

Heh I hear ya , my HDR stuff is rubbish , I dont have an eye for it at all, still though I mangled a lot of stuff to figure that much out:D

Paulw

Trev M wrote: »

Great way of explaining it "They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal" makes a lot of sense.

These are good to watch -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP31r70_QNM (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovpd5O6M8tQ (part 2)

Trev M

Cheers for that will have a gander at these when I get home .

DaireQuinlan

Bah ! People here are being far too accommodating.

Cropping. Colour correction*. Dust spotting. Some global colour or contrast adjustments. That's all that's acceptable. Anything else transforms it into a piece of illustration, not a photograph. Sure there are grey areas here but they certainly don't include gross adjustments to the structure of the image itself, cloning out a telephone pole for example, or a wire.

*I'd include the transformation here from a scanned negative to a positive, including adjusting for the orange mask of the emulsion in the case of colour.

Ghost Train

this is too much

K_user

My wife would have me arrested if I did something like that to one of our kids!

dazftw

When it comes to using film I would go with what Daire said with some sharpening and a tiny bit of contrast as well..

When it comes to digital I don't see a problem with more editing at all.. Some stuff I like some stuff I dont..

Two things that drive me nuts though are people who use fake film borders on digital photos or people who turn color film photos to black and white.. oh jesus :mad:

Trev M

Heheh nice work Ghost Train :D just a little too much alright:D:D

Ghost Train

I think contrast adjustment is a tough one, because of the limits of film and digital sensors it is needed to correct an image, but you're using a curve to vary the balance in light and dark regions and its something that can make a huge difference, where do you draw the line at too much, should you vary the contrast for different light levels like an equalizer on a stereo. Sharpness is another thing which is hard to quantify, resizing a digital photo will effect sharpness... so sharpening is needed... is an unsharpen mask a fair method to use since its altering stuff at a pixel level?

DaireQuinlan

Ghost Train wrote: »

I think contrast adjustment is a tough one, because of the limits of film and digital sensors it is needed to correct an image, but you're using a curve to vary the balance in light and dark regions and its something that can make a huge difference, where do you draw the line at too much, should you vary the contrast for different light levels like an equalizer on a stereo.

I think 'reasonable' contrast adjustments are ok. Of course thats for some arbitary value of 'reasonable'

Sharpness is another thing which is hard to quantify, resizing a digital photo will effect sharpness... so sharpening is needed... is an unsharpen mask a fair method to use since its altering stuff at a pixel level?

Thats one of those grey areas The way I view it, the softness of a digital capture (either from a sensor or scanner) is an artifact of the process you're using to capture the image. Any sharpening you're doing to correct this artifact is acceptable. Any more is not. It's the same way I'd regard dust spotting or scratch removal on film. They're not intrinsic to the image, just to the process, and therefore can be removed. Of course how you DO it is another thing altogether.

dazftw wrote: »

Two things that drive me nuts though are people who use fake film borders on digital photos

Yeah I've never really understood that either.

sineadw

Its all subjective anyway, but I think even the purist can agree on sharpness, contrast and a bit of curves and colour temp - you make those decisions when you choose film types or adjust the lens on your enlarger.

Eirebear

Do not listen to anyone.
Do what looks good to YOU. or in the case of fulfilling a brief for a client, do what looks good to your client. Its all about audience.

If you feel that adding effects, maybe a filter or a texture to your shot in photoshop will help it. Then go ahead and do it!

Its all subjective, its all down to taste. So if you want to try it i see absolutely no harm in trying it.

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

Trev M

Eirebear wrote: »

Do not listen to anyone.
Do what looks good to YOU. or in the case of fulfilling a brief for a client, do what looks good to your client. Its all about audience.

If you feel that adding effects, maybe a filter or a texture to your shot in photoshop will help it. Then go ahead and do it!

Its all subjective, its all down to taste. So if you want to try it i see absolutely no harm in trying it.

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

I hear what your saying about things being down to taste and I try to respect other people in this regard. As I said my preference is for things to look more natural than synthetic for the most part ... admittedly I nearly always sharpen, adjust contrast, temp adjust most of my stuff as I see these as kinda bread and butter:p, Ive never had to deal with film just to put it in context, so my experience is just within teh digital photographt context i.e I think its surely easier to get a good shot nowadays.

