enhancing photos - OK or not?

F. D. Lewis wrote:
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

It has never been possible to print an image that is a perfect
replication of the original scene, not even in film days. The
developers used, both for the negs and print, affect sharpness,
contrast and brightness, as does the print paper.

I would say that digital, especially if on a color-managed setup, is
probably better in terms of sharpness, brightness and contrast control,
than film, subject to certain limitations.

The biggest limitation (either digital OR film) is that a daylit
(sunny) scene has well over a thousand to one dynamic range. Print
paper has 50:1 or less. One must ALWAYS decide whether to lower
contrast to print all tones in image, or leave contrast high and print
for either the highlights OR the shadows. Now, if you do nothing
yourself the computer does it for you these days (including the printer
driver). So NO published photo is a fully accurate recording of a
scene.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:48:53 +0100, Derek Fountain
<nomail.TakeThisOut@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

>> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
>> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
>> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>
>I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
>actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
>Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
>I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
>problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
>(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.

How about in the 'old days' when graphic artists drew, or sketched
pictures to accompany the news articles. Or even today, in court cases
when cameras are not allowed, but artists can draw picturees?
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

"F. D. Lewis" wrote:
>
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

He is supposed to have claimed he was just removing dust, though it is
obvious that he also added more smoke (as if it needed any extra!)

I guess it would depend what your results achieved. Making an image
fit a story should be against the rules but news websites, specially
the BBC etc seem to use the same stock images often to cover lots of
stories, say a person was arrested at home, you'll frequently see a
picture of a policeman guarding a premises, but neither substantially
clear, so it could be virtually anything you were looking at. Either
that or one of those striped tapes with 'police' written on it.

My concern at the moment is that this story is being used to draw
interest away from the subject of the photographs themselves.

--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

In an earlier era it was said that a photographer was only as good as
his printer (the professional, not the machine).
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

"F. D. Lewis" <lewisfd RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155203293.972038.297780@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?


Hi

It should be obvious that that sort of adjustment is Ok. That is just
compensating for what a Film Photographer would do, or have done, in the
Darkroom to get a good quality image.

What is not acceptable is adding or subtracting, parts of the image, which
change what it is representing. One Flare becomes 3, or 1 Fire becomes 2
or 3.

The difference between these 2 activities is quite clear, and the second is
not acceptable.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

F. D. Lewis wrote:
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>
I should think that working news photogs would have their cameras set so
that minimal, if any, work would be required on the images, and apart
from checking focus and exposure, or maybe selecting the best shots,
leave the rest to the editor of the paper. Speed is of the essence, and
wasting time fiddling with images is not in their interest.

In which case, your question doesn't arise.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

I watched a documentary last night called "War Photographer" featuring
the life and work of James Nachtwey. He's about the best there is and
some of his pics are amazing.
He still shoots film, btw.
In one segment he had his assistant print a poster size print of one of
his pics. Then they'd hang it on the wall and Nachtwey would tell the
guy, "This area needs to be a little lighter." The guy would go back
to the darkroom, do his magic and return with the corrected version.
Then Nachtwey would make some more suggestions and the guy would go
back and do it again.

The only difference between doing it that way and doing it in Photoshop
is the amount of time saved if done in the digital darkroom. The point
is, don't ever assume that a film print isn't heavily manipulated.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

"Annika1980" <annika1980 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>I watched a documentary last night called "War Photographer" featuring
>the life and work of James Nachtwey. He's about the best there is and
>some of his pics are amazing.
>He still shoots film, btw.
>In one segment he had his assistant print a poster size print of one of
>his pics. Then they'd hang it on the wall and Nachtwey would tell the
>guy, "This area needs to be a little lighter." The guy would go back
>to the darkroom, do his magic and return with the corrected version.
>Then Nachtwey would make some more suggestions and the guy would go
>back and do it again.
>
>The only difference between doing it that way and doing it in Photoshop
>is the amount of time saved if done in the digital darkroom. The point
>is, don't ever assume that a film print isn't heavily manipulated.

Developing film *is* a (necessary) heavy manipulation! *All*
photographs are by definition heavily manipulated. It starts
when the photographer picks a camera and film, and continues with
each and every adjustment to equipment used to generate the
final product.

Added manipulation to make the photo more artistic, more
appealing, more informative, etc. etc. is all an accepted part
of being a photographer. E.g., adjusting exposure to
bring out details in the shadows while losing the highlights, or
visa versa, is a typical manipulation, and is *not* dishonest.

Manipulation to *deceive* the viewer is dishonest. If
manipulation is done to make the viewer conclude something to be
true which is not, it is dishonest if used for "information"
purposes (as opposed to comedy, etc.).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

Marvin wrote:
> F. D. Lewis wrote:
> > the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
> >
> > suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> > it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> > images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
> >
>
>
> Any of these steps, in a camera or a computer, can introduce
> distortions into the image. If the intent is to distort in
> a particular way, that is dishonest journalism. It can be
> excellent art.

The term distortions is rather odd in this context, IMO.

What get printed on page of a newspaper or magazine will never be the
exact image that was seen by the camera, the dynamic range of the print
is far to small for this. So the photographer or photo editor has to
decide how to best use the limited range of the print and make needed
adjustment to contrast and brightness of the photo. As far as
saturation this has been "adjusted" in the past by simply choosing
a film has the desired saturation.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

F. D. Lewis <lewisfd.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is it
> then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on images
> before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?

It's getting to the point that changing the settings on your camera from
little-mountain-icon to little-flower-icon is a revolutionary act of
political courage.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

Annika1980 <annika1980.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

> I watched a documentary last night called "War Photographer" featuring
> the life and work of James Nachtwey. He's about the best there is and
> some of his pics are amazing.
> He still shoots film, btw.
> In one segment he had his assistant print a poster size print of one of
> his pics. Then they'd hang it on the wall and Nachtwey would tell the
> guy, "This area needs to be a little lighter." The guy would go back
> to the darkroom, do his magic and return with the corrected version.
> Then Nachtwey would make some more suggestions and the guy would go
> back and do it again.
>
> The only difference between doing it that way and doing it in Photoshop
> is the amount of time saved if done in the digital darkroom. The point
> is, don't ever assume that a film print isn't heavily manipulated.

That's a really good movie. But the thing is: He was preparing those
photos for an exhibition, not for editorial publication. All that
dodging and burning likely wouldn't cut it in editorial terms.

Nachtwey has a web site: <http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/> It's full of
utterly amazing photographs.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not? 

F. D. Lewis wrote:
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>


Any of these steps, in a camera or a computer, can introduce
distortions into the image. If the intent is to distort in
a particular way, that is dishonest journalism. It can be
excellent art.
 >> Stay informed about: enhancing photos - OK or not?