I'm just wondering, when you take photos, do you edit everything all the time or not really? So when do you know when to edit? I mean, sometimes, I look at the photos I take, and I think they're okay, but then I also wonder if I should tweak them a bit. It's just confusing, that's all. :)

If shooting for a client then you should definitely edit/discard anything that doesn't come up to your/their standard.
Personally, I never edit (except for cropping) photos taken for personal use.

Noel, there is no definite answer to your question except: "it depends" specially on so many factors such as: requirement, preference, innevitability, purpose, maximization of image potential... etc. etc. :)

i almost always shoot with post-processing in mind :)

when taking pictures i always ensure that i do most of what is needed even before i press the shutter. i only go into PS when i need to enhance the photograph -- make the sky bluer, soften the skin tone.

fol

As I have yet to shoot a perfect photograph, I always post-process all images going to clients.

I think of Photoshop (as with other image editing softwares) as an essential tool for photography, much like the darkroom of old. In those days, photographers spend much time tinkering with film development stages, from the chemicals used to the processing times. Then comes the printing stage, where cropping, dodging and burning, as well as other tricks are done.

Just as those tricks need mastery and skill, so does image editing using the computer is.

I think of Photoshop (as with other image editing softwares) as an essential tool for photography, much like the darkroom of old. In those days, photographers spend much time tinkering with film development stages, from the chemicals used to the processing times. Then comes the printing stage, where cropping, dodging and burning, as well as other tricks are done.

Just as those tricks need mastery and skill, so does image editing using the computer is.

Well expressed. :)

shoot knowing that you won't have to photoshop it. try to perfect it already before hand. but still photoshop is an essential and a much needed add-on to your workflow.

thank you guys. :)

Photoshop can be frustrating for me whenever it crops up as a topic during my basic photography seminar. The first instinct of my students it to Photoshop a bad shot. I always tell them that Photoshop should be a last resort.

What they should be concentrating on is getting the shot right. A bad shot should first and foremost serve as a reminder that one has to do better the next time.

Couldn't agree more with Nino and Jo's posts.

In addition, taking off from Jay's post, sometimes your PP skills also dictate the way you shoot as you already know what you can or cannot do with a photo opportunity under certain conditions. Personally, I have yet to reach that level. Some shots you delete right away without knowing the possibilites that PS can bring to present the photo in a different perspective. Pero since nakakaloko ang PS, ignorance is bliss :)

i almost always shoot with post-processing in mind :)

This is so true! :)

Post processing is a part of the Digital Workflow. Same as the good old film days PP is an artform in itself and also has it's own learning curve... To achieve high skill level in both Photography and PP is certainly something to be proud off once you attain it. :Grin:

when to photoshop? every chance you get. :p

im not really in tune with the idea of photoshop being the "last resort". its almost like saying that developing your film is a last resort, or cooking your ingredients should be your last resort when it comes to food. photoshop IMHO is part of the process of imaging, i really don't understand why it's being treated like some taboo of sorts.

i guess that pretty much what differs graphic artists from photographers. being that when i take pictures, i figure out first what i want to do in photoshop then shoot the scene accordingly.

when to photoshop? every chance you get. :p

im not really in tune with the idea of photoshop being the "last resort". its almost like saying that developing your film is a last resort, or cooking your ingredients should be your last resort when it comes to food. photoshop IMHO is part of the process of imaging, i really don't understand why it's being treated like some taboo of sorts.

i guess that pretty much what differs graphic artists from photographers. being that when i take pictures, i figure out first what i want to do in photoshop then shoot the scene accordingly.
exactly. thanks for putting it nicely sir!

once you've mastered your camera, in a way you will have a feel for its limitations. when you encounter a scene that you know is beyond your camera's capabilities, then you understand that post processing is the logical next step to further your vision.

for instance, what if you are shooting a dramatic landscape but then you find that there is a minimum 7-stop difference between the sky and the foreground? you dont have graduated ND filters on hand. you take a shot using your cam's metered reading. after reviewing it on the LCD, you find that the scene is poorly recorded (either the sky is blown off or the foreground is submerged in shadow). do you give up, and say "ah this is beyond my sensor's dynamic range."

but if post-processing is a normal part of your photography, you know you could shoot this scene and come off with the image you have in mind. take two or more exposures, each one exposed for the different elements in the high-contrast scene (either bracket or use manual exposure [spot reading on key elements]). then bring to CS2 and blend the images using gradients or whatever method you have learned so far (possibly use HDR). thereby you salvage your scene and you go beyond the limitations of your camera.

that is photography. its about taking the image. such work is critical and it is in no way "photoshop magic or artistry." post processing digitally is today's darkroom work.

serious digital photographers aspire to have excellent digital post processing workflows. not only do they master their SLRs, they also master photoshop.

one without the other is a half-baked cake.

sometimes i see digital photos being shown off and i notice that the photographer hasnt done any post-processing. they just post images into their sites straight off the camera. digital images have this inherent fuzziness and "milkiness" in them (especially if the in-camera jpeg processor is poor). i somehow feel natamad ang photographer. i mean, if i take an image, i have a responsibility to turn it into the best that it could be. why would i let the camera's "onboard photoshop" take control of what my photo should look like? right?

thats why i almost always shoot in RAW and post process things my way.

Amiel and Jay, I could relate to you guys very well in this aspect of photography! :)

BTW, True... Even history would back this up... Most excellent photographers also are excellent in their darkroom wizardry! :)

When to photoshop?

I shoot so i have something to post-process. For me it's 10% shooting and 90% post processing :D

basically, most of the time I use photoshop to do cropping and sharpening. Sometimes some levels adjustment and curves...
70% shooting and 30% post-process... :Grin:

I shoot mostly in RAW so there is an element of post processing in every image. I go into photoshop for pretty much everything I post in my gallery. But I hardly PS the stuff I print and share with family and friends. I guess its 'capturing the moment mode' for events and family activities while its 'creative mode' or trying to develop and stretch my skills when playing around with the camera or on photo expeditions. But regardless of what mode I'm in I try to shoot properly exposed and composed images everytime. :)

The funny thing is sometimes I'm in 'creative mode' and come across a picture that is already fine, I fiddle around with in in PS for an hour and end up just reverting back to the original. :D

when taking pictures i always ensure that i do most of what is needed even before i press the shutter. i only go into PS when i need to enhance the photograph -- make the sky bluer, soften the skin tone.

fol

i agree learn to take good pictures first,, PS is something i see as a remedy or correction to an image,, unless your a multimedia artist :)

I also subscribe to the practice: "Shot good pics first, then photoshop later." I think in this day and age, PP is part of the workflow. Its not only for correcting pictures but also enhancing an image (e.g. tweaking the levels, saturating the colours, etc.). It's all about results. Most people/clients don't really care if you did some photoshop. However, also take note that if a picture was bad to begin with, then you can only photoshop it only to a certain extent.

even though its a perfect exposure and framing still there are things needed to be edited...with a little sharpening, adding contrast...and so on.

even though its a perfect exposure and framing still there are things needed to be edited...with a little sharpening, adding contrast...and so on.

ditto. :)

If I won't PP my shots, I'd stay with film. :)

I'm just wondering, when you take photos, do you edit everything all the time or not really? So when do you know when to edit? I mean, sometimes, I look at the photos I take, and I think they're okay, but then I also wonder if I should tweak them a bit. It's just confusing, that's all. :)

If I have to crop it, I didn't shoot it right. But I use PS to enhance practically all my photos. It's inevitable - but you have to know when to stop with the post-processing.

:D

If I had the time, I would photoshop each and every one of my pictures as there's always room for improvement. But unfortunately, I don't, so I don't :(

Given both mediums Film and Digital... Post processing is done between the two... The only discernable or obvious difference is that in Film, most photographers delegate that responsibility to their favorite labs, if they do not have the time nor inclination to do so. Whereas in digital, the photographer has first hand interaction with his samples. He then has alot of options from the point of capture and up to the point of rendering and post production. :)

I guess the issue can be addressed by differentiating a graphic artist from a photographer - each would have his own ideology and difference can be as numerous and as subtle as the various shades of gray.

I guess the issue can be addressed by differentiating a graphic artist from a photographer - each would have his own ideology and difference can be as numerous and as subtle as the various shades of gray.

You also have a very strong point there my friend. :)

In my opinion, i think it is best to have a concept before you try to create your image or at the very least objective so that one could gauge whether to spend time in the end for post-processing. (Unless of course you are documenting.) Certainly photoshop is a great remedy tool for a variety of situations, it is not only limited to that as we all know. Only so much could be done by photoshop that's why as other photogs here have noted, it is best to get the best possible image from the camera (assuming the conditions are ok) and then further develop your work in photoshop or transmute it to get the best overall image possible.

So if you think that you have it all ok from the camera, just apply some minor editing (color correction, sharpening, image retouching) so that time wont be lost trying to create what's not supposed to be there in the first place (unless it was planned in the concept) It ain't a bad thing at all :)

All the time! I'd say that at least 80% of the work is done before I trip the shutter. The rest is thru my digital darkroom.

Your digital darkroom allows you to workaround the physical/technical limitations of your camera gear - limited dynamic range, lens sharpness/contrast, limited color gamut, etc..

when to photoshop?

it depends on how your photo is going to be used. on my commercial work, i often do PP to make my images better, if not, perfect.

on my personal work... i often find myself resisting the temptation to do heavy photoshop. why? it pushes me to discipline myself to become a better photographer on the technical and artistic side. as a graphic artist, since Photoshop 4, i've seen every tricks and effects done on PS. and it makes me laugh looking at photos heavily overdone in PS.

clones/clowns are born everyday and it sucks.

HTH. :)

Maybe this is a question directed to other people. Sometimes you will feel inferior because their images are really great post-processed, so you would want to stop them from editing their pictures in photoshop and be at par with your oh-so-good untouched photographs.

If this is a question towards one's self, then we definitely already know the answer.

Lastly, if this question is neither of the two, then there is no definite answer to this. It always boils down to what you want to achieve. There is no standard. Nobody will significantly hate you for overly using Photoshop.

Funny, but I just had a little argument with da wife over what was supposed to be a leisurely breakfast this morning.

She pretty much asked the same question - if everyone uses Photoshop, then how could she distinguish between a good photographer and a good graphic artist?

Please don't answer this question. It'll never end.

Jerry: Find a photographer that is computer illiterate? hehehe.

@ Jerry Tieng - Bro., at this point in time, since competition is really stiff... One has to be both! :)

I use photoshop for art. :)

even though its a perfect exposure and framing still there are things needed to be edited...with a little sharpening, adding contrast...and so on.

i'm starting to think this way,, i can always improve an image thru the use of PS,, hehehe unless of course i'm a really bad photographer:D

@ Jerry Tieng - Bro., at this point in time, since competition is really stiff... One has to be both! :)
i think once you manipulated your image in any form sharpening, contrasts etc.. you are considered as a graphic artist. Lets face it digital photographers are a blend of a photographer with a bit or sometimes a lot of a graphic artist.

*Yeah i know a lot of us would resent that.

90% of the images here in DPP goes thru photoshop. true or not?

90% of the images here in DPP goes thru photoshop. true or not?

most probably, except if more than 10% of those who posted their images do not have access to photoshop.

Only 10% of my photos go through Photoshop....... the rest through Capture NX =) But 95% of my Photos are tweaked globally.

=)

Batch process in Capture then all goes to Photoshop for cropping, adjustment and sharpening... :)

hi sirs, first post here! :Grin: I've been learning a lot in the sidelines just reading some threads (already bought a Canon 400D with 50mm 1.8 instead of the kit, and bought 28-135mm for my walkaround lens) and now I need to ask some questions I haven't found out yet :)

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)

- is having a fast lens (1.2 - 1.8) usable? what I mean is in what kind of scenario would that be? I was wondering about this because when in low light, usually use a wide aperture and up the ISO. But when you use like 1.8, it gets blurry because of you DOF. I am considering getting a fast prime lens (why? as one of the forumers said so, it's addictive :Shock:)

Thanks in advance!

