Photoshop. Unethical?

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?

I found cutting their regulator hoses just wasn't getting the point across, but those pesky port locks make for quite a struggle!

Anyone here heard of David Bailey? (If not - Google)

I went round to his studio (close to mine) in the 'eighties and noticed he was doing a fashion shoot on a 10x8 camera. When I asked Why? he said it was because small camera (Hasselblad and Nikon) photography was getting too easy!

Photography is as much about challenging yourself as anything else but no-one cares how you did it. It's the result that counts.

Yeah of course, I would have thought every Brit would know him, commonly known as Bathe'it'Daily!

He has photographed everyone who is anyone in the UK. Not too sure how well known he is in other parts of the planet. Maybe our American and European viewers can comment on him...

Most importantly he was married to Catherine Deneuve!

Most importantly he was married to Catherine Deneuve!

and to Marie Helvin - he's definitely got taste.

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

 

 

 

 

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

What is a plenoptic camera? Why do I need one, and where do I get it?

What is a plenoptic camera? Why do I need one, and where do I get it?

Here is the link to the white paper. While you are ordering yours, place an order for me too. http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/

...While you are ordering yours, place an order for me too.

...we can shoot exposures with a relatively large f/4 lens aperture (for a short exposure time and low image noise), and yet compute photographs where objects at any depth are as sharp as if taken with a relatively small f/22 aperture...

I'll have one too

You don't need a plenoptic camera for infinite depth of field. This image is an unadjusted RAW file straight from my D2X (no Photoshop).

Article in UWP Magazine - out at the end of the month!

Alex

That is awesome Alex.

That is a double exposure I think.

Guess that is allowed under competition rules - so obviously no manipulation in Photoshop at all was required.

Nice one.

Paul C

That is a double exposure I think.

Yep.

Guess that continues to show how difficult it is to formulate such 'rules'.

I mean, what is the difference between what Alex did by composing two shots in camera or by a bit of drag and drop in Photoshop ?

(Bloody good shots they both are Alex).

And what about the impossible shot ?

Anyone for a blue ring shot (mid water to stir the pot a bit) with a nice iceberg as a backdrop ?

These things have always gone on, the old developing trays were a hotbed of invention when it came to 'manipulation'.

What does the EXIF data say on that 'shot' Alex ?

Paul C

I mean, what is the difference between what Alex did by composing two shots in camera or by a bit of drag and drop in Photoshop ?

Personally, I dont think there is much difference. Any difference there is, is pure perception. What happens behind the scene in an 'in camera double exposure' (i would call it 'in camera image merging') is very similar to what would happen in PS when combining 2 images. Imho this is only necessary because of the stigma (and dogma) surrounding post-processing (and because he CAN!)

Having said that, I think what Alex did is beautiful. This is going to be copied so much, and thats truly the mark of a leader in this field.

Cor

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

I don't really want to re-write my whole article here! But I agree most of the time Photoshop is a much better option than double exposures in camera (which offer much less control).

The one area that the double exposure is better (in terms of end result) than photoshop is sometimes in the subtleties of the combining of images.

Here is a crop from the shot. Look at how you can see the reef through the fin of the triplefin. I think that this would be tough and certainly not much fun to do in Photoshop. Work of a fraction of a second in camera! (excuse the image quality - it has been uprezzed to 20 MP, then cropped, save as jpg 7 and then reopened, resized again and saved for web!!).

This natural blending is nice.

Alex

p.s. The EXIF comes from the first image, Paul.

Cant wait to read the article!

You don't need a plenoptic camera for infinite depth of field.

True, but you want one, don't you?

I can do something similar. I can take a picture which is equally unsharp from extreme close-up to far away. Do I get any applause? No, I thought not. ...and I can do it in one exposure too!

I can do something similar. I can take a picture which is equally unsharp from extreme close-up to far away. Do I get any applause? No, I thought not. ...and I can do it in one exposure too!

The great advantage I can see once this is ready for prime time will be the ability to choose DOF after the fact, or infinite DOF. I think by the time this does come to market, the softness inherent in the laboratory chip will be gone.

Look at how you can see the reef through the fin of the triplefin. I think that this would be tough and certainly not much fun to do in Photoshop.

About 5 minutes in Photoshop if you blend with a layer mask and paint in the mask at say 10%/brushstroke with a pen + tablet, thereby leaving the fins partly transparent to the reef layer beneath....

... but, somehow, less impressive than working within the camera.

Tim

B)