“Filtered” image from PS
Jan 9, 2024 11:37:21 #
I recently received a mobile phone headshot photo from a friend who was having a book published. I did some PP with PS and Topaz, created a jpg version and sent it back to my friend for submission to the publisher.
The publisher told her she needed an unadjusted image, because PS images have a “filter” that they can’t use.
Has anyone heard of this or can anyone provide an explanation?
The publisher told her she needed an unadjusted image, because PS images have a “filter” that they can’t use.
Has anyone heard of this or can anyone provide an explanation?
Jan 9, 2024 12:14:13 #
"Unadjusted" would exclude all jpg files, even those straight out of camera. Perhaps the problem is the intended use falls under the category of being for commercial purposes. Is your photoshop a trial version?
Jan 9, 2024 12:16:00 #
Jan 9, 2024 12:39:52 #
....maybe because they don't want "adjusted" photos, such as wrinkle remover, hair darkener, teeth whitener, neck tightener (...and I don't mean a neck tie)....
Jan 9, 2024 12:51:41 #
Jan 9, 2024 13:09:42 #
Well since you probably used Topaz as a filter, they may be referring to the digital/AI look that Topas can impart to an image. A passport photo is one I can think of that allows no digital retouching and will be rejected if it is obvious.
Jan 9, 2024 13:16:29 #
Jan 9, 2024 13:42:49 #
R.G. wrote:
"Unadjusted" would exclude all jpg files, even those straight out of camera. Perhaps the problem is the intended use falls under the category of being for commercial purposes. Is your photoshop a trial version?
No, a full CC photography subscription.
Jan 9, 2024 13:43:34 #
Jan 9, 2024 13:44:41 #
goofybruce wrote:
....maybe because they don't want "adjusted" photos, such as wrinkle remover, hair darkener, teeth whitener, neck tightener (...and I don't mean a neck tie)....
I would understand if this was photojournalism. It’s a book jacket photo of the author.
Jan 9, 2024 13:47:53 #
To all who replied, Thank You
I appreciate the sanity check. This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard in some time.
I appreciate the sanity check. This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard in some time.
Jan 9, 2024 18:35:04 #
Jan 9, 2024 22:57:06 #
It might help to post the photo so we might be able to see what they objected to.
Jan 10, 2024 00:59:36 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
It might help to post the photo so we might be able to see what they objected to.
I was going to do that, but this wasn’t critical enough. As I said, I just wanted to be sure I wasn’t nuts. Perhaps.
Jan 10, 2024 01:02:31 #
HRoss wrote:
I was going to do that, but this wasn’t critical enough. As I said, I just wanted to be sure I wasn’t nuts. Perhaps.
Then we can only speculate on what their objection was, or whether you're nuts.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.