« Report on Reuters actions after publishing altered photographs (http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/report-on-reuters-actions-after-publishing-altered-photographs/)
A brief guide to Reuters values and standards (http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/a-brief-guide-to-reuters-values-and-standards/) »

The use of Photoshop (http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/)

January 18th, 2007, filed by David Schlesinger http://blogs.reuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/david-schlesinger%202.thumbnail.jpgPhotoshop is a highly sophisticated image manipulation programme. We use only a tiny part of its potential capability to format our pictures, crop and size them and balance the tone and colour.
Materially altering a picture in Photoshop or any other image editing software will lead to dismissal.

THE RULES ARE:
• No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)

• No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image.
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)

• No excessive colour manipulation.
(thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)

THE GUIDELINES ARE:
• Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field.
(Especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens. This typically entails lightening/darkening, sharpening, removal
of dust and basic colour correction.

• When working under prime conditions, some further minor Photo-shopping (performed within the above rules) is acceptable.
This includes basic colour correction, subtle lightening/darkening of zones, sharpening, removal of dust and other minor adjustments that fall within the above rules. Reuters recommendations on the technical settings for these adjustments appear below. The level of Photoshop privileges granted to photographers should be at the discretion of the Chief/Senior Photographers within the above guidelines. All photographers should understand the limitations of their laptop screens and their working environments.
Photographers should trust the regional and global pictures desks to carry out the basic functions to prepare their images for the wire. All EiCs and sub editors from regional and the global desks will be trained in the use of Photoshop by qualified Adobe trainers to a standard set by senior pictures staff. The photographer can always make recommendations via the Duty Editor. Ask the desk to lighten the face, darken the left side, lift the shadows etc. Good communication with the desk is essential.

TECHNICAL GUIDELINES:

Cloning, Healing or Brush Tools are not to be used. The single exception to this rule is sensor dust removal. The cloning tool will only be used below the 100 pixels radius setting. Unless performed on a well-calibrated screen under good working conditions we strongly recommend photographers to request dust removal by pictures desks.

Saturation should not be used. It affects image quality and cannot be judged well on a laptop screen and adds nothing more than what can be achieved in levels.
Colour Balance adjustment should be kept to the minimum, especially on laptop
screens which tend to have a blue dominance.

Levels should only be adjusted to the start points of the histogram graph on both shadows and highlights.

Auto Levels should not be used.

The Burn Tool in most cases should only used to subtly darken areas that have been overexposed. When the burn tool is used in shadows a visible element of everything that can be seen in the raw file must remain visible.

Highlights and Shadows can be toned by using the selective highlights tool, a feather of 25-30 and then adjusted in curves.

The Lasso Tool should not be used when using a laptop to file pictures. It is essential that great care is taken with this tool to avoid the ‘halo’ effect which is produced when the feathering is too great and the tonal change ‘bleeds over’ into the unselected zone. Likewise, not enough feathering will produce a vivid jagged edge to the lasso area. Typically a feathering setting of between 5 and 20 pixels is used, depending on the size and positioning of the zone. Again we strongly recommend this is handled by desks.

The Eye Dropper can be used on a neutral gray area to set colour. But is dependent on the quality of the computer screen to determine if you are in fact seeing a real gray!
Sharpening should be set at zero (0) in the camera. Pictures may then be sharpened by 300% at a radius of 0.3, threshold 0, in Photoshop.

No selective area sharpening should be done.

Third-party Sharpening Plug-ins is not permitted.

Third-party Noise-Reduction Plug-ins should be avoided but are acceptable if Chief Photographers are convinced they are being used properly.

Camera Settings, in particular saturation (and Image Styles in the Canon 5D)
should be set to “standard” with the exception of in-camera sharpening which
should be turned OFF. The Color setting Adobe RGB is the Reuters standard.

Multiple-Exposure pictures must be clearly identified in the caption and drawn to the attention of pictures desks before transmission.

To Recap:

ALLOWED:

• Cropping
• Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
• Minor colour correction
• Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
• Careful use of lasso tool
• Subtle use of burn tool
• Adjustment of highlights and shadows
• Eye dropper to check/set gray



NOT ALLOWED:


• Additions or deletions to image
• Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
• Airbrush, brush, paint
• Selective area sharpening
• Excessive lightening/darkening
• Excessive colour tone change
• Auto levels
• Blurring
• Eraser tool
• Quick Mask
• In-camera sharpening
• In-camera saturation styles

The above list is not exhaustive. Duty editors will be available to answer any questions on use of other functions not mentioned above including latest CS2 and upcoming CS3 functions.


SET-UPS/STAGING OF PICTURES


Reuters photographers, staff and freelance, must not stage or re-enact news events. They may not direct the subjects of their images or add, remove or move objects on a news assignment. Our news photography must depict reality. Any attempt to alter that reality constitutes fabrication and can lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal.


Photographers may direct the subjects of portraits, formal interviews and non-news feature images needed to illustrate a story. The caption must not mislead the reader into believing these images are spontaneous.
The presence of the media can often influence how subjects behave. When the behavior shown is the result of the media’s presence, our captions must make that clear. If photographers from outside Reuters orchestrate or set up scenes, it is still a set-up.



The best news photography occurs when the presence of the camera is not noticeable. Photographers should be as unobtrusive as possible to avoid influencing events and consider using long lenses.


Composite images that show the progression of an event (e.g. lunar eclipse, time lapse) must indicate the technique in their captions. They are never acceptable in a news assignment. Captions must also make clear when a specialty lens (e.g. lens babies, tilt-shift lenses) or a special technique (e.g. soft focus, zooming) has been used to create an image in portraiture or on a features assignment.


Handout images from outside sources should be examined carefully for accuracy and news value. Questionable handout images will be reviewed by the Duty Editor in Charge, whose decision is final on whether they are published. Photographers or Editors who pass on handout images must alert the Duty EIC if the image is suspect.


ACCURACY IN CAPTIONS:


Just as our news photographs must reflect reality, so too should our captions. They must adhere to the basic Reuters rules of accuracy and freedom from bias and must answer the basic questions of good journalism. Who is in the picture? Where was it taken? When was it taken? What does it show? Why is a subject doing a particular thing?


Captions are written in the present tense and should use concise, simple English. They generally consist of a single sentence but a second sentence should be added if additional context or explanation is required.
Contentious information, like death tolls in conflict, must be sourced. The caption must explain the circumstances in which a photograph was taken and state the correct date.


Captions must not contain assumptions by the photographer about what might have happened, even when a situation seems likely. Explain only what you have witnessed. All other information about an event must be sourced unless you are certain of your information.


Captions also should not make assumptions about what a person is thinking e.g. England captain David Beckham ponders his future after his team was knocked out of the World Cup soccer finals … Stick to what the photo shows and what you know.



The Duty Editor-in-Charge will come back to the photographer or the Chief Photographer with questions if the caption does not fully explain the image. For this reason, photographers must remain contactable until their work is published.

SET-UPS/STAGING OF PICTURES


Reuters photographers, staff and freelance, must not stage or re-enact news events. They may not direct the subjects of their images or add, remove or move objects on a news assignment. Our news photography must depict reality. Any attempt to alter that reality constitutes fabrication and can lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal.


Photographers may direct the subjects of portraits, formal interviews and non-news feature images needed to illustrate a story. The caption must not mislead the reader into believing these images are spontaneous.
The presence of the media can often influence how subjects behave. When the behavior shown is the result of the media’s presence, our captions must make that clear. If photographers from outside Reuters orchestrate or set up scenes, it is still a set-up.



The best news photography occurs when the presence of the camera is not noticeable. Photographers should be as unobtrusive as possible to avoid influencing events and consider using long lenses.


Composite images that show the progression of an event (e.g. lunar eclipse, time lapse) must indicate the technique in their captions. They are never acceptable in a news assignment. Captions must also make clear when a specialty lens (e.g. lens babies, tilt-shift lenses) or a special technique (e.g. soft focus, zooming) has been used to create an image in portraiture or on a features assignment.


Handout images from outside sources should be examined carefully for accuracy and news value. Questionable handout images will be reviewed by the Duty Editor in Charge, whose decision is final on whether they are published. Photographers or Editors who pass on handout images must alert the Duty EIC if the image is suspect.


ACCURACY IN CAPTIONS:


Just as our news photographs must reflect reality, so too should our captions. They must adhere to the basic Reuters rules of accuracy and freedom from bias and must answer the basic questions of good journalism. Who is in the picture? Where was it taken? When was it taken? What does it show? Why is a subject doing a particular thing?


Captions are written in the present tense and should use concise, simple English. They generally consist of a single sentence but a second sentence should be added if additional context or explanation is required.
Contentious information, like death tolls in conflict, must be sourced. The caption must explain the circumstances in which a photograph was taken and state the correct date.


Captions must not contain assumptions by the photographer about what might have happened, even when a situation seems likely. Explain only what you have witnessed. All other information about an event must be sourced unless you are certain of your information.


Captions also should not make assumptions about what a person is thinking e.g. England captain David Beckham ponders his future after his team was knocked out of the World Cup soccer finals … Stick to what the photo shows and what you know.



The Duty Editor-in-Charge will come back to the photographer or the Chief Photographer with questions if the caption does not fully explain the image. For this reason, photographers must remain contactable until their work is published.


SENSITIVE IMAGES IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS:


Some of our photographs are taken under controlled conditions in which photographers cannot operate freely. This is particularly true during conflicts and in countries where the media’s movements are restricted.
Such photographs must say if the image was taken during an organised or escorted visit unless the photographer was truly free to work independently. The circumstances can usually be indicated in a short, second sentence in the caption. For examples, please see Appendix ‘A’ of the complete Guide to Caption-Writing for Reuters.


PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES:


Reuters does not stage news photos. Sometimes, subjects may strike an artificial pose, such as at a product launch, a show business event or a sports victory ceremony or when requested to do so to illustrate a feature. In some circumstances, such as during demonstrations, civil unrest, street celebrations or conflict, the presence of photographers and television crews may prompt subjects to act abnormally.


These images should be few and can be clichés. They must be clearly captioned to show the reader that the actions are not spontaneous and to explain the context. There are many ways to describe the situation without saying that the subject “poses” for a photograph, though we should say so when it is clearly the case.

See below a selection of examples. For a more complete set, with pictures, please see Appendix ‘F’ of the complete Guide to Caption Writing for Reuters.
The Global Pictures Desk will flag any possible issues to the Chief Photographer who carries the responsibility for the file from the region in question.
Caption examples:


An employee of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd shows the media the company’s new 32-Gigabit NAND flash memory card (top) and chip during a news conference in Seoul September 11, 2006. Samsung said it has developed the world’s first 32-Gigabit NAND flash memory devices. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon (SOUTH KOREA)


Actress Helen Mirren poses with the Coppa Volpi at the Venice Film Festival September 9, 2006. Mirren won the Best Actress award for her role in director Stephen Frears’ movie ‘The Queen’. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (ITALY)


A man lies dead in the street May 7 after a NATO daylight air raid near a market over the town of Nis some 200 kilometres south of Belgrade. The Yugoslav army took media to show them damage it said the raid caused to two residential areas and a hospital. REUTERS/Desmond Boylan


Nobel Peace prize winner Wangari Maathai hugs a tree for photographers in Nairobi October 9, 2004. Maathai, a Kenyan, became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the first Nobel given to an environmentalist. REUTERS/Radu Sigheti


A Mexican soccer fan wearing a traditional sombrero waves his country’s flag at a photographer before a Copa America quarterfinal match against Brazil at Miguel Grau stadium in Piura, July 18, 2004. REUTERS/Henry Romero
David Schlesinger is Reuters Editor-in-Chief

Cropping is not cheating for me. It's part of post processing.