It interesting as a new comer to the board and photography how difficult it is to find a level of consistency in general terms as to whats accpetable & deemed "good photgraphy practice" - take the art debate that happened here some time ago, hugely diverging opinions from people on here who I think have some amazing stuff but had hugely contrasting(har har) opinions

I guess in the dgital age its all becoming very blurry:D:D - one mans art is another mans **** sandwich I spose...interesting as always to see the varying view points.

Eirebear

Trev M wrote: »

I hear what your saying about things being down to taste and I try to respect other people in this regard. As I said my preference is for things to look more natural than synthetic for the most part ... admittedly I nearly always sharpen, adjust contrast, temp adjust most of my stuff as I see these as kinda bread and butter:p, Ive never had to deal with film just to put it in context, so my experience is just within teh digital photographt context i.e I think its surely easier to get a good shot nowadays.

It interesting as a new comer to the board and photography how difficult it is to find a level of consistency in general terms as to whats accpetable & deemed "good photgraphy practice" - take the art debate that happened here some time ago, hugely diverging opinions from people on here who I think have some amazing stuff but had hugely contrasting(har har) opinions

I guess in the dgital age its all becoming very blurry:D:D - one mans art is another mans **** sandwich I spose...interesting as always to see the varying view points.

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

However that is simply because once you take it any further, you are changing the photograph into an image that wasnt what you shot.
And generall we go out with an idea in our heads and aim to capture that idea.

However sometimes we want to do something a little different with it, and if you set out to do that then i personally see absolutely no problem with that.

its still photography if your taking the photograph. You still need to get the shot that suits the particular process or manipulation that you are going to put it through.

I suppose a lot of it comes down to the thought process that takes you to where you end up with your image?

Chorcai

Eirebear wrote: »

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

However that is simply because once you take it any further, you are changing the photograph into an image that wasnt what you shot.
And generall we go out with an idea in our heads and aim to capture that idea.

However sometimes we want to do something a little different with it, and if you set out to do that then i personally see absolutely no problem with that.

its still photography if your taking the photograph. You still need to get the shot that suits the particular process or manipulation that you are going to put it through.

I suppose a lot of it comes down to the thought process that takes you to where you end up with your image?

ohh did this a few days ago,

Before



and after, the after is what I was aiming for, Im happy enough with it.

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

I don't think this has anything to do with digital versus 'analogue' (by which I presume you mean film ?). I scan my film, and once I've done that I'm as free to do as much to it as any shot from a DSLR. There's a sort of inherent plasticity to a digital capture though which doesn't exist in film, the physical negative always exists as a point of reference.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I don't think this has anything to do with digital versus 'analogue' (by which I presume you mean film ?). I scan my film, and once I've done that I'm as free to do as much to it as any shot from a DSLR. There's a sort of inherent plasticity to a digital capture though which doesn't exist in film, the physical negative always exists as a point of reference.

Its not about what you can and cant do with a negative.

Its about the initial question, "how much is too much", and in my personal opinion the idea of there being a "too much" is a hangover from the pre-digital era.

That is not to say that i am dismissing those values, as everyone needs a grounding.

sineadw

Eirebear I think you're missing a huge point about film - you can do just about as much with a negative in the dark room as you can with a raw file. Its just more difficult.

Morrisseeee

So........can we break it down to 2 definitions:

1. The 'original' (with minor adjustments) is called "A Photograph" (either digital or film) and.....

2. Anything else (ie. that has had major 'work' done (but this 'boundary' is hard to define)) is called "A xxxxx".

Q. What do we call the xxxxx ?!?

DaireQuinlan

Morrisseeee wrote: »

So........can we break it down to 2 definitions:

1. The 'original' (with minor adjustments) is called "A Photograph" (either digital or film) and.....

2. Anything else (ie. that has had major 'work' done (but this 'boundary' is hard to define)) is called "A xxxxx".

Q. What do we call the xxxxx ?!?

Anything you want ? Why get hung up on labels ?

Eirebear

sineadw wrote: »

Eirebear I think you're missing a huge point about film - you can do just about as much with a negative in the dark room as you can with a raw file. Its just more difficult.

No i completely get that Sinead. But we talk about "purists" and in my experience purists fall into two categories.

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

No i completely get that Sinead. But we talk about "purists" and in my experience purists fall into two categories.

