Photoshop. Unethical?

[davichin 18]

I don't think that's lazy ... I think that's just digital workflow when shooting RAW.

 

I think you could argue that in comparison, allowing the camera to automatically assign or having the user "pre-select" a white balance is MORE lazy than capturing RAW files with the intention to select the "correct" white balance in post-production.

 

Fair enough the thing is that we (almost all of my friends) don´t know a lot of digital workflow but dive a lot, so most of the time we never post process (unless is a very special pic) so is good to have a correct or close to correct wb setting in camera. I always shoot raw+jpg and keep all the raws for the future, when I learn to process (in a couple of centuries... )

[jeremypayne 0]

when I learn to process (in a couple of centuries... )

I understand that trepidation. It took me a while to learn the ins and outs of the digital world. In the film days, I loved working in the darkroom, so I attacked the "lightroom" with gusto ... I have learned A LOT over the last few years and am happy to share what I can ...

 

Lightroom from Adobe (and Aperture from Apple, too - but I've never used it) makes this so easy it is silly.

 

You just import the RAW files as you would JPEGs to any other "album" app and then you have the ability to tweak away without having to save files or lose any quality by doing so. All the "processing" is saved as application settings in a "sidecar" file separate from the RAW file. This kind of "non-desctructive" editing using RAW sensor data is what really sets digital apart from film. The ability to bring the "light" home and play with it is just awesome.

 

The default processing settings that Lightroom applies to your files are a good place to start, and often look good - but not EXACTLY like what your camera spits out. With a very small amount of practice, you will find combinations of settings that look MUCH better than what your camera spits out ... and then you can save them so all it takes is "one-click" and you have processed your files.

 

I have a handful of presets that I use to import my work - including one that looks almost exactly like what the standard in-camera processing produces. If I want the Canon "look", I can always fire up the Canon software ... or shoot JPG + RAW - which I sometimes do, but not that often. Even when shooting family snapshots, I usually shoot RAW and use a preset I call "SNAPSHOT" ...

 

Ay any point, if you like what the image looks like, you can do one of three things:

 

>> Save/Publish to an image file like JPEG or TIFF

>> Save the image settings as a "snapshot" that you can always call back up at anytime

>> Save the image settings to a "preset" that can be used to process other files in the future

 

Download a trial of Lightroom and import a few of your RAW files. It isn't as scary or as time-consuming as you think.

 

I hardly ever use "photoshop" proper anymore ... Lightroom does nearly everything I need, and with the exception of a "cloning tool" and a "red-eye fix" almost everything in Lightroom is a "global" tool and therefore cannot be considered "manipulation" ... it just gives you manual and after-the-fact control over the same "decisions" your camera has to make to produce a JPEG like contrast, white balance, tone curve, color saturations, etc.

[John Bantin 101]

Like any tool it cannot be unethical. What can be unethical is how you use it and for what purpose.

[jeremypayne 0]

When life deals you lemons, make lemonade ...

 

Often, I try and salvage out of focus shots and otherwise "poor" shots with photoshop ... not by trying to fix it, but by completely abandoning photorealism.

 

Here's an example:

 

[hoovermd 0]

For my book "Reefs Revealed" I chose to designate MODIFIED in the photo captions any image that was manipulated for content.

 

 

I like that.

disclosure is always best.

[MatthewAddison 0]

I've seen many images of drums, but never one like that. Wonderful play of textures and colors. Well done.

[MatthewAddison 0]

Here is one I was playing with from Indo. Working with gaussian blur, targeted sharpening, smudging and sunglow. A few other brushes were used as well.

One of the things I love about working with photos in photoshop is that I can use a photo as a base palette and "Paint" from my mind's eye. I used to do the same thing in my darkroom, but the tools available now are so incredible and open up a new venue for creativity.

It would be great if wetpixel would start a category for artistic imagining (no misspelling there).

[diverdon 1]

IMHO If one were to follow the anti Photoshop logic to its logical conclusion then it would not be allowed to use any artificial light and all images should be calibrated to a gray card.

 

In science colure should be accurate, in art it should satisfy the artist and perhaps his customers.

