This Must Be Photoshopped

Considering photography as art, why does it matter whether anything was added or anything was removed? All I dislike is when something is represented as something it isn't, and that wouldn't happen if people didn't insist on photography being competitive. Keep in mind this is art, not journalism.

Just because something is art does not mean it should be excluded from competitions; art competitions are universal for all types of art, and have been around for a long time. True, art competitions are subjective to a large degree, but then so is competitive ice skating. I personally do not obsess about entering in competitions because I am not very competitive by nature, but I have entered the upcoming Wetpixel competition because the idea of a free trip is appealing.

People pursue activities of any kind for different reasons, to make money, personal satisfaction, recognition from others - and everyone is driven by these things to different degrees.

Let's face it, the more sophisticated imaging technology gets, the more difficult it becomes to differentiate reality from illusion - one only has to go to the movies to demonstrate this point. I'm sure there are Photoshop hackers that could outwit Eric and submit a Photoshopped image in the 'traditional' category. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that future cameras will have software equivalent in many ways to Photoshop built right in. So let's say you could dial in an 'eliminate 'backscatter' setting in your camera before shooting, would this be any different from repositioning your strobes?

It's really about simple things like ethics and lying; if you Photoshop and are honest about it, you are just fine in my book. If you lie about it, you would lie about anything else, so I have no time for you.

As to what other people think about whether an image is Photoshopped or not, that's their problem not mine.

My approach underwater is to try to capture and if necessary post-process an image the way I remember it, without presenting something that was not there, but tweaking it to obtain the finest possible image, especially for prints, is not only acceptable, but desirable for me.

Amen.

I just had another look at the comic illustration that started this thread. It relays a typical situation in which one person dismisses the validity of an image after a casual glance at the image. My take on this situation is that the observer is unwilling, for whatever reason, to recognize excellence and competence of skill in the presentation made by the artist. This may be of a sense of self loathing, an assumed air of superiority, or an unconscious realization that the viewer could never produce something of value and beauty as that which they have just witnessed.

Is the casual dismissal by the uninformed viewer of such consequence that we have to put ourselves in a type of "straight jacket" that strips away valuable technique from our repertoire? Should we not "pander" to the more well informed of us who are more willing to accept the honest efforts of others to communicate their own unique vision of the world around them?

Image manipulation has been around since "day one" in photography. Selection of film type, processing times, and temperatures, supplemental lighting, burning and dodging, contrast and unsharp masking, local and general colour correction, as well as cropping in the enlarger were all practices of common knowledge. Same with spotting and retouching of images. These practices back before "digital" didn't evoke the common sneer we seem to encounter today.

If we accept this orthodoxy, then I'm afraid we might have to trash a lot of the works by greatly respected photographers from the past. Ansel Adams as well as other proponents of the Zone system and the practice of pre-visualization of the final print before the shutter was pressed would become outcasts in this brave new world of, for lack of better words, absolute literal representations. We don't encumber other visual artist such as painters with such brickbats, so why should we as photographers be so encumbered?

The argument for "Getting it right in the camera" is a good one, in so far as it compliments what you as a visual artist are trying to do. Efficiencies in technique tend to further refine an artists approach to her or his craft and can only be thought of in good terms.

I believe a photographer has the right to develop an image in any way, shape, or form that truly expresses the sentiments of the photographer at moment the shutter button was pressed.

And, that my friend is all that matters!

Regarding photo contests, I'm not entirely against them. They do get people out taking shots among more experienced photographers and the encourage people to improve. In the case of POTW, the contests are frequent, the stakes are low, and we get to see a lot of good images as a result. There's no doubt that photo competitions provide some positive results.

The problem I have with them is that competitive behavior in photography is so often negative. The worst photographer behavior I've seen has occurred at contests, and the pervasive thinking as to what's acceptable and what's not tracks what is dictated by contest rules. Many of us get in the mode of pursuing that contest winner every moment we are underwater. I'm just there for the enjoyment of the process; I've never taken the contest aspects too seriously. I'm a competitive person by nature, though, so even though I know it's not important it still grinds on me at times.

So...I'm in favor of contests, just the low stakes ones. The high stakes ones I sit out, let others take the stress, and I will just look at the pretty pictures.

