[shuttertalk]

What level of post-processing (i.e. image manipulation of your photos on the PC) is acceptable for you? At what point does "enhancing" or "correcting" images become "doctoring" images?

[tempus]

as long as you are honest with what you did to your picture, do what you want... but i prefer the second option .

[ramboy]

To me, the most i will do is cropping. even if it is a digital photo i will still tend to use filters, change the setting on the camera itself, rather than touch it up. if you rely on touch up too much, you will get complacent.

my advice, take the time to take a good shot, take the time to frame it right and to have all the elements in a good picture

RAMBOY

======================
www.ramboy.com.au
"More Memory! More Memory!"
======================

[Mr_Gadget]

Yeah, there's nothing like taking a good shot first up...the less work you have to do later the better I say!

Ramboy, what type of camera do you have these days?

[adam]

it becomes doctoring when you do things that you wouldnt normally be able to do when developing your own pictures.
I mean things like cutting out people and putting them in strange places.
Cropping and changing levels is alright

[de_axeman]

There's no substitute for taking a good photo up front. Same goes for recording - nothing beats a good take. If it ain't broke you don't need to fix it.

Having said that, what's an acceptable level of post processing? Well if you can get away with it....

[gd]

I've just moved into the world of post-processing, having done a wedding reception for a friend.

I found that I mostly sharpened and adjusted a bit of noise and some cropping.. but once I locked onto a couple of techniques for things I'd been meaning to do for a while I could not stop.

I don't like taking out what is in the shot. But I like to experiment, such as layering a colour foreground over a black and white background or blurring or something, but deliberately keep the originals, because in the end.. my self or the people I'm giving the photos to want the truth.

[Toad]

Well - I do it all - including making scenes that are pure fantasy from bits and pieces of other photos.

Acceptable to whom is a better question. What's wrong with doctoring images?

I understand that if an image is purporting to be photo journalism or is aledged to be "true" - there is an issue - but for images that are for advertising, artistic, or just plain fun - anything goes.

[gd]

you're right mate...

In my opinion photography is making sure you capture what you want. "Fake" photos are art, they're just not photography.

Using photography for an artform is good enough by me..
And then there are people who just want the photos.. as they are... to each their own eh?

[StudioJ]

I'm with Toad its open slather! Trying to hide the flaws in my own photography as well as enhancement and expermination is one thing I'm happy to do but as far as blatantly unethical things done by journalists lately isn't something I agree with, as well as things like the recent scandal involving realtors removing power poles and the like from shots of houses to help sell them.

[gd]

yeah doing that stuff is rubbish. The truth... that's all photography is about.
How the artist interprets the truth is ok. How any one then manipulates the truth is poor form.

[shuttertalk]

Do post up some of your results in the Photo Shocase, gd...

Hm... if you come from a film background though, (speaking in general terms here) you would be more inclined to be a purist when it comes to photography. With film, you couldn't modify and change things as you can with digital. Sure enough, you can do some darkroom processing, but it was nigh on impossible to crop elements, etc. It showed the skill in getting things right the first time.

[gd]

okay Shuttertalk - I've uploaded to a gallery.
Two photos with my SLR and the rest are with my previous point-and-shoot.

[smelly]

I voted for the "Adding/subtracting a few small details in the name of Art is ok" option, but I usually stick by the second option. I tend not to do much spot editing, only the basic levels/unsharp mask/brightness/contrast.

The problem with edited pictures is that 9 times out of 10 you can tell they've been edited. If my photos look obviously edited, then I'm not doing a good enough job during post processing.

I tend to edit my photos to make them look like what I saw when I shot the photo. Sometimes this means brightening the shot and adding contrast because the lighting happened to be bad. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I frequently suggest to people that they should have done some post processing editing.

It's amazing sometimes what just a little bit of editing can do.

[shuttertalk]

I tend to edit my photos to make them look like what I saw when I shot the photo.

I really do like that concept... thanks for sharing. I find sometimes that when you look at a photo again it doesn't appear quite as you pictured it. Sometimes the colour is off, or a power line is in the way... etc.

Good principle to live by, methinks

[smelly]

I like to think so. It means that when I'm editing my photos, I do it selectively so as not to create a feel that was not originally there. It's being a naturalist, but with some digital help.

[StudioJ]

Hey smelly, you're right about if its visible (assuming that you don't want a visible effect that is).

I like Adelaide, except for that confused one way freeway! :o

[smelly]

Haha. The expressway? Yup. That's one confusing mofo. Lucky me coz I don't drive. Or unlucky.. hmm.

And I agree with you about visible effects for when you want them, but I still have issues with editing like that. I have no problems with converting the image to black and white, but I do have issues with putting a green/blue/red/whatever coloured tinge onto the whole thing. But then again, my problem with it could just be coz it looks awful.

[Toad]

I have no problems with converting the image to black and white, but I do have issues with putting a green/blue/red/whatever coloured tinge onto the whole thing. But then again, my problem with it could just be coz it looks awful.

Depends on the picture again - and what you are planning to do with it - and what the image is meant to represent - here is one with a totally false color spectrum - but which I think works with the subject matter...

[StudioJ]

This must hit some subconcious childhood memories Toad.. when I see that I can picture it panning down and having little plastic Lego medieval pages holding onto the flags and a Lego knight on a horse.

Time to get your licence Smelly, you're old enough!

[shuttertalk]

Hm.. interesting photo Toad! Merging photo with a very fake computer generated background.... nice!

[StudioJ]

Hey have a look at this post.

And tell me what you think has been edited on and whether you think its overdone.

J

[gd]

did you blur everything but the face in the first shot?

[StudioJ]

did you blur everything but the face in the first shot?

Nope, shot was taken with an aperture of f1.4 to highlight the eyes.

[gd]

ahhh ok... whew... 1.4 ... I was going to say but I thought it missed some detail about her necklace and stuff.. but upon reflection... there shouldn't be too many things to look at in a photo I guess.

Okay... let me cast my amateur, amateur eye over it once more