"this photo has been enhanced in photoshop"

S

Steeps

Suspended / Banned
Messages
357
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
This has been puzzling me for weeks now, in our town they run a craft and produce show each year where there's a section for photography. As I've not been home at any point when it's been on I've never viewed it or submitted anything to it however last year someone apparently had a photo that was "enhanced" in photoshop and one of the judges was not happy about it.

This year they wanted someone to submit some work that has been "enhanced" to show what is possible, someone in my family volunteered me for this task yet to be honest I have no idea what I'm really supposed to be doing. I asked the event organiser too and they didn't really understand it either, just that one of the judges wasn't happy.

To me post-processing an image is all part of the job, after reading around on here there are different levels of post processing from contrast/levels/sharpness etc to colour altering/object removal. They want one photo to show what can be done but I'm tempted to do it in 2, one of them with the usual adjustments then another with addition/removal to further "enhance" the image to try and stir up some debate. I'm fairly new with photography as I just shoot what I like and I've never really taken any advice/opinions from anyone so I'm jumping in the deepend with this a bit (also explains why my postcount is so low on here :( )

As there's a lot of experienced people on here how do you reckon I should approach this?
 
Find out who the muppet judge is, take a pap photo of him and 'enhance' the image by adding some devil's horns.

It sounds like he had been restricted to judging cucumbers in previous years. Probably upset someone and has now been moved on.

I fear that what you plan will probably only serve to reinforce the judge's flawed opinion of digital photography.
 
Well apparently they want me to show what can be done so that next year they can have a new category for "enhanced" photos. They are trying to appeal to a younger audience as one year they had a "best website" category.
 
I use post work to do create the photo I'd like to have taken if I understood how my camera worked better, or to compensate for my camera's shortcomings.

What I don't personally agree with is removing or replacing objects. I've seen photography magazines with sections dealing with how to remove rubbish skies & replace them with better ones. Removing objects isn't right, in my opinion. I don't even like cropping - it's my failure to frame or compose an image properly that was at fault! Removing things isn't honest.

I know that's slightly at odds with my first statement and it coul be argued that I'm trying to use post to make me look like a better photographer, but in my mind enhancing what you did take to make the photo look as good as possible is fine, removing things that were in it that you'd rather weren't isn't.
 
Depends on what they class as 'enhanced' If items have been added to the image, then this would probably fall fowl of the rules, but 'normal' PP-ing, contrast, colour correction, levels, white balance etc probably would be ok.
Do a before and after HDR, waterfall, local building of interest etc, that should get some discussion going!
 
I'd be inclined to submit a copy of "River Scene, France" by Camille Silvy.. it might be from 1858, and Silvy might be one of the Old Masters of photography.. but the darkroom jobs he's pulled on that particular shot are on a par with modern Photoshoppery..
 
I would suggest that you take a shot in RAW, then print this as is dull and unsharp image, then do a normal edit enhancing it as we all do to bringing the best out of the image. Then I would also do a totally over the top enhancement showing how enhancement can be pushed to far.
 
For the 'debate' side I would be tempted to go the HDR route, do some heavy processing work on a suitable image and make it really pop.

Steve
 
I think a realistic HDR would be more effective by demonstrating that manipulation can be very intensive without resulting in an over-the-top end result.

Do they have seperate categories for those that develop and print their own film shots and those that use Boots/Jessops/Tesco? Seperating enhanced digital shots from non-enhanced seems like a retrograde step. And where do they plan on fitting shots taken using in-camera effects such as B&W, solarisation and poster modes?
 
Alastair said:
I think a realistic HDR would be more effective by demonstrating that manipulation can be very intensive without resulting in an over-the-top end result.
Click to expand...

I think most HDR images are heavily processed and not very realistic. Those that aren't, a better or as good as attempt can be made with dodge & burn.

Alastair said:
I'd be inclined to submit a copy of "River Scene, France" by Camille Silvy..
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of photo as this has major processing, different sky, which most photoshop critics consider a total no-no, adding or deleting elements. The mantra ' a photo most be a true representation of the scene' would confine this classic photograph to the ignominy of an 'image' :lol::lol::lol:

Steve
 
The real problem is the enhanced bit, whats enhanced to one person is normal ajustments to someone else, everybody has their own idea of what constitutes enhancement.
The dictonary says
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features.
Aynthing you do in photoshiop could fall under this even levels or sharpening, the judge need to give a better idea of what they are looking for.
Best guess is do someting totally extreme and OTT to show the before and after.
 
steve_v said:
I think most HDR images are heavily processed and not very realistic. Those that aren't, a better or as good as attempt can be made with dodge & burn.
Click to expand...