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion, you're the only person making this distinction. This is solely about the image and the range of acceptable modifications to an image.
A good basis are the reuters guidelines:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Morrisseeee

Anything you want ? Why get hung up on labels ?

Ah now don't be flippin flippant
No, lets nail it down, lets bang heads together and come up with a 'label' (that I've no hang-ups about:eek:) that describes the option 2 above, ie. a (majorly) manipulated image (MI), ie. not what the camera saw, again to re-iterate: where do we draw the line between the two, which is (kinda) the OP's Q.
I know what Eirebear is saying, as in I've listened to film friends of mine who have not used a D_SLR or photoshop, and they think this photoshop thingy is 'cheating' or where an image is 'too manipulated'. Personally I've an open mind as I've seen both processes and experimented with both, but for me there's a big difference between a 'photograph' and a 'manipulated image', and I think its VERY wrong to try and pass off a MI as a photograph, so what do we call it (this MI) ? as they both are 'works of art' and both are a fine example of the photographer's talent.
Damn, I really need a secretary to interpret my explanations and write them down coherently :pac:

Just reading that post above Daire, they're 1st rule is : No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
I guess if this is done then its an MI.

K_user

Eirebear wrote: »

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

Personally I do a tweak on curves, a little dodging and burning, a small crop and localised sharpening if required.

My wife however always laughs and says I'm cheating. I have tried to explain that all of the above are done daily in photolabs on "normal" photographs. And that a "point and shoot" camera is set up to do the same automatically. But I think that most people see programs like photoshop as a cheat because of the serious retouching work done in the glossy mag's.

Eirebear wrote:

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

I completely agree. I think that there is more to it though.

People who use film, due to the higher costs and time that it takes, tend to be more careful "in camera". Understandably this leads to better, sharper, well metered and composed images.

The curse of the digital age is how disposable images are. You can take 100 pictures and only choose one to show off. But had you taken the time you might have walked away with 5 good pictures out of 10. And I think we are all guilty of this!

For some photoshop is were the real work begins. Trying to make an Ansel Adams out of a snap shot of their local woods. Then they get frustrated and call cheat when they see other peoples work.

For myself, the more I've learned about photoshop the more I've depended on getting things right when I shoot.

K_user

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion

When I hear the term "purist" I tend to think "anti".

Film or digital are just different ways to capture an image.

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

When I hear the term "purist" I tend to think "anti".

Film or digital are just different ways to capture an image.

I agree. This isn't a film versus digital debate.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion, you're the only person making this distinction. This is solely about the image and the range of acceptable modifications to an image.
A good basis are the reuters guidelines:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Ok, im not making myself clear here obviously.

The original question is "How much is too much".

Taking into account the fact that Trev has arleady described himself as an "Amateur photographer", then it implies that his audience isnt the same as that of a newspaper photographer.
The Reuters link you posted is all fine and well, if he was a journalist. But he isnt. So its kind of a moot point in terms of the question.

Now as an amateur, i can only assume from my own experience and others i know personally. That the aim of the game is to take photographs that i like personally, maybe something that my friends and family would like to hang on their wall etc.

So with that in mind, why should he limit himself to what other photographers determine as "too much". The only limits on that, in my opinion, should be his own sense of taste and creativity.

As i said earlier. If Trev goes out and shoots an image, to the best of his ability an image that he feels he can put through a certain process or manipulation in photoshop, then where is the problem?

Trev finishes his OP with the distinction between Photograph and Graphic.
Now, no matter what trev does to his image in photoshop, the process and manipulation is going to work better if he has taken the best photograph he can to start things out with.
So photography is still the major factor.
You can be as good as you want with photoshop and graphic capabilities. As an amateur there is very little chance you are going to be able to get a photographer to donate their work for you to work on. So the skill is still needed.

So we come to my mentions of "Purists" and "film" etc.

I can only answer the guys questions through experience, and in my experience the people who put down the use of photoshop etc, are commonly taking the "purist" route and see photoshop as cheating.
And as i said, most of them come from a film background one way or another.

Photoshop is a massivley powerful tool, which we as photographers are lucky to have in our arsenal.
My initial advice to Trev stands.
Push the boundaries, and dont let anyone hold you back, youll find your lines of acceptability before too long.
A very large percentage of us generally come back to curves, levels, colour temp adjustments!