I crop to off-center my subject because I focus using the center point. focusing off-center with a wide aperture sometimes takes longer and so I center the subject rather than losing the shot altogether. So to answer your question, no it's not cheating...IMHO.

hi adam. same with sir armand, cropping is ok for me. it's what we can use to take advantage of the excess megapixels in our cameras:)

<snip>Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe<snip>

That's the keywords right there. If you feel like it then it is.

depends if you cropped the image and changed the meaning of the image

ex. an image with cat being chased by a dog, you cropped the dog so the image bcomes a cat just running

That's the keywords right there. If you feel like it then it is.

personally, i don't feel that cropping is cheating. or post processing, for that matter. but like red said, if you feel you're cheating, then it's between you and your photos. :Grin:

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

The less you do it, the better you'll be in photography. However, most people don't consider this cheating. It's when you delete something inside the picture or put something that wasn't there that is cheating. When you share your pictures with others, you have an ethical obligation to your audience that when you show is the real thing, not a manipulated image.

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)I like available lighting myself. Why not experiment with the light near your windows? You can then use home-made reflectors to bounce the light.

- is having a fast lens (1.2 - 1.8) usable? what I mean is in what kind of scenario would that be? I was wondering about this because when in low light, usually use a wide aperture and up the ISO. But when you use like 1.8, it gets blurry because of you DOF. I am considering getting a fast prime lens (why? as one of the forumers said so, it's addictive :Shock:)You can always stop down (close the aperture) your lens if the shallow depth of field bothers you. Don't you have a fast prime already (the 50/1.8)? I think that's enough to get you started. If you can't take a good picture with that, you won't take a good picture with any lens.

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)

you can always start with an external flash! =)

By blurry, i assume you mean the Depth-of-Field and not camera shake?

If you want your photos to be less blurry, you can always use a smaller aperture, but if it is camera shake, then the rule of thumb is to use the reciprocal of your focal length as the shutter speed.. i.e. if your using 50mm F/1.8 then for you to avoid camera shake, your shutter speed must not be less than 1/50sec.. =)

Of course as much as possible you'd want to frame your photo just right during shoots so as to reduce the post processing time. But cropping is just one of your many techniques to improve the composition. If it makes the photo improve, why not, right? :D

Thanks David! Very useful read!

The less you do it, the better you'll be in photography. However, most people don't consider this cheating. It's when you delete something inside the picture or put something that wasn't there that is cheating. When you share your pictures with others, you have an ethical obligation to your audience that when you show is the real thing, not a manipulated image.



Hhhhmmmm... How different is it to crop the image when taking the shot (aka zooming on the object) vs. cropping it on Photoshop or some post-processing tool?

I would DISAGREE with the ethical obligation thing. Unless you are a photojournalist trying to show the real situation in certain conflict, that this would be a valid statement. But of course its not applicable in many fields of photography where aesthetics is the most important aspect.

I would not feel bad if I crop out a tree obstructing a beautiful panoramic scene. Its not wrong to edit someone's blemishes out of the photo using Photoshop as long as its done in a "not-so-obvious" manner. If your photo still looks almost like the same in real life but only better, then you have done a great job!!! :)

I think the operating principle here is: "try to get the best image as much as possible both during the photo-taking itself and post-processing." Just keep on making great images, and never mind the "you cheated..." comments. :)

+ 1 with what Melvin said :)

Very interesting... I think the guidelines are quite thorough and concise.

Thanks for sharing the guidelines David...very informative...

I also agree with Melvin.

just to add, cropping is a tool that can emphasize your subject. Take for example Che Guevara's popular picture... From what I know, it wasn't shot close-up. When it was cropped just to show his head / face, it became more dramatic.

hi sirs, first post here! :Grin: I've been learning a lot in the sidelines just reading some threads (already bought a Canon 400D with 50mm 1.8 instead of the kit, and bought 28-135mm for my walkaround lens) and now I need to ask some questions I haven't found out yet :)

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)

- is having a fast lens (1.2 - 1.8) usable? what I mean is in what kind of scenario would that be? I was wondering about this because when in low light, usually use a wide aperture and up the ISO. But when you use like 1.8, it gets blurry because of you DOF. I am considering getting a fast prime lens (why? as one of the forumers said so, it's addictive :Shock:)

Thanks in advance!

Actually, you're not cheating when you're cropping your just adding a different perspective to the shot you've taken...:)

For a canon user i suggest you get the 24-70 2.8...a really good lens...worth every cent of your investment...:)

Hhhhmmmm... How different is it to crop the image when taking the shot (aka zooming on the object) vs. cropping it on Photoshop or some post-processing tool?There's a small but important difference between these two actions. When you crop in Photoshop, that almost always means you didn't like your composition. Better photographers crop less because they compose better before they take their photo. At any rate, I don't consider cropping cheating.

I would DISAGREE with the ethical obligation thing. Unless you are a photojournalist trying to show the real situation in certain conflict, that this would be a valid statement. But of course its not applicable in many fields of photography where aesthetics is the most important aspect.

I would not feel bad if I crop out a tree obstructing a beautiful panoramic scene. Its not wrong to edit someone's blemishes out of the photo using Photoshop as long as its done in a "not-so-obvious" manner. If your photo still looks like almost the same in real life but only better, then you have done a great job!!!There are exceptions of course. I don't object to cropping as I've said above.

When you edit out blemishes from a photo, you're almost invariably doing it for a client, who approves of it of course. But you're still not out of the woods yet. There are many ethical debates going on right now about magazines using heavily edited photos of celebrities on their covers.

Again, I don't think aesthetics come first before integrity in presenting photography. If a manipulated image does not deceive (meaning it is obvious that it is a manipulated image) then I have to objections to it. We're free to do what we want with our images after all. It's when the image is deceptive that I object.

I think the operating principle here is: "try to get the best image as much as possible both during the photo-taking itself and post-processing." Just keep on making great images, and never mind the "you cheated..." comments.In other words, you can always edit your photos to make others believe that you're a great photographer when the truth is you're just a hack who've read a few Photoshop tricks on the Internet? (This is a rhetorical statement; I don't mean you personally.)

Now, where did I place my popcorn and suman?

interesting to read but, whats the use of photoshop for photographers if we have so much limitations. i think most of us here use the tools mentioned above to achieve our imaginations. so many to say... anyway its an interesting topic.

Oh this is so nice!:) :)

We have lots of Filipino photographer icons around, if you see their works, you will probably say...they have violated the use of photoshop.

We have lots of Filipino photographer icons around, if you see their works, you will probably say...they have violated the use of photoshop.

Icons ha.....icons ha.......LOL! LOL!:D:D:D:D

for reuters photographers, freelance and staff only...

Better photographers crop less because they compose better before they take their photo.

I agree... but I also think that the better photographer might see an opportunity to make his/her photo better by cropping.

Now, where did I place my popcorn and suman?

enge ha! :D

for reuters photographers, freelance and staff only...

....and all other PHOTOGRAPHERS outside the realm of graphics artists.

...and great artists. :D

There's a small but important difference between these two actions. When you crop in Photoshop, that almost always means you didn't like your composition. Better photographers crop less because they compose better before they take their photo. At any rate, I don't consider cropping cheating.

There are exceptions of course. I don't object to cropping as I've said above.

When you edit out blemishes from a photo, you're almost invariably doing it for a client, who approves of it of course. But you're still not out of the woods yet. There are many ethical debates going on right now about magazines using heavily edited photos of celebrities on their covers.

Again, I don't think aesthetics come first before integrity in presenting photography. If a manipulated image does not deceive (meaning it is obvious that it is a manipulated image) then I have to objections to it. We're free to do what we want with our images after all. It's when the image is deceptive that I object.

In other words, you can always edit your photos to make others believe that you're a great photographer when the truth is you're just a hack who've read a few Photoshop tricks on the Internet? (This is a rhetorical statement; I don't mean you personally.)

Don't worry, I know a rhetoric when I read one... :)

Interesting views... I understand your point about doing the composition right the first time around (during the actual photoshoot). However, do we actually leave a potentially good photo alone just to say "i didn't photoshop it"? What if you have a good composition, the only problem is that one of your stagehand's foot/leg was caught in the frame? Forget about the photo, blame yourself, and redo the shoot?

About the ethical debates of magazine's post processing of celeb photos: again, we try to understand the intent here. Magazines like Vanity Fair (note the name) or Cosmpolitan try to sell beauty. Beauty products, beauty tips, stories of beautiful people, etc. Whats the point of putting a wrinkled/blemished Nicole Kidman on the cover?

I think "truth in photography" is over-rated. Integrity over aesthetics? Hhhhhmmm... So are we saying ALL Fashion photographers have flexible integrities? Then ManRay is probably the most unethical person in the world... :) I really don't see the point of putting photography in a box just to say "i'm all about the truth".

Mediocre photographer, good photoshopper debate? If he's really that a good photoshop hack and you can't tell the difference, and you like the image, so what??? :)
PS: Last statement is also rhetorical, and I didn't also mean "you" personally... :)

picture makers! :D

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

Cropping isn't exactly cheating unless you're a professional working as a photojournalist, in which case accuracy is of the utmost importance. For everyone else, its one of the better tools available to us in this digital age. Its still good practice to minimize post processing pics, and trying your best to get them right on the actual shot itself.

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)

If you were shooting with Nikon, you'd have a fun time with their camera flashes. Other than that, check out the studio packages being sold by Aperture. They have small and affordable sets that you can use at home.

- is having a fast lens (1.2 - 1.8) usable? what I mean is in what kind of scenario would that be? I was wondering about this because when in low light, usually use a wide aperture and up the ISO. But when you use like 1.8, it gets blurry because of you DOF. I am considering getting a fast prime lens (why? as one of the forumers said so, it's addictive :Shock:)

You've pretty much got it right. Some people are so obsessed with the wide aperture "fast" lenses, they fail to realize that the shallow DOF isn't always a good thing to have. Besides, using an incident light meter on indoor flourescent lighting will probably give you a reading of f/1.4 when shooting 1/30 at ISO 800. So even with the fastest of lenses, you'd be pushing its limits already. The good thing is that most primes are very much sharper compared to zoom lenses. My advice is to get a nice flash and learn to use it properly. Many people who insist that shooting in ambient light is better just haven't really figured out how to use their flash properly. In instances wherein you have no choice but to shoot with available light though, try to use some floodlights to add illumination to the area where you'd be shooting.

It's starting out to be a very good read gentlemen. I just hope it stays that way :)



<snip>
Mediocre photographer, good photoshopper debate? If he's really that a good photoshop hack and you can't tell the difference<snip>


</loud thoughts>
A very solid point.
What if the person is really good and you don't know about it, would it still be a cheat? You'll only ask for the truth if you think or feel there is a lie.
"Just because you do not know, does not mean it did not happen"
Really - if you do not know and will never know, did it really happen?
</loud thoughts>

/me sits on me lazyboy. Pondering.

Today 05:08 PM] Nick_Espino (http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/member.php?u=1385):
cropping is an abomination in the eyes of the god!

Today 05:08 PM] Nick_Espino (http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/member.php?u=1385):
cropping is an abomination in the eyes of the god!


Right on, brother.

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Natawa ako dun ah! :)

quote for tonight?

Today 05:08 PM] Nick_Espino (http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/member.php?u=1385):
cropping is an abomination in the eyes of the god!

Today 05:08 PM] Nick_Espino (http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/member.php?u=1385):
cropping is an abomination in the eyes of the god!

ditto! :):):)

Nice, the guidlines are really straight to point. Well, in my opinion, this topic really goes to all photographers. Not only to the staff of Reuters. hehe. This guidline really helps to keep photography to its real quality. Photoshop nowadays really helps a lot. Thanks for sharing sir!

Good points Melvin.