Well this is an HDR shot and to me it has a depth and dynamic range which would be quite difficult to achieve (at least for me) by any other method:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4909553833/sizes/l/in/set-72157624765849404/

As would the other pictures of Muckross House:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157624765849404/with/4909553833/

I prefer HDR which is not apparent.

.
 
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far, it's pretty much summed up what I was thinking and I think I have a way forwards with this.

I'll probably take an outdoor sunflower shot with other flowers, this gives me the opportunity to make what I'd consider to be a standard shot and process it, then I can have a 3rd shot with different colours, bits added, bits removed, maybe even a different sky, or a completely different background. If I still have some energy left I'll make a 4th picture with godzilla climbing the stalk and helicopters trying to shoot it down. It's all happening next weekend so I'll update the thread as to how it goes.
 
petersmart said:
Well this is an HDR shot and to me it has a depth and dynamic range which would be quite difficult to achieve (at least for me) by any other method:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4909553833/sizes/l/in/set-72157624765849404/

As would the other pictures of Muckross House:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157624765849404/with/4909553833/

I prefer HDR which is not apparent.

.
Click to expand...
And it is certainly not apparent there,

Having not seen the original photograph before your HDR treatment it is difficult to judge but I see nothing in either of those images where judicious use of dodge and burn would provide similar results.

Only imo of course :)

Steve
 
steve_v said:
And it is certainly not apparent there,
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point.

steve_v said:
Having not seen the original photograph before your HDR treatment it is difficult to judge but I see nothing in either of those images where judicious use of dodge and burn would provide similar results.

Only imo of course :)

Steve
Click to expand...

In fact as I state in the descriptions there were THREE photos taken and then combined in DynamicPhoto HDR.

This photo in particular shows an enhanced dynamic range because of HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4909551579/sizes/l/in/set-72157624765849404/

It shows full detail - from the shadows in the entrance to the clouds in the sky.

The day was exceptionally bright and there was no way a single pic could have captured the full dynamic range.

.
 
petersmart said:
Which is exactly my point.
Click to expand...
And mine too. Dont be so defensive, I wasnt critisizing your photos just offerring a genuine and well used alternative for dealing with high dynamic range photographs.

petersmart said:
In fact as I state in the descriptions there were THREE photos taken and then combined in DynamicPhoto HDR.
Click to expand...
Sorry I MISSED the description, but seeing as it was HDR I had rather assumed there was more than one photograph. Although I am aware it can be done with just one.
petersmart said:
This photo in particular shows an enhanced dynamic range because of HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/4909551579/sizes/l/in/set-72157624765849404/

It shows full detail - from the shadows in the entrance to the clouds in the sky.

The day was exceptionally bright and there was no way a single pic could have captured the full dynamic range.
.
Click to expand...

Steve
 
A lot of idiots out there equate doing anything to your photos on the computer to moving bits around, extreme retouching, and adding/removing massive elements, claiming that they'll stick with film because it's a 'true image' etcetcetc, and completely ignoring that the majority of image processing is more analogous to choosing the film stock that you are going to use when taking the photo, and the chemistry used to develop it. If you shoot raw, then the 'film choice' is merely done after the event, in lightroom/acr, rather than before, whereas JPEG it's a bit of both.

Those that claim that digital is 'compromising integrity' and that 'the second you open it in photoshop, it is a computer generated image and not a photo' are both stupid, ignorant, and also completely blind as to what used to be done in the darkroom. Check out the work of jerry uelsmann for crazy examples of what could be done in the darkroom.

OP, I would reccommend this:

original-this-looks-shopped.jpg
 
Steeps said:
Well apparently they want me to show what can be done so that next year they can have a new category for "enhanced" photos. They are trying to appeal to a younger audience as one year they had a "best website" category.
Click to expand...