 

I myself must please myself first with my effort. Photoshop is part of that process. I value the opinion of others as a tool which I can use for continued growth. I do not seek the opinion of others on ways I should limit my growth. Undoubtedly I could learn a great deal from Dr. Mustard about how to get better results out of the camera. The way I see the process it something like this:

 

1) I see something I which evokes a feeling I wish to capture.

2) I mentally compose

3) I manipulate the camera to capture the result to the best of my ability.

4) I check the result.

5) If necessary I modify settings and try for a better result.

6) I download to the laptop and see if I got anything worth the idea I had in the beginning.

7) When I am fortunate enough to have something worth further work I fire up Photoshop and adjust it to the best of my abilities.

8) I look at it and ponder how I can improve.

9) I display it to the world and seek too:

A. Provide for the enjoyment and enlightment of others.

B. Get advice and ideas on how to continue to improve the art.

 

For me Photoshop is a vital part of the process. Indeed who among us does not take most of our underwater photos with the camera set for its most vivid color? Who does not use the strobe to bring up all the color that would not otherwise be apparent in natural light?

 

If for someone else they do not need or desire Photoshop that is their choice. For me it is a vital part of the process. I alone own the copyright to my image, therfore it is only I who must be pleased with the result.

[jeremypayne 0]

I've seen many images of drums, but never one like that. Wonderful play of textures and colors. Well done.

Thank you! The original was well-exposed, but very poorly focused. Unfortunately, I didn't get any well-focused shots of this little guy ... I thought I had, otherwise I would have stuck around a little longer.

 

Yours is also very cool. I like the dreamy effect. I'd like to try something similar, but a little closer to "real" ... if I get anywhere worth sharing I'll post it.

[BHC 1]

Often, one component of my enjoyment of a picture is an appreciation of how hard it must have been for the photographer to make it. And it's much harder to take the trouble to get your dome 3 inches from the subject in a ripping current with strobes properly articulated and balanced with ambient light than it is to just get a quick snap as you drift by, to be followed up by a crop/clone/fill-light session in Photoshop. (Of course, at full magnification you can't fake it, but at web resolution you often can.)

 

I see a parallel here with the once-active debate about splicing out wrong notes in music performances. There's nothing wrong with it artistically, but knowing that it's happening makes it a bit less easy to marvel at the performer's raw technique.

[MatthewAddison 0]

Indeed! Most people don't realize Claude Monet was a realist who enjoyed painting in gale-force winds. Pretty remarkable stuff considering the "sail" effect of a stretched canvas.

Edited May 27, 2008 by MatthewAddison

[Graham Abbott 0]

I'm with johnspierce! If it weren't for Photoshop many of my images would never look as good as they do. I shoot with the smallest point and shoot camera as carrying anything that doesn't fit in my pocket is going to get in the way of my work as a dive guide! My images help others see what animals are seen on trips I take, in some shots I've loads of PS, simply so I can show others what it really looks. In my mind this isn't cheating, it's simply bringing out the best in your image!

 

I reckon Photoshop is a must for any beginner shooter. Using such tools can show the shooter what she or he can eventually aspire to create with as little PS as possible!

[PRC 2]

What an interesting twist to a thread I thought was dead and gone.

 

Those very manipulated images look great to me and I would be quite happy to hang one on my wall, personally I would love to see more of them and understand how some of the manipulation was done.

 

It would be great if wetpixel would start a category for artistic imagining (no misspelling there).

 

Matthews is a great idea, for my money though the shot would have to originate from a 'real' picture (whatever that is) rather than a 100% generated Photoshop image, there are other web places for 100% pure Photoshop creations.

 

Paul C

[jeremypayne 0]

What an interesting twist to a thread I thought was dead and gone.

Those very manipulated images look great to me and I would be quite happy to hang one on my wall, personally I would love to see more of them and understand how some of the manipulation was done.

Paul - I like the idea as well. I'll start another thread with some images - both 'before' and 'after' shots - and will try and give an idea of exactly what I did to get from A to B. I have a decent memory, so hopefully I'll be able to rememember.

 

The hardest part will be unveiling the extremely poor photographs I took in the first place!

 

Some of the best final images come from really bad shots I took with borrowed SEA & SEA point and shoots with no strobes. when I was taking cameras underwater for the first time. For whatever reason, the really, really "bad" ones often inspire my most "desperate" attempts.

