Details

Closed to new replies
Posted: July 28, 2012

Link

Statistics

Replies: 42

Too much photoshop magic? (Plus bonus contrast question)

~Zardi Jul 28, 2012

So...I rarely post photography in my gallery or come to this forum, but I do like to play with my camera, and I occasionally take pictures I am proud of. I took loads of pictures on a recent trip, and a few of them ended up nice enough after editing that I'd like to add them to my gallery. However, I am concerned that I applied a little bit too much Photoshop magic for them to still be posted under "photography" rather than "photomanipulation." Since I don't really participate in photography discussion here, I don't know how much editing is considered acceptable. For these particular photos, I used a white-black gradient map to turn them to grayscale, and then used a curves layer to increase the contrast to my liking.

I realize most photographers do some sort of post-processing, but how much is too much? Did I do too much editing? Should I post them in a category other than "photography"? I put some before and afters in scraps, if that helps: [link]

As to my bonus question: what can I do to increase the contrast in my original photos? I realize that distant objects will be hazy by nature, but I feel like my own eyes picked up more contrast than my photos did. I have a Sony Cyber-shot H50, which is one of those chunky point-and-shoots that look like they are trying to be DSLRs but aren't

It has some manual controls for exposure, iso, and aperture (and of course white balance and other such settings that even your cell phone has) which I have played with, but I didn't notice much of a contrast increase. Any ideas?

Thanks

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

`RockstarVanity Aug 3, 2012 Professional Photographer

A lot of the time, contrast is more down to lighting than anything else. Since the photos you used as examples in your post are nature photos, I'll use a nature example to explain. If it's a cloudy day and you take a photo of a tree when the sun is overhead, you won't get much contrast because the light isn't very bright so the shadows won't be very dark. If it's a super-sunny day, the leaves that the sun are hitting will look really light in the photo, to the point where the surface may almost appear white, and the shadows beneath them will be almost black.

~xTernal7 Aug 1, 2012 Hobbyist General Artist

That's nothing too much, that's still in the standard boundaries of non-overkill editing.

=JPtHart Jul 31, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

Nothing is too much. There are no rules on that matter, only opinions. If you feel like the editing is really present, you can put them in the 'Darkroom' category.

!OldaGardner Jul 30, 2012

Your images are well within the bounds of standard editing for black and white and it looks like you are making a good start on developing your skills.

FallisPhoto listed the areas where editing photos is frowned upon, but even news editors are starting to allow some editing for appearance.

Complaining about photo-editing should be limited to the quality of the editing, not whether it should be done. The "purist" have little understanding of the history of photography as an art form or fine art photography in general.

Another fine art photographer who worked with film that you might look at is Michael Orton. He used camera and film to create photographs that resembled water color paintings before photoshop was invented. We can now mimic some of his techniques with photoshop filters, but I keep hoping to spend some time trying to recreate images like his using photoshop as nothing more than a medium for layering images very much like Orton created film "sandwiches" or even 'in camera'.

~Zardi Jul 30, 2012

Thanks!

I am learning a lot from the responses in this thread, especially about how much editing is possible with film photography. I looked up Michael Orton as you suggested. I don't think I have seen his work before, and if you hadn't told me they were photography (ok, and if it hadn't said "photography" on the page

) I would have thought they were oil or maybe digital paintings. Seeing things like that are getting me very excited about learning to edit my photos.

*Fuzzypiggy Jul 29, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

Here's lovely example in my DA scrapbook of a small magazine article I found where someone thinks images do not need processing, including the result:

Pretty much every image that comes off digital camera needs work, most notably contrast. It's not just camera but the lenses too. Two of my Canon lenses shoot radically differently in terms of saturation and contrast. My f/2.8 shot range telezoom shoots reasonably well and needs little contrast work, by way of contrast my f/4.0 200mm zoom shoots clear but dull images that really need a kick up the arse to get some colour and H&S back into the images.

Photographers have been editing images practically from the moment Fox developed his printing process, it's just that the time on the processing feedback loop is now down to seconds rather than the time it takes to process a film. Even the famous Ansel Adams was a master dodge'n'burn artist, you don't think those images of his were shot straight out of the camera? The term "dodge'n'burn" was borrowed from film processing and re-used in the "digital darkroom".

Some daft people think that because they've seen some computer in tacky sci-fi, b-movie take over the world that somehow computers can magically sort out the subtle tones and colours required in an image with no input from the artist. The digital age has brought about a shortening of the processing and feedback loop of photography and I would say even as a digital shooter, a rather clinical harshness to images as opposed the more natural warmth of a film shot image. Not saying either is better or worse, they're are just different.

Sorry but the second you saw something worthy of a photograph you already edited the scene in your mind, framing at the very least, let alone where you go next with the image.

~Zardi Jul 30, 2012

Very helpful, thank you

And actually...I did think photographers like Ansel Adams did very little editing to their photos, but I am finding out how VERY wrong I was. Before all the wonderful replies on this thread, I also didn't realize how much editing was possible with film. It's looking like pretty much anything you can do in Photoshop has already been done by film photographers and, as you said, the computer just makes it faster.

*JackMolotov3 Jul 30, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

your fine.

I see some grotesque super saturated pastel'd images passed off as "photography".

I do post production in GIMP now, for either color correction, or to denoise the photo.

Even purists like Ansel Adams used filters and darkroom corrections to make photos apear as they are naturally.

~MeowPic Jul 29, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

Like someone in the photo commented, they remind me of Ansel Adam's photos. They're nice. Certainly not photo manip since you were simply altering the tones and levels of lighting.

~Zardi Jul 30, 2012

Thank you

Details

Statistics

Too much photoshop magic? (Plus bonus contrast question)

Devious Comments

The Journal Portal

Polls

What is your preferred drawing software?

deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]

Keep in Touch!

Deviousness

Add Media

Style