Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Yeah, so we’ve been here recently and this IS flogging the deceased nag, and I’m sincerely sorry, but I still wanna talk about it, but I also don’t think I should bump any of the earlier threads, e.g.: Is Post Processing Dishonest? … The Art of Knowing When to Stop … Has "Photoshopping" become a derogatory term? (For one thing I want to add some of my own pictures.)

Before y’all jump me, yes I know about the SOOC Purist crowd, and I do NOT intend to disrespect you, although I do not agree with you. I also know all about the jpeg v. raw civil war. I myself shot 100% jpeg until just last year, and I am not about to throw away everything I ever did (but I am revising some of it now that I have both Lightroom and full Photoshop, both of which work beautifully with jpegs).

So I’ve been a Photoshop freak since before I ever owned a digital camera. My BIL gave me a disc of PS Elements 2.0 back in 2006, the year before I bought my first tiny digital P&S. I LOVE Photoshop! I LOVE what it can do that I always wanted to do but couldn’t (at least not easily). When I was working, retouching had to be done by hand on the negative using graphites and/or dyes, or by sending a print to an airbrush artist. It was all intense, eye-straining work. A print that had been airbrushed then had to be copied and reprinted from a copy negative. No matter how skillfully done it was never as good. A good eye could spot one across the room. But now Photoshop, Lightroom and their cousins are nothing short of miraculous. TRUE, they can be overused and abused, like drugs, and many ‘Hoggers hate spending time on the computer, but I actually love it. I see nothing wrong with enhancements, but my main thrust is always to avoid overdoing---ideally I do not want the viewer to see what has been done.

I think there is general agreement that news and evidentiary pictures may not be “Photoshopped.” Reuters Handbook of Journalism spells it out: ”The rules are: no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal and color balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context." It IS permitted to adjust exposure, color balance, and tones, but only minimally. Photographer Narciso Contreras manipulated a photo of a Syrian rebel by cloning out a fellow reporter's camera before sending it to an AP photo desk. Contreras was fired and will never work for the AP again. That’s harsh, but I get it, but on the other hand, for most other pictures, why not? (I am aware that there are clubs that place severe restrictions on what can and cannot be manipulated in competition prints, but I have no intention of competing.)

I made this picture in 2003. The original was a Fujichrome 400, the 36th frame of my last roll (oops). We were standing outside the east portal of the Moffat Tunnel, baking to death, but we knew a train was in the tunnel because we could hear the enormous blowers that suck out the exhaust. I previsualized, picked my spot and waited. I was literally only going to get one shot. JUST as the Ski Train burst out of the portal, these two mooks walked into my only shot to get theirs. AAARRRGH!!! But when we processed the film we also had a CD made of the digitized (jpeg) images, and in 2006 I had a chance to see what PS Elements (2.0) could do…

(Download)

This is the 2015 revision, better than my earlier ones. It’s been cropped and leveled, and of course the mooks are gone. I dodged up the detail in the undercarriages, removed some other distractions, cleaned up the dust, and I’ve been pretty pleased with it for 10 years. Is doing this really any different from painting the scene?

(Download)

In California in 2014 the fog was in at the Point Arena Light, but when you’re on the move, “ya takes yer pitcher wiv the light ya gots.” This is the original jpeg SOOC with a bird incoming, except I was waaay slow to react and he got too far in…

(Download)

So I backed him up (duck soup, or maybe seagull soup?), and then I decided I needed a second bird, so “borrowed” a gull from one of my other shots and dropped her in. My thinking is, Why Not? If you cover the gulls the shot is otherwise kinda dull, no?

(Download)

So last year we were at Two Harbors in Minnesota, getting unbelievably lucky as one thousand-footer was backing out of the ore dock just as another was coming in. But I wanted to tell the whole story in one picture, showing both boats (lakers are boats, salties are ships). Then (serendipitously) this little outboard came scurrying across, but the composition wasn’t right, but I really wanted that outboard to complete the shot:

(Download)

So I chose the picture that best showed both big lake boats, and borrowed and dropped in the little outboard, adjusting and placing it for best (I hope) composition. I think it makes the shot, but the broader question is, is there anything wrong about it? Dishonest? If I don’t submit it for competition or evidence or as photojournalism…?

(Download)

chaman

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

When I saw the thread title, I did think "oh, no not this again!" However, when I noticed who started the thread I calmed down because I knew you would have some interesting things to say about it. So I give a thumbs up to dragging the carcass of that old moribund equine out for one more exercise in flagellation.

No, it is not cheating, deceptive, misleading, even unfair. In fact, I think it should be mandatory. :lol:

Nice work on these images. Thanks for sharing them and explaining your thinking on them. How's the recovery going?

Mike

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of cloning here or there. It is your photo. Most of what can be done with lightroom and photoshop could be done in the darkroom as well. It was not dishonest then and it is not now. I've done some serious manipulating and enter those photos in local competitions. Why not? The idea is to see what is in my head and my imagination. Technology was developed so that we would take advantage. Of course, news and evidence are another matter entirely.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of cloning here or there. It is your photo. Most of what can be done with lightroom and photoshop could be done in the darkroom as well. It was not dishonest then and it is not now. I've done some serious manipulating and enter those photos in local competitions. Why not? The idea is to see what is in my head and my imagination. Technology was developed so that we would take advantage. Of course, news and evidence are another matter entirely. I like all your shots and the "doctored" ones are the ones I would chose to put on my wall. That is my two cents.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

You cloned a section of your post!

Mike

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

You guys are funny. Good to see you beginning to be able to participate Chuck...... I whole heartedly agree with pp'ing whatever you like, it's your picture.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Now, on the subject of raw versus jpeg...

:twisted:

Mike

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

:shock: :mrgreen: :lol: :thumbup:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks so much, Mike! I just missed the earlier boat(s) but I'd already been thinking about the issue. As to how I am, I am still bat-blind in the right eye so doing any of this stuff is pretty hard. :hunf: I have an appointment with the cataract folks tomorrow morning, which was originally not scheduled until April, but they kindly pushed it up. This is not the operation, just the consult, but I hope they can get me in ASAP because this is gettin' pretty old. :thumbup:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks, Erich! I have never minded image manipulation. When I was in school a few hundred years ago we had an assignment to complete a "paste-up." We had to photograph a house still under construction and "complete" it. It was a horror and only two out of 24 students completed it (I got an A). It was murderously difficult, finding lawn and cutting and feathering it, windows, shutters, clouds, whatever the thing needed, then making a copy negative and reprinting it. I still have it someplace, and it wasn't terrible, but by comparison with what Photoshop makes possible... :shock:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thank you, Frank! I hope I can do more than I have been. It's just a little tough. :|

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

or Canon vs Yashica.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

So glad to see you back, Chuck!

Yes, to many of us the horse is dead. (I love the cartoon, BTW, Chaman) But in other quarters, the horse lives on...and on...and on...

I always maintain that if I buy the camera, the computer, the software, spend the time doing whatever, and don't lie about it, I don't need to worry what anyone thinks. I move stuff, erase stuff, and so forth. I like what you've done to improve your shots, and assure you I do the same. (Especially fond of that lighthouse shot).Your changes are quite conservative compared to some we see.

To me post processing is necessary to get the best end product I can. But the real reason I send Adobe $10 a month is because it's so darned much fun to be able to tinker with this stuff.

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

or how about UV or no UV filter... :)