 

They'll all start with underwater photographs ... no pixel paintings or land-based shots.

 

If the mods want, they can start another sub-forum ...

[loftus 42]

for my money though the shot would have to originate from a 'real' picture (whatever that is) rather than a 100% generated Photoshop image, there are other web places for 100% pure Photoshop creations.

 

Paul C

As far as I know there are probably no forums like this specifically related to diving / underwater art. So I would vote for a fairly open forum including paintings, Photoshop generated, or any form of diving or underwater related graphic art. For example I have a good friend who specializes in some amazing marine related tattoo work that have their origin in photographs he has taken. I think we may see some really cool stuff.

Edited May 28, 2008 by loftus

[PRC 2]

As far as I know there are probably no forums like this specifically related to diving / underwater art. So I would vote for a fairly open forum including paintings, Photoshop generated, or any form of diving or underwater related graphic art. For example I have a good friend who specializes in some amazing marine related tattoo work. I think we may see some really cool stuff.

 

Sounds fine to me - I just guess I was trying to avoid the 100% abstract piece of Photoshop art that I could not figure out which way up to hang it - Just because the 'artist' said it was inspired by a fish or whatever.

 

Before and after sounds a good place to start.

 

Paul C

[MatthewAddison 0]

Matthews is a great idea, for my money though the shot would have to originate from a 'real' picture (whatever that is) rather than a 100% generated Photoshop image, there are other web places for 100% pure Photoshop creations.

 

Paul C

 

Paul. This was generated from a shot taken in Raja Ampat, and then worked on in photoshop. I agree that the final work should be generated from an image or images (this is a photography site). Jeremypayne has a great idea, to post pre/post photoshop images. When I get to my work computer, I'll do just that!

Perhaps someday we might see a POTW contest for worked images. God forbid!

[jeremypayne 0]

Here's a link to a set on flickr I just made with both 'before' and 'after' images.

 

Photoshop: Before & After

 

I'll start another thread later when I have some more time with commentary.

 

Here's one more example ... this time with before and after:

 

 

 

Here, I tweaked the color to get a better blue, removed tons of noise with a "median blur", added some vignetting and used a "watery" effect to the edge of the diver's profile.

 

More later ...

Edited May 28, 2008 by jeremypayne

[loftus 42]

Here's a link to a set on flickr I just made with both 'before' and 'after' images.

 

Photoshop: Before & After

 

I'll start another thread later when I have some more time with commentary.

 

Here's one more example ... this time with before and after:

 

 

 

Here, I tweaked the color to get a better blue, removed tons of noise with a "median blur", added some vignetting and used a "watery" effect to the edge of the diver's profile.

 

More later ...

Seeing we are still in the image improvement forum; I am going to stick my neck out a little and say that I think the image is bad to start, and looks as bad or worse with Photoshop. I think using Photoshop to 'retrieve' a really poor image is ultimately going to end in failure. My thoughts are that success will only be achieved if one takes a reasonable or good image (at minimum) and uses Photoshop to enhance it. Alternatively using Photoshop to generate a preconceived image with successful implementation, may also result in success. Just using Photoshop to try to retrieve a poor image is just going to result in boring, poor results. The old computer maxim - 'Garbage in, garbage out!'

[jeremypayne 0]

I am going to stick my neck out a little and say that I think the image is bad to start

Agreed ... no pretense about that. My ratio of "good to bad" on any dive is pretty low - as I imagine is the case for many people.

 

and looks as bad or worse with Photoshop

I don't agree here, but I respect your opinion and want people to be honest about what they think.

 

So thank you for being honest.

 

I expect there will be some people who like the final/"after" images and many who think and feel as you do.

 

I do not expect anyone to enjoy the "before" images and I know I am exposing myself to a lot of "criticism" by publicly showing my "clunkers".

 

Also keep in mind these were all shots from one of my very first dives with a camera - a 3MP Seas & Sea with no strobes ... I had absolutely NO IDEA what I was doing underwater with a camera ...

[loftus 42]

Agreed ... no pretense about that. My ratio of "good to bad" on any dive is pretty low - as I imagine is the case for many people.