Mediocre photographer, good photoshopper debate? If he's really that a good photoshop hack and you can't tell the difference, and you like the image, so what???Up to now we've been debating theories. Let's cite a concrete example from DPP's own gallery.

The image below was posted on the "Architecture, Cityscape, Landscape and Travel" section of the DPP gallery (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=3453) without caption and it is watermarked "Photography", implying that it is an actual photo of the sea. Judging from most of the comments, people liked it and they thought it's a real photo. The only problem is it's fake (as far as I can tell).

This doesn't bother you?

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/data/501/My_Sunset_Dolphin.jpg

nice, thanks for sharing this...guess this will now be the norm:)

I've got popcorn and BEER! :D:D

The image below was posted on the "Architecture, Cityscape, Landscape and Travel" section of the DPP gallery (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=3453) without caption and it is watermarked "Photography", implying that it is an actual photo of the sea.

...the watermark is actually parcphotography.

I've got popcorn and BEER! :D:D


I'll get da tsismiss :D:D:D

[QUOTE=George Reyes;226061 implying that it is an actual photo of the sea.

[/QUOTE]

Wait, that's not a real sea?

running downstairs to get a can of vienna sausage with easy to open lid and a can of pepsi.

nice topic, can't wait to hear both sides.:)

cropping is to remove the upper or outer parts of the photo as you are talking about here

but for me it doesn't mean cheating
cheating is to practice fraud or trickery, to violate rules dishonestly

so,
cropping is not equal to cheating
they both have different meanings
:D:D:D

just showered....tapos na ba? Did i miss anything? :RedEye::Dum::BlackEye::Shock:

well its from Reuters, so its a guideline for PJ, which is just a branch of photography.

But its just the way i like mine done.

cropping for me is not cheating...
cheating for me is adding something... and trying to get away with it...:D:D

Good points Melvin.

Up to now we've been debating theories. Let's cite a concrete example from DPP's own gallery.

The image below was posted on the "Architecture, Cityscape, Landscape and Travel" section of the DPP gallery (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=3453) without caption and it is watermarked "Photography", implying that it is an actual photo of the sea. Judging from most of the comments, people liked it and they thought it's a real photo. The only problem is it's fake (as far as I can tell).

This doesn't bother you?

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/data/501/My_Sunset_Dolphin.jpg


Honestly, NO... Why? Does it affect how history will be recorded? Was it published on National Geographic saying that there are dolphins, say in Manila bay? Is the picture purely for aesthethics or for documentary purposes???

Lets put it this way. When I pick up a copy of DPP, Vanity Fair, FHM, etc., Do I...
- Know the Photos have been manipulated in one way or another? = YES!
- Give a rat$ a$$ if these photos have been photoshopped? = NO!
- Do I like it? = YES!
So, what's the problem????

Try to publish your own magazine, where on the front cover the model's blemishes/wrinkles were not photoshopped out. Where the skin has not been airbrushed. No lavish make-up. Just relaying on good old photography, using a softbox, a sinar and good ole pro techniques. Let's see if any celebrity will take this challenge and pose for your magazine. Moreover, any consumer/reader looking for IDEA of beauty who would even buy that magazine.

On the other hand, lets go to Newsweek... 1 tank has been photoshopped/cloned to 100 to look as if there are 100tanks in some forsaken place in Baghdad. I would be deeply bothered. Why? Newsweek is all about facts (or at least 1 side of it); a part of history (or at least the unfinished version of it).

As a consumer/reader/viewer know what you're buying or reading. Are you buying fantasy or history???

Second, everything has a purpose. Just like truth has a purpose in photography. But photography is not limited to it....

Makes sense right? :)

I'll get da tsismiss :D:D:D

nyahahahahahaha!

*preps bean bag and puts popcorn in the microwave*

:D

... Btw, IF Parc submits this to National Geographic and got away with it... Then he's really that GOOD!!! :) :) :)

... Btw, IF Parc submits this to National Geographic and got away with it... Then he's really that GOOD!!! :) :) :)
nah, i dont think people in NG are that stupid! :D

nah, i dont think people in NG are that stupid! :D

----- Ditto! ------- :D

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe


Hi Adam,

Here's my 2 cents worth...

...whatever you do, if your intent is to deceive, you are surely cheating, no matter how you look at it...

...but if your intent is artistic or technical, e.g. like cropping your photos, then it is not cheating, it is simply part of your photographic expression, a concept similar to poetic license...just make sure you don't claim something that is not.

Remember, it is not the act that defines whether you are cheating or not, it is the intent.

Good luck.

bobby

"Remember, it is not the act that defines whether you are cheating or not, it is the intent."


Amen, brother. :)

Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

maybe you just take a chill pill and not take yourself too seriously...so what if you cropped the image? it doesn't make you less of a photographer and not cropping doesnt make more of a photographer

Well, it's Reuter's corporate policy, what they specified explicitly fits their standards, if any freelance photographer doesn't agree, then just don't submit their work to Reuters hehe.

Man, when I first read the topic (around 7PM) with no reply, I said to myself "I think most folks will just say "it's only cheating if you think it is..." kind of mindset, I didn't think it'll go this deep hehe.

Man, when I first read the topic (around 7PM) with no reply, I said to myself "I think most folks will just say "it's only cheating if you think it is..." kind of mindset, I didn't think it'll go this deep hehe.

ya some people are just way too serious in this forum.....................

@ david, thanx for sharing this info, a good example of a guidelines worthy to follow :-)

I just wonder where the following falls or how will they be defined:
- Lightroom's Sharpening (it has detail, amount, masking, etc).
- For Nikon, use of in-camera custom curves
- Red-eye remover
- Straightening tool
- Curves

Also, the Noise reduction guideline seems a bit gray area to me... hehehe... :)

Maybe Reuters can ask Adobe to make a "Reuters PJ" edition of Photoshop.

Seriously. You won't tempt your PJs if they don't have access to the applications features you don't want them to use.

As a practicing freelance photojournalist here is my personal take: It amount to ethics and professionalism. Journalists are there to record news, not MAKE them. People trust journalists to bring news as impartial as humanly possible.

On the news writing side there is Style Book that reporters have to abide by. So photographers are no different.

Photographers are mired in all kinds of pressure in the course of his daily routine, be it deadline, technical glitch, and remote location to mention a few.

The guideline basically instructs the photographers to stay as close to the truth. The guidelines are not too restrictive. It allows the photographer to adjust photos to get better details. In the film days, photo editor will not object to the darkroom man to over or under develop if the photographer has instructions accordingly. Technically, this is manipulation. So, in the digital age, a few manipulation of the image is allowed as specified by the Reuter’s guideline.

Extreme manipulation of images is akin to editorializing in reporting. When a reporter writes: President Juan de la Cruz was angry while delivering his SONA. Was he really angry? How does the reporter know this? But when the reporter writes; President de la Cruz bang his fist on the rostrum while delivering his SONA, he is reporting what the president did. Is the president angry? We do not know, but we know he bang his fist on the rostrum.

If you are not into photojournalism, and you like all the creative control available in Photoshop. Please do. Digital photography has made photography affordable and fun for a lot of people.

Just be aware when submitting your once in lifetime UFO photograph that was created in Photoshop, it will be under strict scrutiny when you submit it for consideration.

###

ALLOWED:

• Cropping
• Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
• Minor colour correction
• Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
• Careful use of lasso tool
• Subtle use of burn tool
• Adjustment of highlights and shadows
• Eye dropper to check/set gray



NOT ALLOWED:


• Additions or deletions to image
• Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
• Airbrush, brush, paint
• Selective area sharpening
• Excessive lightening/darkening
• Excessive colour tone change
• Auto levels
• Blurring
• Eraser tool
• Quick Mask
• In-camera sharpening
• In-camera saturation styles




So, I can see a lot of photojournalist wannabes fail to follow these guidelines...:)

Purists will love this... :)

Yay! not closed yet =)

It all boils down to rules and mindset.

About rules:

You can fu*k 'em rules and make the rules you obey your own.
But make sure that your playground is yours as well. If not, be prepared to reap a sh*tstorm.

'Bout mindset: cheating

You think therefore you are.

That's all there is to it. Really.

Yay! not closed yet =)

It all boils down to rules and mindset.

About rules:

You can fu*k 'em rules and make the rules you obey your own.
But make sure that your playground is yours as well. If not, be prepared to reap a sh*tstorm.

'Bout mindset:

You think therefore you are.

That's all there is to it. Really.

Well said ReD. :)

Anyway, just to add... Even before you can fuck'em rules... Of course you have to know the rules right!?! :)

Well said ReD. :)
Anyway, just to add... Even before you can fuck'em rules... Of course you have to know the rules right!?! :)

So true dre :) hehe.
How would one know what to throw away if one does not know what's garbage :)

OT: Long time no post tol ah :)

Purists will love this... :)

============================================

Sana ganito rin guidelines sa FPPF photo contests :Grin:

Bobby and Hochi, got that absolutely right...whatever suits my taste..

Honestly, NO... Why? Does it affect how history will be recorded? Was it published on National Geographic saying that there are dolphins, say in Manila bay? Is the picture purely for aesthethics or for documentary purposes???

History is not recorded by such big magazines as National Geographic alone. In this day of the Internet, and the oft-mentioned Web 2.0, people who post in forums and publish blogs will make valuable contributions to history. Your statement implies that to deceive a few people by putting your altered photo in forums or personal blog is acceptable as long as it is not published in major magazines like National Geographic. I don't agree with that.

Lets put it this way. When I pick up a copy of DPP, Vanity Fair, FHM, etc., Do I...
- Know the Photos have been manipulated in one way or another? = YES!
- Give a rat$ a$$ if these photos have been photoshopped? = NO!
- Do I like it? = YES!
So, what's the problem????Manipulating photos is the norm in the digital world. It happens the moment you import your digital files into Photoshop, and it happens when the photos are printed. However, there are limits as to which is acceptable and which is not even for magazines such as DPP or FHM. You seem to imply that there aren't.

As a consumer/reader/viewer know what you're buying or reading. Are you buying fantasy or history???I don't object to manipulated images, even those Photoshopped beyond recognition. When we read fashion magazines we know that the images are manipulated to sell the magazine or the products inside its covers (although a lot of people don't know this). On the other hand, we expect magazines like National Geographic and Time to present news at it is, and photos in their (mostly) unaltered form.

As a consumer, I pretty much know that what I'm reading or looking at is fantasy or not. But what about people like those who commented on the picture above who were fooled into thinking that what they're looking is the real thing? Is it their fault for not recognizing fantasy from reality? Or does the photographer have the responsibility to label his work properly so his audience will know what they're looking at?

Try to publish your own magazine, where on the front cover the model's blemishes/wrinkles were not photoshopped out. Where the skin has not been airbrushed. No lavish make-up. Just relaying on good old photography, using a softbox, a sinar and good ole pro techniques. Let's see if any celebrity will take this challenge and pose for your magazine. Moreover, any consumer/reader looking for IDEA of beauty who would even buy that magazine.You tell it like it's as simple as that. As much as their editors like to stress the fact that image manipulation in fashion magazines is the norm, there is the hidden implication that what is presented is actually grounded in reality. "Buy this makeup and you'll have a face like Kate Moss." "This dietary program will let you have a body like Gisele Budechen". If the model's legs were actually Photoshopped to look slimmer (or the breasts were enlarged), then there are questions to be asked. The general implication of this is that people start to have an idea of beauty that are presented to them as reality when in fact that beauty is out of reach, even for supermodels. (I rarely buy fashion magazines, and even then not for information but for the photography.)

Anyway, this area of photography is an endless mine for debate -- entire books could be written to cover the whole topic. Although we've only begun to scratch its surface, I appreciate the exchange of ideas with you about this.