The similarity to figure skating competition is noted, but the negative aspects of both are similar as well. We all know the Kerrigan/Harding story but I'm old enough to remember the numerous scandals regarding the corruption of Olympic figure skating judges as well. Regarding UW photo competition, the worst behavior I've witnessed came from a judge who took a contestant privately on dives, set up and took her images, photoshopped them, entered them, then awarded one first place even though it didn't qualify for the category! Why? Because he was sleeping with her. I settled for second but at least mine was macro and I didn't have to put out!

I'd wager that the most skilled and respected photographers here know not only how to get their images right in-camera but also can run photoshop as well as anyone. People who assume that good images must be photoshopped are simply intellectually lazy.

I occasionally hear the concept that we should capture it the way we saw it or something to that effect. My reply is, "You mean all blue and dark, or like if our eyeballs had like built-in strobes?" Maybe I should photoshop the orange sponge I shot at 100ft. and turn it from orange to gray, just like my eyes saw it. Ban Magic Filters. Wait, Magic Filters are OK if we have matching filters on our mask. This much I know, only fully color blind photographers are allowed to produce black and white images.

I like to think that Photoshop can take a photo one notch higher on the 5-pt scale.

If I have time to compose the frame, I try to add crop space. I have many shots that won't go to 8"x10" because of too tight a framing.

I believe it was another forum where someone was bemoaning all this digital manipulation and how it was wrong to manipulate anything from how we originally captured it as this would dishonor all the past great photographers like Ansel Adams. duh.

Man, if someone insists I must have photoshopped the shot, I should take it as a compliment. It means they think it is so great, it must have be fake. So I must be a great photographer or a great photoshopper, and I know I'm not a great photoshopper.

Every image we've ever seen has been manipulated.

The similarity to figure skating competition is noted, but the negative aspects of both are similar as well. We all know the Kerrigan/Harding story but I'm old enough to remember the numerous scandals regarding the corruption of Olympic figure skating judges as well. Regarding UW photo competition, the worst behavior I've witnessed came from a judge who took a contestant privately on dives, set up and took her images, photoshopped them, entered them, then awarded one first place even though it didn't qualify for the category! Why? Because he was sleeping with her. I settled for second but at least mine was macro and I didn't have to put out!

If it was ice skating, he would have wanted to sleep with you, and you could have had a first place!

I too am a little mystified by the perception that eliminating post-processing somehow "levels the field" for those who don't know to use Photoshop. I understand the prohibition against composing multiple images or duplicating elements, but the no editing rule seems overly restrictive. Like it or not, Photoshop has become as much a part of imaging as choosing fstop and shutter speed.

Most of what I do when editing images for myself is what I call subtractive editing. The goal is to simplify by removing distractions. If there is wayward fin tip, I will clone it out. If there is too much backscatter, I reduce it. If there is a hot spot I dodge it.

When I then want to enter some of these images in competitions, I find myself "unediting" my images. Fortunately this isn't too hard since I do all editing nondestructively on separate layers. However, when I am done with my "unediting" I invariably find that I don't like the image as much. I do it because the rules require it, but it is somewhat unsatisfying.

The prohibition against cloning or healing tools has the side effect of biasing the results towards crystal clear tropical waters over green cold waters. Good strobe positioning is essential for both, but it is WAY easier to get clean images in tropical waters. There have been some competitions that recognize this fact and have specific categories for cold water, but the bias still exists.

Having a category for Photoshop free entries leaves me wondering if we shouldn't also have a category for images taken in program mode, to be fair to those who don't know how to use manual

I'm sure there are Photoshop hackers that could outwit Eric and submit a Photoshopped image in the 'traditional' category.

We audit RAW files and reserve the right to disquality images for which there is no "original" file from the camera. So... go for it! You can think of your entry as a donation to the competition and to the non-profits that we donate to.

But it's not out of the question that someone could do a high quality photograph or something of a Photoshopped image; no worries, I don't have time for such shenanigans....but it would be a challenge to see if I could outwit you!

Hmmm...let me think. Photoshop an image, output to a transparency, photograph the transparency in RAW using a slide copier... I still have one. Now where can I find one of those thingamajiggies that I used to make Powerpoint transparencies with.

I love What The Duck:

Earlier this year, Alex started a thread called "Importance of a photographic eye":

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17801

It is worth revisiting, I think...

We audit RAW files and reserve the right to disquality images for which there is no "original" file from the camera. So... go for it! You can think of your entry as a donation to the competition and to the non-profits that we donate to.