I don't agree here, but I respect your opinion and want people to be honest about what they think.

 

So thank you for being honest.

 

I expect there will be some people who like the final/"after" images and many who think and feel as you do.

 

I do not expect anyone to enjoy the "before" images and I know I am exposing myself to a lot of "criticism" by publicly showing my "clunkers".

 

Also keep in mind these were all shots from one of my very first dives with a camera - a 3MP Seas & Sea with no strobes ... I had absolutely NO IDEA what I was doing underwater with a camera ...

Yeah, I hope I'm being constructive here - but I think ultimately whether one uses Photoshop or not, the final image has to be able to stand alone as a good image, no matter how intricate the manipulation. And believe me there's no shame in a low ratio of keepers. I'm happy if I come back with a half dozen keepers after a weeklong liveaboard.

Edited May 28, 2008 by loftus

[jeremypayne 0]

Yeah, I hope I'm being constructive here

 

You are.

 

the final image has to be able to stand alone as a good image

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

Can you do me a favor? Would you mind checking out the link below to view the image at a larger size and see if you like it any little more? I understand if you still don't like it, but the image looks better (to me) much larger than what I put in the post.

 

I made a 10"x10" print of it that I put in our kitchen that works ... my wife - my harshest critic for sure - actually let me put it on the wall (and I don't think she was just humoring me) ... I also like it better as a square.

 

Bigger Size of the Diver Shot

[MatthewAddison 0]

Hi Jeremy. I started a new thread under image improvement for these types of images.

Regarding your image on Flickr, The glass filter makes an interesting "thermocline" feel. My preference would be to dial down the density of the filter so it is not so obvious (unless that is what you are going for) and bump up the contrast of the diver to separate it a bit more from the background. The top-most white reflections look pixelated. Is that in your print, or just from knocking it down in jpeg? Certainly an interesting take on a diver at the surface. If you can do this with a "throw-away" image, are you working on other images which are technically correct? (still love that Drum!)

Edited May 28, 2008 by MatthewAddison

[jeremypayne 0]

Hi Jeremy. I started a new thread under image improvement for these types of images.

I'm gonna jump on that later when I have some more time and I can comment more specifically on each image. Seems like a worthwhile off-shoot from the "traditional" stuff.

 

The glass filter makes an interesting "thermocline" feel. My preference would be to dial down the density of the filter so it is not so obvious (unless that is what you are going for) and bump up the contrast of the diver to separate it a bit more from the background.

I did a huge number of different variations on this one - including every color under the rainbow. At one point, I was going to do a 3 x 3 matrix of different versions ala Andy Wharhol with some being the inverse of the others. I never found the right combination for that idea. Some looked much better on screen than they did printed and some the other way around ... I found that to get a good print, I had to really dial-up the glass filter. I agree a subtler touch might look better on screen.

 

The top-most white reflections look pixelated. Is that in your print, or just from knocking it down in jpeg?

When printed, the pixelation disappears and the the gradation of colors is very smooth - at least at 10x10. I can't remember exactly which file I printed ... and there are like 100 different versions in my library.

 

If you can do this with a "throw-away" image, are you working on other images which are technically correct?

Underwater, not yet. I'm still working on getting "techincally correct" underwater images.

 

Above the water, yes. I've been playing a lot with "fake tilt-shift" imagery this year.

 

Thanks for the encouragement!

[loftus 42]

You are.

I agree with you 100%.

 

Can you do me a favor? Would you mind checking out the link below to view the image at a larger size and see if you like it any little more? I understand if you still don't like it, but the image looks better (to me) much larger than what I put in the post.

 

I made a 10"x10" print of it that I put in our kitchen that works ... my wife - my harshest critic for sure - actually let me put it on the wall (and I don't think she was just humoring me) ... I also like it better as a square.

 

Bigger Size of the Diver Shot

Honestly...no. Just does not work for me. I think the effect could be interesting for a blue water reef scene or something, but this one looks like the creature from the lost lagoon. Jeremy if you want to send me pics for my opinion (for what it's worth), I always enjoy bantering back and forth. I actually have a blog going with a half dozen photog buddies (not underwater) where we give each other hell all the time.

Edited May 28, 2008 by loftus