The use of Photoshop

Hi everyone,

As I've looked around the forum, I notice that people sometimes use Photoshop to enhance their images. Before this point, I can't honestly say I've ever considered doing so. What do people think about using a program like Photoshop to enhance images? Are there any ethical issues that go along with it? How far is too far? Note that I'm not trying to imply that the use of Photoshop is wrong; I'm just genuinely interested in other opinions.

Personally, I can't see myself altering my images beyond a bit of cropping here and there (and I'm often too lazy to do that). I like leaving the images I take the way they are because I intended to capture a moment in my picture, not for the sake of the image itself, but for the memories that go along with it. If I altered the photo, I'd feel as though I were distorting that memory. I think it also forces me to aspire to be a better photographer, because I have to live with mistakes I make.

Thanks for your input!

Kamal

Using programs like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro, etc. is really no different than what is done in a darkroom with the cropping, dodging, and burning etc that was done with film. Except it's easer and cleaner. Ethically it all depends on what you're going to use the photo for. There is nothing wrong in enhancing say your photo because it was a little under exposed..You'd do that in the darkroom if you were using film..

I use photoshop on every picture I take. I like to fix the levels and adjust the curves. You can use any photo program to crop and add borders but photoshop has the tools to change a good photo to a great one and a great one into a work of art.

If you can make photo's with your camera that perfectly match the way your eyes see it, then you don't need Photoshop.

Sigh... unfortunately technique is still improving and the human eye and braininterpreting is far superior.
A nice thing of digital photo's is that you can edit the photo until it matches your own individual memory! Isn't that great?

I always check pic using auto contrast/colour in photoshop I don't always use or agree with it.

As OmeRobbie says the eye is superior, I find the dodge/burn tools tools are excellent for bringing in the sky, then theres the clone brush............

I remembered that we'd done this one before:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=17973

I like to touch up every picture I intend to let others see. Usually it is nothing more than cropping, adjusting levels and sharpness. Yet can range to using different filters and effects. I tend to think of the taking of the image as the first step. Then I can turn the image into what I want it to be. I guess it depends on whether you are into digital imaging or archival photography.

I've read similar threads here before and I really don't understand the concern about modifying images using an editing program.

Waiting for the sun to move to a certain location, setting compostion, deciding whether or not to use flash (and how much), moving people or objects into position, selecting film speed or depth of field... all of these impact on the image and are determined by the photographer to create an image that suits their needs and tastes. How do any of these differ from tweaking a picture in an editor?

Admittedly, adding a shark to the family pool goes beyond tweaking, but touch-ups and adjustments fall within the purview of the person recording the image.

Sometimes you can create a picture or effect on a picture and save the picture from the recycle bin.

I've "enhanced" a few recently.

The soccer ones were originally blurred. I sharpened the ball then used a radial blur. I wanted to communicate that in soccer the focus is on the ball.

Let me know how you like it, I'm looking for feedback.
All were from original photos I took.

http://www.pbase.com/d​nadalin/manipulated

If you can, leave the comment on pbase. Click "comment on this gallery " at the bottom of the page and let me know which is your favorite.

I agree more or less w/ the others although I prefer to work harder at the in-camera shooting than the post-processing side. And as long as you can get to your goal, then it shouldn't matter exactly how. In the case of photo-journalism, of course, the goal requires you to be less "artful" than you could otherwise be in postprocessing. And even w/in that field, I'd think there are various levels of acceptable things you can do.

BTW, I also agree about salvaging an image on occasion. For example, if you check out my newly set up gallery of Disney photos, you will see one such case though I'm not sure if you can really tell. Perhaps, you might want to hazard a guess.

_Man_

I've found that just taking a picture and having it saved to .JPG introduces some sort of loss in sharpness that needs to be sharpened using post-processing software. Especially if I am resizing the images to email or post on the web. So if for nothing else, bringing out the true sharpness when working with the digital format will cause my to modify my photos using Photoshop.

There are ofcourse no rules about what's "ethical" and what isn't.

It depends on your goal with the images. If you want to capture an image that should represent "reality", you probably don't want to remove or add things with Photoshop, because if you do it doesn't show a scene from real life anymore. In the beginning of August a photo journalist from the New York Times was fired because he took 2 photos and made them into 1. The newspaper noticed that some people were visible twice on the resulting photo. I can imagine that the newspaper expects photo journalists to show photos that represent reality without any tricks.

If your photo is intended as "art" and it doesn't necessarily represent a scene from reality, I wouldn't see any reason why you would hold back your creative spirit.

Just do whatever you like yourself.

How 'bout this for semi-photojournalism?

Hmmm... I just added a small gallery for some pics I took during the Blackout on 8/14 (and recomposed/edited just for this gallery). Not sure if I would intend for this gallery to be photojournalistic per se, but would you consider all (or most) of the images a tad too "artful" for any kind of photojournalism? Surely, none of them are quite as blatantly "wrong" for PJ as the NY Times incidence mentioned, no?

FYI, they were all originally shot for color w/ reasonably sharp focus and noise/grain-free. Editing did not go so far as to use layers or masks (other than USM) in PS -- I used PS 5.0 LE. Almost all the edits could've been done during the shoot w/ filters and such combined w/ a better command of the camera. I had only owned the G3 (my first "real" camera) for a couple weeks at the time and had just begun carrying a camera w/ me everyday.

Have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks.

_Man_

Man-Fai Wong

Great shots! Excellent reportage photography. Goes to show you should always have your camera with you if possible so you don't miss that great opportunity!

Paul

Well lets see, has anyone heard of Ansel Adams and if you have do you like his work and why do you like his work,because it stands out over and above everyone elses. Now Adams used a system called a Zone system and what it was was a purposefull manipulation of the three elements used in photography. 1 film 2 development and 3 printing. The end results was his pictures turned out like what he saw with his eye. It is a know fact that film ( Sensors) lie. A perfect example is when you take a photo of a scene which includes trees,grass houses and a sky, our eye see it in perfect harmony but film has a limited view and the sky is either burned out or the forground is under exposed. So enter Photoshop and it becomes to todays photographer as did B&W darkroom. I use it to bring my photos into it proper persepective. It allows me to make it as I saw it and that is ethical. Ok incame digital and it has one draw back, White balance and I have to say my G3 does a pretty good job, so most photos I take I add contrast and adjust color if necessary and once in a while I use curves to make it pop.

Now so you know if all you want to do is take Photos then Digital LIght and Color system is all you need.It is geared to just photo adjustments. I think Photoshop is an expensive tool for just that.

Photoshop is used for retouching old photos, Photo art like if you were an artist ( I turn photos into oil painting and sell them to real estate sales agents. But most of all it is used by some very talented people who do all the advertising you see and lastly if you have a black & white photo and want to turn it into color, then you need photoshop.

By the way most pros in the begining felt the same way and now it is god to them, They can make there photos look like what they see. So your not doing something bad your turning it into what your eyes see and to me thats good.

Man nice pictures.

By the way I agree that if you can make it happen in the Camera its all that much better but some times you cant use your graduated neutral density filter and some times you do not have your polorizer and some times the lighting does not cooperate, so adjust not minipuale, i minipualte for Photo Art.