Is it...a...'photographic sin'...

[CatchingUp]

to 'enhance' sunset pictures, manually?

The result is pleasing, but I still feel a tad guilty for doing it. :confused:

Thoughts?

[WhatEyeSee]

That is hard to say. I am sure you will hear all sides to this one.

It just depends on your motive and use for the enhancement. If you are not trying to present it as an actual depiction of what took place then I think it is ok. There are plenty of photographs that have been digitally enhanced to create digital art to make cards, or different things, but it is made known, obvious to others.

If you are selling your enhanced photographs (beyond the normal color/light adjustments) i think it should somehow be disclosed.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[RianFlynn]

I think boosting the color a bit to enhance the way you see things is just fine. I think you should tone it down a bit. :) Especially with the second one.

Rian

[Robert_Lay]

In both shots there is too much blank, featureless material in the foreground. In the upper shot the color chosen does nothing to justify such a shift, but then, again, there's nothing wrong with doing that if it makes you happy. However, in the second shot, it's just too garish in my opinion, and I don't think it will be all that well received.

[Photodawg1]

I like them both!!! Especially the second. But I do alot of red/black manipulation. Only thing I would recommend would be crop some of the dark off the bottom. I didn't get very favorable reviews on this forum for that series either...but 4 of my red/black shots has netted $1800. So go figure!

[Curtis N]

I'm not a biblical scholar, but as far as I know, the Bible doesn't mention photography.

I think you're safe from the fires of hell, at least in this instance.

[Rumjungle]

I'm not a biblical scholar, but as far as I know, the Bible doesn't mention photography.

I think you're safe from the fires of hell, at least in this instance.

LOL:lol:!

You're the photographer so it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks as long as the image looks good to you or your target audience. However, I would consider these to be more digital art than photographs.

[blue_max]

In both shots there is too much blank, featureless material in the foreground. In the upper shot the color chosen does nothing to justify such a shift, but then, again, there's nothing wrong with doing that if it makes you happy. However, in the second shot, it's just too garish in my opinion, and I don't think it will be all that well received.

Hey Bob, good to see you back in the saddle after a few weeks away. Hope it was a vacation and not something less pleasant.

Great critique's as usual.

Graham

[Rumjungle]

BTW, it looks like there is quite a bit of information in the foreground...it's just very dark. This is what I found in the first image:
http://i.pbase.com/o4/60/643160/1/63775327.Ytpp2pOD.catchinguppp.jpg

[CatchingUp]

Ok...fair enough on the responses. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of calling it 'digital art' as well. I'm rather new to this new world of digital photography and am pretty overwhelmed with photoshop. Yeah...I did go overboard with the color hues on that second shot. I'll fess up. :-)

I do like the revision there Andy with lightening up the ground/grass. Believe it or not, I just discovered the magic wand button and figured out how to do such things as well. :-)

I suppose the bottom line is the end result and if you or others like it...then so be it. I know that in a photolab, there are numerous techniques you can do to manipulate a photo for various effects. Digital just has more options.

I sure wouldn't want God to think I thought He needed any "help" either. ;-)

[WhatEyeSee]

CatchingUP - Sounds like your new to digital/photoshop, so I thought I would send you a link that has helped me learn some tricks quicker then discovering myself. I am not sure what program you are using, but this is specifically for Adobe CS2 - HOWEVER - it has shown me things that I have been able to use in elements. Check them out - if you sign up on their list you will get a free learning video about every 1-2 weeks - BUT make sure you watch them, because they do expire shortly after they are sent out.

To ensure delivery of all your free WatchAndLearnPhotoshop.com
video tips via this newsletter, be sure to add
Craig@WatchAndLearnPhotoshop.com to your Address Book or "Known
Senders" list.

[Mike R]

Your the photographer (artist). So unless you want an accurate repensentation you should feel free to edit as you wish.

[OzScot]

Your the photographer (artist). So unless you want an accurate repensentation you should feel free to edit as you wish.
I couldn't agree more - since the dawn of photography images have been manipulated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heartfield - he was born in the 1800's and was doing it until his death.

No less a world renowned photographer than Chris Steele-Perkins believes these days it could well all be in the editing - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5186770.stm

Again there is a sound argument to be had from purists but me personally I side with the manipulators....

Ben

[OdiN1701]

I don't think it's necessary for you to advertise that it has been edited at all. Do as you wish with your photos. Shoot...build one pixel by pixel if you can!

The end result is what's important. If people like it, then they like it. It doesn't matter if it was edited or not. If they like it and they buy it, what's the difference?

If they ask if it was enhanced or something then I wouldn't lie about it - but do you think it would really make a difference if they really like it? They'll buy it whether it's enhanced or not.

[beachgirl]

Hey Bob, good to see you back in the saddle after a few weeks away. Hope it was a vacation and not something less pleasant.

Great critique's as usual.

Graham

I know this is off thread so sorry, But I noticed Bob missing too. Glad your back;)

[Meaty0]

The result is pleasing, but I still feel a tad guilty for doing it. :confused:

Thoughts?

No need to feel guilty. As others have said, since the beginnings of film, photographers have been altering their images in the darkroom. It may have been to cover up the limitations of the camera or the film (or the photographer themselves:)). Photoshop just makes the process easier and gives far more latitude. If you like the end result, go for it.

But as I have found, think twice before asking for critique here. The purists will flame you.

BTW. I like the image after Rumjungle's fiddle. Bringing out the foreground really helps.

[Su-Hannie]

Hi

I like the first shot, especially after the edit, the second one is to red in my opinion, I think if I saw the skies looking like that I'd think the 2nd coming is here.. :)

[midnitejam]

What's the difference in using photoshop and a darkroom to manipulate an image.

Ansel A. would make as many as 100 attempts in his darkroom before he would come up with an image he liked. The camera technology that would render one of the images that he is famous for didn't exist in his day. Wonder what he'd be doing if he would have had my little digital camera and photoshop

[Photodawg1]

What's the difference in using photoshop and a darkroom to manipulate an image.

Ansel A. would make as many as 100 attempts in his darkroom before he would come up with an image he liked. The camera technology that would render one of the images that he is famous for didn't exist in his day. Wonder what he'd be doing if he would have had my little digital camera and photoshop

Ansel Adams? Putting us to shame just like he did then!