Question - re: digital touch-ups

[Apostata]

Hello,

I just wanted to guage how many people here digitally touch-up their scanned photos (as an extension of the darkroom/processing) using Photoshop (or something similar)?

Are there any people here who have aesthetic arguments with doing anything to bring out the best in their pictures digitally?

I'm on the fence between photographic purist and simply wanting the best image I can get...so I dip into GIMP (a Linux Photoshop equivalent) when I want to crop or play with the contrast a little...but I'm tempted to do more sometimes.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Marc Jutras]

I draw the line where it turns ugly. Then, I press CTRL+Z until it's back to what I want. But I must say that my film pictures require way less PS work than the digital ones.

Usually, I correct contrast (B&W mostly), do some dodging and burning and sometimes, I play ith sharpness and blur to accentuate the DOF effect (or to fix a booboo).

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I don't draw the line, but always prefer prints that look as much like the original as possible so that is the direction my PhotoShop work usually takes. My local processor for color had a horrible problem with dust in his lab (carpeted floor and no separation from the customer area); it was so bad that I no longer use him and now go to the neighboring town for this work. In spite of a much better environment there will still be the occasional dust or fiber particle on their scans which I remove with PhotoShop (I do not have a film scanner yet -- probably later this year when I can dedicate time to learning to use it).

 

[phototone]

I do the same things in Photoshop that I would do in the darkroom. Dodge, burn, spot. Adjust contrast and brightness. No difference....except that once all these things are done on the master file and saved, it is so nice to be able to make prints without any further work each and every time.

 

[egpj]

Same as Phototone. Dodge/burn and spot. I have been known to take a person out of the foreground to improve the photo but it was nothing that someone could not do in the darkroom. Me and a Wacom tablet is a dangerous combination.

 

[kiev4a]

Depends on the picture. If it's a family photo I have no problem removing a telephone pole sticking out of someone's head. A lot of advertising photos have a lot of stuff altered or replaced entirely. If it's a news shot, you're in an entirely different ballgame. Need to leave them pretty much alone or you could be accused of pulling an LA TIMEs when they took a soldier pointing a gun from one photo and put him in an entirely different photo where he looked more menacing to the civilian population. Bad form! Bad form!
From a practical standpoint, painters omit or add things from scenes they paint. I think in photography if you do that you have an obligation to inform the viewer that you have made alterations.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I'm all for cleaning up an image in photoshop, some may disagree but if Ansel Adams were alive today he'd be a photoshop "Guru"!

Todd

 

[T_om]

I'm all for cleaning up an image in photoshop, some may disagree but if Ansel Adams were alive today he'd be a photoshop "Guru"!

Todd

I'm with you Todd.

Adams altered his photos (and negatives) ALL the time, but people tend to either ignore that or are surprised when they learn of it.

Back to the question. Working in a digital environment is different than working in a wet darkroom. As obvious at that statement is, there are some people that cannot get it through their heads. For example, some people new to both digital capture and scanning, people representing themselves as "purists", will tell you they do not manipulate their shots at all.. just print them from scans. That only demonstrates their ignorance of the tools and methods required to get the best quality out of the digital workflow, not their photographic prowess.

EVERY film scan needs some computer work to get the best digital quality. Every one. No exceptions.

EVERY digital camera or back capture needs some computer work to get the best quality photographic output. Some of the "computer" processing is done in camera, but for the most part, any shot taken with a digital camera or back will need further processing to get the best output possible.

This processing is just the nature of the medium.

Tom

 

[wdenies]

I agree with Tom.
I stated already for many times that only the result counts, not the tools used.
What is the meaning of a comment on a picture in the gallery like this:

"Converted digital output!, but I like it anyway"

Wim

 

[pendevour]

I use all available means to produce the end product. Sometimes I use a digital camera and then usually shoot RAW. Sometimes I use film cameras and am particularily fond of using vintage cameras. In both cases I try to get the image as right as I can in the camera but have no qualms about using post capture manipulation to achieve the final image, whether that be in a chemical darkroom or in Photoshop. Photography evolves and we must evolve with it, adapt or stagnate. If a new evolutionary pathway emerges it will either lead to advancement or a dead end, depending on whether we photographers follow it and use it or not.
I have no problem with "purists" that only use film, chemicals etc and equally I have no problem with out and out digital photographers, there is plenty of room in the broad church of photography for all. Do your own thing and enjoy your photography.