Eric,

Pertinent to what I said about this earlier here is a little blurb from Luminous Landscape pertaining to new in camera capabilities of the Nikon, I think it's just a matter of time before a lot of adjustments presently not allowed for 'traditional' categories will be able to be done in camera - of note is that cropping is now possible

'In-Camera Post-Exposure Raw to JPG Conversions and File Blending

Also completely unexpected on the Nikons is the ability to process images already on a card in the camera to produce new files. In addition raw files can be processed to JPGs in-camera after they have been shot. This conversion includes the ability to alter white balance, do monochrome conversions, tinting and cropping, as well as red-eye reduction. Quite a capability, and one which could well appeal to a number of different photographer's needs.'

I agree loftus that this may happen in the longer term, but to my knowledge none of the current crop of cameras actually alter the original RAW - they only produce a JPG with changed processing parameters. So Eric's audit will still presumably detect photoshop or in camera mods.

they only produce a JPG with changed processing parameters. So Eric's audit will still presumably detect photoshop or in camera mods.

I can see the conversation now when Eric comes knocking:

"Eric, whaddya mean you want my original RAW file? I always shoot JPEG, high quality settings. Really, my Canon xTI shoots RAW files? Well knock me over with a feather, and besides some people still mention you do not need to shoot RAW anyway. Whaddya mean I am disqualified? Ah f^&k the fish and marine life donation and return my entry fee."

Heh... an audit is only necessary if there are serious concerns about the authenticity of an image. All contest judging is subjective, anyway. Craig wrote something about judges disqualifying photos that are presumed to be manipulated because they (we) might be "jealous." I assure you that this is not the case. Every judge has his or her own reasons for not liking a photo.

I am not a saint in the water; I *like* to interact with marine life the same way I might interact with a squirrel or chipmunk in the wild. But each time, I have to make a judgment call (e.g. am I in a national park? is it going to harm the animal? etc. etc.)

I wandered off topic there a bit. But basically, if you try to cheat, we'll do our best to catch you.

I believe a photographer has the right to develop an image in any way, shape, or form that truly expresses the sentiments of the photographer at moment the shutter button was pressed.

 

And, that my friend is all that matters!

Perhaps this might include an image (or even part of an image) which was conceived but which bears little relationship to the in-camea image!

Post adjustment of an image is neither acceptable nor unacceptable - except when we 'tag' on a set of moral/ethical/specific requirements. Producing an 'in-camera' image as a goal in itself is fine - if that's what you are trying to do, but it is fundamentally limiting and in many fields of photography is also irrelevant.

I think that the problem we have is one of understanding why we take photos and what level of truth/accuracy is desirable for the requirements we have.

I shoot commercially as well as underwater and believe me, I'd be out of business if I didn't try to portray subject matter in specific ways. Sometimes this involves subject manipulation (tidying up a room interior) and sometimes I shoot to enable straightening and cropping (square format images are still associated with 'quality' (a throwback to 6x6cm film days) even on web.

Face it, ALL images are a representation of a scene in front of the camera and are, as such, contain inaccuracies (eg. dynamic range?).

There have been several recent discussions on the subject of image 'integrity' on wetpixel and it is something dear to most natural history photographer's hearts, but even in this photographic genre there has to be some greyness and IMHO suggesting that only 'in-camera' formed images are the only acceptable form of nature photographs is really not realistic in the digital age.

I once made a photograph to advertise Haig whisky. It had a roaring fire in it. I photographed the fire, had a giant transparency made and inset it in the fireplace. In this way the actors did not have to worry about the heat/getting burnt.

The art director worried it was not a 'real' fire. I pointed out that at the finish he would only have a photograph with a fire in it but represented by lots of tiny coloured dots on paper. He fretted, so we had to light the fire!

Photographs are images. They are never real!

I see that this thread has been quiet for two months, but I have to risk stirring it up again.

I'm inspired by Alex's images, but (here we go again) have always thought that when reproduced in print they show signs of digital colour and contrast processing. Having got that wrong, should I blame my inexperience, or, and more interestingly, conclude that it's very difficult to tell? Hence the request for RAW files to adjudicate in competition.

