Photoshop. Unethical?

As self-appointed arbiter, I can assure you that there is no need to ban flash photography on the grounds that it introduces light to subjects that are otherwise dark. This is because light helps "expose" the truth and we are, after all discussing ethics. Lies bad. Truth good. Too much truth, however, is bad for seahorses so be considerate when flashing them.

I'll have whatever he's having!

Photoshop. Unethical? As long as you are true to you and others you should use whatever you want as this is a hobby for most of us so the more fun you have the better.

I enter many splash-in contests with "only jpgs" and other rules and, if there is something true about them, is that it makes you a more efficient photographer having to accomplish different styles of picture in a limited time and with limited total shots allowed. I always recommend everyone to enter even if it only is for learning matters (for example learning to avoid shooting 25 pics to a pigmy in order to get a right one like someone saw and commented in a Trip Reports thread).

My opinion about PS or not is that you are the only one that can take a certain picture but there are a lot of people (even non divers) that can apply PS and fix/improve it so I found it less meritable. Of course knowing PS is great and I would love to master it. Also I have a feeling that some friends get "lazy" and take pictures thinking "I don´t care about WB because I can correct it later etc..." or the like.

- In any hobby or sport, if you engage in competition, you must adhere to the rules.

- If you do this for a living, you must adhere to the rules dictated by your employer.

- If you take photos for friends, family and your own enjoyment, then it does not matter what tools you employ.

I'm 52 years old and I continue to learn how to take better photographs. However, I am also a 27 year veteran of the computer industry and have been using graphics programs since the 1980's. I can take my crappy exposures, missed shots and poor composition and make them acceptable for web or print. As a computer programmer, I'm always fond of saying it's not how beautiful the code is, it's the end product that's most important.

A point could be made that anyone who uses a strobe is manipulating the scene. It's not what you saw if you augment the lighting.

Your mileage may vary.

JP

I entered the following in the POW contest this week ... a HIGHLY manipulated image ... which I happen to really like.

I guess I'm "guilty", but I believe I am following the rules by acknowledging my efforts in the submission description.

One of my friends (a non-diver, but collector of fine art photography) liked it so much he asked for a print.

some friends get "lazy" and take pictures thinking "I don´t care about WB because I can correct it later etc..." or the like.

I don't think that's lazy ... I think that's just digital workflow when shooting RAW.

I think you could argue that in comparison, allowing the camera to automatically assign or having the user "pre-select" a white balance is MORE lazy than capturing RAW files with the intention to select the "correct" white balance in post-production.

I don't think that's lazy ... I think that's just digital workflow when shooting RAW.

 

I think you could argue that in comparison, allowing the camera to automatically assign or having the user "pre-select" a white balance is MORE lazy than capturing RAW files with the intention to select the "correct" white balance in post-production.

Fair enough the thing is that we (almost all of my friends) don´t know a lot of digital workflow but dive a lot, so most of the time we never post process (unless is a very special pic) so is good to have a correct or close to correct wb setting in camera. I always shoot raw+jpg and keep all the raws for the future, when I learn to process (in a couple of centuries... )

when I learn to process (in a couple of centuries... )

I understand that trepidation. It took me a while to learn the ins and outs of the digital world. In the film days, I loved working in the darkroom, so I attacked the "lightroom" with gusto ... I have learned A LOT over the last few years and am happy to share what I can ...

Lightroom from Adobe (and Aperture from Apple, too - but I've never used it) makes this so easy it is silly.

You just import the RAW files as you would JPEGs to any other "album" app and then you have the ability to tweak away without having to save files or lose any quality by doing so. All the "processing" is saved as application settings in a "sidecar" file separate from the RAW file. This kind of "non-desctructive" editing using RAW sensor data is what really sets digital apart from film. The ability to bring the "light" home and play with it is just awesome.

The default processing settings that Lightroom applies to your files are a good place to start, and often look good - but not EXACTLY like what your camera spits out. With a very small amount of practice, you will find combinations of settings that look MUCH better than what your camera spits out ... and then you can save them so all it takes is "one-click" and you have processed your files.

I have a handful of presets that I use to import my work - including one that looks almost exactly like what the standard in-camera processing produces. If I want the Canon "look", I can always fire up the Canon software ... or shoot JPG + RAW - which I sometimes do, but not that often. Even when shooting family snapshots, I usually shoot RAW and use a preset I call "SNAPSHOT" ...

Ay any point, if you like what the image looks like, you can do one of three things:

>> Save/Publish to an image file like JPEG or TIFF

>> Save the image settings as a "snapshot" that you can always call back up at anytime

>> Save the image settings to a "preset" that can be used to process other files in the future

Download a trial of Lightroom and import a few of your RAW files. It isn't as scary or as time-consuming as you think.

I hardly ever use "photoshop" proper anymore ... Lightroom does nearly everything I need, and with the exception of a "cloning tool" and a "red-eye fix" almost everything in Lightroom is a "global" tool and therefore cannot be considered "manipulation" ... it just gives you manual and after-the-fact control over the same "decisions" your camera has to make to produce a JPEG like contrast, white balance, tone curve, color saturations, etc.

Like any tool it cannot be unethical. What can be unethical is how you use it and for what purpose.

When life deals you lemons, make lemonade ...

Often, I try and salvage out of focus shots and otherwise "poor" shots with photoshop ... not by trying to fix it, but by completely abandoning photorealism.

Here's an example:

For my book "Reefs Revealed" I chose to designate MODIFIED in the photo captions any image that was manipulated for content.

I like that.

disclosure is always best.

I've seen many images of drums, but never one like that. Wonderful play of textures and colors. Well done.

Here is one I was playing with from Indo. Working with gaussian blur, targeted sharpening, smudging and sunglow. A few other brushes were used as well.

One of the things I love about working with photos in photoshop is that I can use a photo as a base palette and "Paint" from my mind's eye. I used to do the same thing in my darkroom, but the tools available now are so incredible and open up a new venue for creativity.

It would be great if wetpixel would start a category for artistic imagining (no misspelling there).

IMHO If one were to follow the anti Photoshop logic to its logical conclusion then it would not be allowed to use any artificial light and all images should be calibrated to a gray card.

In science colure should be accurate, in art it should satisfy the artist and perhaps his customers.

I myself must please myself first with my effort. Photoshop is part of that process. I value the opinion of others as a tool which I can use for continued growth. I do not seek the opinion of others on ways I should limit my growth. Undoubtedly I could learn a great deal from Dr. Mustard about how to get better results out of the camera. The way I see the process it something like this:

1) I see something I which evokes a feeling I wish to capture.

2) I mentally compose

3) I manipulate the camera to capture the result to the best of my ability.

4) I check the result.

5) If necessary I modify settings and try for a better result.

6) I download to the laptop and see if I got anything worth the idea I had in the beginning.

7) When I am fortunate enough to have something worth further work I fire up Photoshop and adjust it to the best of my abilities.

8) I look at it and ponder how I can improve.

9) I display it to the world and seek too:

A. Provide for the enjoyment and enlightment of others.

B. Get advice and ideas on how to continue to improve the art.

For me Photoshop is a vital part of the process. Indeed who among us does not take most of our underwater photos with the camera set for its most vivid color? Who does not use the strobe to bring up all the color that would not otherwise be apparent in natural light?

If for someone else they do not need or desire Photoshop that is their choice. For me it is a vital part of the process. I alone own the copyright to my image, therfore it is only I who must be pleased with the result.

I've seen many images of drums, but never one like that. Wonderful play of textures and colors. Well done.

Thank you! The original was well-exposed, but very poorly focused. Unfortunately, I didn't get any well-focused shots of this little guy ... I thought I had, otherwise I would have stuck around a little longer.

Yours is also very cool. I like the dreamy effect. I'd like to try something similar, but a little closer to "real" ... if I get anywhere worth sharing I'll post it.

Often, one component of my enjoyment of a picture is an appreciation of how hard it must have been for the photographer to make it. And it's much harder to take the trouble to get your dome 3 inches from the subject in a ripping current with strobes properly articulated and balanced with ambient light than it is to just get a quick snap as you drift by, to be followed up by a crop/clone/fill-light session in Photoshop. (Of course, at full magnification you can't fake it, but at web resolution you often can.)

I see a parallel here with the once-active debate about splicing out wrong notes in music performances. There's nothing wrong with it artistically, but knowing that it's happening makes it a bit less easy to marvel at the performer's raw technique.

Indeed! Most people don't realize Claude Monet was a realist who enjoyed painting in gale-force winds. Pretty remarkable stuff considering the "sail" effect of a stretched canvas.

I'm with johnspierce! If it weren't for Photoshop many of my images would never look as good as they do. I shoot with the smallest point and shoot camera as carrying anything that doesn't fit in my pocket is going to get in the way of my work as a dive guide! My images help others see what animals are seen on trips I take, in some shots I've loads of PS, simply so I can show others what it really looks. In my mind this isn't cheating, it's simply bringing out the best in your image!

I reckon Photoshop is a must for any beginner shooter. Using such tools can show the shooter what she or he can eventually aspire to create with as little PS as possible!

What an interesting twist to a thread I thought was dead and gone.

Those very manipulated images look great to me and I would be quite happy to hang one on my wall, personally I would love to see more of them and understand how some of the manipulation was done.

It would be great if wetpixel would start a category for artistic imagining (no misspelling there).

Matthews is a great idea, for my money though the shot would have to originate from a 'real' picture (whatever that is) rather than a 100% generated Photoshop image, there are other web places for 100% pure Photoshop creations.

Paul C

What an interesting twist to a thread I thought was dead and gone.

Those very manipulated images look great to me and I would be quite happy to hang one on my wall, personally I would love to see more of them and understand how some of the manipulation was done.

Paul - I like the idea as well. I'll start another thread with some images - both 'before' and 'after' shots - and will try and give an idea of exactly what I did to get from A to B. I have a decent memory, so hopefully I'll be able to rememember.

The hardest part will be unveiling the extremely poor photographs I took in the first place!

Some of the best final images come from really bad shots I took with borrowed SEA & SEA point and shoots with no strobes. when I was taking cameras underwater for the first time. For whatever reason, the really, really "bad" ones often inspire my most "desperate" attempts.

They'll all start with underwater photographs ... no pixel paintings or land-based shots.

If the mods want, they can start another sub-forum ...

for my money though the shot would have to originate from a 'real' picture (whatever that is) rather than a 100% generated Photoshop image, there are other web places for 100% pure Photoshop creations.

 

Paul C

As far as I know there are probably no forums like this specifically related to diving / underwater art. So I would vote for a fairly open forum including paintings, Photoshop generated, or any form of diving or underwater related graphic art. For example I have a good friend who specializes in some amazing marine related tattoo work that have their origin in photographs he has taken. I think we may see some really cool stuff.