BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photo Enhancement

To love this question, log in above
September 12, 2007

Digital requires the photographer to do these "enhancements" him/her self. While it used to be the film and the lab doing the prints that would create the effects, now we need to do it. I don't look at it as "enhancing" so much as "processing."

To love this comment, log in above
September 12, 2007

I used to be one of those people who frowned on digital manipulation of images. Like you, I thought that such manipulation was ‘cheating’ and if one could not capture a good image in the field it was an indication that you had a lot to learn. But, then, also like you, I started coming here and listening to what others had to say. When it gets right down to the core truth, controlling your image outcome in Photoshop (or any photo editing program) is no different than controlling your image outcome in the traditional darkroom. Just like in the darkroom, ‘developing’ an image in PS means knowing what you were trying to capture in the field and understanding both the limitations of a camera lens and the possibilities of the software you are using. In the traditional darkroom you needed to understand the chemistry of the materials used in order to achieve the best results. With digital the chemicals have been replaced by the computer, but you still need to understand the basics of your editing software in order to achieve the best results. And, again like the darkroom, the quality of the final image is largely dependent upon the quality of the digital ‘negative’. No amount of editing will fix lousy composition, poor exposure or a multitude of other mistakes. The rules of image making have not changed with the advent of digital; shoot in lousy light and you will get a poor image; center your subject and it will still look bad; etc.

Now-a-days I shoot in RAW and ‘develop’ my images using Photoshop. I no longer believe this to be cheating and have come to accept that the best images are those that are made well in the field and than edited well in the computer. I have become somewhat skeptical of those who claim that they can produce digital images that require no editing. I often wonder if they are either technophobes or if they fail to recognize and appreciate the power of programs such as PS. I am also more than a little impatient with anyone who thinks that skill with PS can replace skill with the camera. As computer programmers often say: garbage in – garbage out.

Irene

To love this comment, log in above
September 12, 2007

Even with my digital point 'n shoot, I find that some shots need a contrast tweak (usually a boost). In Photoshop, it's done with Levels or Curves, in Elements with Levels. This can make an amazing difference. I'd be a bit leery of over-relying on saturation; less may be better.

To love this comment, log in above
September 12, 2007

Paul

To love this comment, log in above
September 12, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 12, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 13, 2007

--------------------------------
"I really don't want to or intend to offend anybody, but I kind of felt like digitally enhancing your pictures on your PC was a bit like(I don't want to say it)cheating(oh I said)."
---------------------------------

I once heard of a well known photographer would go to great lengths to capture (the moment.) His darkroom techniques (post processing) were second to none..so I suppose his work could be labled as manipulation.

Anybody remember this guy? I think his name was "Ansel Adams." Hmmm?

Pete

To love this comment, log in above
September 13, 2007

The digital darkroom, IMO, is no different than the chemical darkroom, except that with digital you don’t have to worry about toxic materials. There is not much that PS can do to fix a truly bad image; however, for those who know how, this software can be a real boon for taking a good image and making it even more powerful. As Pete points out, the master of darkroom manipulation was Ansel Adams. I can’t help but believe that old Ansel would have fully and unabashedly embraced the full capacities of PS.

Irene

To love this comment, log in above
September 13, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 13, 2007

Like Sam said, I may make several trips to a location to get the photograph I want. In particular, I have made several trips to a local wildlife refuge trying to get a good sunset photo over the lake. Still haven't got it but I am still trying. Conditions haven't been right yet.

I do have a sunset photo in my gallery that I like (D'Arbonne Sunset) but that one was still manipulated a bit but done in camera. I shot for about 30 minutes (not rapid-fire - only shot about 30 photos) bracketing my exposures and waiting for changes in the sky. The one I got that I liked was one of the latest ones I shot and was 1 stop underexposed from what the meter suggested.

