Photoshopping what's stunning to begin with: Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even...

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Dr.db Loc: Central Point, OR

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic magazine, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Sure, why not? I'll guess about 1/2-hour before somebody invokes the name of Ansel Adams... oops, too late, I already did! :)

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Acceptable? Please define this first as with art there is no answer. There are no ethical boundaries in art outside normal human ethics. There is no board or panel you face if you get caught "manipulating" nor do you get blacklisted.

Photojournalism is a different story. You get caught manipulating in that world good luck finding another job.

Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

Unless you were there, how do you know how much photoshopping was done?

Yes, several of these images look oversaturated to my eye. But I note there are many comments below the images at that site saying this is what these places in Iceland really look like.

Post processing is part of photography and photography is art, so I don't know why this would not be "acceptable". It pretty clearly was, or they wouldn't have been published.

TheDman Loc: USA

bunuweld wrote:

Here are some stunning images from an Icelandic site, obviously stunning even they were photoshopped. Was this necessary or even acceptable? UHHers opinions would be welcome.

http://www.demilked.com/nordic-landscape-nature-photography-iceland/

How do you know what was Photoshopped if you don't know what they looked like originally?

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

TheDman wrote:

How do you know what was Photoshopped if you don't know what they looked like originally?

That puffin contemplating the landscape looks "planted" to me. They generally do their "contemplation" at the shore where they get their food, not inland. But it is a nice addition to the composition. The two men standing on the tall rocks look "planted" to me, especially when not carrying any climbing gear, but they add to the composition. Of course, if one admits the concept of "poetic freedom", it would be admissible. I don't want to dictate what is acceptable. Just interested in other members opinions.

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

Dr.db wrote:

Sure, why not? I'll guess about 1/2-hour before somebody invokes the name of Ansel Adams... oops, too late, I already did! :)

Usually about three pages before someone says, "Ansel would/would never do that!"
Then the conversation devolves into another debate about Lord Ansel.

reelfishin Loc: Yorktown, Virginia

They are beautiful but they do not look real to me. I think they were photo shopped to much.

TheDman Loc: USA

bunuweld wrote:

That puffin contemplating the landscape looks &quo... (show quote)

He's not inland, he's at the coast. He's not planted at all. And people stand on those rocks all the time, they're only about 20 feet high and easy to scramble up.

This post reminds me of those people who look at photos of Moraine Lake in Banff and complain that it was ruined by the Photoshopping because water isn't that blue.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Ansel did a lot of work in the dark room and I dare say he would love what's possible today...

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

bunuweld wrote:

That puffin contemplating the landscape looks &quo... (show quote)

I agree about the puffin. Does not look like it belongs. The only problem I have at all is the leading text that says these are photographic scenes of beautiful scenery found in their country. In that case, I don't think items that will not be found in those areas should be added to the scene in pp.
But that said there are some stunning shots shown.

TheDman Loc: USA

reelfishin wrote:

They are beautiful but they do not look real to me. I think they were photo shopped to much.

This looks like yet another case of people who don't know a lick about Photoshop complaining that stuff is 'Photoshopped' because it's prettier than their back yards.

TheDman Loc: USA

Elliern wrote:

In that case, I don't think items that will not be found in those areas should be added to the scene in pp.

They haven't been. Puffins are found at coastal cliffs, people. It's sad I have to say this.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

There is not a shot taken that can not benefit from at least some PP, no matter HOW good they are.
Sure, there are lots of great shots that can stand entirely on their own and do, but that does not mean they won't benefit from at least small tweaks in PP
Those are very nice shots, with or w/o PP. Some may even be HDR. But what or why would it matter, unless it's just some sort of personal baggage? ;-)
SS

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

twindad wrote:

Usually about three pages before someone says, "Ansel would/would never do that!"
Then the conversation devolves into another debate about Lord Ansel.

Students from Lone Pine High School put LP in big letters on a mountainside. In his photograph Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada from Lone Pine, 1944, Adams retouched the print and possibly the negative to remove the letters. I will have to check negative or print. I have a book where he wrote about it.