Well these 2 pics show what can be done to "enhance" a photo using HDR:

This one is an original Jpeg shot exactly as out of the camera:

​

And this is the HDR shot produced by combining 3 pictures - one overexposed by 2 stops to bring out the shadows, one correctly exposed and one underexposed by 2 stops for the highlights:

​

The top picture was the correctly exposed one of the three.

I know which one I prefer.

To be honest this "debate" about "enhanced" photos is rubbish and has been running in various forms for decades and not just comfined to digital pics or Photoshop.

Tell the judge that the only "unenhanced" picture format is RAW - which needs specialised programs or codecs to even view.

Even the original Jpeg picture above has been altered by the camera's processors to convert it from RAW to a Jpeg.

And My Canon 450D has different "picture styles" which alter the original pic - and these picture styles can also be modified by changing sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone.

There is no such thing as an "unenhanced" photo and there never has been - no matter what medium you use.

When I take a picture all I want to do is produce a pleasing or a striking image - the rest is simply nonsense.

.
 
In my opinion there's standard photo touching up, that being editing colours, white balance, and such, then there's photoshopping, where you change the shape, or add and remove things from the photo.

Both have been happening in the photography for decades anyway, so whether it'd digital or not is besides the point. Now if I was hosting a photography competition, I'd allow the former but not the latter. If your judge has a problem with both then that's his, and the show's loss. If he or she just doesn't like the latter, then that's fair enough in my opinion.

Saying that however, photoshopping is a craft/skill in itself, so having something against it just because it's not what the camera took a photo of seems a bit unfair too.
 
Last edited:
Boopop said:
In my opinion there's standard photo touching up, that being editing colours, white balance, and such, then there's photoshopping, where you change the shape, or add and remove things from the photo.

Both have been happening in the photography for decades anyway, so whether it'd digital or not is besides the point. Now if I was hosting a photography competition, I'd allow the former but not the latter. If your judge has a problem with both then that's his, and the show's loss.
Click to expand...

The problem is where do you start and where do you stop?

For instance in the above final pic I cloned out a small iron post - how do you deal with that - if I even decide to own up about it?

.
 
Surely all photographs have some degree of pre and post processing. You decide what film speed/ISO, what aperture, what shutter speed. What lighting or time of day you'll utilise. Everything is a choice toward making an image that you want.

Ansell Adams said "You don’t take a photograph, you make it".

In selecting what is in or out of frame you are making the image. Removing, adding or enhancing elements within a photograph help you make the image you want, and I see this as a crucial part of being a photographer. If I photograph a pristine beach and I spot a beer can in post processing, of course i'll clone it out.

Things can be overdone and badly executed, which can ruin an image, but to condemn or deny the ability to make a good image superb is, in my view, blinkered and short sighted.

That judge should be shot...




...with a camera. ;)
 
Quick update: had a bit of a play, needed something simple where I could play with colour to still make a semi-believable picture. Couldn't find any real alive flowers in the house so here are some fake ones to go with my fake picture.

Camera RAW converted to JPG:
unpt.jpg


Lightly processed with a RAW converter:
pr01.jpg


This one is the real one, honest!
pr02.jpg


B+W background, removal of stem on detailed background, selective colouring, colourcast added. If there's anymore ideas you guys think I should do I have until tomorrow lunchtime to get them done and printed :)
 
Superape said:
I use post work to do create the photo I'd like to have taken if I understood how my camera worked better, or to compensate for my camera's shortcomings.

What I don't personally agree with is removing or replacing objects. I've seen photography magazines with sections dealing with how to remove rubbish skies & replace them with better ones. Removing objects isn't right, in my opinion. I don't even like cropping - it's my failure to frame or compose an image properly that was at fault! Removing things isn't honest.

I know that's slightly at odds with my first statement and it coul be argued that I'm trying to use post to make me look like a better photographer, but in my mind enhancing what you did take to make the photo look as good as possible is fine, removing things that were in it that you'd rather weren't isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree with mostly what you say but how is cropping wrong? Say you dont have the reach on the camera to get what you want? U have to crop (nature, airshow are examples) Some times for a landscape its damn near impossibole to get a straight horizon, in portrature you may want the subject to really fill the frame so you want to crop, I really dont see how any of this is wrong? Why have a huge megapixel filled sensor if you aint going to use it?
 
