Fun with Photoshop using your Photography

[epicwelshman]

I always thought the following saying was my bible in terms of how much i can edit a photo....

"A photographer uses lies to paint the truth"

No idea where i heard it, wasnt so long ago in fact but it stuck.
I will edit a image to make it as close to how i saw it with my eyes, there are obvious exceptions such as some more artistic renditions i have done such as HDR etc however i try stick to it as a general rule!

Personally I feel that even HDR is closer to photography than this is. With HDR you're still using your own photography to create an image... the scene you see in front of you is still being shown, just tweaked to make it seem surreal. With this method, you're taking what is essentially another person's photo and sticking yours on top. I feel that it crosses the line.

 

[aricher]

Don't know why but the photos with the birds remind me of an office/work motivational poster - like they could be accompanied by the tag line "Teams soar with success."

 

[hessdesigns]

I had a photojournalism teacher who was a purist to the max. He said he "wouldn't do anything in Photoshop that he couldn't do in the darkroom." Therefore, he would maybe do some dodge/burn, exposure (basic levels), and cropping. That's it. That being said, I like the idea of compositing -- it's an art in itself, as you can already see by the images in this post. As long as you're not trying to sell it as an un-altered photograph, I think it's great!

 

[epicwelshman]

I had a photojournalism teacher who was a purist to the max. He said he "wouldn't do anything in Photoshop that he couldn't do in the darkroom." Therefore, he would maybe do some dodge/burn, exposure (basic levels), and cropping. That's it. That being said, I like the idea of compositing -- it's an art in itself, as you can already see by the images in this post. As long as you're not trying to sell it as an un-altered photograph, I think it's great!

I think that's the issue that needs to be made clear at all times - these aren't traditional photographs... they're composite images. If this is made clear to any viewer/buyer, no problem.

As for photojournalism, that's a whole different ball game. We all know what happened to the poor guy in the Middle East who added in more rockets to his photos...

 

[Father Jack]

We all know what happened to the poor guy in the Middle East who added in more rockets to his photos...

Sorry, no. What happened?

FJ

 

[epicwelshman]

Sorry, no. What happened?

FJ

Some photojournalist working for the Associted Press I believe, or another major news agency (Reuters etc.) was taking photos of the warzone in the Middle East, and decided to clone some more rockets into the photo to make it more dramatic. Problem was, his cloning wasnt very good as every rocket had the EXACT same smoke trail. He was found out, fired, and blacklisted from every photo agency in the world. Poor guy will never work in news photography again.

I just tried to find a link, but can't find one online. Anyway, rule of thumb is don't play about with news photography; get the image, change exposure/white balance/levels etc., and that's about it.

 

[Abstract]

I don't know how comfortable I am with this. I'm no photo purist; I use Photoshop extensively, and I mess around with skies etc., making them more dramatic or changing colours. However, I only tweak what's already in the image. So if I feel my sky isn't dramatic enough, I use curves and other layers to make it dramatic... but I don't cut and paste elements from other photos. Pretty much everything I do is just a modern equivalent of darkroom technique. This kind of thing, cut and pasting skies and animals, is great for graphic design, where you need an image to look exactly right, but you can't even pretend it's photography.

I agree 100%.


Worst thing is that no matter how great a photo I take, I don't think I could ever take a landscape photo better than one of these fakes/images, as these images are essentially made from perfect portions of other people's photos, and if you take these perfect pieces, put them together, and then edit them slightly to make them fit the same photo and lighting, it'll always be seen by the average Joe as more interesting anything I'm producing. I mean, I'd be lucky to get skies like that once a YEAR! You get them in every image.

 

[xfiftyfour]

I agree 100%.


Worst thing is that no matter how great a photo I take, I don't think I could ever take a landscape photo better than one of these fakes/images, as these images are essentially made from perfect portions of other people's photos, and if you take these perfect pieces, put them together, and then edit them slightly to make them fit the same photo and lighting, it'll always be seen by the average Joe as more interesting anything I'm producing. I mean, I'd be lucky to get skies like that once a YEAR! You get them in every image.