 

[richard_l]

Where do you draw the line?

I wouldn't put President Bush's head on Jessica Simpson's body.

Just be careful. Sometimes it's easy to spot PS manipulations, and that spoils it. For example, misuse of the unsharp mask is common, and it shows. I want to be fooled.

 

[pendevour]

Where would you put his head????

 

[TPPhotog]

If it's for posting online, then I only use PS to get as close to the wet print as I can. Otherwise there's no point in me doing all the work in the darkroom

But if I'm working with a model she will look like she has the complexion of a nubile angel by the time the prints have been through PS and NeatImage. A girl must look her best even if she had a hangover when I shot her

 

[JoeFriday]

I'd have no problem putting MY head on Jessica Simpson's body.. but I draw the line at Paris Hilton's

I do very minor PS'ing to my photos.. dust removal is normal.. adjusting levels or using the "highlights/shadows' filter.. and occasionally shifting the hue slightly if skin tones got out of whack.. that's about it, tho

I've been using PS for about 12 years, and I've learned when it's better to leave something alone

 

[jmilkins]

Good question and good replies - I've had the same thought as I try to learn a bit about PS. Digital manipulation is as much a dark art as wetdarkroom work to me I must admit.

However, for a group of people usuing (generally) manual older cameras, or at least older style (i.e. rangefinder)cameras, I find it heartening to see a permissive attidtude to digital manipulation , which compares and accepts it as analogous to traditional wet darkroom manipulation. I do think however, that over manipultaion, whether digital or wet darkroom based, can look as bad as that heavy graduated tabacco filter on a "sunset" shot.....

 

[formal]

My goal is to do as little post-processing as possible, but I've never had an image (film or digital) that didn't need some simple post-processing (dust removal, levels, cropping, sharpening, ...).

Very occasionally I will clone out some part of an image, but I'm not really interested in "heavy" digital manipulation. I don't believe there is any thing wrong with such manipulation but I want to practice photography rather than design.

David

 

[jlw]

I do as much post-processing as necessary for image appearance -- adjusting tonal relationships, removing capture defects such as hot pixels, etc. As someone else posted, this kind of adjustment is essential to get the best quality out of a digital image.

But I'm really cautious about mucking with image content -- taking out objects, putting in objects that weren't there in the first place, etc. The reason that I'm a photographer instead of, say, a painter is that life has a knack for handing me better picture ideas than I can think up in my head -- so if I start munging those ideas to bring them more into line with my preconceptions, I'm dooming myself to my own limitations.

Yes, I'm also one of those people who files out his negative carriers so the black borders show. It's a way of forcing myself to live with what I saw through the camera, rather than regarding life simply as raw material for possible future photographic "improvement." When I look back at my past pictures, I usually find that the more I "improved" them, the worse they look now! I suspect the same would carry over into digital, so I tread warily if I tread at all.

 

[Bertram2]

Hello,
Where do you draw the line?

What I can do in a wet darkroom I do with PS too. And that's a lot, isn't it ?
The final product was always made in the darkroom btw, I was taught that this is even the other half of the task, which includes the art of presentation too.

Real good shots don't need much fiddeling anyway, a bit USM to get the sharpness back lost by scanning and a bit cropping maybe. That should be enuff for a real good shot.

Fiddeling around for hours with layers and brushes and curves and whatever to save a poorely taken pic never made me very happy. If it's personal reminder you cannot get a second time it's o.K.

Regards,

Bertram

 

[XAos]

The most I stick to messing with content is erasing leashes, cords, and power lines. 1) It's still largely aesthetic, and stops far short of adding the three headed elvis in. 2) We're usually not talking about a huge number of pixels and it's easier to pull off without looking hokey.

I have, for family snapshots, erased a rather large hose reel that I was suprised turned out as well as it did. It was parked in front of a bush with lots of reptetitive detail and so I just covered it up with leaves. Put that stick down guys - I saw that. When you're dealing with squirmy kids you take what you can get.

 

[Apostata]

Some good perspectives out there. I posed the question because sometimes I feel I'm betraying what I've come to realise is a rather antiquated view of The Photographer & His/Her Craft. Indeed, Ansel Adams would probably be just as enthusiastic about using Photoshop if he'd had the opportunity. The 'line' is still subjective (between improvement/manipulation) of course, but clearer for me now.

Thanks to all.

erasing leashes

Oh my... behave!