Another example is one I took on the Natchez Trace. I was shooting color film and the shot I got was OK in color but I converted it to B&W and liked it even better. I ordered an enlargement from my lab (in B&W) and sold it for $50.00. That was a form of enhancement.

I think what some people object to is when someone takes part of one photo and combines it with another to create a different photo (taking sky from one photo and putting it in another for example). I don't do that (mainly 'cause I don't know how LOL) but I sitll consider that an artform.

To love this comment, log in above
September 14, 2007

I enhance probably every shot I take that I plan to use. The more interesting thing as I have worked through the years is that I get to be more selective about which shots to even bother with...But even a good shot might take hours if I am bent on getting a slightly elusive quality. To me that is part of the art and interest in manipulation.

Getting the best source image is always a goal...I don't ever shoot anything with a bad setting and say "oh, well, I'll just Photoshop it later!" I may have the skill to do that with Photoshop, but a good shot is always easier to work with than a mediocre or bad one. The only exception to conceptualizing with Photoshop in mind is if a shot is taken purposely for compositing (e.g., I know I am going to create a new image by compositing two or more photos). Even then, the best shot is the goal. That best shot straight off the camera can always have some enhancement to make it better -- even if it is as simple as saturating, enhancing contrast, sharpening, etc.

I completely do NOT see it as cheating to enhance an image, as you'd have to say that anyone that ever dodged or burned in a darkroom wasn't true to their original capture -- and what would have been the purpose of working a darkroom if that were the case -- just cause you like the smell of chemicals? ;-) I see Mr. Adams mentioned here, but I daresay there quite a few who really explore possibilities in darkroom work:

http://www.uelsmann.net/

It may be considered just as extreme as things people are currently doing with Photoshop. And then there are those who like to create artwork from their images...It may be a different angle on the pursuit, but it is not 'cheating'.

SideScript to Samuel: In my slim involvement with the contest, it is in no way 'rigged'. Otherwise some mysterious person goes well out of his/her way to make it seem very real to us instructors. I'm not sure what the purpose would be of rigging.

To love this comment, log in above
September 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2007

More like photorealism (a style of painting that tried to emulate the realism of a photograph on a painting), except the software tools we have now make it easier for the non-trained to pull it off. Some of this stuff is well-done, at least from my aesthetic viewpoint. Much of it is just... yet another person who is playing around with PhotoShop. Is that cheating? Maybe, but then everyone who uses a camera instead of a paintbrush is cheating.

Is it ethical? If we're talking photographs used for editorial/journalistic purposes, then anything besides minor tweaks to correct errors in exposure should be allowed; certainly the adding or deleting of image content is unethical. If we're talking about art, and the purpose is artistic rather than informative, then I think pretty much anything goes.

I'm into realistic photography, and I generally favor only the image editing that turns the image I took into the image I saw. That means I look at subtle enhancements in contrast, saturation, sharpness, or lighting... things that I wouldn't need to do if the camera would capture what was in my mind. I also think that using filters in front of the lens is fine, but this is about the limit of what I do on most of my photographs.

However, it's a free country. If someone else wants to stick an eagle, or a moon, where it wasn't, then go for it. I just don't think an inserted eagle or moon really adds much to most photographs.

To love this comment, log in above
September 16, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 17, 2007

"the sky ain't that blue,time of day. yet richards response is to change that?"

It depends on the photo. I change things in every photo -- that doesn't mean that each is systematically deconstructed and rebuilt (though I have done that as well). It might be removing dust/lint from an object, it might be taking bird dung off a window, it could be cleaning swirls of food wrappers from the background of a ball-player making a play...It may be enhancing contrast, balancing color, sharpening, saturating...less often it is merging two images. It isn't often to add something that would make the scene unnatural, but I am not sure there is harm in that either -- unless it is a photo posed for historic purpose, as evidence in court, etc., as John suggests.