+ 1 with what Melvin said :)Isn't it a coincidence that you agree 100% to what Melvin said? :)

Now, where did I place my popcorn and suman?I wish popcorn and suman were digital, not only can you make them taste better, you can also copy them and send them across the internet. :)

I agree... but I also think that the better photographer might see an opportunity to make his/her photo better by cropping.True.

I've got popcorn and BEER! :D:DWhich reminds me to get a six-pack from the store down the street. Summer in Japan and beer go together. :)

...the watermark is actually parcphotography.Is that another branch of photography, like "documentary" or "fashion photography"?

Wait, that's not a real sea?Now I'm starting to get confused, Nick. You be the judge. :)

ya some people are just way too serious in this forum.I think discussions like this is good for photographers in general, hochi. Fun and serious discussions should be balanced. :)

Isn't it a coincidence that you agree 100% to what Melvin said? :)

+1 one for you. :)

I have seen Melvin's work. I haven't seen yours...

For all we know, you could be a poser or a janitor with access to a internet cafe.

You want us to believe you, you better share some of your work online or else your just some shmo who can type.

Is that another branch of photography, like "documentary" or "fashion photography"?
Actually, PARC is a name and that photo is his work, hence parc photography. Very artistic and quite famous. :)

My take: Even before pushing the shutter button, the photographer "frames" a subject, and that in itself, is a kind of cropping. Therefore, cropping via photoshop or via the old manual method doesn't count as cheating. For me, photographs, even documentaries, should never be considered real in the strictest term. They are uber-real. They are a photographer's "expression of the real world". :)

Peace.

+1 one for you. :)

I have seen Melvin's work. I haven't seen yours...

For all we know, you could be a poser or a janitor with access to a internet cafe.

You want us to believe you, you better share some of your work online or else your just some shmo who can type.

Absolutely!!!!!!!!! He's all TALK:Scared:

History is not recorded by such big magazines as National Geographic alone. In this day of the Internet, and the oft-mentioned Web 2.0, people who post in forums and publish blogs will make valuable contributions to history. Your statement implies that to deceive a few people by putting your altered photo in forums or personal blog is acceptable as long as it is not published in major magazines like National Geographic. I don't agree with that.

Manipulating photos is the norm in the digital world. It happens the moment you import your digital files into Photoshop, and it happens when the photos are printed. However, there are limits as to which is acceptable and which is not even for magazines such as DPP or FHM. You seem to imply that there aren't.

I don't object to manipulated images, even those Photoshopped beyond recognition. When we read fashion magazines we know that the images are manipulated to sell the magazine or the products inside its covers (although a lot of people don't know this). On the other hand, we expect magazines like National Geographic and Time to present news at it is, and photos in their (mostly) unaltered form.

As a consumer, I pretty much know that what I'm reading or looking at is fantasy or not. But what about people like those who commented on the picture above who were fooled into thinking that what they're looking is the real thing? Is it their fault for not recognizing fantasy from reality? Or does the photographer have the responsibility to label his work properly so his audience will know what they're looking at?

You tell it like it's as simple as that. As much as their editors like to stress the fact that image manipulation in fashion magazines is the norm, there is the hidden implication that what is presented is actually grounded in reality. "Buy this makeup and you'll have a face like Kate Moss." "This dietary program will let you have a body like Gisele Budechen". If the model's legs were actually Photoshopped to look slimmer (or the breasts were enlarged), then there are questions to be asked. The general implication of this is that people start to have an idea of beauty that are presented to them as reality when in fact that beauty is out of reach, even for supermodels. (I rarely buy fashion magazines, and even then not for information but for the photography.)

Anyway, this area of photography is an endless mine for debate -- entire books could be written to cover the whole topic. Although we've only begun to scratch its surface, I appreciate the exchange of ideas with you about this.

Man, we are going beyond the topic... Not sure if we are already OT.

Anyway, it all boils down to responsibility:

Its the responsbility of mags like DPP, FHM, Vanity Fair, etc to make the models/celebs look as pretty as they are and yet make it so seamless.
Its the responsibility of news entities like Reuters, Newsweek, Time, etc., to publish the photos that have not been photoshopped to ensure accuracy and correctness.
Howabout digital artist to make photos either into a fantasy or a seamless photo that you can't tell if they have been manipulated. Why? Duh? Its their job!
Pro photographers? - Make the best image possible
So who's responsibility is it to filter which photos are accurate or not? No one else but YOU (except for minors who are their parents responsibility).At the end of the day, no one can tell you where you lay your eyes upon. And we leave it up to your brains (how honed they are) to spot which are fakes and which are not. Its also upto you how you react with that information (like everything there is in this world).

However, there are limits as to which is acceptable and which is not even for magazines such as DPP or FHM. You seem to imply that there aren't.
And what are these limits? Who set these limits? As far as I know, the only limits is in our individual eyes. If its too much, then its too much. And of course it varies from person to person. That's why we are individuals, man!!!

On the other hand, we expect magazines like National Geographic and Time to present news at it is, and photos in their (mostly) unaltered form.
Never Argued with you on this... Same point I have on previous posts.

If the model's legs were actually Photoshopped to look slimmer (or the breasts were enlarged), then there are questions to be asked. The general implication of this is that people start to have an idea of beauty that are presented to them as reality when in fact that beauty is out of reach, even for supermodels.
Last time I checked, Giselle's legs are still uber-delicious and using photoshop would just ruin them. Again, who's responsibility it is now???? (hint: see pt. #5)

History is not recorded by such big magazines as National Geographic alone. In this day of the Internet, and the oft-mentioned Web 2.0, people who post in forums and publish blogs will make valuable contributions to history. Your statement implies that to deceive a few people by putting your altered photo in forums or personal blog is acceptable as long as it is not published in major magazines like National Geographic. I don't agree with that.
I would avoid going to www.farcehistory.com (http://www.farcehistory.com) for my assignments. Again, why would you get info from unreliable sources in the internet. Also, forums might be a source, but your brain should tell you to x-check other sources. If people say here in the forum that Nikon is the greatest camera brand there is, won't I try to do my own research and go to www.kenrockwell.com (http://www.kenrockwell.com) ? (hehehe)

Have a nice day!!! :)

I have seen Melvin's work. I haven't seen yours...

For all we know, you could be a poser or a janitor with access to a internet cafe.I feel sorry for janitors who get no respect from dSLR-toting amateurs who take their photos, Photoshop them to death and present them as documentary. May we leave janitors out of this discussion?

Absolutely!!!!!!!!! He's all TALK:Scared:I'm humbled by your exquisite one-liners, John.

what about shadow/highlights? brings out more detail when i convert my photos in BW for news prints... i have heard stories where PJ's shout at protesters to hit policemen during riots... hehehe havent seen anyone out in the field doing so though... hehehe it would have been funny.. "suntokin mo!" (punch him!) "paluin mo ng patpat mo!" (hit him with ur stick!)

Absolutely!!!!!!!!! He's all TALK:Scared:

And where is your work?

u know i dont know why you guys are arguing but you guys will actually end up with the same conclusions eventually... its just that one guy here is being closed minded. i have to agree fully with melvin.

Quote from melvin:

Anyway, it all boils down to responsibility:
Its the responsbility of mags like DPP, FHM, Vanity Fair, etc to make the models/celebs look as pretty as they are and yet make it so seamless.
Its the responsibility of news entities like Reuters, Newsweek, Time, etc., to publish the photos that have not been photoshopped to ensure accuracy and correctness.
Howabout digital artist to make photos either into a fantasy or a seamless photo that you can't tell if they have been manipulated. Why? Duh? Its their job!
Pro photographers? - Make the best image possible
So who's responsibility is it to filter which photos are accurate or not? No one else but YOU (except for minors who are their parents responsibility).

George is correct in saying that if you SAY its a PHOTOGRAPH... then it better not BE A COMPOSITE IMAGE... or a digital work of art. i guess if someone called himself a traditional photographer... or a photojournalist... then he would have the responsibility of not doing anything deceiving to the image. but really... you cant say that this responsibility holds for everyone that uses a camera!

really george you are being IGNORANT... if you knew who PARC was... or at least GOOGLED UP HIS SITE... then you wouldnt assume that the dolphin thing was made to be DECEIVING... you'd know exactly what "parcphotography" means... yes just like what "nature photography" or "portrait photography" means

if i didnt know that the manila bulletin was a newspaper... could i assume that all the photographs in it are as it was when the shutter button was pressed??

really george... wake up... its 2007... i do animation and visual effects for the broadcast and film industries... film and photography is basically the same thing... i work to create DECEIVING stuff... but am i unethical?? hell no! because it is my responsibility to deceive!

what about shadow/highlights? brings out more detail when i convert my photos in BW for news prints... i have heard stories where PJ's shout at protesters to hit policemen during riots... hehehe havent seen anyone out in the field doing so though... hehehe it would have been funny.. "suntokin mo!" (punch him!) "paluin mo ng patpat mo!" (hit him with ur stick!)

You bring a good point. Why do you think press photographers have flash on all the time? Lack of shadow detail is our worst enemy. Bring em in with flash. Reuter's guideline allows adjusting shadows/highlights.

Dan T

I feel sorry for janitors who get no respect from dSLR-toting amateurs who take their photos, Photoshop them to death and present them as documentary. May we leave janitors out of this discussion?

Those long-winded replies of yours doesn't impress anyone without showing your work.

No pictures... You are still just a poser (or worse, a troll) to me.

+ 1 to Melvin

Anyway, it all boils down to responsibility:
Its the responsbility of mags like DPP, FHM, Vanity Fair, etc to make the models/celebs look as pretty as they are and yet make it so seamless.
Its the responsibility of news entities like Reuters, Newsweek, Time, etc., to publish the photos that have not been photoshopped to ensure accuracy and correctness.
Howabout digital artist to make photos either into a fantasy or a seamless photo that you can't tell if they have been manipulated. Why? Duh? Its their job!
Pro photographers? - Make the best image possible
So who's responsibility is it to filter which photos are accurate or not? No one else but YOU (except for minors who are their parents responsibility).At the end of the day, no one can tell you where you lay your eyes upon. And we leave it up to your brains (how honed they are) to spot which are fakes and which are not. Its also upto you how you react with that information (like everything there is in this world).

<--cropped-->
Good points, Melvin. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll let you have the last word on this. I'm off for now.

Those long-winded replies of yours doesn't impress anyone without showing your work. No pictures... You are still just a poser (or worse, a troll) to me.Nice try, dave, but that doesn't work. Bye for now.

Those long-winded replies of yours doesn't impress anyone without showing your work.

No pictures... You are still just a poser (or worse, a troll) to me.

+ 1 to Melvin
+1, Amen!...Totally agree here.....

If you want to prove something...then show something...Not always Talk the Talk, but you need to walk the walk.

POTATO CHIPS ,anyone?

George, if you don't like Parc Photography...Show us your George photography...Who knows you might be better? (Hmmm..)

Nice try, dave, but that doesn't work. Bye for now.

Bye poser!

Actually, PARC is a name and that photo is his work, hence parc photography. Very artistic and quite famous. :)

**scratches my head**:Dum:

Ngek! Asked to show his work....then he signs off...so much for balancing a fun debate?

**scratches my head**:Dum:
Hello Richmon. Have a nice clear day. :)

to argue or not I learned a lot on this thread, I hope the original pos. learned a lot too..
I believe it boils down to preference, just like the people who joins religious groups, they all have thier reason why they have joined.

If you think that cropping and other basic manipulation is considered cheating, you should think of a work around to become better.

@ Leandro I think there's a lot of new breed deciples, just like the one who you were talking about before n the other thread.:D ung naging best friend mo! hehe..