I think the person you spoke to may have used the wrong word using enhanced because as you can see from the examples a judge would be hard put to tell if a image is enhanced, unless it was done really badly.

Pehaps manipulated or fantasy image would have been a better expression, a image that could not exist without manipulation.

As a example this was a combination of four images I did for remembrance day.




Lest We Forget by Oly Paul, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Hmmm I could look into doing something similar, will have to go through all my photos to see what I have and if it's possible in the time.
 
My view on PP is that it depends what you are trying to achieve

If you are just interested in enhancing the photograph, taking what you captured in the lens and correcting exposure, wb, sharpness, cropping, etc., etc., and anything a traditional photographer would have done in the darkroom, then you will find everything you need in Adobe Lightroom and more.

If you work for a creative digital agency (or aspire to achieving the kind of results these creative guys produce) and want to manipulate image beyond what is in a photograph, then your choice of tool would be Adobe Photoshop

There is significant overlap in both products, but...
Lightroom is designed for photographers
Photoshop is designed for the 'creative' community

below are some great links to free video tutorials for each which show what is possible and how to do it

http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/
http://tv.adobe.com/product/photoshop/

select the product i.e. Lightroom or Photoshop and select from a wide variety of short tutorials - most are around 4 - 5 minutes long

hope that is helpful

I have both Photoshop and Lightroom and have recently got into photography and expect to mainly use Lightroom (at which I am a novice, but find the video tutorials very helpful)

Geoff
 
Donki said:
I agree with mostly what you say but how is cropping wrong? Say you dont have the reach on the camera to get what you want? U have to crop (nature, airshow are examples) Some times for a landscape its damn near impossibole to get a straight horizon, in portrature you may want the subject to really fill the frame so you want to crop, I really dont see how any of this is wrong? Why have a huge megapixel filled sensor if you aint going to use it?
Click to expand...

I take your point, and I've zoomed & cropped insect photos for my own amusement for exactly that reason.

Here's an illustration of what I mean: I printed out a photo I was very pleased with. I showed it to a photography nut at work, and he suggested he would have cropped to remove a small element at the edge of the image that he felt detracted from it. That element was there because I hadn't noticed it, & I could easily have changed my composition while shooting to make it a better photo. It was my 'fault' that the image didn't look right and I should have done it better in the first place. By removing an element, it would have stopped being the photo I composed & took.

I think it's all personal preference in the end - I certainly take photos mostly for my own pleasure. I'm not trying to dictate to anyone how to take a photo, and there are grey areas between what is the art and craft of photography and what is faking it. It's just how I feel about it.
 
Superape said:
I take your point, and I've zoomed & cropped insect photos for my own amusement for exactly that reason.

Here's an illustration of what I mean: I printed out a photo I was very pleased with. I showed it to a photography nut at work, and he suggested he would have cropped to remove a small element at the edge of the image that he felt detracted from it. That element was there because I hadn't noticed it, & I could easily have changed my composition while shooting to make it a better photo. It was my 'fault' that the image didn't look right and I should have done it better in the first place. By removing an element, it would have stopped being the photo I composed & took.

I think it's all personal preference in the end - I certainly take photos mostly for my own pleasure. I'm not trying to dictate to anyone how to take a photo, and there are grey areas between what is the art and craft of photography and what is faking it. It's just how I feel about it.
Click to expand...

Every photo you take is a fake then, the camera or software alters every picture from what you took, if you shoot jpeg the cameras choosing the colours and sharpness, if you shoot raw your getting canon/nikon/pentak/adobes version of what you saw in reality, yes you can ajust it but underneath it's still adobes rendering of the basics, remember the cameras only taking values from sensor not actuall pictures it's all converted to an image somewhere.
As for cropping out something at the edge of the frame, why not, so you missed it when you took the pic, it's not cheating any more than than recomposing your original shot.
 
Last edited:
Just handed in my 3 pictures shown above, apparently it was just what they wanted. The judges had no issues with photos being cropped/basic editing, what happened last year someone submitted a picture of some flowers where each one was edited a different colour. They don't want to discourage entries so they wanted a sample of what can be done to encourage people to enter for an "enhanced" category next year where entrants can be as creative as they like with their photos.

Thanks so much for your opinions/suggestions and I hope I've not caused too much trouble :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top