In recent work for a head-shot specialist in NYC, I find myself doing color adjustment, contrast enhancement, blemish reduction, eye adjustment, skin smoothing, removal of stray hairs -- it is what people pay for. Some of these are things you would not be able to do without a surgeon and months to heal, which isn't very smart when paying for studio time. The goal is never to make the subject look like someone else -- quite the contrary. But every image gets altered digitally. In the end I can spend 30-45 minutes on a shot adjusting minutia, and it will look better...for these shots it is often the best when very little changes, but the result is stronger and more flattering. I have done work, however, for advertising where there was no value placed on reality: the requests were specifically to alter, distort, distend, and otherwise make a result from the model that their own mother would likely not recognize. That is the nature of the beast, and the means by which source sometimes achieves what a marketing department considers their concept.

If people have fun playing with images, adding two or three moons, five eagles, and a handful of worms, then it is their fun. It is alteration. If someone is paid to do work and they make adjustment to color, forget to remove a pimple, and have the shot blown up for a billboard in Times Square, they are fired -- unless the pimple was the point (and if so, it was likely added from another shot). It is not likely that a photographer will call an agency to hire "a model with a ragingly infected pimple".

I am not clear on what the difference is between using a filter on the front of the lens and using one in post processing. If the only goal is to "capture what I saw", well, it is arguable that you are SOL. If you want to be a stickler, the angle of view from what you see will never precisely match what you see in a capture in shape (unless you see in rectangles), or color/tone. And as far as the latter, by what means do you measure the scene? By your myopia/hyperopia? By your color blindness? By the way your eye measures light? By the way a light meter or colorimeter do? What aperture and shutter speed most closely resemble how you interpret a scene and see depth of field?

You are more likely trying to capture what you *think* you see, and, well, there is far more to the science of mind than what that sounds like. Three people looking at a scene never see precisely the same thing, as they are looking at it with different eyes, different associations, and different minds.

"the outright pre-disposition to augment a photo?" Yes. This is called honesty. I change every photo. I don't turn fire hydrants into fire-breathing dragons (well, not often anyway), but I change sometimes very subtle things to enhance captures of any sort. It has less to do with acting like a 'god' (to quote a phrase: "what,are you godlike and have all the answers sitting in front of a screen?"), than it does looking at an image, making an interpretation, and taking steps to achieve that. If that is being 'god' he/she/they have quite an easier job than I would have thought.

People have different philosophies and beliefs, but it is mine that you can't possibly achieve a capture that measures exactly what you see, and that it is an unrealistic goal. The same 'realists' will think nothing of filtering a scene to 'capture what they see', and yet, that is an alteration even before the image is captured. Somehow one type of alteration is better than another? The skill to take an image is better than the skill to alter it? I'd suggest being proficient or even expert at both and understanding the possibilities (whether you use them or not) is how you achieve your vision -- no matter the philosophy.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

Thanks again,

Paul

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

1. Merely capturing or opening a digital image in the strictest sense is an alteration. The RAW capture is either converted on the camera to a JPEG or when processed as a RAW file to view. Just because you don't choose a setting doesn't mean a conversion isn't made, or you would not be able to see the resulting file, and that conversion is an alteration.

2. Photographic capture BY NATURE is an alteration -- film or digital. You will likely often be photographing a 3D scene, and end up with a 2D scene. To capture what you see, you'd want to have a 3D rendering. Photographs are a 2D interpretation of a 3D scene.

There are many perspectives on art and photography. There is room for all of them. However, when looking back to the original question: "So my question is this, how many people don't enhance their pictures for regular shots?"

My answer: everyone does -- whether they know it or not. Those that attempt not to on purpose are just denying a possibility for improving their work. This is no slight on the expertise of shooting a good photo -- which is an art in itself.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

I would say that is pretty much right. LOL

Actually, you didn't start a fight, more of a debate. Those are always fun.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

*** ps In my gallery I mark the camera used and if PS enhanced or not so you can see the differences in camera & lighting.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

Debby, I know that you did not mean to imply this; however, I get more than a little frustrated by the attitude expressed by your statement that people need to “shoot to print”. These statements, and similar ones, sound so, I don’t know – snobby. Anyone who cares at all about the results of their image making should be shooting to print. Why bother with photography at all if your ultimate goal is not to create the best image possible? Again, I am pretty certain that this is not your intended meaning, but it is how I tend to react.