There will ALWAYS be something more interesting to someone out there. As long as the OP has never said "Hey, look at this picture I took today", then it just becomes another art form.

 

[stcanard]

I've thought about this a lot too as I've been making the transition to digital photography and playing with compositing and different things.

My final conclusion is -- as long as you understand that this is no longer a photograph, and do not present it as a photograph but as another piece of art I have on problem with it.

The point where it becomes a problem is finding that line where it is so manipulated that it stops being photography and starts being another art form. Some lines are easy -- compositing like this is obviously over that line, and is art not photography. No problem, these were never presented as photographs.

The infamous photographer that painted in extra rockets [edit - sorry they weren't even rockets, on the investigation they found out the "rockets" were really flares] (they went back and caught a few more of his -- there was an explosion where the smoke was enhanced to cover more area, and even on the small image shown on a newspaper you could see the clone lines, here we go) was obviously crossing a line. Here is the rocket photo. No debate that this was fraud.

Then you get the question marks -- I believe National Geographic was caught a little while ago adding elephants into a picture to make it look like a larger herd. But on the other hand, there was a famous picture they did years ago of a lion ripping into a carcass -- when asked how they got that amazing shot the photographers admitted they couldn't find any lions hunting, so they had brought a carcass then lured the lions in with meat until they were doing what they wanted.

Is that any less manipulated?

 

[seenew]

But on the other hand, there was a famous picture they did years ago of a lion ripping into a carcass -- when asked how they got that amazing shot the photographers admitted they couldn't find any lions hunting, so they had brought a carcass then lured the lions in with meat until they were doing what they wanted.

Is that any less manipulated?

That is not manipulated; that is staged. It's still a photograph. Easy distinction there.

 

[stcanard]

That is not manipulated; that is staged. It's still a photograph. Easy distinction there.

But both are still a fraud relative to the claim -- just one cheats using a newer technology (photoshop), one cheats using an older technology (staging).

 

[xfiftyfour]

But both are still a fraud relative to the claim -- just one cheats using a newer technology (photoshop), one cheats using an older technology (staging).

ehhh.. I disagree. I think there's a big difference between using photoshop to manipulate an image (and still claiming to have taken the photograph) versus staging to get a unique shot. I mean, both are relatively cheating, I suppose.. but staging isn't anywhere near the same degree IMO. I mean, if a photographer is walking a city street, spots a unique car that he likes and a girl wearing a complimentary color, is it cheating to ask the girl to sit on the car and then take a picture? When does composing a shot become cheating?

 

[Mr.Texor]

Some photojournalist working for the Associted Press I believe, or another major news agency (Reuters etc.) was taking photos of the warzone in the Middle East, and decided to clone some more rockets into the photo to make it more dramatic. Problem was, his cloning wasnt very good as every rocket had the EXACT same smoke trail. He was found out, fired, and blacklisted from every photo agency in the world. Poor guy will never work in news photography again.

There have been several lately. here's another one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/



EDIT: better link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/t...tml?ex=1179115200&en=ad44a341ac5ef388&ei=5070

 

[seenew]

ehhh.. I disagree. I think there's a big difference between using photoshop to manipulate an image (and still claiming to have taken the photograph) versus staging to get a unique shot. I mean, both are relatively cheating, I suppose.. but staging isn't anywhere near the same degree IMO. I mean, if a photographer is walking a city street, spots a unique car that he likes and a girl wearing a complimentary color, is it cheating to ask the girl to sit on the car and then take a picture? When does composing a shot become cheating?

Exactly.

 

[stcanard]

ehhh.. I disagree. I think there's a big difference between using photoshop to manipulate an image (and still claiming to have taken the photograph) versus staging to get a unique shot. I mean, both are relatively cheating, I suppose.. but staging isn't anywhere near the same degree IMO. I mean, if a photographer is walking a city street, spots a unique car that he likes and a girl wearing a complimentary color, is it cheating to ask the girl to sit on the car and then take a picture? When does composing a shot become cheating?

