Image integrity

Les McLean

Les McLean

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,793
Name
Les
Edit My Images
Yes
There is an article in the current edition of EOS magazine, discussing image manipulation (particularly in photoshop), there was a link to Reuter's Rules regarding use of photoshop.

Here is a summary

ALLOWED:

• Cropping
• Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
• Minor colour correction
• Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
• Careful use of lasso tool
• Subtle use of burn tool
• Adjustment of highlights and shadows
• Eye dropper to check/set gray

NOT ALLOWED:

• Additions or deletions to image
• Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
• Airbrush, brush, paint
• Selective area sharpening
• Excessive lightening/darkening
• Excessive colour tone change
• Auto levels
• Blurring
• Eraser tool
• Quick Mask
• In-camera sharpening
• In-camera saturation styles

Full article here: http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

It made me realise just how many images submitted to this site (including some of my own) would be excluded from Reuters.

I realise that most of us do our PP for personal use, and have no desire to submit images to the news agencies.

But, what if we have that once in a lifetimes shot (Victoria Beckham washing the dishes for example), and we'd processed it in glorious HDR, or cloned her butler, nanny, style guru out of the scene.

Would we be up s**tcreek without a paddle ??
 
Saw that article, very interesting. Couldn't work out why in camera sharpening wasn't allowed though :thinking:
 
Interesting article but doesn't Reuters deal with photo journalism - in which case I would agree with the limitations placed on the photos submitted - those photos are there to depict 'how it is' .

I don't see the harm in playing around with a photo to enhance it or even to make a work of art out of it but submitting it to a place like Reuters is different.

as for the up the creek - yes we probably would!!!!!
 
Les McLean said:
.....But, what if we have that once in a lifetimes shot (Victoria Beckham washing the dishes for example), and we'd processed it in glorious HDR, or cloned her butler, nanny, style guru out of the scene.

Would we be up s**tcreek without a paddle ??
Click to expand...

All the more reason to always keep the original RAW / JPEG file ;)
 
Would we be up s**tcreek without a paddle ??
Click to expand...

Only if you don't keep the original files from the camera. That's the real beauty of using software like lightroom or aperture. The originals sit nice and safe in the filling cabinet while all the processing you do is kept as a seperate instruction file (or mulitple files for different versions) to be applied each time it's needed. Except PS work, where a seperate copy is created for you to work on and filled together with the master copy.

Perhaps it should have been called adobe paddle instead. :lol:
 
dazzajl said:
Only if you don't keep the original files from the camera. That's the real beauty of using software like lightroom or aperture. The originals sit nice and safe in the filling cabinet while all the processing you do is kept as a seperate instruction file (or mulitple files for different versions) to be applied each time it's needed. Except PS work, where a seperate copy is created for you to work on and filled together with the master copy.

Perhaps it should have been called adobe paddle instead. :lol:
Click to expand...

It was said very much tongue in cheek, as I agree entirely, most photographers keep the original (unprocessed file) somewhere.
 
It was said very much tongue in cheek
Click to expand...

Sorry Les, seems I can read this morning but I can't see. :bonk: :lol:
 
Yep, mine would be thoroughly thrown out!

"Aaaargh gotta get that ground breaking Beckham shot in (that Les has already captured of course)... no wait... yep, I think some excessive painting over the face & some selective blurring may be in order - I'll leave the colour saturation though methinks" :lol:

Interesting thread Les :thumbs:
 
Lady Pitstop said:
Interesting article but doesn't Reuters deal with photo journalism - in which case I would agree with the limitations placed on the photos submitted - those photos are there to depict 'how it is' .

I don't see the harm in playing around with a photo to enhance it or even to make a work of art out of it but submitting it to a place like Reuters is different.

as for the up the creek - yes we probably would!!!!!
Click to expand...

I agree. For images of photojournalism I do try and keep them as is. I may add a bit of creative flair to them because my site is a daily fine art site. If I was working for Reuters I would completely understand their requirements and follow them without issue. People often ask me about my photography and say "Was the sky really like that?" and I say, after a fashion. I never add anything to my images. I only play with the light my camera captures. The stuff I did at Knowsley the other week wasn't edited at all, aside from B&W or minor contrast adjustments.
 
imnot keen on too much change i like a photo as it looks we get amazing skies ect and adjusting in photoshop like crazy is fake.

a class tog can take a class photo

i know im going to get slammed down with this thread but hey wotever
 
I don't see it as fake at all. What if you put an ND filter on your lens to darken the sky? Hows that any different to adding a gradient layer in Photoshop to achieve the same effect? What about when you shoot into the sun and get silhouettes? Thats not quite realistic as our eyes are better than cameras so we see the detail in those objects.
 
we just have to agree to differ.

i wouldnt use an nd grad.

if the skies great its great if its not its not
 
But they're aiding you to get a great shot because of the deficiencies of your cameras ability to fully capture the scene. Oh well. Photography for me is about capturing what I see, what I feel. What I see with my eyes and feel with my heart. Its about conveying that in a photo. My camera, without my help, isn't capable of fully expressing that.