Hello Richmon. Have a nice clear day. :)

thanks! duh**:Dum::Dum::Dum:

hi sirs, first post here! :Grin: I've been learning a lot in the sidelines just reading some threads (already bought a Canon 400D with 50mm 1.8 instead of the kit, and bought 28-135mm for my walkaround lens) and now I need to ask some questions I haven't found out yet :)

- when I moved from point and shoot to SLR, I don't actually know about aperture and all of that stuff-- composition, exposure, etc. I was just happy clicking on and on and on hehehe... now, when I see some of my shots that's actually quite ok but one day I tried to experiment on rotating the pictures in an angle and cropping it, it looked better. Do you consider it cheating? Because it felt like I was cheating myself, hehehe

- I'm particuarly interested about lighting. Usually I shoot at available light since this is only my hobby, but then I want to experiment in my house. Any suggestions where to start? like a beginners' portable (if there is one) studio lighting that's kind of cheap? :)

- is having a fast lens (1.2 - 1.8) usable? what I mean is in what kind of scenario would that be? I was wondering about this because when in low light, usually use a wide aperture and up the ISO. But when you use like 1.8, it gets blurry because of you DOF. I am considering getting a fast prime lens (why? as one of the forumers said so, it's addictive :Shock:)

Thanks in advance!

Welcome to DPP Adam. Cropping is NOT cheating, I do it about 90% of the time. Looking forward to see your work. Enjoy and happy shooting.

Let's leave Parc out of this. Really.

@Adam: i hope you enjoy your stay here in DPP. i learn a lot form this forum and i'm (still) proud to be a part of it.

nope, cropping is not cheating (to me at least). its an advantage that Digital Photography gives us.

learn shooting with available light first. then you can move on to more advanced lighting. as for lighting systems that are cheap, try to get an external flash first.

i started shooting with a 50 f1.4. i had a lot of fun with it mostly because of its low-light capability. i feel that having fast lenses is a luxury. its more expensive than the other lenses.

whew! really enjoyed the show! almost like the famous mike punzalan vs DSLRs threads :)
thanks adam for starting the post, hehehe. btw, there's more to DPP than that. enjoy your stay :) one more thought about cropping: when u take a photo, you crop using the viewfinder. when u crop using photoshop, its just like taking a photo out of a photo, so everything else is still real, thus, no cheating :)

My goodness, chill guys... hehe.

Newbie questions always seem to stir up a battleground here these days hehe...

To Adam, the only way for you to not feel the guilt of cropping is to learn to frame your compositions more carefully before clicking the shutter. That's all there is to it, so keep shooting :)

Welcome nga pala... (BTW).

I wonder how they'll judge your in-cam sharpening settings as well, what if I'm using a P&S where the default sharpening exceeds most DSLR's higher setting when applied to JPEG...

Not that it affects me, though hehee

If your definition of Photography is trying (hopelessly) to capture reality, then all of photography is cheating. If your definition is photo (light) graph (draw), then it's not. For me, photography is art, not engineering. And as an artist i have the total freedom to go against the laws of gravity.

Again, on the topic for what's real photograph. Most here think that photography should be natural (read: no PP). We probably disagree on the definition of natural. The limitation of current sensor, processing, and display technology is NOT natural. Blown out highlights and extremely dark shadows is not natural. In photography as an art there's no right or wrong. To me, there is only fun and excitement.

Re, the right to comment or critique, everyone has the right to make a comment. Even a janitor can have an artistic eye. And you don't need to have published works before you can comment on a posted image or opinion. What if a great photographer from Africa (unknown to DPP members) makes an excellent comment/critique in his very first posts?


Cheers!
"I am what I am. Every word(s) i post here is strictly my own opinion"

agree! crop away guys! crop away!

If your definition of Photography is trying (hopelessly) to capture reality, then all of photography is cheating. If your definition is photo (light) graph (draw), then it's not. For me, photography is art, not engineering. And as an artist i have the total freedom to go against the laws of gravity.

Again, on the topic for what's real photograph. Most here think that photography should be natural (read: no PP). We probably disagree on the definition of natural. The limitation of current sensor, processing, and display technology is NOT natural. Blown out highlights and extremely dark shadows is not natural. In photography as an art there's no right or wrong. To me, there is only fun and excitement.

Re, the right to comment or critique, everyone has the right to make a comment. Even a janitor can have an artistic eye. And you don't need to have published works before you can comment on a posted image or opinion. What if a great photographer from Africa (unknown to DPP members) makes an excellent comment/critique in his very first posts?


Cheers!
"I am what I am. Every word(s) i post here is strictly my own opinion"

So which is the better crop, corn or rice?

Hehehe

Just trying to lighten you up guys. :D

So which is the better crop, corn or rice?

Hehehe

Just trying to lighten you up guys. :D


CORN!!!! that's it i'll start getting flamed by the rice nuthuggers :Scared:

Good points Melvin.

Up to now we've been debating theories. Let's cite a concrete example from DPP's own gallery.

The image below was posted on the "Architecture, Cityscape, Landscape and Travel" section of the DPP gallery (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=3453) without caption and it is watermarked "Photography", implying that it is an actual photo of the sea. Judging from most of the comments, people liked it and they thought it's a real photo. The only problem is it's fake (as far as I can tell).

This doesn't bother you?

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/data/501/My_Sunset_Dolphin.jpg



Oh my, you really have to pick one of Parc's huh? Is that how envious you are with the guy's talent that he's always in your mind whenever a question is asked in the forum? Man, that's pathetic....the guy is not here anymore, and you're still bashing his work? Are you too lazy to find photos which don't belong to him in the net to cite as an example?:BlackEye:

That's bad dude...I'm starting to think you're inlove with the guy...

@deo must be some sort HD hehehehe!

i agree... let see some george reyes photography here.

+1, Amen!...Totally agree here.....

If you want to prove something...then show something...Not always Talk the Talk, but you need to walk the walk.

POTATO CHIPS ,anyone?

George, if you don't like Parc Photography...Show us your George photography...Who knows you might be better? (Hmmm..)

+1 for you dave. :Grin:

Bye poser!

nah, i dont think people in NG are that stupid! :D

oh how about the other magazines that printed parc's work? i think DPP featured him last year, he also appeared in inquirer (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/sosy/sosy/view_article.php?article_id=54787), a dubai magazine and also canon philippines they got works from him too :)

Good points, Melvin. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll let you have the last word on this. I'm off for now.

Its all good... Just having a fruitful discussion....

We are left to our own opinions. Again, as the cliche goes: "I may not agree with what you said, but I would fight for your right to say it..." Naks!!! Hehehehe....

wow, that was kinda amusing :D

*buys more popcorn from the nearby mart*

:D

+1 to photoshop!

Corn is good. It can help people with constipation. :D

Sorry, i don't have any photo of corns.. but I promise, I am not a poser.

Hehehe

Maybe Nick should close this thread already... :D

CORN!!!! that's it i'll start getting flamed by the rice nuthuggers :Scared:

Good points Melvin.

Up to now we've been debating theories. Let's cite a concrete example from DPP's own gallery.

The image below was posted on the "Architecture, Cityscape, Landscape and Travel" section of the DPP gallery (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=3453) without caption and it is watermarked "Photography", implying that it is an actual photo of the sea. Judging from most of the comments, people liked it and they thought it's a real photo. The only problem is it's fake (as far as I can tell).

This doesn't bother you?

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/data/501/My_Sunset_Dolphin.jpg

http://www.bendinglightmag.com/Issue4/

hey look we found the same photo! but i found it in a different site that featured it! :Grin:

Whoa?!?!

Wouldn't have expected how deep this thread would go!

Interesting points raised, really! =) No can of worms, just pure debate! =b

I always say that there are 3 things in life that one should never argue about, Politics, Religion, Money and now CROPPING! =D Hahahahaha!

It's really all subjective, there's no right or wrong, just a moral objective to yourself as the photographer who captured that vista to make it as beautiful as possible regardless of cropping/photoshop etc... If you have fulfilled that obligation to your self, then one big kudos to the creator of that image (notice how i used "image" and not photography).

Call it artistic license and all that, it all boils down to preference and biases basically.. =)

To the thread starter,

hope you learned a thing or two in this thread! =) Enjoy your stay here in DPP! =D and don't forget to share your photos because this is what the forum was created for.. to share! =)

ask the question to DPP Philippines...they've featured PARC on their magazine.

show us some work of yours. and let us see if you're as good as PARC and see if you can be featured in the magazine too.
btw, shoot* some real dolphins and crop it tightly. :Grin:

Good points Melvin.


This doesn't bother you?

Is Parc some sort of a god around here? And is his work so sacred that one can't criticize his photos and not get the kind of vitriol that his followers so readily give people who ask questions?

I cited his work because it illustrates my point. If you think defending his work is the right thing to do, why not write something coherent, something that other forum members can learn from instead of resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant mumblings that don't contribute anything of value to the discussion?

**scratches my head**:Dum:
**did the same**:D:D

Is Parc some sort of a god around here? And is his work so sacred that one can't criticize his photos and not get the kind of vitriol that his followers so readily give people who ask questions?

I cited his work because it illustrates my point. If you think defending his work is the right thing to do, why not write something coherent, something that other forum members can learn from instead of resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant mumblings that don't contribute anything of value to the discussion?

AMEN! <ducks> :Scared:

AMEN! <ducks> :Scared:


Amen 2x!:D:D:D

From reading the past "discussions" on this forum (not only this thread) that somehow results to some sort of brawl online, it is now very easy to see (especially for non-Filipino readers of DPP) why people die in karaoke/videoke bars over the song "My Way".

Amen 2x!:D:D:D

ditto! :D:D

it's very simple. you just show us some of your work here. so, that we can have a level playing field. and then we'll give you a coherent answer that will add value to the discussion.

From reading the past "discussions" on this forum (not only this thread) that somehow results to some sort of brawl online, it is now very easy to see (especially for non-Filipino readers of DPP) why people die in karaoke/videoke bars over the song "My Way".


No, It isn't...I just can't stop laughing right now, thinking these guys actually sitting beside each other having a cup of coffee!:D:D:D


Now, Let's help save the Dolphins!:D:D


I can see most of them right now shooting side by side at the Photo Summit!:D:D:D

it's very simple. you just show us some of your work here. so, that we can have a level playing field. and then we'll give you a coherent answer that will add value to the discussion.


Tinio Eh! I Heart You!:D:D:D

Is Parc some sort of a god around here? And is his work so sacred that one can't criticize his photos and not get the kind of vitriol that his followers so readily give people who ask questions?

I cited his work because it illustrates my point. If you think defending his work is the right thing to do, why not write something coherent, something that other forum members can learn from instead of resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant mumblings that don't contribute anything of value to the discussion?


Oh, now you're taking about personal attacks...don't give me that " I cited his work because it illustrates my point." crap as we all know that there was another motive when you used his photo. Parc is not God, but he is a friend. This thread wasn't about Parc and yet you dragged his work in here where in fact, you could have used your own photo to illustrate your point. Any photo can be used to illustrate cropping and the likes, why use a photo of someone you and the others just finished bashing in a closed thread?

C'mon George, being in Japan doesn't make you a smarter person than us.

Now, what was this thread all about? :D

wow, that was kinda amusing :D

*buys more popcorn from the nearby mart*

:D

I'll get the Beer this time...:D:D:D

it's very simple. you just show us some of your work here. so, that we can have a level playing field. and then we'll give you a coherent answer that will add value to the discussion.

maybe george hasn't heard about TinioPedia :D

adam - welcome to DPP, it is not like this everytime (just a few guys who took 2 shots of espresso this morning)... just enjoy photography like everyone else. :)

now I am wondering what the moderators are doing about threads like these. it is like a 2nd 'heated thread' in the last few days by almost the same people (or at least one person).

Cheers!

No, It isn't...I just can't stop laughing right now, thinking these guys actually sitting beside each other having a cup of coffee!:D:D:D


Hope you are right!

now I am wondering what the moderators are doing about threads like these. it is like a 2nd 'heated thread' in the last few days by almost the same people (or at least one person).