I am extremely passionate about nature photography – some of my friends call it obsessed – and when I head out into the field I always go with my “A Game”. Most days, before the sun is up, I’m out at some place trying to capture some subject in that amazingly beautiful early morning light. As the sun sets and often for an hour or so afterwards, I can be found trying to get that one last shot of the day. I spend hours studying my subjects and try to do everything right from knowing when a particular bird is most likely to be active to excising every last bit of knowledge I have acquired here and through the books I read and people who have shared their experiences. However, most every image I make benefits from post-capture editing. I use PS-CS3 and while I am far from expert (real far), I can edit so that the final image more accurately reflects what my eye saw. Not only do I not see this as ‘cheating’ I see it as part of the process of creating a good image. Could I take an image directly out of camera, convert it from RAW and print? Sure, but why would I when by a few extra steps I can have a better image? Does this make me less of a photographer than someone who never edits? BTW: I am – perhaps unfairly – a little suspicious of people who make this claim! If I developed my images in the traditional darkroom and ‘manipulated’ by using chemicals few people would see this as cheating. So, when I develop my images in PS, why is it cheating?

Personally, I agree with Richard; if you are using digital you are editing, whether you recognize/admit it or not. And, if you shoot film, you are also editing, albeit that often the editing is done by the developer instead of the original photographer. And, I also think that people get just a little too hot on this topic (that is a statement from the pot calling the kettle black! LOL) and forget that there really is room in this field for everyone’s opinion. Now, you’ll excuse me, there is a spider out there calling my name.

Irene

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

The image doesn't tell a story; our perception of that image tells the story. As photographers we are story-tellers and that is true whether we're photojournalists, landscape photographers, or post-modern nihilistic artists who base their works on photography.

The word 'cheating' has a moral connotation, and its use in the context of photojournalism implies fraud. Careers have been ruined for this, and rightly so, for if we can't trust the press to tell the truth, then we don't have a free press but instead a propaganda organ... and whose propaganda are they pushing?

Now in advertising, is it 'cheating' to advertise a skin care product by showing a photo of a beautiful model with perfect skin... which is the product of post-processing instead of the skin care product? I would argue that this is unethical because there is an intent to mislead, and in fact the FTC will go after advertisers who make false claims. If the model is showing off a Chanel dress, however, no reasonable person would think the dress is the answer to blemishes. Similarly, a slim, fit woman advertising a diet product is misleading if she did not get, or stay, that way from the product, yet if she's selling a vacuum cleaner or designer toilet paper then there is no logical connection between her appearance and the product.

In the art world, 'cheating' is often used by those who think that the value of art is somehow related to the effort to produce it. In other words, great art has a high 'cost' whether it be years of struggling by a starving artist or whether the creation of that art is particularly difficult. I really see the accusation of 'cheating' in this context to be an expression of envy.

In short, people need to be concerned about journalistic, editorial, and advertising ethics... but also need to chill out when it comes to art. Star Wars isn't real, but it is massively entertaining... and art.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

Not necessarily...it may also be an attempt to illustrate. You are likely not going to hire a photographer and say "sit in on this test and photograph our test subjects for the next few weeks just in case something happens that we need to catch on film for packaging"...and I don't know that you are morally bound to that idea. If it were the case that all results pictured needed to be actual, the famous old illustration of the little girl in the Coppertone ad is equally immoral as it is not an illustration of the actual working product. It is a suggestion.

But why again does the conversation revert to 'cheating'? That is a moral and individual decision. Also, the idea that a change has to be extreme to be considered an adjustment is over-emphasized.

