Altered Images - opinions on which is better

okay here are some images in there original state and then under them is the altered image. Which is preferred the more natural look or the altered image? Being very new to this whole Uw photography stuff i'm not sure which way to go.

When i get a spectacular photo i'll enter it in the POTW...don't hold your breath though...might take me some time.

Original

Altered

Original

Altered

Original

Altered

Original

Altered

This is somewhat a matter or taste, especially the second one where you've removed background material. I wouldn't describe these as alterations, though, since it's really just adjustment in presentation. To me, alterations are when you clone out signification features or move (or even merge) subject matter in the frame. Is cropping an alteration? This is just arguing language. The changes you've made might be made in camera if the camera was smart enough and photographers do this all the time.

To answer the question, though, I lean toward the altered versions in all cases, especially #3. I like removing the background in #2 but could see someone preferring it left in. I still prefer the enhanced contrast on the subject in #2.

Well, I would tend to agree. You seem to have done a lot of sharpening, which looks great on the web, but may be a bit much for printing, however. My suggestion is to work more on composing the shot instead of relying on post-production. Move your subject off-center, and try interesting angles. Wouldn't you rather spend your time underwater instead in front of a computer? (Gosh, where am I right now?!)

Cheers,

Marli

Thanks guys appreciate your comments and will definately take your advice on board re: moving the subject off centre and different angles etc. These were only my second lot of pics ever taken so i have heaps to learn and hope to get some really good pics before too long.

In all cases, the altered versions are better. The camera captures an image based on the settings. It is not "natural", nor is it necessarily the way we see it with our eyes at the time. Making post capture adjustments fits the word natural better. Most people don't realize that prints made from roll of film are adjusted, too. Well, maybe they don't remove backscatter.

Actually, a properly sharpened image for a print will look over sharpened on a computer screen, depending on the size of the print.

I think the altered version of #2 is worst. You clipped some highlights and made it look more overexposed.

I prefer the altered images. Digital cameras, particularly DSLRS tend to shoot flat images - as you can always increase contrast afterwards, but you can't get detail back. So most digital iimages look best with a bit of a contrast boost. Particular for screen viewing.

The amount of contrast/punch applied to the images does vary between cameras. And certain cameras are well known for producing better JPGS straight from the camera - the Fuji S2 for example. Last summer I ran the digital category of British Society of Underwater Photographers' on the day Splash In competition. As it was the first year for digital we decided, for the sake of simplicity, to not allow any digital manipulation to images. They had to be straight from the camera. What was interesting was that digicam images were inherently more punchy than the DSLR images (from D100s, D70s, S2s, and 10Ds) and a digicam image came 2nd overall as a result.

http://www.bsoup.org/Splash/2004/S2004.html

I think that it is important to consider than some post processing is just part of the process of digital underwater photography. But that is never an excuse for not trying to get the image as good as possible when you are in the water.

Alex