How much is too much?


Aitch53

Link Posted 08/08/2015 - 19:13
OK, this is a picture I took with my X5 when I was trying to get used to it (something I failed to do, though I get on with the K20D and the K-S1 OK, especially the latter - go, as they say, figure).

It's called, with startling originality, "1-2-3-4".




Anyway, it has been through Photoshop Elements 11 - cropped, colour improved, resized for uploading and re-sharpened slightly. So far, so (fairly) normal.

However, if you look at the original:


you will notice a couple of other, more intrusive(?) edits. Bits of a tree, TV aeriels and a nasty metal pipe seem to have disappeared.

I feel a bit iffy about this sort of editing, usually, but in this case I reckon it has improved the look of the image, if not its accuracy.

What's the board concensus on how far to go with editing? Is there one? Should there be? How much editing turns an image from a photograph to a piece of, for want of a better word, art?
SteveH!

Some people call me 'strange'.
I prefer 'unconventional'.
But I'm willing to compromise and accept 'eccentric'.

GlynM

Link Posted 08/08/2015 - 19:44
I'm no expert but I think it depends on why you took the shot - The purpose or objective of taking the shot.

At the extreme ends if you took the shot to make a record of something then perhaps everything should stay. If you were trying to make a piece of art for display or to provoke emotions then anything and everything you don't like or want can go.

I think somewhere in the middle you have to decide if, in your example, the bits of tree and pipe distract the viewer away from what you were trying to show. I assume in this example you wanted to highlight the chimneys in which case I think what you did was fine. Lets face it if you had just shown the edited shot no one would have known that you had removed anything .

So in a general summary I think you have to decide on a case by case basis.

Glyn
Last Edited by GlynM on 08/08/2015 - 19:57

MrB

Link Posted 08/08/2015 - 21:11
In my view, the very fact that you were involved in the creation of the images, makes the procedure and the product examples of one of the forms of creative art. As the photographer/artist, it is entirely up to you how you create the image and what the end product should be.

Photography means drawing with light, and it has two main aspects: capture and process. It is the image capture part that distinguishes photography from other forms of graphic art - e.g. creating a drawing in Photoshop is graphic art but it is not photography.

You captured the light from that part of the real scene that you chose to include in the frame. You then decided how you want yourself and other viewers to see the image/light-drawing. You did that by processing it to control the light it transmits (VDU) or reflects (print) to the viewer's eyes.

You did not want any light from the walls, pipe, aerials or tree in your captured image to reach the viewer, so you cropped or cloned them out of your light-drawing. You wanted the sky and house to transmit/reflect different tones to the viewer, so you altered the colour/brightness/contrast/saturation......

Your creativity has, and should have, no bounds - it's your choice to do as little or as much with your images as you wish.

Cheers.
Philip

richandfleur

Link Posted 08/08/2015 - 23:36
Make the shot what you want it to be.

If you are selling the house, and it forms part of the advertising then you might need a disclaimer, but this is art and you get to produce the photo you want.

Sorry, I'm not really interested in this concept of "its been manipulated too much". If it's a portrait and their face looks like plastic then I'll hate it, but if it's what the photographer wanted to present then it's still not wrong.

As mentioned before, this is nothing new

timbo

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 11:47
richandfleur wrote:
Make the shot what you want it to be.

If you are selling the house, and it forms part of the advertising then you might need a disclaimer, but this is art and you get to produce the photo you want, as seen in the link to those iconic images.

Sorry, I'm not really interested in this concept of "its been manipulated too much". If it's a portrait and their face looks like plastic then I'll hate it, but if it's what the photographer wanted to present then it's still not wrong.

As mentioned before, this is nothing new

Agreed, a record shot has to be a true record, but with anything else I class it as art and it's all up to the photographers intention.

Here's a link (NSFW) to a before and after of one of my recent shots , the after is what I saw in my mind and how I felt when I took the image, sadly the camera recorded the before imge on the left and I had to help the image along to get it to what I remembered seeing.
Tim

http://www.timpile.co.uk
Last Edited by timbo on 09/08/2015 - 11:48

walkeja

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 14:41
Always take a photograpgh with the attitude that you have slide film in the camera, i.e. what you see is what you get. Set the camera up to suit your requirements and off you go.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 17:41
I shouldn't worry about this. I'm always removing bits of spots on skin, discarded rubbish, telegraph poles, even whole cars if they spoil the effect.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Algernon

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 18:41
bwlchmawr wrote:
I shouldn't worry about this. I'm always removing bits of spots on skin, discarded rubbish, telegraph poles, even whole cars if they spoil the effect.

You must know the same women that I do!

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

richandfleur

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 20:35
Agree with Timbo above. My camera is an image capture device, and is just the first step towards creating the image I want.

Forensic crime scene photographers aren't able to approach the craft in this way, but the rest of us can.

PeterKR

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 23:00
richandfleur wrote:
Agree with Timbo above. My camera is an image capture device, and is just the first step towards creating the image I want.

Forensic crime scene photographers aren't able to approach the craft in this way, but the rest of us can.

+1

When you look at a scene your eye sees what it wants to see.
However, the camera catches everything.
I feel it therefore correct to make some 'adjustments' in order to convey the message you wanted to put over, without leaving any artifacts which might draw the eye away from the feature ! I don't do it very often (I usually spend time trying to adjust my PoV to obliterate unwanted things, but that's not always possible), only when needed.

Peter

richandfleur

Link Posted 09/08/2015 - 23:36
I'd argue it's even more. Unless you're colour blind, you see colour in the world and not Black and White. I feel people are free to manipulate an image as they want, be that low level alterations such as saturation, contrast, cropping, rotation, lens correction to remove barrel distortion etc, up to larger adjustments, such as converting to black and white, adding a vignette, cloning out items they are not happy with, flipping horizontally, adding text, blurring areas, using HDR techniques, merging two different photos into one, localised sharpness, duplication of one dolphin into many, creating panoramas of multiple shots, you name it.

What you want to do to a picture is your choice alone. It's potentially far more than just adjusting it to what your eye sees if you want it to be. I don't feel there are any wrongs and rights in this, unless the requirement IS specifically for exactness, such as medical imagery, crime scene photography, items for sale etc.
Last Edited by richandfleur on 09/08/2015 - 23:41

derek897

Link Posted 10/08/2015 - 00:26
richandfleur wrote:
I'd argue it's even more. Unless you're colour blind, you see colour in the world and not Black and White. I feel people are free to manipulate an image as they want, be that low level alterations such as saturation, contrast, cropping, rotation, lens correction to remove barrel distortion etc, up to larger adjustments, such as converting to black and white, adding a vignette, cloning out items they are not happy with, flipping horizontally, adding text, blurring areas, using HDR techniques, merging two different photos into one, localised sharpness, duplication of one dolphin into many, creating panoramas of multiple shots, you name it.

What you want to do to a picture is your choice alone. It's potentially far more than just adjusting it to what your eye sees if you want it to be. I don't feel there are any wrongs and rights in this, unless the requirement IS specifically for exactness, such as medical imagery, crime scene photography, items for sale etc.

+1
What he said
I know what i like, If not always why.

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 10/08/2015 - 13:46
Algernon wrote:
bwlchmawr wrote:
I shouldn't worry about this. I'm always removing bits of spots on skin, discarded rubbish, telegraph poles, even whole cars if they spoil the effect.

You must know the same women that I do!

--

I'm not allowed to "know" any women, Algi, spotty or otherwise. Mrs C. is always very firm on this point.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.