What if I were a newspaper photographer and I asked two actors to set up a murder scene so i could claim I had caught a crime in progress. How is that different than photshopping a gun into somebody's hand? What if I hired an actor that looked like the person I thought committed the murder?

I know I will never convince the side that has decided that anything that is seen through a lens is a photograph, and anything that is done in photoshop is not a photograph. That is my point. There is a huge grey area here and nobody is ever going to agree or even like what is going on.

Such it the nature of art.

 

[seenew]

What if I were a newspaper photographer and I asked two actors to set up a murder scene so i could claim I had caught a crime in progress. How is that different than photshopping a gun into somebody's hand? What if I hired an actor that looked like the person I thought committed the murder?

I know I will never convince the side that has decided that anything that is seen through a lens is a photograph, and anything that is done in photoshop is not a photograph. That is my point. There is a huge grey area here and nobody is ever going to agree or even like what is going on.

Such it the nature of art.

You've said it yourself; whatever is taken through the lens is a photograph. Strictest definition you can get. You're dabbling in the morals of what's presented as a factual photograph, rather and a dramatized scene. Ethics of journalism are not what's up for debate with this (unless it's post processing).

 

[stcanard]

Ethics of journalism are not what's up for debate with this (unless it's post processing).

Why does post processing change the ethics?

 

[Crawn2003]

Something I did years ago

These are somethings I did a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away). I took scanned images using an old Canon scanner, some images taken off the web, and a photo taken with my old olympus.

Just something I think back on and realize how much fun it was!

~Crawn

P.S. I'm just posting these, not getting into the discussion that's been going on.

 

[Father Jack]

Some photojournalist working for the Associted Press I believe, or another major news agency (Reuters etc.) was taking photos of the warzone in the Middle East, and decided to clone some more rockets into the photo to make it more dramatic. Problem was, his cloning wasnt very good as every rocket had the EXACT same smoke trail. He was found out, fired, and blacklisted from every photo agency in the world. Poor guy will never work in news photography again.

I just tried to find a link, but can't find one online. Anyway, rule of thumb is don't play about with news photography; get the image, change exposure/white balance/levels etc., and that's about it.

Woopppps and I thought all was fair in Love, War and Photography !!!!

Thanks for the info

FJ

 

[epicwelshman]

Why does post processing change the ethics?

In the end it depends on how the image is being portrayed. If your staged murder scene was portrayed as a photograph of a real murder in progress, then it's wrong. However, it doesn't change the fact that it's still a "real" photograph, it's just not news worthy.

Cloning rockets and smoke into a photograph brings it into that gray area. On the one hand you're not inserting a fake sky and crappy animals. But you're also morphing what the lens captured to the extent that it can no longer be considered to be a trustworthy representation of reality.

 

[Mac Kiwi]

With landscapes a good idea is to sample a sky colour from the background plate and fill a new layer and set to softlight.Adjust to suit for a global illumination type effect.

 

[epicwelshman]

Woopppps and I thought all was fair in Love, War and Photography !!!!

Thanks for the info

FJ

Love and War maybe Father Jack, but photography? It's a brutal game out there!

 

[xfiftyfour]

What if I were a newspaper photographer and I asked two actors to set up a murder scene so i could claim I had caught a crime in progress. How is that different than photshopping a gun into somebody's hand? What if I hired an actor that looked like the person I thought committed the murder?

I know I will never convince the side that has decided that anything that is seen through a lens is a photograph, and anything that is done in photoshop is not a photograph. That is my point. There is a huge grey area here and nobody is ever going to agree or even like what is going on.

Such it the nature of art.

Then your ethics are skewed as a journalist, but not as a photographer. Just because a scene is staged doesn't mean it's not a "true" photograph. In your scenarios, staging the photograph isn't the lie, it's how you conveyed the image afterwards to your viewers (when you said that it was a real murder or the real suspect). I think there's a big difference there.

For instance, if someone created the murder scene in a studio somewhere and then put them in his portfolio as dramatic pieces, but was always honest that they were staged and not actually a real murder, do you still think it's lying or cheating? No. Because, like I said, the lie wasn't the photograph itself, it was what you made it to be afterwards to your viewers.