I have accepted the belief of several authors that the best digital images are created from "digital negatives" which maximise the information in a RAW file at the expense of unsharpened, low contrast images with muted colours when viewed without further transformation. In common with monochromatic negatives, that transformation may be different in different areas of the image, and can't be done with a RAW converter. In other words, post-processing is as fundamental to digital photography as it is in photography with negative film. This is rather different to reversal film, which was the mainstay of pre-digital underwater photography. Perhaps this is why I thought Alex's images were processed, and why stunning, contrasty, colourful, and sharp images are suspect when they look real.

British photographers will know Trevor Rees' "Best of British" portfolio that won the SOUP competition last year. I was disappointed to hear Trevor describe making a composite image of a diver photographing a carp a couple of months ago, and then to see that one of his portfolio shots is admittedly another composite. Both images are artistically stunning. What disappointed is that I couldn't tell!

I have since thought about this, and decided that if an image reflects its author's passion, and makes an honest statement about the underwater world, then the way it was created is less important. I have reached the point in my own development that if I see something on a dive, and have the right lens, then it is easier to shoot a good image than to create one in Photoshop. For me, diving with a GOFER and several cameras is, therefore, no more or less fraudulent than Photoshopping in that it substitutes (money and power in one case, technology in the other) for diving and photographic skill. I would rather applaud technical skill in post-processing than wealth, anyway. I would also applaud Trevor's use of images created on a cold northern beach over the fantastic grotesquerie of Lembeh (though I still want to go there, of course).

In the end I value the image above the skill with which it was created, not the skill above the image. I think that an audience of one's peers often votes that way in public competition, but that professional judges can sometimes value the skill above the image created. That is not surprising, as such skill is the professional's bread and butter.

It leaves me with a question: should the way in which we look at images be defined by professional standards, or by artistic ones?

jpeg from RAW:

composite:

radical colour/contrast adjustment:

Tim

B)

It leaves me with a question: should the way in which we look at images be defined by professional standards, or by artistic ones?

jpeg from RAW:

 

4]

 

Tim

 

B)

I think it really comes down to what the image was taken for and where and how it is presented. Take for example the present images on Wetpixel of a newborn manatee taken by Carol Grant. Carol has yet to show us all her images, but it is quite likely that one or more of these images will win a competition somewhere irrespective of any post processing or true artistic sense and ability of the photographer. I am sure Carol will take some awesome quality photographs, but no one can deny the 'uniqueness' component of the photograph when judging such a photograph, as it contributes to the final judgement of the photograph. For this type of photograph it would probably be inappropriate to do any type of significant post-processing.

On the other hand, I have a photo of a manatee that I have cropped, dodged and burned, done some curve and sharpening adjustments, spotted etc, and I present this as what I consider an unusual portrait of a not unusual subject. I could take this further and create a collage of multiple images of a manatee and probably create a very appealing image. In the digital age, nothing is necessarily as it appears, all that counts in my opinion is honesty as to what you have done to an image when you present it.

I think it really comes down to what the image was taken for and where and how it is presented....

 

On the other hand, I have a photo of a manatee that I have cropped, dodged and burned, done some curve and sharpening adjustments, spotted etc,

 

In the digital age, nothing is necessarily as it appears, all that counts in my opinion is honesty as to what you have done to an image when you present it.

Agreed. (To the extent this relates back to contests, as mentioned I think the contests are fairly clear in what is or is not allowed in a particular catagory.)

Like the Manatee shot you did. It is funny, but to me dodging, burning, cropping and other techniques that were familiar in a darkroom setting are things I never really think of as being "improper" or being dishonest if not mentioned (as long as not being submitted to a contest catagory that says no cropping ). To me that is photography. This also follows to the newer technology as long as it is honest in not trying to convey a message that is not there - meaning some of the things that has happened in the newspapers where reporters changed images in stories

Take a look here Digital Doctoring

Interesting and my response to the doctoring in each of the instances differs depending on which one is presented.

Take a look here Digital Doctoring

Interesting and my response to the doctoring in each of the instances differs depending on which one is presented.

Interesting link. A couple of months ago I had a discussion about this with Lee Varis, a Hollywood photographer and Photoshop guru. One of the things he pointed out was that in the majority of movie marketing materials like posters etc, the heads of the stars are pasted into the photograph on other models' bodies. This is a much cheaper way for the studios to have marketing materials made. In fact much of his work was creating photographs of models in various environments and then adding the stars' heads later, this way the stars did not need to be present. Hence much cheaper.