Cheers!

there's nothing wrong with a good banter once in a while.. =) The points raised are quite informative actually as opposes to the other thread! =b

Hope you are right!


yes chelo, these guys have sophisticated minds that killing each other is not their agenda.:D


Save the Dolphins!:D


Moving on...:Grin:

there's nothing wrong with a good banter once in a while.. =) The points raised are quite informative actually as opposes to the other thread! =b

i actually thought it is a good discussion/echange of ideas... but it wouldn't hurt to see some moderator presence, most know what happened to the other thread... and we know this is going to heat up too... (that's why people are getting their popcorns and beer already).

cheers!

I think the moderators are all in the Photo Summit :)

I love DPP :)

+1 for you elmer ;)

i agree that moderators should at least watch closely the posts of certain people here especially if they invite hostility in the site with bigotry and malice in what they say... moreover with phrases that PROVOKE! (yeah, that's you!)

the previous thread about this got out of hand... and no one to put order in all the anarchy that there was - until nick came in the day after. maybe everyone's in the fray... seriously, not like this guys.

goerge, love that avatar. "cute" yet so evil and so fictitious... (reminds me of someone). ;)

+1 to me! :Grin::BlackEye:

I think the moderators are all in the Photo Summit :)

when the cat's away, the mouse will play... :D
+1 for you miguel

like what they say, "when it rains its four (http://yuan1025.multiply.com/journal/item/98/you_can_never_can_tell_-_part_1)"

Cheers mate!

oh how about the other magazines that printed parc's work? i think DPP featured him last year, he also appeared in inquirer (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/sosy/sosy/view_article.php?article_id=54787), a dubai magazine and also canon philippines they got works from him too :)
We are talking about REAL photos. What you see in National Geographic are REAL. Their photogs have skills, tons of patience and sometimes risking their own lives just to capture something that is REAL. REAL images, REAL photogs. not some digital artist.

Now, let's save the dolphins! :D:D:D

ok guys, just got back from the summit. i'm closing this one.

these are pretty extensive rules.. good thing i dont work for reuters... however, these rules teach you to get the job done right the first time..

Hi guys..! I never did to get a chance to reply on my start thread (cropping = cheating and all other stuff) because I had a week's vacation and went to boracay. Thanks for all those advices and welcomes (and unecessary debate, but it was fun reading it :Grin:)

ok, now I understand more, it's just that when you click the shutter on the framed subject, for me that's the original composition and that's what I need to learn and not spend more time cropping pictures to get the best composition, that's why I felt it was cheating :)

I can't buy some lighting equipments here, unless it's really, really portable. I will be migrating next week to NL, hence the new hobby and I'm addicted to it :)

Now that I just came from Boracay, I experimented with my cam for a bit :Grin: I noticed that having subjects at Boracay's very bright backdrop ruins my exposure on people. I tried to lock exposure on a darker area then shoot it at my subject, but now the background is kind of super bright already. I've tried shooting around F10-F18 and got the same result (Aperture Priority mode). How can I correct my exposure of this (other than flash, or there's no other way around?) Will try to post some pictures for reference. Thanks in advance again!

Even if you use AP at 10-18, the camera will automatically compensate with shutter speed - since you stopped down the aperture the shutter speed will go slower. If you are taking portrats againts a bright sky, you will have to use a fill flash I can't see anyway around it. For bright skies in general, you can use a CPL or a ND/GND to buffer againts the brightness.

Sometimes, you are physically unable to position yourself so you will have to crop your image - don't take yourself too seriously. No one will crucify you for cropping.

Adam, shooting against a strong backlight will result in two ways:

1. If you meter the face of the subject and use evaluative ( matrix in nikon? ) metering, you'll get a well exposed subject but overblown background;

2. If you spot meter, you'll have a good background exposure and an underexposed subject.

I would strongly suggest that you use a fill-in flash for such situations, or a reflector ( but you may need someone to hold it ) to at least bounce back some of the light to your subject. Here's a quick tip on how to do it:

1. For fill-in flash:
- Set your cam to TV
- set TV to max flash sync speed of your cam ( with my cam its 1/250 )
- meter the brightest part of the bckground
you will see the Av value at this point
- set your cam to manual mode
- copy the Av and Tv setting from your initial metering
- point flash at the subject
- shoot!

IMHO and HTH! ;)

God bless!

Deo P.

or you can also use a reflector.

adam,

you can use fill-in flash. get a good exposure for the background and use flash to illuminate your subject. (there's a great explanation above).

or, with a little help from photoshop, you can also expose for the background and use the shadow/highlight command to bring-out details in your back-lighted subject.

here are high contrast situations that i encountered in boracay. i exposed these knowing i would be tweaking them later in post-processing. i referred to my histogram largely to know how much i can push the exposure. these shots were done without the use of flash...

http://static.zooomr.com/images/3005071_0baa8a655b.jpg

http://static.zooomr.com/images/3005080_bf59e03980.jpg

i used evaluative metering and bracketed the exposure downwards. i just selected the exposure with the least blown highlights. just remember that a lot info/detail can still be extracted from shadow/dark areas as compared to recovering blown highlights.

hth! :)

jay, if with PS, should i select an area first to use the shadow/highlight on?

jay, if with PS, should i select an area first to use the shadow/highlight on?

sir hochi,

here's what i normally do....


better to duplicate the background layer
set this layer's opacity to 66%
apply the shadow/highlight command (the default 50 strength is almost always too much so i cut that immediately)
apply a layer mask (via the layer mask icon at the bottom of the layers palette)
select the mask and invert it (control-I) so the mask's color becomes black (assuming you are already working in default colors of white foreground and black background)
use a soft brush (0 hardness and 50-75% opacity) to reveal the areas that need the shadow lift / lightening.
you could further adjust the effect of the shadow/highlight command thru the layer's opacity.
flatten the image hth! :)

sir hochi,

here's what i normally do....
hth! :)

wow! thanks jay, will try it out soon!

thanks again and stop calling me sir

:)

Adam, shooting against a strong backlight will result in two ways:

1. If you meter the face of the subject and use evaluative ( matrix in nikon? ) metering, you'll get a well exposed subject but overblown background;

2. If you spot meter, you'll have a good background exposure and an underexposed subject.

I would strongly suggest that you use a fill-in flash for such situations, or a reflector ( but you may need someone to hold it ) to at least bounce back some of the light to your subject. Here's a quick tip on how to do it:

1. For fill-in flash:
- Set your cam to TV
- set TV to max flash sync speed of your cam ( with my cam its 1/250 )
- meter the brightest part of the bckground
you will see the Av value at this point
- set your cam to manual mode
- copy the Av and Tv setting from your initial metering
- point flash at the subject
- shoot!

IMHO and HTH! ;)

God bless!

Deo P.


I second this. The most basic is meter on the background and use fill flash for your subject. If UR using a Nikon this can be corrected by D-ligthing ( in-camera PP):)

Adam, shooting against a strong backlight will result in two ways:

1. If you meter the face of the subject and use evaluative ( matrix in nikon? ) metering, you'll get a well exposed subject but overblown background;

2. If you spot meter, you'll have a good background exposure and an underexposed subject.

I would strongly suggest that you use a fill-in flash for such situations, or a reflector ( but you may need someone to hold it ) to at least bounce back some of the light to your subject. Here's a quick tip on how to do it:

1. For fill-in flash:
- Set your cam to TV
- set TV to max flash sync speed of your cam ( with my cam its 1/250 )
- meter the brightest part of the bckground
you will see the Av value at this point
- set your cam to manual mode
- copy the Av and Tv setting from your initial metering
- point flash at the subject
- shoot!

IMHO and HTH! ;)

God bless!

Deo P.

So if you are in the beach area which is very bright, does this mean that the shutter speed will always be 1/250 ? Most of the time, 1/250 is not enough. How can we rectify this?

Thanks in advance.

So if you are in the beach area which is very bright, does this mean that the shutter speed will always be 1/250 ? Most of the time, 1/250 is not enough. How can we rectify this?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Cesar, it doesn't only apply to beach shots, but to other situations as well where a strong backlight is encountered. The 1/250 shutter speed is based on the camera's flash sync speed, which means if you shoot with a shutter speed more than your camera's flash sync speed and you used your flash, banding may be encountered.

That's the reason why you set the shutter speed at the maximum flash sync speed your camera is capable of when using fill-in flash, you just adjust the aperture value to expose the image properly. ;)

or you can also use a reflector.

Yep!! One of the most overlooked basic stuff. This simple thing really works it's wonders.

So if you are in the beach area which is very bright, does this mean that the shutter speed will always be 1/250 ? Most of the time, 1/250 is not enough. How can we rectify this?

Thanks in advance.

If 1/250 is still too bright, then appropriate adjust the aperture values. Usually, I use F/16 outside, however, it also depends on your lens (some lens are not good at this aperture, it starts to diffract).

So if you are in the beach area which is very bright, does this mean that the shutter speed will always be 1/250 ? Most of the time, 1/250 is not enough. How can we rectify this?

Thanks in advance.

that is the flash-sync speed of the camera, if you go higher than the sync speed - which for Deo is a at 1/250 (rebel series right Deo?), you will get this a black horizontal line/blur in your image

add to what Melvin said, a ND filter will help as well, I think.

that is the flash-sync speed of the camera, if you go higher than the sync speed - which for Deo is a at 1/250 (rebel series right Deo?), you will get this a black horizontal line/blur in your image


20D Hochi, was blessed with 2 in the last 2 months. ;) Long time no see ah.

I would suggest for the thread starter or even the others who are confused with the flash sync thingy to refer to your camera's manual and look for it so you'd be better enlightened on what it is. ;) It varies with camera brands eh. :)

Adam, shooting against a strong backlight will result in two ways:

1. If you meter the face of the subject and use evaluative ( matrix in nikon? ) metering, you'll get a well exposed subject but overblown background;

2. If you spot meter, you'll have a good background exposure and an underexposed subject.

I would strongly suggest that you use a fill-in flash for such situations, or a reflector ( but you may need someone to hold it ) to at least bounce back some of the light to your subject. Here's a quick tip on how to do it:

1. For fill-in flash:
- Set your cam to TV
- set TV to max flash sync speed of your cam ( with my cam its 1/250 )
- meter the brightest part of the bckground
you will see the Av value at this point
- set your cam to manual mode
- copy the Av and Tv setting from your initial metering
- point flash at the subject
- shoot!

IMHO and HTH! ;)

God bless!

Deo P.

Thanks Deo! hmmm... so I really need to buy a flash and a CPL :BlackEye: I was reading on Sony Alpha and there's a feature called "D-Range Optimizer" and wondered if it could be duplicated by technique and not by hardware:

The D-Range Optimizer function*1 accurately adjusts exposure balance when shooting under high contrast lighting and color conditions, such as with strong back-lighting. In Standard Mode, the D-Range Optimizer measures the brightness of the entire scene in real-time to determine the most appropriate exposure balance. In Advanced Mode*2, the D-Range Optimizer analyzes the image section by section and adjusts the brightness of each area individually to ensure your photo is as beautiful and balanced as the scene that inspired you.
*1 When shooting in M-Mode, in RAW or RAW+JPEG format, or with center?weighted or spot metering, this function is automatically off.
*2 The D-Range Optimizer Advanced Mode uses technology provided by Apcal, Ltd.Jay.. very nice shots, I'm hoping to produce one like that as I'll be living near a beach :)

Thanks for all your help!

So if you are in the beach area which is very bright, does this mean that the shutter speed will always be 1/250 ? Most of the time, 1/250 is not enough. How can we rectify this?

Thanks in advance.