The question I think that remains unanswered by the 'purist' group is: What exactly is the difference between processing in a darkroom and processing in the digital darkroom?

Frankly I don't think you can be a bad photographer and make your work brilliant with Photoshop...So again, I am not suggesting that post-processing is the do-all/end-all. I am suggesting that by denying it, you will be ignoring an opportunity to improve your images...There were darkroom artisans as long as there have been photographers. No photo is morally better because it isn't color corrected.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

My comment about “snobbery” has to do with the statement that I have heard here and elsewhere that goes something like this: “I never need to edit post capture. My shots are always perfect right out of camera. Shooting RAW is just for people who can’t get it right in camera.” I hear these statements as a clear indication that the speaker has only marginal ideas about the power of digital capture. However, in the interest of total disclosure: I once thought the same way and believed that PS was the tool of those too lazy to do the proper work in camera. Ah the things we learn if we live long enough.

Someone of my caliber? Gee I wish I thought I was of any caliber as a photographer! LOL!

Irene

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

Do you know if they do that with the "Do It For Me" tool or the "Making Noon Into Twilight" plugin (I hear it is expensive, but it also has the Trim Model's Nails option which is worth the cost)?

I really can't believe someone suggested that...I am confident in what I do in Photoshop, and I wouldn't ever try that kind of global light manipulation...What a headache. What a laugh.

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 18, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 19, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 20, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 20, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 20, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 20, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 20, 2007

* I enhance probably every shot I take that I plan to use. [it is what I do]

* Everyone alters digital images whether they know it or not. [a fact of digital imaging]

* I don't think you can be a bad photographer and make your work brilliant with Photoshop.

* Some people are interested in post processing, some are not. [I am. Some photographers used to use their own darkroom, some a lab...]

* There are quite a few who really explore possibilities in darkroom work...using Photoshop is no different/better/worse

* It seems to me the rampant opinion of those opposed to post-processing images is that something completely unnatural needs to occur [it doesn't]

* I am not clear on what the difference is between using a filter on the front of the lens and using one in post processing.

* Photographic capture BY NATURE is an alteration -- film or digital. You will likely often be photographing a 3D scene, and end up with a 2D scene.

As far as the 'old hat': it is more likely directed at the entire conversation, which has more than one side and I am not entirely driving...

As far as plastic surgery: some people can benefit from it after being disfigured. In some cases it is almost necessary to leading a normal life. In others it may be for strictly vain purposes. Some have moles removed that may have eventually become skin cancer...in the extreme perhaps saving a life. It can create artificial beauty that seems rather real, or, on occassion, monsters, when things go wrong or become overused (Michael Jackson [for this and other reasons], Joan Rivers). It can be radical or subtle.

Like anything, it can be used or abused. That goes for digital editing as well. Except that I think image editing can be fun, and I doubt that with the pain and healing that plastic surgery ever is.

You like the hunt and capture, and that is your perspective and interest in the art of photography. That I can appreciate. On the other hand, you suggest people can easily change things in Photoshop like lighting in a scene, or that they can somehow manufacture an image without even being there to take it [the reference to shut ins]...and the examples are just wrong. It is not easy to change lighting in a scene convincingly or perfectly; it is virtually impossible to create a convincing scene from scratch -- what source do you start with? I would never attempt it...it would be EASIER to shoot it, or shoot it again.

The goal of change is overwhelmingly not radical alterations...and in fact I'd suggest from my own work it is far more often subtle (color balance, sharpening, optimizing exposure and dynamic range). These things will happen for even a capture-to-print purist to different extent based on the way you process digital images OR film (labs will correct images for you; using your own lab you will choose times for exposing paper and chemical baths. Each of these are corrections).

It is denial to think that adjustment never occurs after capture just because you claim not to use Photoshop. It is misunderstanding digital adjustment to think it is easy to alter scenes convincingly.

To love this comment, log in above
September 21, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
September 22, 2007