“It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer.
You need less imagination to be a painter because you can invent
things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes
a lot of looking before you learn to see the extraordinary. ”
~ David Bailey, 1938
Click to expand...
 
We operate under the same rules - and they're not just 'guidelines' either. I have to keep my RAW files in one folder, save my corrected image to my 'Print' folder as a full-sized TIFF and my reduced-for-wwweb JPEG in my 'transmission' folder. All three folders go in one main job folder, all images are given unique names according to the job number and the whole lot goes to the Imperial War Museum after 5 years.
I knew the Reuters Phot who got canned - met him in Afghan last year, nice guy, but wasn't that the s***tiest bit of cloning any of you have ever seen? No wonder he was fired...
 
photomad said:
imnot keen on too much change i like a photo as it looks we get amazing skies ect and adjusting in photoshop like crazy is fake.

a class tog can take a class photo

i know im going to get slammed down with this thread but hey wotever
Click to expand...

Most class togs will use some kind of editing software. And if you wouldn't use an ND grad because it's, I dunno, "cheating" (?), then why use a lens at all? :D

All IMO of course. I guess it's just where we draw the line. I just try to make my photos looks as good as possible, using whatever methods.
 
cause thats what i think thats all

i dont believe there is a right way or a wrong way.

have you had photos published ewan cause i have and hardly use photoshop

in fact my pics that were published were not touched at all
 
Blimey, I wasn't trying to start a fight :help:

I never said there was a right or wrong way - I agree with you. Some people like to improve their photos using photoshop, some don't. I personally think the results are a lot better when we do use editing software, as long as it's subtle. There was a couple of members on a photography forum I used to go on who used digital "watercolour" effects on lots of their photos. I thought the results were fake-looking and frankly, rubbish. However I do agree with the use of editing software to fix things that we've got wrong in camera - blown highlights, red eye or whatever.
 
:: cool!

god im soooooooooooooooooo sensitive

we are cool

going to check your gallery out

if empty i expect some pics up within the fortnight

:naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
 
My gallery is empty here on TPF, cos I host all my pics on photobucket :D You can look at my Flickr account though - doesn't have many pics on as I only created it yesterday.
 
photomad said:
have you had photos published ewan cause i have and hardly use photoshop

in fact my pics that were published were not touched at all
Click to expand...

handbag-20070704-195310.jpg


Well I've had mine published too and they *were* enhanced with Photoshop. :p How do you do black and white images? Its hard trying to fit Ilford into a compact flash slot. If you use the B&W feature on a camera then thats no different from Photoshop.
 
Ok so if you use on camera features to take a photo in black and white it will capture the light on a digital sensor, convert it to black and white and save it as a jpg. As soon as the photo has been taken its a digital image that is then edited in camera. On my 30D I can change the various channels it uses for black and white, red, green, yellow, etc. Its all digital. Unless you have a camera that takes compact flash and film?
 
photomad said:
i give up
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with your principles about trying to keep images as unphotoshopped as possible. All the images I've posted recently have had very minor tweaks applied to them, or been converted to black and white. There is no non digital way of doing that these days with digital images.
 
it is just when i have an opinion and people disagree they go on and on and on about it and when i say we just have to agree to differ lets just move on to something else
 
If you shoot jpegs from the camera then you are just letting the camera do some ruthless and heavy handed post processing on your images, it cant see what the result is like so sometimes the results arnt that good.

All camera's capture the images in raw state, the better ones (SLR's) usually allow you to save that raw state as well as create a processed jpeg. The cheaper cameras just process the raw data into a jpeg for you without giving you any options as to what way you want it done.

If you are developing film then you are in effect doing a form of post processing, does that make film photos "fake" ?
 
With photography, as with all art it's either about the journey or it's about the destination.

There is no right or better way and for the most part, we all seek one or the other. When I shoot for work it's 100% about the result and I really don't care how I achieve that goal, as long as the client is happy and I get paid. When I shoot for the shear hell of making images, it's far more important to me that I enjoy the experience than whether I get a great shot at the end.

We all have to do what we feel is right and if ever there was a place that snappers of totally opposing views can come together, argue the points, bang heads and then walk away laughing for a virtual (or real if we're lucky) pint together, it's gotta be here. :D
 
Wow! What a flare up.

Firstly a big thank you to Les for starting the thread and for introducing what, although not hugely surprising, was very helpful.

I have sold images to magazines that have had a few of the musn't's on the Reuters list but I am sure if they were submitted to Reuters they would not accepted them (or likely have any interest in them).

If however I had shot a photo of a burning terrorist at Glasgow airport they would not care about any rules (other than a preference for the original image) and would accept it from a camera phone if a better source did not exist.

As far as landscape and art images are concerned you shoot and process for your market. The rules that Reuters state are unlikely to be relevant let alone apply.

Nice thread though ..... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top