Is it wrong to "modify" an otherwise normal photo
Nov 10, 2016 13:31:36 #
Again, many thanks to all who took the time to share their thoughts on the picture I had enhanced. I knew ahead of time that it would be questioned on the lighting direction but I totally missed the fault that Infocus pointed out which was not continuing the horizon in the gap near the end of land. Good catch. I am still playing with the new program and your comments and suggestions have helped considerably. If there are more replies after today, please accept my apologies in advance for not answering as my wife and I are driving down to Puerto Penasco, Mexico where we will spend a week in our timeshare which is right on the beach looking over the Sea of Cortez. Maybe I will get some authentic sunset shots to post on our return.
Nov 10, 2016 13:47:17 #
AZ Dog
Loc: Peoria, AZ
When I photograph something, I do it to remember what it was I shot. What this person has done, is turn it into a lie. What kind of memory is that? As am example, in 2015, I visited the north rim of the Grand Canyon. The sky and the canyon was all hazy from forest fires to the east. Would I use excessive processing to turn them into something else? No, those shots are as I remember them.
Nov 10, 2016 13:53:57 #
Shaun wrote:
I realize that there are many purists in this grou... (show quote)
To me it depends on how you represent the shot. Calling the modified the original? Not a good idea but if you do it as you have here most probably nothing wrong with it.
Nov 10, 2016 14:25:44 #
Some say that photography is creating your vision as much or more than recording a scene. That's what you have done. Let your creative take charge!
Nov 10, 2016 14:30:42 #
I couldn't agree with you more Shaun. If it's your photo you're free to do with it what you will and for whatever reason. However, the bottom line for me is, your modified photo is phony. I much prefer the original.
Nov 10, 2016 14:31:31 #
Post processing is a major part of the digital camera experience and should be used without guilt to the individuals taste.
Nov 10, 2016 14:32:39 #
SueMac wrote:
Very nice work. And I agree with the rest...if it is news footage it shouldn't be doctored. But if it is yours and you want to enhance it...go for it!
DITTO!
Nov 10, 2016 15:12:50 #
Nov 10, 2016 16:27:06 #
I also agree that it is not what you did to get the image but how you represent it. If I take a wildlife picture that was actually take of a captive animal or bird then I specify that. I would do the same of a landscape image that I modified (other than normal adjustments).
Nov 10, 2016 16:29:29 #
Jerry Coupe
Loc: Kent, WA
I like both images. In editing I think we have the freedom today to edit as we please. I think for the second image, when posting it would be fair to note that it is a composite image.
During a recent Santa Fe Photographic workshop, the group had a chance to meet a well known photographer and international expert on Palladium printing. Par t of his current process involves edits in Photoshop. He commented that he limits edits to changes that he could previously also do in a real darkroom. So exposure adjustments, dodging and burning etc. I am working to try and stay close to this guide line in my current work....although I have still edited out pieces of paper or junk that was impossible to eliminate in the camera composition.
During a recent Santa Fe Photographic workshop, the group had a chance to meet a well known photographer and international expert on Palladium printing. Par t of his current process involves edits in Photoshop. He commented that he limits edits to changes that he could previously also do in a real darkroom. So exposure adjustments, dodging and burning etc. I am working to try and stay close to this guide line in my current work....although I have still edited out pieces of paper or junk that was impossible to eliminate in the camera composition.
Nov 10, 2016 17:46:26 #
tramsey wrote:
It's yours so do with it what you want. If someone disagrees, too bad. Most of these purists are liars anyway. If they did film, they worked in a dark room and that is p/p to.
Actually all camera images are post processed. You can't see binary bits.
JPEG images from all cameras are more processed than RAW images. No one publishes RAW images.
Nov 10, 2016 20:40:01 #
I tend to agree with the others that said if its an artistic image it is okay to modify to your liking. If it is a journalistic or documentary image, then no, it should not be modified, as those images should portray the subject matter as in it original form completely unaltered. Both of your images are pleasing to me. The original and the modified one are very nice in my opinion.
Nov 10, 2016 21:41:21 #
jerryc41 wrote:
No, you are now allowed to do that. Rule 27 (Do not modify photographs) has been repealed. 
Adobe and other companies would be out of business if we couldn't modify our shots.
Beautiful postings - both of them.
Adobe and other companies would be out of business if we couldn't modify our shots.
Beautiful postings - both of them.
Yup. It's your image modify away if you want to.
Nov 10, 2016 22:18:45 #
As a work of art anything is permissable. As is to journalistic photography, if it is shot as a jpg the camera has processed it according to the whims of the manufacturer. If it is shot in raw, it must be processed just in order to have a picture. I used to shoot for a major newspaper, and the photo editor insisted on high contrast in order to have a decent looking photo in print.
Bill
Bill
Nov 10, 2016 22:40:26 #
Beautifully done, Shaun! I really like it, and it's your photo to do with what you want.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.