I use an external flash to activate the "High-Speed Sync" which is normally limited to 1/250 on an internal flash. :) This is for Canon though...I'm not sure with other flash units.:Grin:


One scenario using a high-speed sync is when shooting a bright sunlight and at the same time taking proper exposure on your subject without blowing out the entire background...If you only have 1/250 shutter speed at F16, it still get you a blown highlight. What if I use a external Fill flash(canon) which is capable of High-speed sync...I'll be shooting away AV or TV mode without worrying of a blown background. Happy shooting!:)

from what i remember reading in an exposure book i have...

when the scene you are shooting is dominated by a bright area like SNOW, WHITE SAND or a WHITE WALL... your meter will think its too bright so it will underexpose... the trick therefore is to over expose your image (if you are using Aperture priority, shutter priority or program... that would mean using exposure compensation.. or if ur manual.. either slow the shutter speed down or use a larger aperture) ... set ur exposure compensation to as much as 1 or 2 stops high. that should compensate for the white sand/snow/wall tricking your meter into thinking that it's shooting something really bright.

correct me if i am wrong guys

http://shutterbug.com/refreshercourse/travel_tips/1204lesson/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/white_sands.shtml

"Keep in mind that shooting at White Sands is just like shooting in snow. This means that between 1 and 2 stops of plus exposure compensation is needed to avoid the sand coming out gray. For more on this see my tutorial on Exposing Snow."

i used evaluative metering and bracketed the exposure downwards. i just selected the exposure with the least blown highlights. just remember that a lot info/detail can still be extracted from shadow/dark areas as compared to recovering blown highlights.

hth! :)


Sir Jay,
Medyo OT. Have you tried HDR merge for high contrasts situations? Just curious. I always wanted to learn how its done but never get around to do it (plus , if im correct, only PS CS3 has this tool) Cheers.

Sir Jay,
Medyo OT. Have you tried HDR merge for high contrasts situations? Just curious. I always wanted to learn how its done but never get around to do it (plus , if im correct, only PS CS3 has this tool) Cheers.

Hey Rolando,

There are other standalone tone mapping softwares that does way better than Photoshop.. well.. CS2 at least. but you could do a search on photomatix and mediachance dynamic photo. these are the better ones that i know of.

Try searching around the forum, it's a wealth of knowledge! =)

20D Hochi, was blessed with 2 in the last 2 months. ;) Long time no see ah.


whohooo! twins!!! :Grin:

Hey Rolando,

There are other standalone tone mapping softwares that does way better than Photoshop.. well.. CS2 at least. but you could do a search on photomatix and mediachance dynamic photo. these are the better ones that i know of.

Try searching around the forum, it's a wealth of knowledge! =)


OK thanks. I will look into it.

Maybe we can start a thread posting pictures with the above guideline.

getting things right the first time? Why not? It will put our skills to the limit.

Let's bring it on.

As a Canon user I read this as no to Picture Styles except standard with settings toned down! hehe

I wonder what film they impose on photographers, though... Surely using velvia or provia is pretty similar to jacking your saturation and contrast up in cam...

If you ask me, I think those guidelines were formulated by somebody who obviously knows little about photography.

Cheers,
Norman

If you're using film, howabout pushing or pulling film? Or making print adjustments like dodging and burning?

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP in PHOTOGRAPHY???!!!!!!

Im just new in photography....actually i just bought my DSLR this December 2008......
Im just wondering if you guys do EDIT your photos in ADOBE PHOTOSHOP or you just post your taken photos as it is..........

Is ADOBE PHOTOSHOP a big NO!NO!!?????

Digital Photography and Photoshop is MFEO (made for each other) :D

My digital photos without Photoshop is a big No-No. :D

My digital photos without Photoshop is a big No-No. :D

I agree with Randy, with a strong caveat. The more the extensive the PS will only mean one thing; heavy PS would border your photo into a "graphic art" classification, more than a "photograph" per se.

Chances are, you'll need very minor PS on a properly done photograph. PS will not save an awfully taken photo. Just my take on the topic.

Most PROs in photography specially those whose works are published in magazines use Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop just make photography better..

how about during competition???

some photo contests allow minor PP (post processing) via PS, depends on the rules of the contests

some associates the term "Photoshop" into "Photo Fakery".
in digital photography, we always use Photoshop to either improve the contrast/exposure/etc of the image or add borders/signatures/watermarks. we often use the term "Post-Processing" or PP instead of "Photoshop", since PPing can be done using other software.

If you nailed it on the camera, then that's good, little to no photoshop to you.
If you're somehow not very satisfied, then you'll spend some time fixing it.

Photoshop can make improvements to your photo, as well as you can do away with photoshop if you have properly exposed a photo.

In the industry, you're not a photographer if you have no idea how to post-process your photos - whether in Photoshop or in the film darkroom by chemicals. Post-processing is one of the major ways to give your signature look.

Oh, try not to get used to typing in ALL CAPS in subject titles or on your posts :)

Happy New Year to everyone......thanx for quick response.......ehhehehehehehe....

photoshop gives the added "ooomph" to already good photographs... :)

Happy New Year to everyone......thanx for quick response.......ehhehehehehehe....

do make the thread title a lot less "LOOK AT ME AND READ ME" by not using the CAPS LOCK of your computer.

Now Yuuu, what's your take? Now that you've gathered some of the posts here. Do share.

Well... I always develop Non-Processed photos for personal use, and process those that I feel needs it...

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP is a big YES!YES!!YES!!YES!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

majority of the techniques in photoshop are just a simplification of the traditional darkroom
burning,dodging,cropping,levels,hue saturation,adding contrast,texture,multiple images,etc.
we've been doing this since the film days
we also fake reality in black and white unless it's normal to have monochromatic vision

I agree with Randy, with a strong caveat. The more the extensive the PS will only mean one thing; heavy PS would border your photo into a "graphic art" classification, more than a "photograph" per se.

Chances are, you'll need very minor PS on a properly done photograph. PS will not save an awfully taken photo. Just my take on the topic.

Derick is right on. Do most of your "heavy lifting" before you trip the shutter and post-process sparingly. Try to limit post processing for minor corrections (dodge, burn, crop, etc.) and enhancements only, unless your intentions are to create artistic renditions from photographs. BTW, I use LightZone to edit my photos and NOT Adobe Photo Shop.

Off-topic:

There's a restaurant somewhere in the San Juan area called ADOBO PUTO SH0P. which serves, you guessed it, adobo and puto.

The signage came out in a recent issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

One of these days, I want to visit the place and take a picture of the signage.

But the way, the hard drive E: on my desktop computer is labelled ADOBO PUTO SIOPS (for siopao) since it contains 99% pictures.



On-topic:

I use Adobo PutoShop , err, Adobe Photoshop sparingly.

I do mostly cropping with minor adjustments in the levels, hue, saturation, brightness, contrast.

And of course, to put in the watermark.

In the industry, you're not a photographer if you have no idea how to post-process your photos - whether in Photoshop or in the film darkroom by chemicals. Post-processing is one of the major ways to give your signature look.

Oh, try not to get used to typing in ALL CAPS in subject titles or on your posts :)

I agree with Lei:) and Photoshop whethe is Corel or Adobe or any other Photoshop Software, my indeed answer is ~~ Yes! Yes! yes!!!:D

Off-topic:

There's a restaurant somewhere in the San Juan area called ADOBO PUTO SH0P. which serves, you guessed it, adobo and puto.

But the way, the hard drive E: on my desktop computer is labelled ADOBO PUTO SIOPS (for siopao) since it contains 99% pictures.

While Photoshop has become a household term whether used as a noun or a verb, this takes the pun to a whole new level.

I agree with Lei:) and Photoshop whethe is Corel or Adobe or any other Photoshop Software, my indeed answer is ~~ Yes! Yes! yes!!!:D

There is only one PhotoShop and it's from Adobe... Anyways, for the budget conscious(if you're into original softwares) then try the GIMP, it's absolutely free...

hello everyone. I am having a hard time to self stud the photoshop. Saan kaya pwedeng mag enroll for training / short course? thanksk.

Hi Clifford, english only please.

As for the seminars, there are a number of workshops on photoshop. I believe the Basic Photography of Sir Jo Avila has basic PS included in the curriculum.

I think newer versions of Photoshop (CS2 and above) were made with photo editing in mind, especially when Adobe Camera RAW is introduced.

For professional photography in advertising and events it's not unusual to see photos processed in PS, especially for photographers who shoot in RAW. It became a part of their workflow.

In my humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with using PS, especially if you want to make a good photo stand out more. Don't even try salvaging ruined photographs in PS: there's a certain limit on how you can substantially "bend" pixels.

PS is a great software to use in photography; I myself encourage my friends to explore the software. But it's not the best excuse, hell it's not really an excuse, to be lousy in photography. The best pictures this world had ever seen were not made using PS. Just my two cents. :)

All DSLRs do not have the capability of capturing any scene FAITHFULLY. It gets worse with your monitor and further worse - with your printer. Using Photoshop attempts to bring back, as much as possible, those details of the scene that were lost during capture.

In terms of color alone, about 50% of the color values is lost when you snap your DSLR. Did it ever occur to you that when you upload your shots on your computer from your camera and view them in your monitor - you end up scratching your head and say..."hmmm, that's not exactly what my eyes saw". Photoshop comes in to the rescue.

Photography - Learn to Shoot

Photoshop - Learn to Enhance Images

thats all folks

If Ansel Adams still alive he'll surely use Photoshop/Aperture too... Because even in his time he do some post-processing techniques for his photos.

Correct me if Im wrong.

:)

Our eyes can see BILLIONS, maybe even TRILLIONS of colors of a given scene.

Our DSLRs? Only able to "see" MILLIONS of that.

And what is a million compared to a billion? That's 1,000 million colors for every billion.

Photoshop is a software that tries to make that gap as close as possible! In other words, it attempts to approximate the reality of the scene we've seen that our DSLRs failed to capture.

All DSLRs do not have the capability of capturing any scene FAITHFULLY. It gets worse with your monitor and further worse - with your printer. Using Photoshop attempts to bring back, as much as possible, those details of the scene that were lost during capture.

In terms of color alone, about 50% of the color values is lost when you snap your DSLR. Did it ever occur to you that when you upload your shots on your computer from your camera and view them in your monitor - you end up scratching your head and say..."hmmm, that's not exactly what my eyes saw". Photoshop comes in to the rescue.

That's quite a good explanation Sam.

Hi sir tim. Thanks for your reply. I sent an email to Mr. Jo, for reservation of Basic Photography. Yes, PS in within the scope of the seminar. Thanks again.

there are lots of tutorials from youtube as well...

Before, when I haven't gotten any chance to shoot with a DSLR, I had this habit of auto-importing stuffs from memory card directly to Lightroom because I have this mentality that my pictures, though taken with a P&S, should look stunningly amazing. I don't know, but I think there's no sense of justice when you would just take a picture, then post process it. Kinda like 'madugas'.

I mean, there's this separation between general picture taking and crucial photoshoots [which would require a lot of post processing], so what I'm asking is:

Do you usually post process your everyday shots, or just leave it as is?

[I'm currently in the process of mastering shutter speeds + ISO + apperture size + WB + exposure, so post processing would be kept to the minimum-est of levels.]

well I have this album wherein I compile my daily shots. and in this album I dont process my photos that much. Maybe a little exposure and contrast tweak and cropping. But no extensive processing for my daily shots.

Good luck on your photography sir.

if its for facebook or for fun or doesn't really need fixin of any sort, NO.

SOMETIMES i'd tweak just the curves or shadows/highlights or crop to remove unwanted stuff.

if its work related or for any other reason that fixin or making it look better is required then YES.

PP doesn't equate to cheating but rather an enhancement process to make good things better. :):Grin:

i think D-SLR are not good! cause we are all do PP of our photo's :)

IMHO the ideal photography requires not much post processing. Ideal Post Processing should only involve cropping and maybe tweaking the overall levels and curves only to do justice to the what-you-see perspective. But to edit the entire image out of our camera through PP? I think we insulted the name of great photographers and put them in vain.

Just my thoughts. :)