Heresy

What about blinkers in formal wedding pics?
My wife shoots weddings and sometimes we fix people's eyes if they are blinkers to make them look open. No one ever knows because it looks completely natural.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
Nope, he wasn't above (or below) dodging and burning. In fact, he did manipulate the printing process at times, to get a different look in his work.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of what Pitxu was saying - not that Adams didn't dodge and burn, but that he wouldn't recognise the processes of the same name that Photoshoppers use as being the real thing. Of course Adams did these things - he wrote books explaining exactly how to do it right.

Matthew
 
I know if this is heresy, but, with the advent of Photoshop and similar programs, how many of you are retouching?
Click to expand...

Define "retouching". I'm not being argumentative (honest).

If by "retouching" you mean dusting, spot-dusting, adjusting the contrast...well, I remember using multiple contrast filters in the darkroom to bring out/down shadows and highlights; dodging, burning; cropping; rotating the negative to align on the paper...

Anything that is not direct and simple, unaided casting of light through a negative onto enlarging paper would be considered "retouching". IM(h)O.

Or do you mean to address "unethical manipulation by means of more than common-sense postprocessing that would rended the image significantly and irrevocably different from the original image as to produce not just a copy but an entirely different one"?
 
Hell, I used to do this as a job. Worked on many calenders featuring a variety of women, we used to collect body parts to replace the dodgy looking pieces. We even had a skin swatch library for large scale toning.

I don't do it on my own pictures though, I would, but I have little time.
 
That's a good point about leaving the moles alone since it might be a little strange to hand somebody a portrait of a loved one with a feature missing. I do lighten them up some though.
 
Sure, why not, PS is just a set of tools to use. The most drastic use for me is to remove telephone poles growing out of peoples heads or powerlines I can't crop out etc. If I did documentary or photojournalism work I think you should not go as far as to remove or rearrange parts of a photo.

Bob
 
Its all about INTENT. Waaay long ago when I actually shot for a living, cropping photos was an accepted practice. Getting rid of wasted space focused the viewers attention on what was important in the photo. However, if memory serves me, a rather infamous U.S. Senator by the name of Joe McCarthy used cropping to completely change the meaning of a photo depicting a fellow member of Congress departing from an airplane with his female secretary. What was cropped from the photo was the Congressmans wife...
 
Matthew Allen said:
I think you missed the point of what Pitxu was saying - not that Adams didn't dodge and burn, but that he wouldn't recognise the processes of the same name that Photoshoppers use as being the real thing. Of course Adams did these things - he wrote books explaining exactly how to do it right.

Matthew
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. I misunderstood Pitxu.

BTW, I don't think dodging and burning are mortal photographic sins. :)
 
leicasniper said:
In photojournalism or documentary photography it would be unethical, but with any other kind of photography, why would totally altering the original photo be unethical? Doesn't seem ethics would enter the picture (pun intended) at all.
Click to expand...

This statement sums it up for me. Legit and valid in anything but photojournalism... and evidence photography (as in CSI stuff).
 
I am into cameras and making photography from them. I use my computer to store and upload my photos. Would I dare post process my photos? You bet ya when I figure out how to use that software. Will it happen? Probably not.
 
My goal is to create an image I like, not document reality. If I was a photojournalist, sure, then I wouldn't change any part of a picture.

But I look at it this way: The goal is to make art, and however I can achieve the picture I see in my head, I can do that via software (PS) or hardware (dodging, burning in the darkroom).

Also, Im not real familiar with Adams' darkroom techniques, but I have to think that if he was shooting today he would be one of the best photoshoppers around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom