Photoshop. Unethical?

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. I think we may see some really cool stuff.

Sounds fine to me - I just guess I was trying to avoid the 100% abstract piece of Photoshop art that I could not figure out which way up to hang it - Just because the 'artist' said it was inspired by a fish or whatever.

Before and after sounds a good place to start.

Paul C

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

Paul. This was generated from a shot taken in Raja Ampat, and then worked on in photoshop. I agree that the final work should be generated from an image or images (this is a photography site). Jeremypayne has a great idea, to post pre/post photoshop images. When I get to my work computer, I'll do just that!

Perhaps someday we might see a POTW contest for worked images. God forbid!

Here's a link to a set on flickr I just made with both 'before' and 'after' images.

Photoshop: Before & After

I'll start another thread later when I have some more time with commentary.

Here's one more example ... this time with before and after:

Here, I tweaked the color to get a better blue, removed tons of noise with a "median blur", added some vignetting and used a "watery" effect to the edge of the diver's profile.

More later ...

Here's a link to a set on flickr I just made with both 'before' and 'after' images.

 

Photoshop: Before & After

 

I'll start another thread later when I have some more time with commentary.

 

Here's one more example ... this time with before and after:

 

 

 

Here, I tweaked the color to get a better blue, removed tons of noise with a "median blur", added some vignetting and used a "watery" effect to the edge of the diver's profile.

 

More later ...

Seeing we are still in the image improvement forum; I am going to stick my neck out a little and say that I think the image is bad to start, and looks as bad or worse with Photoshop. I think using Photoshop to 'retrieve' a really poor image is ultimately going to end in failure. My thoughts are that success will only be achieved if one takes a reasonable or good image (at minimum) and uses Photoshop to enhance it. Alternatively using Photoshop to generate a preconceived image with successful implementation, may also result in success. Just using Photoshop to try to retrieve a poor image is just going to result in boring, poor results. The old computer maxim - 'Garbage in, garbage out!'

I am going to stick my neck out a little and say that I think the image is bad to start

Agreed ... no pretense about that. My ratio of "good to bad" on any dive is pretty low - as I imagine is the case for many people.

and looks as bad or worse with Photoshop

I don't agree here, but I respect your opinion and want people to be honest about what they think.

So thank you for being honest.

I expect there will be some people who like the final/"after" images and many who think and feel as you do.

I do not expect anyone to enjoy the "before" images and I know I am exposing myself to a lot of "criticism" by publicly showing my "clunkers".

Also keep in mind these were all shots from one of my very first dives with a camera - a 3MP Seas & Sea with no strobes ... I had absolutely NO IDEA what I was doing underwater with a camera ...

Agreed ... no pretense about that. My ratio of "good to bad" on any dive is pretty low - as I imagine is the case for many people.

I don't agree here, but I respect your opinion and want people to be honest about what they think.

 

So thank you for being honest.

 

I expect there will be some people who like the final/"after" images and many who think and feel as you do.

 

I do not expect anyone to enjoy the "before" images and I know I am exposing myself to a lot of "criticism" by publicly showing my "clunkers".

 

Also keep in mind these were all shots from one of my very first dives with a camera - a 3MP Seas & Sea with no strobes ... I had absolutely NO IDEA what I was doing underwater with a camera ...

Yeah, I hope I'm being constructive here - but I think ultimately whether one uses Photoshop or not, the final image has to be able to stand alone as a good image, no matter how intricate the manipulation. And believe me there's no shame in a low ratio of keepers. I'm happy if I come back with a half dozen keepers after a weeklong liveaboard.

Yeah, I hope I'm being constructive here

You are.

the final image has to be able to stand alone as a good image

I agree with you 100%.

Can you do me a favor? Would you mind checking out the link below to view the image at a larger size and see if you like it any little more? I understand if you still don't like it, but the image looks better (to me) much larger than what I put in the post.

I made a 10"x10" print of it that I put in our kitchen that works ... my wife - my harshest critic for sure - actually let me put it on the wall (and I don't think she was just humoring me) ... I also like it better as a square.

Bigger Size of the Diver Shot

Hi Jeremy. I started a new thread under image improvement for these types of images.

Regarding your image on Flickr, The glass filter makes an interesting "thermocline" feel. My preference would be to dial down the density of the filter so it is not so obvious (unless that is what you are going for) and bump up the contrast of the diver to separate it a bit more from the background. The top-most white reflections look pixelated. Is that in your print, or just from knocking it down in jpeg? Certainly an interesting take on a diver at the surface. If you can do this with a "throw-away" image, are you working on other images which are technically correct? (still love that Drum!)

Hi Jeremy. I started a new thread under image improvement for these types of images.

I'm gonna jump on that later when I have some more time and I can comment more specifically on each image. Seems like a worthwhile off-shoot from the "traditional" stuff.

The glass filter makes an interesting "thermocline" feel. My preference would be to dial down the density of the filter so it is not so obvious (unless that is what you are going for) and bump up the contrast of the diver to separate it a bit more from the background.

I did a huge number of different variations on this one - including every color under the rainbow. At one point, I was going to do a 3 x 3 matrix of different versions ala Andy Wharhol with some being the inverse of the others. I never found the right combination for that idea. Some looked much better on screen than they did printed and some the other way around ... I found that to get a good print, I had to really dial-up the glass filter. I agree a subtler touch might look better on screen.

The top-most white reflections look pixelated. Is that in your print, or just from knocking it down in jpeg?

When printed, the pixelation disappears and the the gradation of colors is very smooth - at least at 10x10. I can't remember exactly which file I printed ... and there are like 100 different versions in my library.

If you can do this with a "throw-away" image, are you working on other images which are technically correct?

Underwater, not yet. I'm still working on getting "techincally correct" underwater images.

Above the water, yes. I've been playing a lot with "fake tilt-shift" imagery this year.

Thanks for the encouragement!

You are.

I agree with you 100%.

 

Can you do me a favor? Would you mind checking out the link below to view the image at a larger size and see if you like it any little more? I understand if you still don't like it, but the image looks better (to me) much larger than what I put in the post.

 

I made a 10"x10" print of it that I put in our kitchen that works ... my wife - my harshest critic for sure - actually let me put it on the wall (and I don't think she was just humoring me) ... I also like it better as a square.

 

Bigger Size of the Diver Shot

Honestly...no. Just does not work for me. I think the effect could be interesting for a blue water reef scene or something, but this one looks like the creature from the lost lagoon. Jeremy if you want to send me pics for my opinion (for what it's worth), I always enjoy bantering back and forth. I actually have a blog going with a half dozen photog buddies (not underwater) where we give each other hell all the time.

Above the water, yes. I've been playing a lot with "fake tilt-shift" imagery this year.

That fake tilt/shift stuff is interesting. Some of the images look like toy model sets. What are you doing to "fake" T/S? I had the opportunity to buy a Nikkor T/S lens on the cheap but couldn't think what I would do with it. Besides, I have a long way to go with straight lenses underwater, why muddy the... ahhh.. water with yet another distraction.

I graduated to a dSLR two years ago (D200) and while there are a whole lot of buttons to play with, I found it was actually easier to get "the shot" over P&S's. Now if I could just get those unruly strobe arms to stop forming knots underwater...

Tilt /shift lenses can have real value to obtain increased depth of focus throughout an image, particularly landscapes and this could be beneficial underwater of course, though somewhat impractical. I have started playing with a very interesting piece of software called Helicon Focus which combines images (like HDR) of different focal points to obtain perfect focus throughout the range. Interesting for landscape and macro.

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

I have started playing with a very interesting piece of software called Helicon Focus which combines images (like HDR) of different focal points to obtain perfect focus throughout the range. Interesting for landscape and macro.

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

I bought it several months ago as well with the thought it would be great for u\w macro. After playing with it in land based stuff. I'm not too sure I could focus fast enough uw to make it work. I'll keep trying though and would love to hear your successes with it.

I also read a white paper from Stamford U. on a plenoptic camera they are playing with. Interesting stuff.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/

I bought it several months ago as well with the thought it would be great for u\w macro. After playing with it in land based stuff. I'm not too sure I could focus fast enough uw to make it work. I'll keep trying though and would love to hear your successes with it.

I also read a white paper from Stamford U. on a plenoptic camera they are playing with. Interesting stuff.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/

Like HDR this is going to be very limited underwater, requiring static subjects. May work well for inanimate subjects like wrecks

That plenoptic camera is some cool stuff. The video demonstrates some amazing possibilities like focusing through a splash of water.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera.avi

Thanks.

Not to drag this too far off topic, but here's a photo of me with that plenoptic camera:

Here's Ren, the creator:

I have access to a smaller SLR version that I will try to get into the water sometime this year. Should be interesting!

You have all the toys oh geekmaster!

I have access to a smaller SLR version that I will try to get into the water sometime this year. Should be interesting!

I knew you would be on top of it. Thanks. Keep us posted!

I tend to use as a guide the rules of the Wildlife Photographer or for submissions to mags like Nat Geo - again to paraphrase - RAW converter OK, adding or removing from the frame not.

Hi Alex

Could you direct me to where I can find those rules, please?

Thanks

Ralph

Hi Alex

Could you direct me to where I can find those rules, please?

 

Thanks

 

Ralph

Despite the recent hubub regarding the Doubilet Nat Geo shots, the rules remain the same. Put the whip coral or other bright shiny object in the foreground and the model holding the light (so what if its daylight...thats not the point) in the top third of the photograph and you too can have a cover shot. Oh, and you have to hand over the RAW file so we can verify you are not creative beyond your camera. Otherwise, you are messing with the image, which is NOT allowed! If you want to be creative, well you are on your own (like all the greats who continually redefine the art of photography) and no entering contests because others might not have bothered to learn the other half of modern digital photography and we want to be fair. I think all photography schools still make you learn darkroom and lightroom techniques, but I surmise that is beside the point, judging by underwater photography contest rules. Do the words "Santa Fe Digital imaging workshops" ring any bells? 20% photography, 80% computer work. Hey, wow, they have contests... all images are rejected due to manipulation. Saves 'em a ton in prizes!

Seriously though, if you are shooting for scientific purposes, stay true to the image and color balance when shooting. If it is for art, anything goes and anyone who tells you different will be left behind or doesn't know enough about the the "Lightroom" yet (21st century darkroom) to push the envelope. And can we start using hand puppets or decommissioned SUV's (or Doubilets light table) for perspective instead of the diver with the light? So done beyond death! There is one cardinal rule which if broken will find me twisting off an offenders dome port underwater! No unnecessary harassing or manipulating of the sea life. Also while we're at it, good buoyancy skills... and photographic etiquette... and that toilet seat thing women always scream about... and no speedos.

Peace, Out.

Is that "twisting off an offenders [sic] dome port" for behavior you don't approve of constitute "photographic etiquette"? Did you really intend to express the same intolerance that you were lampooning?